Sitting of 24 January 1961

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 21st December, 1960, for the Christmas Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITION

  First Garden City, Letchworth
  Mr. Maddan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a Petition from the leading citizens of Letchworth First Garden City Limited. This Petition is in the same sense as that signed by 8,356 Letchworth people which I presented to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government before Christmas.
  The Petition which I now present arises from the concern felt in Letchworth with regard to the changes in ownership of shares of the First Garden City Limited, and this fear arises as much from regard to the future as to the present. The crux of the matter is whether the increase in value of the freehold of Letchworth which will accrue as the town is further developed shall be used for the benefit of the shareholders of the company or of the town and its residents as envisaged by its founders.
  The Petitioners seek the establishment of a trust to acquire and manage under the Garden City tradition the Letchworth estate of First Garden City Limited.
  2
  The twenty Petitioners are the Chairmen of the Urban District Council, the Local Conservative, Labour and Liberal Parties, the Chamber of Trade, the Trades Council, the Co-operative, the Standing Conference of Women's Organisations, the Residents and Lessees Association and of the Civic Trust, the Secretary of the Manufacturers Association, the Presidents of the Rotary Club, Round Table and Women's Luncheon Club, the Church of England Rector, the Roman Catholic Priest and the senior Nonconformist Minister, the Headmaster of the Grammar School, the Convener of the "Save Letchworth" Public Meeting, and the Organiser of the Petition which I presented to my right hon. Friend the Minister.
  I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, now ask the learned Clerk to read the Petition to the House.
  The Clerk of the House The Clerk of the House read the Petition, which was as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled:
  The Humble Petition of residents, lessees, manufacturers and traders of Letchworth First Garden City
  Sheweth:
  That whereas First Garden City Limited, which owns the freehold of an estate of 4,710 acres in Letchworth. that is, approximately 90 per cent, of the developed and developable land there, was incorporated in 1903 to develop it on the principle of a new town planned and controlled under unified site ownership on the leasehold system,

  3
  And whereas provision was made to limit dividends and use remaining profits in the interests of the town, and to transfer the freehold when the town was substantially completed to a public body or trust for the benefit of the town, which latter provision was reaffirmed at a meeting of shareholders on 7th October, 1960,
  And whereas residents and businesses have been attracted on the basis of the above considerations to Letchworth, the population of which has now grown to 23,000.
  The maintenance of the garden city principle and the ultimate transfer of the freehold to a public body for the benefit of the town are now endangered due to the ownership of the shares of First Garden City Limited changing hands.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that this House will empower the Minister of Housing and Local Government to appoint a trust to acquire and manage the Letchworth estate of First Garden City Limited.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. In view of the public interest in the matter, is there any way, Mr. Speaker, in which the Committee on Petitions can make known to the House the result of its consideration of this matter?
  Mr. Speaker: I shall have to think about that. I do not want to take up time now. I will communicate with the hon. Member later.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Palace of Westminster (Statues)
    Mr. du Cannasked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that at least twenty-five farmer British Prime Ministers no longer living are unrepresented by statues within the Palace of Westminster; and what action will be taken to rectify the matter, in accordance with custom.
    The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): Yes, Sir. In matters such as this I am guided by the wishes of the House.
    Mr. du Cann: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that it is a melancholy matter that so many distinguished British Prime Ministers of the past should be uncommemorated within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster? Will not he consult the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party with a view to the establishment of a committee to look into the matter and rectify the situation?
    Lord John HopeI will certainly consider what my hon. Friend says, but the fact is that the Prime Ministers are all there. in busts. engravings, photographs, or oil paintings.
    Sir G. NicholsonIs my right hon. Friend aware that I am disappointed with the line which my hon. Friend has taken? Will the Minister firmly set his face against cluttering up this House with a lot of statues. Has he ever visited the Congress of the United States? If so, will he take warning from that fearful example?
    Lord John Hope: In matters such as this, it is right that I should be guided by what the House wants, and if the House feels as my hon. Friend feels my answer is quite easy.
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Works if he will rearrange the statues in the Palace of Westminster, giving precedence of position to former Prime Ministers.
    Lord John Hope: I would examine any specific suggestions, but the suitability of a statue for a particular position has also to be considered.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend look at the Central Lobby where, out of four statues, only one is of a Prime Minister—and that is a Liberal Prime Minister? Is he aware that one of the statues there is of somebody who looks like the President of the M.C.C., while people like Pitt, Palmerston and Peel are tucked away upstairs? Will he look at this arrangement?
    Lord John Hope: Yes. I will see what the Advisory Committee of the House on Works of Art feels about it.

    High Commissioner's Residence, Lagos
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Minister of Works what was the original estimate for the building of the High Commissioner's house in Lagos.
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Works what subsequent alterations were made to the architect's design and scheme of decoration for the High Commissioner's residence at Lagos, as approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission and by him; at whose instance the alterations were made; whether they were approved by the architect of the building; and what additional cost to public funds was involved.
    Lord John Hope: The design of the architect, Mr. Brett, for this house was approved by my Ministry and the Commonwealth Relations Office, and by the Royal Fine Art Commission, in 1958. In September, 1960, the High Commissioner saw the house which was nearly completed and I then asked my Chief Architect to visit Lagos with Mr. Brett. In the light of the report I received I decided to authorise work to remedy certain functional disadvantages which had become evident. This work was carried out in collaboration with Mr. Brett. The house was originally estimated to cost £80,000. The final cost is likely to be about £110,000. Of this, about £12,000 is due to the increased cost of building over the first estimate and £18,000 to additional work, including a swimming pool and new sitting-room to replace one adapted for the High Commissioner's study.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that I am grateful that he has made it
    6
    clear that the architect did not approve of these alterations? Will he go a little further, and tell the House that these alterations and these changed decoration schemes were entirely the result of the intervention of the High Commissioner's wife? Might not the Minister have been more specific before the Recess in defending the distinguished architect of this building against charges made from the benches behind him?
    Lord John Hope: I cannot for a moment accept what the hon. Member has said. The architect did agree that these structural alterations were necessary, and there was no question of his collaboration being at all unwilling. As for the credit due to the architect, I gave that fully before the Recess, in answer to Questions, and I will do so again. This is a fine building, and for its fineness the architect will get what credit an architect who has designed a fine building deserves. That being said, mistakes were made, in good faith, which might happen to anybody. I was faced with the situation as I found it, and I felt that I must deal with it as such, in accordance with my duty, and not in terms of a situation with which I should have liked to be faced.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morganasked the Minister of Works whether, in view of the criticism of the new High Commissioner's residence in Lagos, he will arrange for photographs of the building to he placed in the Library.
    Lord John Hope: I will gladly place photographs in the Library as soon as the additional work has been completed.

    Members (Personal Call System)
    Mr. A. Lewisasked the Minister of Works whether he has yet been able to arrange for Members of Parliament to have the benefit of the personal call system as in operation at many of the large London offices and hospitals; and whether he will make the necessary arrangements for a demonstration of this system to take place in the House of Commons
    Lord John Hope: I am keeping this possibility under review, but I am not yet satisfied that there is a general demand for this facility.
    Mr. Lewis: Although I wish to pay a sincere tribute to the Serjeant at Arms and his messenger staff, is the Minister aware that it is virtually impossible for them to contact Members quickly, because there are so many rooms in the Palace of Westminster and they have such a long way to travel? With this personal call system it would be possible for Members to be contacted within seconds, wherever they may be in the Palace. As this system works in every other large establishment, it would surely be an ideal method for Members to receive notice of urgent telephone calls, if nothing else. Will the Minister reconsider the matter?
    Lord John Hope: I am still not convinced that there is a demand for this service in the House. If there were I would naturally do my best to help.
    Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister try to hold an exhibition of the system here?

    Iver Grove, Buckinghamshire
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Works for what purpose his Department bought Iver Grove, Buckinghamshire; what was the date of purchase; what was the cost; how much public money has been spent on this house since that date; when it was sold by his Department; for how much it was sold; and what was the net profit or loss to public funds.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Works if he will make a statement on the sale by his Department of Iver Grove, Buckinghamshire, which was acquired on a compulsory order in 1957 with a view to its preservation and opening to the public and in respect of which over £40,000 of public money has been spent covering the installation of central heating and a modern kitchen; for how much the property has been sold; and under what conditions it will be open to the public.
    Lord John Hope: On the advice of the Historic Buildings Council for England, my Department acquired Iver Grove by agreement in February, 1957, under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953, in order to ensure its preservation. The purchase price was £2,700, and expenditure since then has been £37,500 on repairs and £850 on
    8
    custody. An offer of £18,200 was accepted subject to contract on 11 th October, 1960, so that the net cost to public funds of preserving the building will be £22,850. The house and grounds will be open to the public by appointment.
    Mr. Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend explain to the House why it has been necessary to sell this property at a net loss to the taxpayers of no less than £22,000, according to his figures? Will he also confirm that the purchaser, for £18,000, is the Deputy Director-General of the National Coal Board—Mr. James Mitchell? Finally, will he say why he did not consult Mr. Clore and Mr. Cotton, who habitually make profits out of property deals, instead of incurring a hefty loss by his Department at the expense of British taxpayers?
    Lord John Hope: I will answer what I think is the main point of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The Historic Buildings Council considers that a grant representing the net cost of £22,850 would have been recommended if a private owner had satisfied it that such an amount was needed to preserve the property. It is a little misleading to consider the matter in terms of profit and loss alone, without reference to the object of the Act, which is to preserve houses of historic and outstanding architectural interest.
    Mr. Dodds: Is it not a fact that at the local public inquiry, in 1954, the Minister's Department was warned that if it took over this building it would be a costly white elephant? As it is costing about £20,000 in public money, is it not a costly way of going about the matter to buy this building for the public to go into it and then to provide that visits by the public can be made only by appointment and to a limited extent, and also to make people pay to get in? If the Minister does not consider that the sum of £22,000 is a lot of money, does not he agree that it is a lot of money to the Government, who think that £5,000 is a hefty sum to give, in the name of this nation, to the starving people in the Congo?
    Lord John Hope: The Question concerns Iver Grove, and what we have been able to do, with the help of the Historic Buildings Council, to save an extremely beautiful house.
    Mr. Nalbarro: On a point of order. In view of the highly unsatisfactory Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr, Dodds: On a point of order. I should also like to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Lord John Hope: How happy I could be with either, were t'other dear charmer away.

    High Commissioner and Staff, Freetown (Accommodation)
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Minister of Works what arrangements are being made to provide accommodation for the United Kingdom High Commissioner and his staff in Freetown, Sierra Leone, on the attainment of independence by that Colony.
    Lord John Hope: With the help of the Sierra Leone Government, sites have been found for the construction of residences for the head of the United Kingdom Mission and his deputy. In the meanwhile arrangements for their temporary accommodation are Mug considered in consultation with the Sierra Leone Government. For the other staff, houses and flats are now being built, and there are plans for the necessary temporary accommodation for them also. The offices will be in a new office building of which one floor is being completed to the requirements of the Mission.
    Mr. Pannell: In view of the great importance of United Kingdom representation in Sierra Leone, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the buildings to be provided will fully reflect their high importance?
    Lord John Hope: Yes, I can give that assurance.

    Industrial Monuments
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of works if he will publish the list of early industrial monuments which the outside experts, referred to in the 1959 Ancient Monuments Board's Report, recommended as worthy of preservation.
    Lord John Hope: As stated by the Ancient Monuments Board the list is a
    10
    growing one; it is not yet comprehensive nor are all the monuments on it necessarily recommended as worthy of preservation. To publish it now might, therefore, be misleading.
    Mr. Boyden: May I ask what steps the Ministry of Works is taking to see that this kind of preservation is urdertaken systematically? When is the Department really going to get down to it? Does the Minister think that two windmills in a year is a satisfactory rate of preservation of early industrial monuments?
    Lord John Hope: As the hon. Gentleman knows—we have had this matter in Question and Answer between us before—there is a Committee sitting, and I think that he has agreed that when we get its report that will be a tremendous step forward. Meanwhile, I am prepared to consider using my existing powers to protect any outstanding examples of industrial monuments which may be in special danger.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Works if he will recruit sufficient qualified staff to evaluate the list of early industrial monuments recommended to him for preservation.
    Lord John Hope: Until I know the results of the survey of early industrial monuments by the Council for British Archaeology, I cannot assess the scale and nature of the problem. Meanwhile, it would be premature for me to consider the recruitment of special staff.
    Mr. Boyden: But is not it necessary to recruit at least one or two people with special knowledge in this matter if only to advise what should be done when the plan is adopted?
    Lord John Hope: In this case I think it is better to wait.

    National Gallery and Tate Gallery (Accommodation)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Works what additional accommodation he will provide to enable the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery to exhibit works in their collection which, due to lack of space, are not available to the public.
    Lord John Hope: Work to provide three more exhibition rooms and a

    11
    reference section at the National Gallery is nearing completion. An extension scheme for the Tate Gallery is being considered, but I cannot yet say when it may be possible to start work.
    Mr. Lipton: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather ridiculous to spend public money on works of art designed for public exhibition and then not to exhibit them? Will he, therefore, try to expedite not only the case of the National Gallery but, in particular, the necessary provisions at the Tate Gallery as well?
    Lord John Hope: Yes. I think the sooner we can get on with these schemes, the better.
    Mr. Strauss: Can the Minister say when a decision in principle is likely to be made about the extension scheme for the Tate Gallery?
    Lord John Hope: No, I cannot. At the moment the chairman is away, but I hope to have a decision in principle very soon indeed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Birmingham Overspill
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will now make a further statement about his consultations with West Midland local authorities on Birmingham overspill; and, in particular, to what extent the site of the former Royal Ordnance factory at Swynnerton has been considered.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a further statement.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister able to give any intimation of how long the talks will be going on? Does he realise that we want to see industrial development on the Swynnerton site, but that so far the confidential discussions have, as it were, cast a cloak over the site and that it is impossible to make progress with any other applications? Can he say when he will be able to say "Yes" or "No" about the Swynnerton site?
    Mr. Brooke: My concern is wider. I want to find the right solution for the overspill needs of Birmingham and the West Midlands. I have already mentioned that Dawley is a place which I have under consideration, but I think it would be a mistake for me to name any of the other places which also might be considered until final decisions are reached. I cannot forecast when that day will be, except to say that I should like it to be sooner rather than later.
    Mr. C. Hughes: Can the Minister say whether Mid-Wales and North Wales will be included in the discussions?
    Mr. Brooke: At the moment it is not a question of discussions but of my giving consideration to the whole problem of Birmingham and the West Midlands overspill, and in that consideration I am ruling out nothing.
    Dr. Stross: Does the Minister remember that at one time it was thought that the overspill could be handled in part if the town of Congleton became one of the new towns? Will he give that further consideration?
    Mr. Brooke: I hope hon. Members will not press me to name particular places. If I do that, it evokes financial interests, and it seems to me far wiser that a Minister should not mention any places until we are in a position to reach a firm decision.

    First Garden City, Letchworth
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what use he will make of his planning powers to preserve the distinctive fundamental principles of the First Garden City, Letchworth.
    Mr. Brooke: I have already approved provisions for Letchworth in the Hertfordshire development plan which accord with the original purpose of the Garden City, as regards both the ultimate size of the town and the balance of industrial, housing and other development. I am confident that control over future development in the area will be exercised by the local planning authority with due regard to these objectives and to the special

    13
    character of Letchworth, and in this I propose to support the authority.
    Mr. Stewart: Will the planning powers of the Minister make it possible for him to preserve the particular principle of Letchworth, which was that the profits from the undertaking should be devoted not to the shareholders but to the improvement of the Garden City? If his planning powers do not enable him to do that, will the right hon. Gentleman pay attention to the petition presented today by his hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) and ask the House to give him powers that would enable him to preserve that fundamental principle? Does not he agree that if, as now seems likely, the fundamental principle of Letchworth is set aside—and he allows that to happen—it will he a disgrace?
    Mr. Brooke: I regard Letchworth as a very important case. The planning powers possessed by the county planning authority and by myself are sufficient to control the use of the land. Regarding the other matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, it has been intimated to me that the Letchworth Urban District Council is considering the promotion of legislation, or the taking of other action to try to get a trust set up. I will certainly give careful attention to any proposal of that kind which is put before me, as I am sure will Parliament.

    Thames Flood Barrier
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what decisions have now been reached in the consultations in respect of the suggested Thames flood barrage designed to avoid a repetition of the disastrous floods of 1953.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): These consultations are not yet complete.
    Mr. Dodds: When I asked a Question in December, the hon. Gentleman stated that there had been a meeting in the previous week and that he hoped that the Minister would soon be aware of what was then decided. Is he now saying that no decision of any sort was made and that further meetings are to be held, or where are we? How much longer have we to wait for information about progress being made?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is understandably impatient, but the fact of this complex matter is that there are a number of different interests to be reconciled and there is no commonly agreed solution which at this stage would allow the Government to force the pace
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that the majority of representatives of downstream authorities at a meeting on 1st December expressed themselves as being unable to support the proposal for a Thames flood barrier until more technical information is supplied; and if he will now state what steps he is taking to provide this technical information.
    Sir K. Joseph: The answer to the first part is "Yes, Sir". The Command Paper "Technical Possibilities of a Thames Flood Barrier" does suggest further study of certain problems before final decisions are taken. It seems prudent first to ask how far the bodies concerned with the proposal support it in principle, which is being done. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is consulting the two downstream River Boards; other consultations are to follow.
    Mr. Irving: While thanking the Minister for his Answer, may I ask him to bear in mind the very real anxiety of some of the downstream authorities and, in particular, the fear that any improvement in the upper reaches of the river above the barrier can be achieved only at the expense of the downstream authorities and so add to their difficulties?

    Town and Country Planning Association (Memorandum)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what reply he has made to the memorandum sent to him by the Town and Country Planning Association outlining the need for the completion of ten or twelve more new towns to be substantially completed by 1980; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: The memorandum is concerned mainly with suggestions for securing better progress with town development, and I have let the Association know that I am studying these.

    15
    It also puts forward the view that ten or twelve more new towns need to be substantially completed by 1980. I do not believe that this is so.
    Mrs. Butler: Does the Minister appreciate that when the authorities in Greater London have completed their present overspill schemes, all the indications are that the size of the problem will still be substantially as large as it was in 1944 when Abercrombie said that the London overspill population was more than I million? In view of this, will the Minister look urgently at the question of London's overspill and formulate plans for dealing with it?
    Mr. Brooke: As I have told the House, I am extremely anxious to get decisions taken—and the right decisions taken—to solve the overspill problems of the big cities, but this is a Question about a memorandum submitted to me by the Town and Country Planning Association. Quite frankly, I think it has exaggerated the size of the overspill problem. In saying that, I am not for one moment seeking to diminish the importance of overspill. I certainly assure the hon. Member that I want to do everything in my power to see that no important work is held up by delay in reaching decisions about where overspill shall go.

    Planning Appeals (Inspectors)
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what method he is adopting to recruit additional inspectors to deal with the increased number of planning appeals; and what increase he proposes in the establishment.
    Mr. Brooke: In present circumstances the recruitment and training of additional inspectors is virtually a continuous process. Inspectors far established posts are recruited through competitions held at intervals by the Civil Service Commission; those for temporary posts by way of the Technical and Scientific Register of the Ministry of Labour. At the latest competition for additional inspectors fourteen people were successful and a further competition is to be held in the near future.
    Mr. Irving: Can the Minister say how long it will be before we can hope for
    16
    some reduction in the rather vexatious delays in these appeals? Can he also say what time he is aiming at achieving in this respect when establishment is completed?
    Mr. Brooke: I cannot forecast this, because it depends on the rate of growth of the number of appeals, and that no man can tell. My concern is steadily to build up the number of my inspectors, but in doing so I do not want to sacrifice quality for quantity.

    Local Government Employees (Insurance Contributions)
    Mr. C. Johnsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what increased contributions will be payable by regulations under the National Insurance Act, 1959, by women in local government service who are over the age of 60 years on 1st April next; and by what amount their aggregate pensions will be increased on retirement.
    Sir K. Joseph: The effect of the regulations which my right hon. Friend proposes to make on the total of contributions towards National Insurance and local government pensions made by women over 60 in local government service will vary, according to the level of pay, from a reduction of Is. 5d. a week to an increase of 2s. 6d. The regulations have no appreciable effect on aggregate pension.
    This takes no account of the increases in National Insurance contributions and retirement pensions provided for in the National Insurance Act, 1960.
    Mr. Johnson: Is it not clear from that reply that women between the ages of 60 and 63 on 1st April next who earn at least f15 a week will be called upon to pay an additional 2s. 6d. a week in contributions and still obtain no increased pension? Is it fair and equitable that such a comparatively heavy burden should be placed upon them at the end of their service?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but these women will get the opportunity to retire earlier than they would otherwise have done—at 60 instead of 65. In such a complex matter, which must affect all staff, it is impossible to get a unified scheme without everybody's position being slightly

    17
    affected. In the worst case, women who have the advantage of being able to retire earlier may have to pay over three years a matter of £20 extra, but most women, of course, are benefiting by these regulations.
    Mr. Johnson: Does the Minister think it satisfactory to advise these women to retire at 60, having regard to the fact that their pensions are scaled down so heavily if they do so?
    Sir K. Joseph: This is still a right which they did not have in the previous situation.
    Mr. C. Johnsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what increased weekly contributions will be payable by regulations under the National Insurance Act, 1959, after 1st April next by local government employees earning between £12 10s. and £13 per week for men and £11 and £12 for women, in order to earn the same aggregate benefits as they would be entitled to at present.
    Sir K. Joseph: The regulations which my right hon. Friend proposes to make will affect the total contributions towards National Insurance and local government pensions at all levels of pay, from reductions of 2s. 3d. a week to increases of 8d. a week. For the levels of pay mentioned there will be increases of 2d. to 6d. for a man and Id. to 8d. for a woman.
    This takes no account of the increases in National Insurance contributions and retirement pensions provided for under the National Insurance Act, 1960.
    Mr. Johnson: Is it not clear from that reply that many local government employees will be called upon to pay up to Is. a week more to produce exactly the same benefits as they get at present? As cross-over points of £12 10s. and £11 respectively have been adopted in the case of the National Health Service, would it not be better for his right hon. Friend to agree to the same standard for local government employees?
    Sir K. Joseph: The National Health Service has quite different considerations. In that case the Minister is to some extent the employer of the staff concerned. My right hon. Friend came into this complex matter only in order to secure uniformity for all staff in local
    18
    government, and to do that it was essential that there should be some give and take. There was agreement between the staff and the employing authorities except for a very narrow gap, and my right hon. Friend had to take a decision to achieve uniformity.

    Floods, West Country (Relief Funds)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will make a further statement on developments in the financial aspects of the flood situation in the West Country.
    Mr. Brooke: Contributions to flood relief funds in the West Country amount to £128,000, and continue to be received. Exchequer payments on account totalling £160,000 have been made to these funds. Payment of claims is proceeding steadily.
    Mr. Hayman: While thanking the Minister for that information, may I ask whether he can give any indication of the amount of the claims still outstanding?
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. Indeed, a few claims are still coming in.

    National Parks (Afforestation)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement, following the talks between his Department and the various interests concerned, on the control over afforestation in the National Parks, either by voluntary agreement or by legislation.
    Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend hopes that these talks will be brought to a successful conclusion shortly and he will write to the hon. Member as soon as he can.
    Mr. Hayman: Again may I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that Answer, in view of the fact that it has been seven months since the talks started? We hope that in any case the interests of the National Parks will be safeguarded.

  HOUSING

    Homeless Families
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is

    19
    aware that many families are being split up and children parted from their parents in Oxfordshire and elsewhere, in consequence of the evictions of tenants mainly from rented houses and tied cottages, and that in one district a child care officer has reported that about one-third of the children received into care were from families made homeless by evictions; and what administrative steps he proposes to take to relieve the hardship caused to these families.
    Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I have already advised all welfare and housing authorities, in a circular issued in 1959, about the arrangements which should be made to avoid or mitigate hardship to homeless families and so far as possible to keep the family together. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the circular.
    I understand that a county conference was recently convened by the Oxfordshire County Council to review existing arrangements in the county, and that a further conference is expected to take place shortly.
    Sir B. Janner: In view of this very serious dislocation of family life—it is a serious matter—will the Minister tell the House whether he is prepared to do something about the revision of the Rent Act so that people may be protected from this kind of unhappy result for their families?
    Mr. Brooke: There are later Questions on the Order Paper about the Rent Act, but there are continuing difficulties which arise from eviction cases, most frequently of all through tenants having run up arrears of rent. In the case of Oxfordshire, I understand that the county council has made certain suggestions which the housing authorities are considering, but I do not believe there is any connection whatever between this Oxfordshire matter and the Rent Act.

    Rent Act, 1957 (Inquiry Report)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he proposes to take to amend the Rent Act, 1957, in the light of the Report of the inquiry of the Social Survey Division of the Central Office of Information; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, following his official inquiry into the effects of the Rent Act, he will now re-examine the working of the Act with regard to decontrol taking place on a change of tenant.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he will take arising from the Report of the social survey division of its Central Office of Information on the results of the 1957 Rent Act.
    Mr. Brooke: Nothing in the Report suggests that the Rent Act requires amendment.
    Mrs. Butler: In view of the facts and figures in the Report, the personal hardship and anxiety caused to many tenants by creeping decontrol, and increased rents—of which many examples have been given in this House, in the Press and to the Minister personally—if he will not do anything else, will the Minister at least consider empowering either rent tribunals or valuation courts to fix a fair rent for decontrolled tenants?
    Mr. Brooke: I understand that leave is to be sought tomorrow to introduce a Bill on this subject. I think we ought not to anticipate that.
    Mr. Allaun: Does not the inquiry reveal that creeping decontrol is hitting 320,000 families a year—even excluding Scotland—or roughly one in twelve of all such tenants? Does not this mean that the estimate made by the Government spokesman during the passage of the Rent Act was only one-third of the actual number of those who are being forced to seek houses at soaring rents and without security of tenure in the midst of a terrible housing shortage, thus being subjected to exploitation?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not quite understand what the hon. Member means by "creeping decontrol hitting 320,000 tenants a year", because in fact creeping decontrol takes place only when the tenant goes out and the landlord obtains vacant possession. What the Report says is that the average rent charged to a new tenant was, in 1959, between two and a half and three times gross value and the average rent charged to a decontrolled sitting tenant was actually below twice

    21
    gross value. That undermines all that the Opposition have been saying about the Rent Act.
    Mr. Lipton: Does not the Report reveal a very serious situation, especially in London where gross exploitation is taking place and great misery is being caused to very large numbers of people? In those circumstances, does not the Minister now think that, in the light of later events, all the optimistic forecasts he made about the so-called beneficial results of the Rent Act have been completely falsified?
    Mr. Brooke: I cannot accept from the hon. Member that gross exploitation is taking place in London when, for some five months, London local authorities have been at liberty to make compulsory purchase orders wherever they thought that a landlord was seeking to impose an extortionate rent, thereby making it impossible for the tenant to live there, and yet only a handful of compulsory purchase orders have yet reached me. I entirely agree with the hon. Member that there is a serious housing situation in London and I shall continue to seek to tackle it.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Does the Minister notice that it appears from the Report that an alarmingly high proportion of landlords are ignoring the law in regard to information being given in rent books; that a considerable number of them are giving undertakings to carry out repairs which they are not honouring; that in a great many cases rents are being retained at the increased level despite the fact that the repairs which ought to have been done have not been carried out; and that in fact the Act is being enforced as regards those parts of it which might inconvenience landlords only to about two-thirds of its capacity? Is he not prepared to do anything about that?
    Mr. Brooke: There is a subsequent Question on the Order Paper about repairs. In answer to the hon Member's supplementary question, and without anticipating that Question, I should say that Parliament can determine what a person's rights are, but we can none of us compel him to claim them.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, following the Report of the inquiry into
    22
    the working of the Rent Act, he is satisfied with the rate of necessary repairs being done by landlords; and if he will take steps to improve it.
    Mr. Brooke: The Report shows that, following the Rent Act, a great deal of necessary maintenance and repair work on controlled dwellings is being carried out. In so far as misunderstanding exists of the procedure laid down in the Act to protect the tenant's rights if repairs are not done, I am considering how best to give still further publicity to this procedure.
    Mr. Allaun: Since repairs requested by nearly half the controlled tenants have not been started or completed, and since the present procedure to compel landlords to do repairs takes nearly nine months, will the Minister consider halving this period? is he aware that many public health inspectors are finding that decontrolled tenants are frightened to apply to them for help lest their landlords give them notice to quit?
    Mr. Brooke: The Question relates to controlled tenants. I think that the Report shows that those tenants who have not sought to go through the statutory procedure but have made informal requests to their landlords have been even more successful than the others in getting the repairs done. Of course the statutory procedure is a complicated one; I quite grant that. It is necessary to make provision so that everybody shall know their rights and exercise them if they so wish.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that a great many landlords of decontrolled premises are refusing to grant new tenancies unless the tenant undertakes full liability for repairs? Is not that quite contrary to the Minister's intentions and does it not make some revision of the Rent Act a matter of urgent necessity?
    Mr. Brooke: I have already informed Parliament that the Government intend in this Session to introduce legislation to deal with that very point.

    Land, Northampton (Proposed Sale)
    Mr. Pagetasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he

    23
    refused to grant a dispensation to nine council house tenants, who are councillors of Northampton, allowing them to vote on a proposal to sell by auction 33 acres of land which it had previously been intended to use for municipal housing.
    Mr. Brooke: It is most undesirable that councillors should vote on matters in which they have a pecuniary interest. In exceptional cases it must be allowed where otherwise difficulties would be caused in the transaction of the council's business; but there were no exceptional circumstances in this instance.
    Mr. Paget: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me the logic of preventing council tenants from voting on whether additional land shall be used for building further houses when one would have thought that, as the people who already had houses, they were the one group of people in the borough who did not have an interest, whereas, on the other hand, he allows a builder, a solicitor, a director of a building company and a house agent, who all seem to have a very much more obvious interest, to vote on this matter?
    Mr. Brooke: I have followed meticulously the policy which was laid down in Circular 30, issued in 1956. In this case I am not quite sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that I was not asked my opinion whether a disability attached to these people. I was asked whether, assuming that they were disabled, I would give them a dispensation to vote. In the circumstances, and in accordance with the terms of that circular, it did not seem to me right or necessary to do so.

    Cwmbran Development Corporation
    Mr. Abseasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will expedite his approval of the plans submitted to him for the development of the west and south-west areas of Cwmbran New Town; and whether he will give assurances that the Cwmbran Development Corporation will not be wound up on reaching the original population target of 35,000.
    Mr. Brooke: I have asked the local authorities concerned for their comments on the plans, and I hope to receive these
    24
    soon. Meanwhile I am examining the Development Corporation's programme and considering whether it should go on building after the population reaches 35,000.
    Mr. Abse: In view of the fact that past delays and the Government's restrictions and hampering have already meant that in the coming year only 200 houses will be built in Cwmbran, will the Minister endeavour to expedite the decisions which he is anticipating? Does he appreciate that any premature winding up of the Cwmbran Development Corporation could result in considerable speculation in land in the west and southwest area, in view of the fact that there is considerable industrial development nearby? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Will he therefore give a decision on this question of the target in order to prevent Cwmbran New Town from being affected by speculative plunderers as in nearby Newport?
    Mr. Brooke: I cannot accept any of the criticisms in the hon. Member's supplementary question. I should have thought that he wished me to consider any comments that the local authorities make on the Development Corporation's plan. When I receive those comments I will reach decisions as soon as possible. I recognise that the designated area of Cwmbran would hold a population of up to 55,000, and the question will have to be decided who is to do any building over and above 35,000.

    Statistical Staff
    Mr. Ginsburgasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he is taking to strengthen the statistical staff of his Department.
    Mr. Brooke: There is no need to strengthen my present statistical staff.
    Mr. Ginsburg: Would the Minister look again at the Report of the Social Survey? Will he, in particular, reread page 21 of the Report, which contains serious criticism of the inaccuracy and inadequacy of his Ministry's statistics?
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. The 1956 estimates made by my Department showed that 5½ per cent. of all houses in the country came into a certain category. The 1959 sample survey showed that it was not 5½ per cent. but 24¾ per cent. The

    25
    explanation is that those who did the 1956 investigation underestimated the extent to which houses with a single rating assessment were in divided occupation and also underestimated the extent to which owner-occupation had grown under a Conservative Government.

  BRITISH CAMEROONS

    Plebiscite
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has arranged for the electorate of the British Cameroons to be informed, before the forthcoming plebiscite, as to the future of the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund money in their Territory.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): Not explicitly, but the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts will of course cease to apply when the British Cameroons ceases to be a Trust Territory, as it will whatever the result of the plebiscite.
    Mr. TilneyWould my right hon. Friend make sure the Cameroon electorate are made aware that £2¼ million have been spent in the last five years? Will he also tell the House how much money has been spent in recent years in the North Cameroons?
    Mr. Fraser: The figure is not particularly relevant to the plebiscite, but it is announced and people in the Cameroons are aware of these facts.
    Mr. Callaghan: Rather than draw the attention of the population to the shortsightedness of the Administration, would it not be better for the present Minister to ask Parliament for powers so that the Colonial Development Corporation could go on investing new money in these Territories?
    Mr. Fraser: This is a question of ceasing to be a Trust Territory and either going in with the Cameroons Republic or Nigeria.

  NYASALAND

    Public Meetings
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what public meetings have been held in Nyasaland without due notice having been given to
    26
    the appropriate authorities; and what action has followed.
    Mr. H. Fraser: Five meetings without permit have been reported and investigated since 1st October, 1960. In two cases there have been convictions, two others are still under investigation and one has not been proceeded with.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can my right hon. Friend say by which party these meetings were held?
    Mr. Fraser: If my hon. Friend tables a Question, I will certainly give him that information.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Does not this largely dispose of the charge that the administration in Nyasaland has been neglecting its duties?
    Mr. Fraser: It does dispose of that charge. Both the Administration and the police are carrying out their duties in difficult circumstances.

    Africans (Civil Service Appointments)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet considered the report of the committee on the training of Africans for senior civil service appointments in Nyasaland; and if he will publish this report or make a statement.
    Mr. H. Fraser: The report of the Localisation Committee—copies of which have been placed in the Library —has already been published in Nyasaland, and is now under consideration.
    Mr. Fisher: I do not know the terms of the Report, but is it proposed that Her Majesty's Government should make a financial contribution to this scheme and, if so, how much has my hon. Friend in mind?
    Mr. Fraser: This is under consideration. I think that in the Report my hon. Friend will find that the figure of £250,000 is mentioned.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    Overseas Service Air Scheme
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the new Overseas Service air scheme includes

    27
    proposals to enable wives of officials to travel home to see their children or children to travel out to their parents more frequently than has been possible in the past.
    Mr. H. Fraser: Yes, Sir. The intention is that the scheme should include provision for passages to enable children who are not living with their parents to visit them, or if this is not more expensive, to be visited by their mother once a year.
    Mr. Fisher: Is my hon. Friend aware that this decision, which removes, or at any rate partly removes, a long-standing grievance, will be very much welcomed, especially in the Caribbean area, where civil servants have had a long-felt grievance about this?
    Mr. Fraser: I am much obliged.

    PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT KENNEDY
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister when he expects to meet President Kennedy to discuss the policies of the Western Alliance, the calling of a Summit conference and the need to admit the People's Republic of China to the United Nations.
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Prime Minister what plans he has now made for a meeting with the President of the United States of America.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As I have said before, I look forward to early discussions with the President of the United States about all the international problems which confront us. But as President Kennedy has only just been inaugurated, it is too soon for firm plans yet to have been made.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Whilst we may welcome the change of mood in the United States, is not this a unique opportunity for the Prime Minister himself to take the initiative, particularly in relation to the United States' relations with China? Will the right hon. Gentleman press on the United States the wisdom of establishing more normal relations with China and, in particular, admitting China to the United Nations?
    The Prime Minister: That is quite a large issue. The first thing which I have tried to answer is whether or when I shall have an opportunity of discussion with the President. I hope I shall have. The inauguration of President Kennedy took place only last Friday and it is too early to make an announcement on that matter.
    Mr. Donnelly: In view of the uncertainty of the right hon. Gentleman's plans, will he consider in the meanwhile consulting with the Leader of the Opposition to get a report on the competence of the Kennedy administration, as compared with the staleness and mediocrity of his own?
    The Prime Minister: I have had the great advantage of having seen all that on television.
    Mr. Gaitskell: While appreciating that it may be necessary for a little time to elapse before the President can see the Prime Minister and discuss with him the wide range of international questions which need to be discussed, is the Prime Minister aware that there is an urgent need for discussions on the economic situation? Will the Prime Minister arrange at least for official discussions to take place as soon as possible so that the policies on interest rates of the two countries can be brought into line?
    The Prime Minister: All the time very close discussions are going on, but I will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. C. Osborne: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that China's great need is not a seat in the United Nations but food, oil and machinery—food, above all things? Will he use all the powers he has to persuade our American friends to send some of their surplus food to the starving millions of China?
    The Prime Minister: That is another aspect of this problem. I fully agree that some of the practical problems are as important as the diplomatic ones.

    HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister if he will now propose to the heads of Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet

    29
    Socialist Republics, and France, the calling of an early Summit meeting to consider proposals for peace, disarmament, and the improvement of international relations.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), on 8th November and to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) on 20th December.
    Mr. Swingter: Will the Prime Minister say that, if he will not take this step now, he will in the very near future make such a proposal? While T appreciate President Kennedy's natural desire for private exchanges with other heads of State now, may I ask the Prime Minister also to bear in mind that the world is continuing to spend El million on armaments every quarter of an hour and that this is the most urgent question to be tackled? Will the Prime Minister, therefore, make this proposal to the other heads of State in the very near future?
    The Prime Minister: These are all important questions. I am asked to bear them in mind. Alas, I think they are always in one's mind. The problem is what is the best method at this particular moment of time to make a forward advance. After the failure of the Summit Conference in Paris, the three Western Powers issued a statement that they were ready to take part in negotiations at any suitable time in the future. That remains the view of Her Majesty's Government and, I think, of the two other Western Powers.

    SPACE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
    Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether he will now appoint a Minister of Space Research and Development.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Wyatt: Does not the Prime Minister think that it is a crazy idea to have the Minister for Science at home pouring scorn on the practicability of a British space programme and the Minister of Aviation touring abroad trying to persuade other countries what a good idea
    30
    it is? Would it not be much more sensible to have one Minister in charge instead of two Ministers taking different lines, and to get on with the job of providing a British communications satellite system with which we could make a great deal of money? We are at present losing the opportunity to make that money. Will not he get on with it?
    The Prime Minister: That is exactly what we are trying to do—get on with it as rapidly as possible.

    LAOS (INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION)
    Mr. Healeyasked the Prime Minister what official communication he has had with Prime Minister Nehru concerning the return of the International Commission to Laos.
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Prime Minister what communications he has had from Mr. Nehru about the crisis in Laos.
    The Prime Minister: Any communications which I might exchange with Mr. Nehru on such a subject would naturally be confidential.
    Mr. Healey: While welcoming the efforts which the Government have made during the Recess to obtain the return of the International Commission to Laos, may I ask the Prime Minister to bear in mind that five weeks have already elapsed since the Government first committed themselves to this aim, and that unless progress is made in the next few days it might be worth seriously considering adopting the other method of seeking an international conference on this subject?
    The Prime Minister: This is not an attempt to shuffle off the question, but I think it right to preserve the tradition that communications which pass between heads of Government are confidential. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been very close co-operation and discussion with all the Governments concerned and the Foreign Secretary has made a very great effort to try to reach a common agreement. We have now reached a further stage, of a proposal actually being made. We must wait to see the next step.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this side of the House right hon. and hon. Members have been pressing for over twelve months for some constructive action to be taken about Laos? Is the Prime Minister further aware that the work of his predecessor has been undermined by intervention there? Will he prepare a White Paper for the House giving an intimation of information he has received from India about the intervention that has taken place in Laos?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept the two preliminary statements of the hon. Gentleman, but if it would be of any help to produce a White Paper, I am sure that my noble Friend will consider it. I should like to consider whether it could be a valuable addition to the knowledge that the House and the country already have on this.
    Mr. Brockway: In view of the difficulty which has arisen regarding the recognition of the Government in Laos. can the Prime Minister say what reply has been received to the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government that the Commission should be accredited to the monarch and not to a Government?
    The Prime Minister: A proposal has been put forward by Her Majesty's Government, and we must see what will be the next step that is likely to follow. I have no doubt that all these questions will, alas, be questions of dispute. One can only hope that we get on and try to get some measure by which a ceasefire or stand-still or some other arrangement can be made to improve the situation.
    Mr. Brockway: Has no reply yet been received?
    The Prime Minister: Does the hon. Member mean a reply from the Russian Government?
    Mr. Brockway: I asked whether a reply had been received from Laos regarding the proposal that the Commission should be accredited to the monarch rather than to a Government.
    The Prime Minister: That matter is still under negotiation.

S.S. "SANTA MARIA" (SEIZURE)
Mr. Pagetasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement on the employment of H.M. ships to hunt the s.s. "Santa Maria", seized by Portuguese rebels.
The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): Yes, Sir. The full facts concerning the seizure of this vessel are not clear, but Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government were asked by the Portuguese Government for any information on the "Santa Maria's" whereabouts and for all possible help in securing the restoration of the vessel and her cargo to the rightful owners.
Acting on this request, instructions were issued to the Senior Naval Officer, West Indies, to attempt to arrest the ship provided contact was gained outside territorial waters and provided this could be done by peaceful means without loss of life or risk of scuttling. If, however, this was impracticable the Senior Naval Officer was instructed to shadow the "Santa Maria" and report.
I am advised that Her Majesty's Government are fully entitled, in accordance with international law, to take this action to meet this request.
Mr. Paget: First, will Her Majesty's Navy be equally at the disposal of the Russian or Hungarian Governments in the event of one of their crews making a dash for liberty? Secondly, if this is to be treated as a matter of piracy, does the hon. Gentleman agree that in that event we have jurisdiction over anybody whom we may arrest and that we shall exercise that jurisdiction and not hand them over to somebody against whom they may be in rebellion? If this is not a matter of piracy, is it any business of ours?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: The request came from a recognised friendly and allied Government. I made the point that under international law, when it comes from a constitutional and recognised Government, we are certainly entitled to meet it. It is not for us to judge the politics of a Government that we are trying to assist. We are entitled under international law, in circumstances such

33
as these, to comply with the request of another Government to assist in the protection of life and property on one of their ships on the high seas. I do not think that the House will wish to neglect the humanitarian aspect. One life has already been lost and one of the ship's officers has been seriously wounded. This must cause considerable anxiety to the 600 passengers, including many women and children.
On the second point, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows only too well, it is a very complicated question of international law. We will certainly bear in mind the various points which he has put forward before any action is taken.
Mr. G. Brown: The Civil Lord said that we are entitled to do this. There is a great distinction between "being entitled to" and "being obliged to". The feeling of some of us is that we seem to have dashed in to give support in what is really an internal affair. Did the Government consider what was involved in this in terms of internal Portuguese politics before we dashed in in this way?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is in the tradition of the Royal Navy that when it is asked for assistance it should provide assistance. We have done exactly that. By good fortune it so happened that the Senior Naval Officer, West Indies, was on board H.M.S. "Rothesay". The first we learned of the incident was when a body and a seriously wounded officer came ashore at Santa Lucia, which is British territory. As a result of that, H.M.S. "Rothesay" set sail towards the South. Signals were sent to the United States authorities telling them of the action we were taking and offering our other West Indies frigate, H.M.S. "Ulster", which was in the North, to assist in their part of the search if it was wanted.
Mr. G. Thompson: If any requests for political asylum arise out of the incident, will the Civil Lord give the House an assurance that they will be most carefully considered before any question arises of handing over Portuguese citizens to the Portuguese Government?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: As I explained at the beginning of my statement, the full facts of this case are not known. We do not know whether the ship was boarded, or whether those who took over took pas-
34
sage at Curacao, which was the last place of call. Until the full facts are known I think that it would be wrong to pronounce on it. I give the undertaking to the House that the Law Officers of the Crown and other legal advisers will carefully consider the legal implications before any action is taken.
Mr. Gaitskell: Would it not have been very much wiser to have hesitated while ascertaining the full facts? Would it not have been very much better for the Government to have ascertained the full facts before they intervened? Is the Civil Lord saying that it is in accordance with the traditions of a British Government that they should arrest those who are seeking to escape from a dictatorial regime? If this is indeed the case, as has been reported. how can the Government possibly defend their action?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that the House in general would expect Her Majesty's Navy to go to the help of a friendly Government—and incidentally, one of our allies in N.A.T.O.—when murder has been committed and serious injury done to others. That is exactly what we have done.
Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand from the Civil Lord's statement that the reference in the Press this morning and yesterday to the intention of the commander of the British vessel to board the ship in the event of any refusal on the part of its commander to hove to is untrue? The Portuguese Government have now been apprised of what has occurred. Have they no naval vessel to undertake this task?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: On the second point, I have no Ministerial responsibility in that field. The point is that we had a naval vessel within a few miles when the incident occurred and when we first learned of it. I cannot go further than the point which I made most carefully in my statement. I said:
" instructions were issued to the Senior Naval Officer, West Indies, to attempt to arrest the ship provided contact was gained outside territorial waters and provided this could be done by peaceful means without loss of life or risk of scuttling."
That is as far as I can go. I am sure that we can count on the good sense of the Navy to act in accordance with those instructions.
Mr. Doughty: While we must await investigation into the full facts, is it not right that when a friendly and allied Government tell us that one of their vessels has been the subject of an act of piracy by the crew upon the high seas it is the duty of the British Navy to stop piracy wherever it is being carried out?
Mr. Paget: May I ask the Civil Lord a further question? is not the position that we have no obligation, either by custom or anything else, to interfere where there is a case of political rebellion against a sovereign country? If we have to intervene here, it is because it is piracy and, in the light of piracy, possibly for humanitarian reasons. In neither of those events are we under any obligation—indeed, it is quite contrary to our duty—to hand over anybody we arrest to the Government of Portugal. If they are pirates. we have jurisdiction. If they are not pirates, we have no business.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think, as I have said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made a perfectly valid point, and I have also said that the Law Officers of the Crown will be consulted about this complicated matter of international law, and will certainly bear in mind the point that he has made.
Mr. Mendelson: The Minister has said that the situation is unclear. Is he aware of a report by a reputable Canadian news agency, telling everyone interested in the matter that the origin of the trouble was the refusal of someone on board the ship, who was regarded as a political enemy by the regime in Portugal, to be forcibly returned? Why cannot the hon. Gentleman give an assurance, in accordance with the traditions of this House—and in accordance with the traditions of the country—that that man, or others who are in similar danger, will not be returned forcibly to Portugal?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have not seen the report, but the House has the assurance that I gave earlier, that we shall look at all these legal implications.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this now.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  OVERSEAS SERVICE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.41 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Immediately before the House rose for the Christmas Recess the Leader of the Opposition, in an exchange of pleasantries with the Leader of the House, described the business for the first week after the Recess as dull, but I am sure that in that stricture the right hon. Gentleman did not include this Bill, which is of immense significance to the Overseas Service; of great importance to something like forty overseas territories; of great importance to the House, and, indeed, of great interest to the British taxpayer, who is to be asked to meet a very large bill. Therefore, although the Bill is extremely short. it is of great importance.
  As the House will realise, the purpose of this Measure is to give me legislative authority for carrying out the policy that I have already announced by statement to the House, and which I have expanded in the White Paper, Command 1193. with which the House will be familiar. There are two objects in this policy that march together. The first is that we should try to encourage those who wish to serve in these territories as long as they are able and are required to serve, and the second is that we should make it easier for these territories, particularly in the years of development, to have available to them. at prices that their Budgets can reasonably hope to meet, the experience and the "know-how" of men and women who are serving now in Her Majesty's Overseas Service.
  When the Bill becomes law there will be a three-part structure in the Service. There will be the schemes of compensation, and these schemes are introduced not necessarily at any particular point of a territory's development—although, in practice, it is usually at the stage of full internal self-government—but when the Public Service Commission of that territory becomes executive, or, to put it in

  37
  simpler language, when it is no longer possible for the Secretary of State ultimately to control the conditions of service of the officer.
  The second part of the structure is the public officers' agreement. This is normally negotiated somewhere near the time of independence, and safeguards conditions of service and other matters.
  The third part is this new scheme, which reinforces both the other legs of this tripod and does not replace them in any way. I think, therefore, that the claim made in paragraph 2 of the White Paper, that this is a
  "…vast scheme of technical assistance "
  is soundly based.
  I do not claim for a moment that it is a new principle—it is not. It is very similar to that adopted by the United Nations, and similar to that used in the Colombo Plan and in the American Aid Programme, but it does show how thought is turning increasingly towards a basis of technical aid. The House will recall that when I spoke immediately before the Recess in a debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates I gave something of a trailer to indicate that the Government were studying the setting up of a Department or of a Ministry of technical aid or assistance, and that seemed to receive a general welcome. I am not yet in a position to make a final announcement about that, but we hope to be able to give the results of our study to the House fairly soon—and by fairly soon "I mean a few weeks, and not a few months.
  The different charges that we intend. in effect, to ask the British taxpayer to bear are set out in the second paragraph of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum; that is to say, the full cost of inducement allowances and the proportionate part of the pension or gratuity so earned; the education allowances for children of overseas officers, and also half the cost of the passages and half the cost of compensation.
  In both the latter cases I feel that there is sound ground for the differentiation that is made. It is normal for local governments to pay to their senior officers, or to have arrangements with their senior officers for the payment of
  38
  passage allowances, and it seemed reasonable to us that, just as they contribute the basic element of the salary and we in future, if they so wish, will contribute the inducement part, so we should divide the passage expenditure between us.
  In the same way. although it has always been a principle that the cost of compensation should be met by the territories whom the officer has served, we recognise that this is a very great burden indeed for territories, particularly if they are coming to independence and wish, as all territories do, to have a great programme of expansion, so we feel it reasonable to put forward this proposal that we should divide the cost of compensation with them.
  As the House will have seen from the Bill, we pay these amounts, not to the individual officers, but to the Governments, out of moneys that I hope will be provided by Parliament. There is one distinction between the four different items I have mentioned. The full cost of the inducement allowances will, naturally, be paid to the Governments concerned less the equivalent amount of local taxation—otherwise, of course, we would be paying that amount twice —but the three items shown in the Memorandum as (b), (c) and (d) are more of the nature of expenses, and will be paid without that sort of tax deduction.
  This, then, is an enabling Bill, and is a genuine one-Clause Measure which I do not think I need explain in great detail to the House. However, Clause 1 (4), which refers to the 1958 Act, does, perhaps, merit a word of explanation. We cannot use the 1958 Act for the purposes of this new policy because we are dealing with a different and much larger group of persons, and because we are now paying to Governments rather than to officers the sums that I have indicated. But it is possible to import some of the definitions from the 1958 Act into this Measure and so save, in effect, an interpretation Clause; and that is the meaning of subsection (4).
  The point to which I should now like to turn is the size of this scheme, the cost and how we propose to carry it out. This is obviously what interests the House most of all. Hon, Members will

  39
  see, if they look at the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, that
  "The officers to be designated will be expatriate officers recruited…"
  In other words, it is not the country of origin but the method of recruitment which is the test.
  There are some people in H.M.O.C.S. who are from Commonwealth countries and some from foreign countries, and they will not be excluded from the Bill. We will still pay, as it were, the difference. So the test is whether a man is designated by myself with the agreement of the Treasury—not necessarily the country of origin.
  I have been asked whether this applies only to officers now serving, and the answer is, "No". It will be possible for these territories, if they conclude an agreement with us—and the vast majority, I know, certainly will—to make new recruits again within an agreed ceiling, and the provisions of the Bill will apply to them. In the same sort of way, we will not make it an absolute condition that every single person must be a citizen of the United Kingdom or Colonies, although the great majority, no doubt, would be so.
  On the charge that this will involve, it is, as the House will see, extremely heavy. It falls on the Colonial Service Vote. The additional charge in 1961–62 is expected to be about £16 million, and if the scheme lasts for something like ten years, as I foreshadowed in my statement to the House, the total bill might be about £150 million. Therefore, the words on the back of the Bill, stating that I am supported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are no idle phrase. I am genuinely very grateful—and I am sure that I should say this because so much criticism is always levelled at the Treasury—to Lord Amory and to his successor, the present Chancellor, for the immensely imaginative approach which they showed and the sympathetic understanding that they gave me when I made these requests to them.
  There is one matter which is of great interest to the House. It arose out of the problems of definition and of officers designated under the scheme. It has particular application to Kenya where a considerable number of people who are not, according to the definition, genuine ex-
  40
  patriates and, therefore, would not qualify under H.M.O.C.S. because, in a sense, they are Kenyans instead of people who have come from this country, would be excluded from the benefits of this scheme. We have been trying to find a way round this difficulty, and I think that we have succeeded.
  I should like to read to the House the statement that we have agreed:
  " We had discussions on this problem just before Christmas with a delegation of Government and Staff Associations representatives from Kenya, and I believe that we have dealt with the very difficult problem of the application of the scheme to the Kenya Service, with its large number of local officers, in a way acceptable both to the Government and the Staff Side of the Kenya Whitley Council. We have agreed a definition with them.
  To put it briefly, we shall regard as eligible for desigation under the scheme all those officers in the Kenya Government service who at present receive an inducement allowance by virtue of their entitlement under the pay revision in January, 1955, and who were recruited before the 1st October, 1954."
  That was the date of the creation, under Colonial 306, of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service.
  " We shall also regard as eligible for designation all other officers who receive an inducement allowance at present, if, not having been in East Africa before except transiently "—
  I am sorry that this is so difficult to follow, but it is an extremely complicated problem—
  " they can show either that they were recruited within three years of their first arrival in East Africa to take up work, or that they have always been entitled to assistance with overseas passages in the various employments they have pursued in East Africa since their first arrival to take up work there. In addition, of course, each officer must have been selected by a Secretary of State or the Crown Agents, or otherwise recruited to a post for which a normal channel of recruitment was a Secretary of State or the Crown Agents."
  I am sure that the House, and particularly those who have taken a close interest in this matter, will be glad to know that we have managed to reach an agreement on the difficult problem of the local governments in Kenya in a way that is acceptable to both the Governments and the Staff Side of the Kenya Whitley Council. If everybody in all the territories that are eligible for this form of exchange assistance took advantage of it, there would be something like 21,000 persons involved. Of those 21,000, 14,500 are serving on pensionable contracts and the remaining 6,500 on ordinary contract terms. We

  41
  will now have to add to this about 700 from Kenya to take account of the announcement that I have just made, and I think it is likely that that will be applicable to the other East African territories as well.
  When I mention East Africa, I am sure that the House knows that it is perhaps East Africa, above every other part of the territories, that has been in the minds of Her Majesty's Government throughout, because over half of those 21,000 pensionable officers live and work in East Africa and nearly half of those on contract. But we now have—people in East Africa would say "at last", and I am very glad that we have it—the Report of Sir Gilbert Flemming's Commission which will enable us to create a new structure for the pay and allowances of the Service in East Africa, and it will form a yardstick for our consideration of territories in other parts of the world. Her Majesty's Government have already announced, and I now reaffirm, that the proposals put forward in the Flemming Commission's Report are broadly acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, we are already having urgent consultations on these matters.
  I hope that the House will agree to let us have the Bill reasonably quickly. On the face of it, although this is a dangerous thing to say, it does not look as if it lends itself to a prolonged Committee stage, whatever points of view may be put forward on Second Reading and perhaps Third Reading. But if the House feels that we can have the Bill in a reasonably short time we hope to complete by 1st April, 1961, the great majority of the agreements to which I have referred. That will mean a great deal of work, but some of the agreements, I think, can be concluded fairly swiftly.
  I wish to make two more points. The first is that there are no strings whatever attached to this offer. It is a genuine effort to help in what the whole House recognises is a very real and difficult problem indeed. Those of us who have studied these matters closely know very well how very difficult those who serve in the public service—this applies to many others, too, but in relation to this Bill I am dealing only with the public service—have found conditions in many countries. I hope that by, as it were, taking the question of their in-
  42
  ducement allowances and other expenditures away from the arena of local debate in the different Legislative Councils we shall to some extent have helped them to remain, as, of course, they all desire, outside politics.
  The House will agree that in all this we have, in effect, a double duty. We have a duty to the Overseas Civil Service, a duty which through the Bill and through the Flemming Commission Her Majesty's Government are discharging. We have a duty also to make certain that the administration of any country is as efficient as we can make it, that increasingly local people take an increasing part in it, and that, if the time comes in any particular territory for Her Majesty's Government to hand over their responsibilities to any other Government, we should leave as, perhaps, the most precious heritage of all, a well-tried, efficient, independent and incorruptible public service. It seems to me that those are the two duties which we should have in mind all the time as we consider the Bill.
  The Bill puts a large expenditure on the British taxpayer, but it is an expenditure which will, I hope, be willingly met, because we understand how much it means. This is, perhaps, the most important proposal in relation to technical aid for the under-developed countries of the Commonwealth to be put before the House since the idea of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act became a reality. It is in that spirit that I put the Bill before the House.
  4.2 p.m.
  Mr. H. A. Marquand: When the Colonial Secretary made his first announcement about these proposals in July last, I said that they would constitute one of the most valuable contributions to emerging nations that this country has ever made. Since then we have had the White Paper, and this afternoon we have had the pleasure of listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. My opinion is still the same. This is a far-reaching proposal, potentially of great value to the emerging countries, and we on this side of the House definitely support the Bill.
  We welcome the Bill for two reasons, first, because it will help the emerging countries especially within the next five or ten crucial years of their development,

  43
  and secondly, because, of course, we have a duty to those who have until now been in our employment in the Colonial Service, a duty to see that their careers are safeguarded as much as possible and that, if they continue to work for newly independent countries, they should be able to work in conditions which are fair and satisfactory.
  The plan which the right hon. Gentleman has outlined again this afternoon is important not only in making use of the undoubtedly wide and far-ranging experience in all sorts of fields which members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service possess. It is valuable also, I think, because it indicates that Her Majesty's Government now have a broader vision of the whole problem of aid to under-developed countries than they had when they first came back to office in 1951. It seems to us that they look upon it now as a larger-scale effort which is likely to continue very much longer than they thought in their earlier days of office. They now appreciate better, as, no doubt, we all do—I am not making any particular paint of party criticism here—the importance of the infrastructure of development, a subject to which I myself have many times in recent years tried to draw attention in the House and to which other hon. Members have drawn attention.
  For many years, we conceived aid to the under-developed countries too much in terms of specific capital development in new industries, in new hydro-electric projects, new mining developments, and that sort of thing. We did not even here, in this House of Commons—we ought to have been better informed upon these matters than some countries are which have never had Colonies—fully appreciate the importance of the infra-structure of development, the provision of social services and the provision of technical advice. Now, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said this afternoon, the importance of technical assistance of all kinds is becoming very much better understood than it was.
  In giving the Bill a Second Reading today, and in implementing its provisions later, we shall contribute, I am glad to think, to a world-wide extension of technical assistance and expert aid for the provision of the essential infra-structure of development, for the improvement
  44
  of education, for the improvement of public health, for the improvement of agriculture and for improvement in all sorts of ways where direct profit earning investment is impossible and where, nevertheless, if development does not take place, the profit earning investment proves to be a failure.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman still has in mind the thought which he aired a short time ago in one of his statements—I have forgotten just when it was —when he spoke of the possibility of establishing a new Department to look after aid. We on this side of the House feel that it would be a good thing to establish such a Department responsible for being aware of all the aid which is given by this country, whether through the Colonial Secretary, through the Foreign Secretary, through the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, or in whatever way, so that we balance our various expenditures one against the other and we keep our scale of priorities right in what we try to do in helping overseas countries.
  If such a Department be created, I hope that it will absorb the Colonial Development Corporation, making it one of the major bricks in the new edifice, so that the expertise which that organisation has developed over the years and its appreciation of practicalities which has been so well developed recently, particularly under Lord Reith and his successor, can be made available to the Government as a whole and not be restricted, as it has been, to a particular sphere of operations.
  We are, through this Bill, doing something similar to what we provided for when we passed the Commonwealth Teachers Act last Session. The Bill provides in fields other than teaching valuable expertise, skill and advice for underdeveloped territories. One thinks, naturally, of the examples one has most recently seen. I was in West Africa in December last and I visited, together with two hon. Members opposite, the Rice Research Institute, in Sierra Leone. Later, I went over to Ghana and saw the Cocoa Research Institute there.
  What magnificent enterprises those are. What remarkable service they are doing not only for Ghana and Sierra Leone but for the whole world. After all, the vast majority of mankind lives

  45
  on rice, and what has been done in the Sierra Leone Research Institute is of value to the people of China, to the people of South-East Asia and to the people of India as well as to the people of Africa and other countries besides.
  Similarly, the Cocoa Research Institute has in the last few years done work which struck me, as a layman, as almost miraculous. I profoundly hope that the provisions of the Bill can be used if necessary in Ghana, although Ghana became independent some years ago, if—I say "if"; I am not saying that it is so—there are any financial obstacles preventing members of that Research Institute staying on to do this important work.
  It also helps the poorer Dependencies, which may remain Dependencies for quite a long time, in a way which has never happened before. In many instances the pay offered by Dependencies like British Honduras, or the Falkland Islands, which was mentioned in a debate while I was away, and other poor dependent territories had to be commensurate with their ability to pay. They often suffered. Time and time again there were advertisements in The Times offering posts in territories like that which indicated that they had found it impossible to recruit, on the terms and conditions of payment which they were allowed to offer, people of the required qualifications.
  We are now glad to note that all this will be changed. Under these proposals it will, in future, be possible to provide a dentist for the Falkland Islands, or whatever expert may be required to improve the public health of the City of Belize, and so on. I am particularly glad to note that none of the cost of these new provisions is to be deducted from the Colonial Development and Welfare Vote. Possibly, in the past, some of the salaries and allowances payable under the Bill might have been payable under colonial development and welfare legislation. It will now no longer count against that Vote, and we welcome that departure very much.
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, one of the most notable areas where the provisions of the Bill are likely to be of particular value is East Africa. We welcome the Flemming Report, providing what appear to be very substantial salary
  46
  increases, ranging from 25 to 30 per cent. of salaries now paid to people working there. No doubt—and I am fully prepared to accept it—these are entirely reasonable proposals. They will make a contribution to making self-government in East Africa less risky than it might sometimes have seemed to be. In addition, we hope that they will provide substantial and satisfactory inducements to a number of those who would be entitled, if they wished, to return home to continue in the service of East African Governments.
  I confess that I have not read the whole of the Flemming Report, but, as I read an accurate summary of it and listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, I could not help feeling how nice it would be if, now that Sir Gilbert Flemming is freed from this task, he might come here and turn his attention to seeing whether an improvement in remuneration and conditions of work might be provided for those full-time Members of the House who do most of the work of the House. That is an idea which the Government might consider.
  As I have said, we welcome the Bill in providing these new, widespread opportunities for using the great skills which so many of the members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service possess in medicine, agriculture, public health, education, forestry and a vast variety of other techniques. However, we are also naturally obliged, because we are Members of the House of Commons and are concerned with those who are our former employees, to look fairly closely at the questions affecting them. First, I wish to mention particularly what appears to be a special problem of the employees of the East Africa High Commission.
  I am not clear whether all that the right hon. Gentleman said about the new provisions concerning Kenya and East Africa generally will apply to the employees of the High Commission. I apologise if I have failed to follow precisely what he said. It is a little difficult to follow immediately on the heels of a Minister, because one is preoccupied with other thoughts in one's mind. I should like to know, however, how far these provisions will apply to the employees of the East Africa High Commission. We have had a report from Sir Jeremy Raisman and his colleagues

  47
  about the economics of the High Commission. I hope that before long the East African Governments will agree among themselves about a political reconstruction of the Commission, because, plainly, it needs reform, not merely in its economic structure but also in its political government.
  Correspondence which I have seen suggests that employees of the High Commission are not clear about what their position will be under the terms of the White Paper. I understand that it has been suggested by some of them that any employee of the High Commission should have the right to retire from its service and to draw compensation as soon as any one of the East African Governments becomes independent. That indicates a fear on their part that the independence of one Government may end the existence of the Commission. I strongly hope that that is not so. It would be most regrettable if the Commission came to an end merely because one Government changed its status and political control.
  I wish to say a word or two about the correspondence which has taken place about the employees of the East Africa High Commission. Wherever variations of these proposals come into operation —I know that there will be variations and that they will be arrived at by negotiation between Governments, in which the staff associations will be consulted—surely it should be a firm and cardinal principle of all such arrangements that they should not be used to compel people to retire but rather to induce them to stay on. In the case of the East Africa High Commission, considering all the special difficulties of an organisation which can exist only if three or four Governments agree to carry it on, it looks as though very substantial inducements will be necessary to carry it through.
  I want to say a few words about arrangements for compensation and inducements to stay on which have been applied in the past. First, I refer to Nigeria, which I also visited during December. I think that the plan brought before us in the White Paper must owe something to the lessons learned from a somewhat unfortunate experience concerning the arrangements made for Nigeria before it became independent.
  48
  I have had some correspondence with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations about this matter. When I was in Nigeria I took the opportunity to make some necessarily cursory inquiries into what was happening. First, there was the grievance of the employees of the Nigerian State Railways. In future, where there are nationalised undertakings like that in existence, which are virtually State Departments but not legally such, will these new provisions apply? As I understand, they did not do so in the case of the Nigerian State Railways, and a good deal of discontent seems to have arisen as a result.
  Secondly, I refer to civil servants of the Nigerian Federation. I cannot go into elaborate details about this in a Second Reading speech, and if it is impossible for anyone to deal with this matter this afternoon—since I see that no representative of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is on the Front Bench; and I am not complaining about that—perhaps we may have some answers to these questions in Committee. when we consider whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.
  The first scheme, introduced in 1956. was not popular with the civil servants. and led to only a small number deciding definitely to stay on. A revised scheme was introduced in 1958, and that has also not been very successful. I was told that, regrettably, large numbers had decided to take their compensaition and go. although they had no political objection to working for an independent Nigerian Government and no special fears about any untoward or arbitrary action which might follow the independence of Nigeria.
  It was just that the schemes proposed were not good enough, and that there had not been sufficient consultation with the staff before they were agreed between the Governments. From the correspondence it seems as if civil servants corresponding with each other are quite as capable of not replying to letters, and causing undue delay between letters, as we sometimes complain of in the House in reference to correspondence between Ministers and Members. I am merely using those examples as illustrations of the sort of difficulty which may arise.

  49
  How many of those eligible for further employment in the emerging countries are likely to be used, under the plans in front of us? Paragraph 20 of the White Paper tells us that the number coming within the scope of the proposals is about 20,500, to which the right hon. Gentleman has now added another 700, as he explained this afternoon. We are further told that the cost of the inducement pay and allowances is £7,255,000 and that the estimated future cost will be between £12 million and £16 million. It seems that in order to have formed that estimate some estimate must also have been made of the numbers expected to carry on and, therefore, of the numbers expected not to carry on. I wonder whether that estimate has been made, and how it works out.
  Paragraphs 22 to 30 of the White Paper deal with the resettlement of those who, for one reason or another, do not stay on, and paragraphs 26 and 27 deal particularly with employment in the Home Civil Service. Her Majesty's Government give the proper guarantee that they will do their best to secure alternative employment for those who do not wish to carry on, but in the references to possible employment in the Home Civil Service there is no reference to pensions. I therefore think it right to refer to a matter to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) has drawn my attention. My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot be here this afternoon, because of another engagement, but he has asked me to mention this matter.
  It concerns a constituent of his who lost office in the Indian Civil Service in 1947. He was paid £5,000 compensation for loss of his career when India became independent. Subsequently, he came back to Britain and obtained a post as a temporary civil servant in the Colonial Office. Now, after taking the special examination for such people—which is also referred to in the White Paper—and being successful, he has been offered establishment in the Civil Service, in the Colonial Office; but he has been told that he must repay his £5,000.
  In correspondence with my right hon. Friend, the Treasury justifies this request on the ground that this man's former temporary service, as a temporary civil servant in the Colonial Office from 1949
  50
  onwards, will be reckoned in calculating his eventual pension, and that it is, therefore, right that he should return the £5,000 which he received as compensation for loss of his office in India. To this argument my right hon. Friend's constituent and his organisation have replied, very reasonably, that the Compensation of £5,000 was for loss of a career; it was not an alternative to pension. It was for the loss of all his opportunities to serve the Indian Government and to go forward to high promotion, and to all the other things that used to go with service in the I.C.S.
  They further point out that in the statement made to the House at the time, by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury—who happened to be my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley—nothing was said to justify any other interpretation of the payment of the lump sum compensation. My right hon. Friend is already in correspondence with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I am not suggesting that we should have answer on this case this afternoon, or even in Committee, since it is obviously not covered by the Bill. I am using this example of a possible miscarriage of justice in some of these arrangements to justify my asking whether members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service opting to retire and claiming compensation under the proposals of the White Paper, and then entering the Home Civil Service, will be in the position of this serving officer in the Colonial Office—whom the right hon. Gentleman no doubt knows—or whether it is possible to make a change in these arrangements, which seem rather unjust.
  One final point has been raised by those members of the Overseas Civil Service who are likely to be affected by the White Paper. Paragraph 17 says:
  " Officers who are required to retire as a result of constitutional change are in any case entitled to the payment of compensation in one lump sum at the time of retirement, and the principles for arriving at the scale of compensation would result in a rate somewhat higher than that established for those who are free to continue to serve."
  It is the use of the words
  " free to continue to serve "
  which has caused some anxiety, particularly among those employees of the East African High Commission, although it is

  51
  not a problem confined to that High Commission. These employees want to know what that phrase means. Are they to be told that when they are free to continue to serve they ought to continue to serve? Does it in any way imply that because they are free to continue to serve they have a lesser right to retire and claim compensation than those who are required to retire as a result of constitutional change?
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will take the point; indeed, he has probably come across it already. It is the use of the contrast, in that sub-paragraph, between those who are required to retire because of constitutional change and those who are free to retire, which has led to the supposition that a distinction will be made and that those who are not required to retire but, nevertheless, do so will be treated in a less satisfactory way than the others. I hope I have made that point clear.
  I have put forward, I hope at not too great length, some of the points which have been raised with us about the Bill by those who are likely to be particularly affected. I hope they can be cleared up. I would conclude by saying that I regard the Measure as a whole, as I have already said, as a valuable one, and as one conceived in a generous spirit. I think it goes very far, and the intention behind it is clearly to do justice. I have raised these points only to be quite sure that it is not only clear but transparent that it does do justice.
  I wish this scheme well. I hope it will be widely accepted by the Governments of the emergent and newly independent Territories for what it is—not an attempt to retain any strings of colonialism whatsoever upon them, but a frank and free offer of £16 million worth of help a year from this country; an offer which they are free to refuse to accept if they do not want it, but one which, if they think hard and long enough about it, many, I think, will wish to accept, because I am sure that they, too, have valued in the past the services of these people, and will think they now have an opportunity to keep them on their books, since it will enable them to receive salaries far in excess of what the Governments are able to afford to pay to their own citizens.
  4.31 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), I should like to give a welcome to the Bill, and, at the same time, to refer to some of the details covered in the White Paper. I think that we have to recognise the growing importance of a contented expatriate Civil Service in the dependent territories and particularly—the right hon. Gentleman has already referred to this—in the four territories of East Africa. I think that the key word is "contented" expatriate Civil Service. Therefore, I should like to raise two points.
  First, to get that contentment we have to be satisfied that those who have to go because they can be replaced by indigenous civil servants get adequate compensation. Secondly, we have to be satisfied that those who want to stay do get an inducement to stay, rather than be penalised if they go. I will refer, first, to some of the points that arise about compensation. It has been made clear that this matter will be discussed at the time when the Public Service Commission is being set up and brought to 'finality when the Act of Independence is passed.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: May I correct my hon. Friend? Not necessarily at the time when the Public Service Commission is set up, but at the time when the Public Service Commission ceases to be advisory and becomes executive. That is the big change.
  Mr. Wall: I appreciate the point my right hon. Friend has made and I thank him for it.
  The White Paper does say, in paragraph 17, that when these discussions are taking place the local Civil Service staff associations will be consulted. I hope that that will be fully carried out. I have been told—I do not know how true it is—that those discussions did not take place to any serious degree in Sierra Leone, and that that caused a certain amount of anxiety. Also, in Kenya consultation took place after the White Paper was published. I am sure that the local Civil Service would have been much happier if it had had discussions with the Colonial Office in the territory before that statement was actually

  53
  published. What I am trying to point out is that these consultations are much more valuable if they take place before a decision is taken.
  Secondly, there is the question of the lump sum compensation for those civil servants who wish to retire, or those who have no option to stay on. It is perfectly all right in the case of countries like Nigeria and India, great countries which have strong and viable economies, but there is a certain amount of anxiety in the case of financially weaker countries, such as Tanganyika, when there are suggestions that the country's finances may not be able to bear the burden of adequate lump sums for compensation. I do not know whether there is anything in this, but it is mentioned throughout East Africa, and it has, perhaps, contributed in a small way to the anxieties of civil servants in East Africa about the future.
  Associated with this is anxiety about certain superannuation funds, widows' and orphans' pensions, and similar funds, which have been contributed to and are used by those civil servants now in these territories. There would be little anxiety if these funds were held in the United Kingdom but as they are not it is felt that they are, perhaps, too vulnerable to the independent Government, as they apply at present virtually exclusively to the expatriate staff and might be taken at a late date to apply also to new indigenous staffs—Tanganyikans, Kenyans, Ugandans, as the case may be.
  The next point on the question of compensation is a fundamental one, also made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East, and that is that those who ask to stay on and to continue to serve the country of their choice should be given inducements to stay on. They will serve, perhaps, inexperienced Ministers and in countries where the political climate is bound to be a little uncertain. Will they be offered an inducement to stay, rather than those who go be penalised for going? In other words, will the carrot be used rather than the stick? I think that it is a very important point, because it will affect the morale of the Service, particularly in East Africa. to a great degree.
  Finally, on the question of compensation, and another point also raised already by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East, do
  54
  civil servants have to pay back compensation that they have already received if, later, they get jobs in any of the Departments mentioned in the White Paper? There are a couple of pages in the White Paper devoted to various openings for people who retire from Her Majesty's Overseas Service, for example, the Home Civil Service and other Government Departments. If they decide to take up a new career in the Home Civil Service, do they have to forfeit the compensation which was paid to them, compensation which was for disruption of their life in the Service in the territory of their choice?
  In India, those who went directly into the Home Civil Service forfeited, perhaps rightly—it is arguable that it was right—their compensation. Those who had a gap of two years also forfeited their compensation. But I think that the most serious point is the one to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, of a man who had served in temporary appointments in various Departments for a period of twelve years and who was eventually given an appointment on the establishment of the Home Civil Service, and who was then asked to forfeit compensation paid to him twelve years previously. Cases of that sort are, of course, rare, but they serve to undermine the confidence of the civil servants who are serving overseas today.
  I come now to the next point, inducement. All of us appreciate the vital importance of maintaining a sufficient number of expatriate Civil Service officers as the countries of the dependent Commonwealth, certainly in East Africa. as they move towards independence— and also after independence. Leaders such as Mr. Julius Nyerere have gone on record as saying that he would require a large number of expatriate civil servants after Tanganyika has become independent. He has also said that, all other things being equal, preference will be given to the local man. that is, African. We must accept this as being fair, but it does raise the point that there is inevitably a degree of discrimination against expatriates.
  Of course, the real criterion of whether the expatriate will stay or not will be the political situation prevailing in that

  55
  particular country at that particular time, but I should be out of order if I were to go into that in any detail. I mention it because it seems to me to be the key to the future throughout the dependent Commonwealth. If there is a responsible Government in power, and if he is convinced that he will receive generous treatment from Her Majesty's Government, then I think that he will decide to stay, because he has a sense of duty for the country that he has been serving and he wants to see it established on a firm basis as a full, sovereign member of the Commonwealth. Therefore, he will probably stay, provided he is convinced that he will get a fair deal. One of the matters about which he feels a certain amount of doubt is paragraph 3 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which says that
  " Clause 1, subsections (2) and (3) require Treasury consent for the making of agreements…"
  because he knows that the Treasury is the watchdog and sometimes bites rather hard.
  Two issues arise. The first is the degree to which the recommendation in the White Paper covers all sections of the Civil Service, particularly those in countries like Kenya. It obviously covers full members of the H.M.O.C.S. Does it cover those who are expatriates by definition, but are not full members of the H.M.O.C.S.? There are also many other categories, but I will not weary the House about this, because my right hon. Friend has made a statement today which will do a great deal to allay anxiety in East Africa about this matter. The provisions of the Bill will, I understand, be interpreted widely, and they cover, as I understand them, even many of the local civil servants.
  If I may interpret what my right hon. Friend said on the question of local civil servants, it was, I believe, that if a man joined the Service in a Colonial Territory where he happened to be at the time but he was not permanently resident he would receive guarantees for the future without becoming a fully established member of the H.M.O.C.S., but a man who emigrated to the territory years ago, and was resident there and then decided to enter the Civil Service, would probably not be covered by the terms of
  56
  this Bill. The House will probably feel that that is a fair division.
  We must realise that when we speak of local civil servants they are, after all, subject to a degree of discrimination in that normally the African would be preferred, and members of the Civil Service are expected to train up their successors —indeed, to work themselves out of a job. Consequently, they need some reassurance. A civil servant in Tanganyika recently wrote to me and said that the House was always considering the resettlement and security of Africans, but he felt that what was now wanted was some provision for the resettlement in Britain of local British civil servants now serving in Africa.
  To sum up, the treatment that we accord to our civil servants in the Commonwealth must not only be fair, but be seen to be fair. This is an excellent Bill, but in certain aspects it is a little vague. One of these aspects is the number of the categories of civil servants that it covers. That matter has been cleared up to a large degree by my right hon. Friend's statement today. The second instance of vagueness, which I hope the Under-Secretary of State will clear up later, relates to the principle of giving an inducement to keep those who want to stay rather than penalising those who leave. That is fundamental. I shall be glad if my hon. Friend can give us an assurance that the principle adopted will be that of inducing persons to stay, and that in itself will do a great deal to restore confidence, particularly in East Africa.
  The Bill having been passed, and the necessary machinery put in motion, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will consider making an appeal to civil servants, particularly in Africa, to emphasise that the House and the Government are standing behind them and to point out that they have an important duty to perform, that of bringing these nations forward to full sovereign membership of the Commonwealth, and that we in this House hope that they will decide to remain in their posts and fulfil this vitally important function for the future of the Commonwealth.
  Appendix B of the White Paper refers to the Overseas Service. I am very glad

  57
  that this has been included in the White Paper, as it is a matter which is of interest to many hon. Members on both sides of the House. Briefly, the White Paper turns down the idea of an Overseas Service; that is, a Service which would serve the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office. It is turned down for what appears to be a perfectly valid reason—that the jobs are not available for the numbers who are bound to leave H.M.O.C.S.
  I put this point to the Minister. Inevitably, in the next few years, as is recognised in the White Paper, the Commonwealth Relations Office will expand. In addition, the Foreign Office will also expand. For example, a very large number of new territories which used to be members of the French Colonial Empire in Africa are now independent and will require ambassadors and Foreign Office staff. Surely civil servants from the Colonial Territories who know Africa, and who speak African languages, might be extremely useful in starting the new embassies in these countries. We already have a great deal of cross-posting at the top level. The Commonwealth Relations appointment of High Commissioner in India has been filled by the Foreign Office. The new Governor of Aden is, I understand, also an ex-member of the Foreign Office.
  Although it may be felt that this Overseas Service cannot come into being now, can it not be recognised that it is an ideal at which we should aim, and cannot we start now by having a common entrance and common standards and overcome the snobbery that exists today between the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Service and the Colonial Service? We recognise de facto cross-postings at the higher level; cannot we have a General List, like the Army, whereby when one rises to a certain rank one is available to serve in any regiment or on any general posting? Cannot this principle be applied to high level civil servants serving overseas, in the Commonwealth or in foreign countries?
  The House debated before the Recess the possibility of a Ministry for Overseas Aid. This ties up with the same concept.
  58
  I have received a most interesting communication from a British ex-civil servant who recently served in one of the North African territories which is not a member of the Commonwealth. He said that his job was to do with water conservation, but his Minister was far more interested in political affairs and there was, in fact, little water conservation. This civil servant had an interesting life and enjoyed it, but had very little to do because his advice was taken only on purely technical subjects and he was never consulted on general policy or asked to draw up particular plans. He said that as a technician he was losing his technique and, therefore, resigned.
  This experience led him to suggest that what is needed is an organisation in Britain charged solely with making the service of British technicians abroad as effective as possible, and he adds that the Dutch Bureau of International Technical Help fulfils most of the duties which are required. This ties in with the concept of a Ministry for Overseas Aid.
  I hope that in the light of these suggestions we can go a stage further and try to lay down a foundation for the creating of an Overseas Service which has interchangeable posting, serves not only Commonwealth countries but foreign countries, and also provides administrators and technicians for United Nations organisations and for technical aid throughout the world. I believe that there is a great future in this idea, and that if we start thinking on these lines we shall make sure that the British genius for administration, which we have displayed for so many centuries, will not be lost to the world.
  4.48 p.m.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). The last phrases of his speech attracted me very much, especially when he widened what he had said previously and declared that what we should do is not only to help the emergent territories and the Colonial Territories, but to be able to supply technical personnel of all types, where possible, even to foreign countries if those countries ask for them and need them. I entirely agree with the hon. Member, and I am sure that every hon. Member does so, too.

  59
  If this tiny Bill, however expensive it appears to be, is ultimately to be completely successful, it is fair to say that it must be the beginning of a crusade, and "a crusade" means that it should offer a signal to talented young men and women to go out into other parts of the world, particularly into the newly emergent territories and the Colonial Territories, in order to offer a term of service under contract, and then return to their former employers.
  In this respect, I am a little critical of the Bill as it stands, because it gives inducements and compensation to those who are already serving but has not gone far enough—although this is touched upon again and again in the White Paper—in making clear how we are to bring new people in for a short period of time, say three years under contract, or a double period such as five or six years, and give them a guarantee that they will be re-employed by their former employers when they return. This is stated to be desirable in the White Paper. I should like to know what steps have been taken so far to implement the phrases in the White Paper which urge that this should be done and state how desirable it is. If in my speech, which I hope will not be too long, I talk mainly About medical personnel, I hope it will be accepted by the Secretary of State that whatever I say about them will apply, of course, to every other type of technical servant who is employed or may be employed in the future. I am emboldened in this view by the realisation that the Colonial Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) have both been Ministers of Health and will both accept that medical personnel also have a very important place in offering technical aid.
  On 14th January last, there was a most interesting article in the British Medical Journal by Professor Hill of the Royal Free liospi.al. I had a copy of the article before it was printed and sent it to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and it has now gone to the Minister of Health. If I had had another copy it would have gone to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but it is now available in print in the British Medical Journal. Has it been
  60
  brought to his notice or to the notice of the Under-Secretary of State?
  In the article, the difficulties that face us in the recruitment of personnel and getting them to the overseas territories are stated, and certain suggestions are made about how we might overcome these difficulties. In the first place, it is obvious, as we all know—certainly the Secretary of State—that we face a serious shortage of doctors to meet even our own requirements in the United Kingdom. It has not been made better by the fact that the Willinck Report suggested retrenchment and not expansion. I am not sure that we have overcome that unfortunate and mistaken view of a few years ago.
  I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State are well aware of the shortage. The evidence offer on the shortage is that we could not staff our own provincial hospitals with junior registrars if it were not for the help of young medical men coming from overseas—from the Colonies and different parts of the Commonwealth, particularly India. None the less, although I deplore the fact that we have not had an expansionist policy and hope that we shall move on to it quickly in training men in this country, there is a startling difference between provision made for our own people and that made in territories in some other parts of the world.
  In Britain, we have one medical man for every 900 of the population; in Uganda. it is one for 18,000; in Tanganyika, it is one for 22,000, and in Ghana it is one for 25.000. I have already declared that we made a mistake in being restrictionist, but if we have the will we must find some talented people and lend them to those who require them, as is suggested in the White Paper, in the Bill and in the Secretary of State's speech.
  Contract service—I am speaking now about what happens with surgeons, physicians and administrators—has been impeded in the past, and is being impeded today, by facts like this: first, expatriates, when they do go overseas, tend to lose their places in the queue for promotion. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State accepts that point. Out of sight means out of mind in the National Health Service today when talented young men accept an appeal to become expatriates and do a term of

  61
  service abroad. We must stop that, but how?
  The Secretary of State cannot wield a big stick. He cannot give an order that there should be a change in this attitude. He must persuade the universities and the regional hospital boards to agree with him. I ask him
  now—and I hope that I shall have an answer—what steps have been taken to see that this is done? It has been talked about. I myself have asked questions about it. It is one of the greatest needs of all.
  The White Paper speaks again and again of approaching employers to see whether (a) they will let people go and (b) take them back so that they do not lose through having been away. This is very important, and it means spreading the burden. I am sure that the Treasury should be keen about this, because it would mean that men going out under contract would not be asking for pensions, but would merely ask that they should not lose their rights of advancement on their return, that jobs should be given to them, and that their seniority should not be affected. This is a very important point.
  The provision of money alone—though I am glad to see it—is not all that we need. We have to find the men to go out, and the more reasonably and cheaply it can be done, the more it is accepted as a duty, an obligation and a crusade, the better. Surely it would be a good thing for employers when these men returned. It would be surely worth while for them to have men in their posts who had returned from a period overseas, with all the experience gained and the responsibility which they had carried out there. I have no hesitation in saying that this is also an important point. We must see that they get their jobs back and do not lose by going away.
  Secondly, expatriates are at a disadvantage when they apply for posts in the United Kingdom in answer to advertisements. Regional hospital boards and universities tend to give a few weeks for applicants to answer. That makes it very difficult for men who are the other side of the world. The time is not long enough. Moreover, if they are short-listed they have to run the risk of spending some hundreds of pounds to fly home to be interviewed. If as a result of the
  62
  interview they are not successful, then they are out of pocket by some hundreds of pounds.
  This obviously means that they are at a disadvantage compared with men who are still in the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is fair to say that regional boards tend not to look at applications from abroad, except, possibly, to fill very senior posts. Moreover—and this is another point worth remembering—if an expatriate does succeed in obtaining a post here after years of service abroad, and if it is service with the National Health Service, the most he can get—and that only by means of grace—is four years' seniority allowed him, however long he has been away. This also seems to be an objectionable feature.
  It is obvious that we need a careful re-assessment of the total need. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State has put this into hand. A few months ago the President of the Royal College of Physicians informed me that it intended to send out a very experienced person to travel round the world and advise it about the need. Whether this person is on his travels now or not, I am not sure. But the College had recognised that there was an immediate need to know what was happening and to what extent posts should be filled.
  We need the guarantee I have mentioned from the universities and the regional hospital boards and all employing bodies—including Government Departments— that a man who goes out on a contract will be brought back to the same position and that the years which he has spent away will be allowed to him in assessing his seniority.
  If men are short-listed for posts, other than very senior, important posts, it would be helpful if their applications were considered without their necessarily being present. It could be done with documents from a number of previous employers both in this country and where they have served as expatriates. For senior posts that would not be desirable, but in such cases air passage should be made available when men are asked to come to this country for interview.
  I said at the beginning that to be successful this tiny Bill should initiate

  63
  a great crusade. A great crusade should be headed by very influential and important people. It has been suggested that not only should the presidents of the learned societies be involved, but the Duke of Edinburgh himself, who has an interest in medicine which he has shown in the past, should be asked to head the crusade. That would set a proper example and encourage young people. If a Commonwealth Council were formed to advise the Minister, it could be not only medical but technical and could also include those who teach. It would be a permanent all-embracing, advisory council to advise the Minister.
  If we are to make a contribution of this type, it is because we believe that there are aspects of our culture, which have been gained at very great expense over the centuries, which are well worth handing on to people who need them. This tiny Bill, which has been described in the White Paper as a vast aspect of technical assistance, can become of much greater value than if now appears to be on the surface. It should spread, until it is accepted by every young person in the professions, that he should try sooner or later, and certainly between the ages of 30 and 40, to work at least two or three years in territories where his help is needed.
  5.3 p.m.
  Sir Hendrie Oakshott: Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate so far, I warmly welcome the Bill. Like my right hon. Friend, I hope that it will have a quick passage, and I know that my right hon. Friend will not think me ungracious if I say that, while I do not suggest that the Bill is necessarily overdue, it is certainly full time that we had it.
  Many of us have been anxious about the future of the Overseas Service, and the Bill goes a great way to releiving some of those anxieties. It also goes a long way towards meeting the necessity of what a leading article in The Times some months ago called the "underpinning" of the Service. Responsibility for that underpinning is now being assumed by Her Majesty's Government, and rightly so, because we have a great obligation to help the emerging territories on their way as they progress. To give them an efficient administration is,
  64
  perhaps, one of the best ways in which we can help them.
  My right hon. Friend knows that Kenya is a territory of which I have some knowledge, and from which, as a matter of fact, I have just returned from yet another visit. What I have to say this afternoon will be confined to that territory. From my own knowledge, I would wish to pay a very warm and sincere tribute to the officers of the Service in Kenya. It is a long way from Westminster, but perhaps the assumption by the House and Her Majesty's Government of the responsibilities laid down in this Bill indicate at least some recognition by us of the great value which we place on the services of those men in the territories in which they work.
  The Bill's provisions have to be considered along with the Flemming Report in their effect on Kenya. I am very gratified to find that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept the findings of the Flemming Report more or less in full, as I understand. My right hon. Friend knows that among non-European officers of the Service in Kenya, there has been some local criticism of the Flemming Report taken with the provisions of the Bill.
  While I recognise their feelings in this matter, I suggest that the criticism may be founded more on political emotion than on logic. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) spoke of discrimination with the arrival of independence in favour of the African civil servants. If the Flemming Report taken with the Bill is in the other sense discriminatory also, there is good reason for it, and anyway I imagine that it is not impossible that the House may be asked to vote at least some of the cost of the Flemming awards to local civil servants in Kenya.
  In speaking of the training of Africans in the Service, my right hon. Friend used a formula more pleasant than the word "localisation", which is the word generally used. That process is going on, and from my own experience in Kenya in the last two or three weeks I have found that the Government there is determined to get Africans trained as quickly as possible.
  But I would utter a word of warning about this process, if I may. I believe

  65
  that there is a genuine danger in what has been called "a crash programme" of localisation of the Service. That can be extremely dangerous for all the communities in Kenya, because the complexities of administration cannot be learned overnight. Their learning takes a long time, and while the Government in Kenya is going ahead as fast as it can, there is a speed beyond which it cannot go. In the meantime, we have to hold the administration together, and I hope that this Bill will help towards that.
  The Bill has been described in the White Paper and by my right hon. Friend this afternoon as a form of technical aid. That is exactly what it is. There is a very difficult period ahead in which efficient and knowledgeable administration will be vital. That is where the Bill comes in, for I hope that it will give renewed confidence to the officers of the Service in Kenya.
  I beg the House to believe—and I do not think that any hon. Member will disagree with this—that in Kenya's progress and in its future these people are absolutely key men. In saying that, I am trying to look beyond the present and beyond the current elections in Kenya, in which, goodness knows, there are already problems enough. On the one hand, there is disillusionment and some bitterness among Europeans. On the other, only the week-end before last, in Nakuru, not very far from where I was, there were some serious disturbances between the two African political parties. Those are serious problems, and they may be repeated. However, I am trying to look beyond that, beyond the immediate problems to the next stage in Kenya's development when the influence of these officers will be vital.
  I now come to a point made by my right hon. Friend, which in some ways raises the most important question in what the House is doing by the Bill. It is; Who does the Bill cover? Who is an expatriate? Who is a designated officer or person? I was delighted to hear the statement which my right hon. Friend read out about this, and, if I may respectfully do so, I should like to congratulate him on having persuaded all those interested—his colleagues and others—to accept this very generous and broad definition Which he has been able to reach.
  66
  As my right hon. Friend said, there is in Kenya a comparatively large number of European officers who were not recruited through the usual machinery of the Colonial Service in the United Kingdom but who joined locally. At the time of the Holmes Report, which I think was in 1947, there were over 700 of these officers, and, if I remember rightly, that Report recommended—and I believe that the recommendation was accepted—that these officers should be regarded as, for want of a better word, full members of the Service. In my judgment, it would have amounted to very nearly a broach of faith had they been excluded from the provisions of this Bill.
  Apart from that, these men cannot really he spared. Had they been excluded and had they then decided to quit the Service, I sincerely believe it is not an exaggeration to say that the administration might have come close to breaking down. What the Government are doing in this respect is, therefore, not only generous but, in my view, very wise.
  Finally, there seems to me to be one big question mark 'hanging over this Bill. Is it really going to achieve the result we desire? With all my heart, I hope that it will, because the continued service of these officers is absolutely essential to orderly progress in Kenya. But we have to face facts, and, as I see it, there are two risks. They are both human problems—nothing else. The first is the difficulty which officers, perhaps with a good many years' service, may find in changing their role from one which has been executive to one which is advisory, and moreover to advise people who, by the very nature of things, cannot have as much experience as they have, and also, perhaps. seeing the advice which they give in good faith and out of their vast fund of experience ignored. That would not be a pleasant or easy situation in which to find themselves. Many of them might find it difficult; some may find it impossible.
  Secondly, there is the position of officers, say, for example, in their thirties. They are bound to look at the future with some uncertainty. In a rapidly changing society, they have no way of knowing for how many years their service will be wanted or how far a full length career lies before them. They may decide, in spite of the generous inducements in the Bill, that the interests of

  67
  their families and of themselves would best be served by looking for alternative employment now.
  I mention these two matters, not in any spirit of pessimism or defeatism, but because I believe that they are risks which have to be faced. I only hope that they will not materialise, because those who would be affected by them are, perhaps, among the most valuable of all the officers in the Service.
  I have a large number of friends and acquaintances in the Service in Kenya. Anyone who knows these officers will testify to the spirit of patience, unselfishness and, indeed, devotion with which they approach their task. The outlook for the future is uncertain—for some of us it is very somber—but I trust that this Measure will bring to these officers encouragement in what are very difficult times; and of this I am quite certain: the Kenya of the future, which I hope will one day be a peaceful and happy place for all its peoples to live in, will have very powerful reasons to be grateful to all these members of the Service for the part which they have played in its constitutional progress.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Stonehouse. It must be something of an embarrassment to the Secretary of State for the Colonies to receive compliments from this side of the House. Therefore, I shall refrain from congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the Bill, except to say that we are, of course, glad that at last it has been introduced and that I am sure we shall all do our best to expedite its progress.
  I wish to comment on some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bebington (Sir Oakshott). I felt that his speech contained its own contradiction. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he did not believe in a crash programme, but he finished by indicating—and I thought in a very sympathetic way—the risk that the expatriates in the services overseas would feel inclined, either now or in the near future, to withdraw their services and to live with their families elsewhere. This, surely, must be a matter receiving the attention of Ministers now being appointed in countries approaching independence. I believe it
  68
  is vitally necessary that the locally recruited services should he greatly expanded.
  I fully agree with the hon. Member for Bebington when he says that the expatriates are devoted and dedicated men. I can confirm that absolutely from my own experience. Although for a long time I have been critical of the Colonial Service, I have never been critical, with one or two exceptions, of the men in the field, because I always found them devoted men, working very hard for a very small reward and genuinely trying to do what they could to help the people in the countries in which they worked. I know that many of them—indeed, most of them —would like to have an opportunity of carrying on the same sort of service, and I hope that the Bill will help them to do just that.
  We have to recognise that Ministers in the newly independent countries will want to expand their services with local men, and the only criticism that I would make of the Bill is that there has been no emphasis laid on this point. In paragraph 31 of the White Paper, reference is made to the development of local public services. It says:
  " It is the present practice and has been for many years for overseas governments to attempt to fill vacancies in their public services by local recruitment wherever possible and only to seek to recruit expatriate officers for vacancies for which suitably qualified local candidates are not forthcoming."
  I do not think that in the particular case of Kenya enough has been done to prepare local people for senior jobs in the administration.
  On 20th December last, I asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many locally recruited people were serving in the Colonial Service. In reply, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies gave me the following information as far as the provincial administration is concerned. He said that the number appointed as provincial commissioners or senior district commissioners was nil and that the number receiving training was also nil. There are also, apparently, no training schemes except for eleven district assistants who were to appear before a selection board this month. As I say, apart from that tiny number there is no training scheme yet established in Kenya to enable the recruitment of local

  69
  people to fill these positions of responsibility.
  As far as the central administration is concerned, the number of Africans in posts or in training for permanent secretaryships, for deputy secretaryships, for under-secretaryships and as senior assistant secretaries is nil in every case. There is only one African appointed as an assistant secretary in the Central Administration.
  This needs to be looked at closely by the Colonial Secretary. Kenya will be independent in two years, certainly in no mote than three years, and it will be a guarantee for the expatriates, the sort of guarantee which, I am sure, the hon. Member for Bebington would like to see, if the locally recruited service is firmly established before independence takes place I should like to have seen far more money being spent on local training schemes so that Africans in Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and the other territories about which we are concerned can be trained for jobs of responsibility. I do not think that enough is being done.
  I am, however, glad that at last these provisions are being made. The total cost per year is about £16 million, which is only 1 per cent. of the national income of the United Kingdom. I believe that public opinion in Britain, which in the past few months has been deeply shocked by the events in the Congo, will be delighted to pay this amount as a sort of insurance against any possibility of a Congo chaos in any one of the territories for which we are responsible. I do not believe that there is any real risk of a Congo chaos in these countries, but it is important that when independence takes place we should leave behind a well-trained Service including expatriates who will be loyally serving the local administration.
  I wish, however, to ask the Under-Secretary of State a number of questions. In particular. will the provisions of the Bill be available to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland? In relation to the High Commission territories, will staff recruited for service in Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland also be entitled to these facilities? We have it on the authority of the Morse Economic Survey that there is a great need to expand the services in the High Commission countries. Can we have it confirmed
  70
  that these facilities will be available in those countries?
  I am sure that we would wish to make those facilities available to all personnel who have entered into contracts with the expectation of service over some years, whether they were recruited from this country or elsewhere. In regard to Northern Rhodesia, however, and particularly to recruitment for positions in the police force, can we be assured by the Under-Secretary that there will be a discontinuation of the present policy of recruiting senior police inspectors from South Africa and other territories where there is opportunity for local recruitment and training? I press the great need to recruit and to train local personnel as well as to give guarantees in the Bill which, I am sure, all of us are glad to endorse. We wish the scheme well and we hope that it will be acceptable and will be implemented in the five to ten years ahead.
  5.24 p.m.
  Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I very much welcome the Bill. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott), whose speech I so much enjoyed, that perhaps the Bill is a little overdue. It certainly has not come too soon. I have a feeling that if a Measure of this sort had been put forward a little earlier, a good many valuable men who have retired from the Colonial Overseas Service with many years of life before them might have stayed on and performed useful service.
  The Bill attempts to deal with a dual problem with which, inevitably, my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary and. to a lesser extent, his predecessors have been faced. There was, naturally, a falling off of recruitment to the Colonial Overseas Service, for the natural reason that the old certainty of a career became less easy to guarantee in view of the large number of Colonial Territories which, happily, were likely within a reasonable time or in the near future to achieve their independence. At the same time, it has become increasingly obvious that in these emergent territories, as they are called, there is a tremendous need for technical and administrative advice and assistance of all kinds. I do not believe that any nation is in a better position to offer exactly the type of man.

  71
  who is best able to provide that kind of assistance than we are in Britain.
  I was also very glad indeed that my hon. Friend paid a tribute to the Administration in Kenya. That also is long overdue from a good many of us in this House. A similar tribute should, indeed, be paid to all those serving in the Administration in all African territories for which we are still responsible. Let me be quite frank and say this. I cannot think of any more unenviable task than to be the Governor or Commissioner of Police, let alone to hold a more junior post, in any of these African territories which are likely in the near future to achieve their independence. The Administration still has to be carried on. Law and order must still be preserved.
  At the same time, there is always the awful dilemma that if somebody takes action in time to prevent a minor disturbance becoming a riot, it is almost certain that some sections of the British Press will hurl at his head wild allegations of brutality. If, on the other hand, action is delayed and a minor disturbance becomes a riot, and the riot becomes something more serious still, there are, equally, accusations of delay in taking effective action.
  The growing feeling that whatever one does will be wrong is one of the principal reasons for lack of confidence in the future of the Colonial Overseas Service. It has cost us a lot of valuable officials who have got tired of this business and have got out to other jobs when they might still have stayed and performed extremely valuable service in the administrative and other fields. I very much hope that this Measure will do something to rectify this by providing men with a new vista in one of the emergent territories when they achieve independence, who, perhaps, do not see the future as holding much for them in the old Colonial Overseas Service which they first entered.
  I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when he replies, to say exactly what are the rules and regulations about paying back compensation. This is an extremely important aspect. There must be a number of former Colonial Office officials who have already received their compensation for the early disruption of a career and who would
  72
  now be available for employment under the terms of the Bill. This would not be confined even to the old Colonial Overseas Service.
  I think of a number of extremely able men from the Sudan Political Service, who in many ways have just the technical knowledge that is required to assist independent territories, who received compensation for their retirement when the Sudan Political Service was wound up. They might not, however, be anxious to come back and serve a further term under a contract to a newly independent Government in Africa if it meant that the compensation which they had received from Her Majesty's Government at the time of their premature retirement would have to be paid back. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with that point.
  The second point which I wish to ask about is this. In Cmnd. Paper 1193—Service with Overseas Governments—which goes with the Bill, it is stated in paragraph 12, on page 7:
  " It is intended that the initial duration of the agreements shall be for a period of up to ten years."
  I can see that that would be a very suitable period for a man in his early or middle forties whose career in the old Colonial Overseas Service was likely to be interrupted by the restriction of the Service, but' if the initial duration is to be for ten years, I am not so certain that it will be very attractive to new entrants. My right hon. Friend rightly said that the provisions of this Bill are not to apply only to those already serving. He hopes, as I do, that they will attract new entrants. But on the basis of a contract of ten years I am not certain how attractive they would be.
  There is a third complication which, I hope. will be dealt with by my hon. Friend. Under the provisions of the Bill, how do we guarantee employment for anybody between the termination of one appointment—say, for the sake of argument, with Ghana—of ten years' duration and the provision of some other employment elsewhere? Is the officer to be left high and dry in England for a couple of years, perhaps after he has been a technical, an engineering or an agricultural adviser to the Government of Ghana? I understand that the Government will do what they can to find him other suitable employment in

  73
  another overseas territory but that is unlikely to happen straight away. There must be an interim period during which he may have to continue to maintain a wife and children and be faced with problems regarding their education, and so on. From the terms of Cmnd. Paper 1193 I am not certain what sort of guarantee Her Majesty's Government have in mind regarding that problem.
  Finally, I think that the general conditions in which officers under contract within the provisions of the Bill are expected to live in a newly emergent territory must be reasonable. I am not speaking so much of conditions of pay and allowances; that is dealt with in the Bill. I am_referring to the general facilities for living. I do not think it right to expect officers who take on such contracts with newly emergent territories to live in conditions far different, far more uncomfortable or far less convenient than the conditions to which they were accustomed as officers in the Overseas Civil Service.
  As I say, I welcome the Bill and I am glad that it has been blessed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that it will have a speedy passage through all its stages and, more important, that it will achieve the objects which we all have in mind.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I apologise to the Minister for the fact that I was not in my place when he made his speech. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough. East (Mr. Marquand) explained my inability to be present. I agree with hon. Members who have said that this is an excellent Bill, but it has been produced rather later than it might have been. There must be quite a number of first-class individuals who could have rendered more useful service to the State and continued in active employment had this Measure been placed on the Statute Book earlier. Therefore, while we welcome the introduction of the Bill we also regret that it was not introduced earlier.
  I understand from my hon. Friends that the Minister announced that the provisions of the Bill will not come into operation until the middle of April, which I think is a pity. After all, the next few months may prove a period which will make a difference to quite a
  74
  number of people and it would have been a good thing if they could have benefited. One of the difficulties confronting those who serve overseas arises from the fact that, not unnaturally, their pension rights are fixed at the time when they enter the service. By the time that they leave to return to this country they find that conditions have altered so considerably that their pension, owing to a fall in the value of money, is not worth anything, like what it was estimated it would be worth.
  Some of these people find themselves in considerable difficulty. They have to set up home afresh and the cost of furniture and the rent of houses is more than they can bear. I think that the Government should take note of these things, to see whether it would be possible to help people who find themselves in such circumstances. After all, they served this country well during the time that they were in the Colonial Service, often in isolated posts and at risk to their health. We should take all these matters into account when passing legislation of this kind.
  During the time when the Pensions (Increase) Bill was passing through the House in 1959 it was put to the then Financial Secretary—I do not think it was the hon. Baronet the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) but one of his many predecessors—that while pensions were being increased in this country something ought to be done to establish a similar principle for those serving overseas. The then Financial Secretary said:
  " Most overseas Governments are at least as generous as Her Majesty's Government in this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June, 1959; Vol. 606, c. 130.]
  He went on to indicate that what was being done under the legislation which was being discussed would be conveyed to the colonial Governments in various parts of the world in the hope that they would take note of what this country was doing and would follow suit. Is it possible for the Under-Secretary of State to give some indication of the extent to which the colonial Governments responded? It would be of general interest, not only to the House but outside, to learn whether those who have returned after service abroad and found the value of money has dropped, as it has, can have that taken into account by the

  75
  colonial Government concerned in the pension they are drawing.
  A part of the Bill which disturbs me and to which I want to draw attention is that which lays down that the consent of the Treasury is essential to every agreement. Why should this be necessary? It is not likely that the Colonial Office or the colonial Government concerned—and it takes the two collectively to come to an agreement—would do anything rash or silly. After all, they are the people who know the facts. I take it that, generally speaking, the Treasury would act only on advice received from the Colonial Office. If Parliament can be trusted to put these powers into a Bill for the Colonial Secretary to use when making agreements, why should it be necessary, in adition, for the Treasury to have to give its consent?
  I wonder whether the Treasury can be trusted sometimes to act justly in circumstances of this kind. I ask because, as my right hon. Friend earlier pointed out, a case has come to our notice and perhaps other hon. Members have had correspondence from people similarly placed,of an Indian civil servant who had to retire as a result of the constitutional changes that took place and found that the conditions under which he then retired had been materially altered in recent times. I have had correspondence with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has been very patient and good over this, but, unfortunately, very stubborn. Our only way of ventilating what we think is a grave injustice is on an occasion such as this.
  In February, 1949, on behalf of the Government, I personally made a statement from the Dispatch Box and, speaking of Indian civil servants who had been forcibly retired and thus had their careers cut short, I said:
  " If they obtain permanent and pensionable employment under His Majesty's Government within a relatively short period, an alternative career has been provided, and compensation for loss of career becomes inappropriate. It was, therefore, laid down in the White. Paper, Cmd. 7116 (1947) that, where a person obtained permanent and pensionable employment under His Majesty's Government within two years of leaving India, he should not receive compensation. but only a resettlement grant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 2025.]
  76
  The particular individual to whom I refer was fortunate—if that is the right word to use—to obtain employment in the Colonial Office. It was temporary employment, and from that day to this it has been temporary. So far as he knew it would not be pensionable and would never become permanent. Now the Treasury has offered him permanency, but on one condition. That is that he should refund the whole of the compensation he received all those years ago. I do not know whether the officer concerned still has that money intact. The chances are that much of it—perhaps all of it—has been spent, but he can only now become permanent and pensionable if he refunds the amount of compensation he received at that time.
  The Treasury says that as he has been made permanent and pensionable and his pension by permanency has been dated back to the time I made that statement in the House, which was less than two years after he left the Indian Civil Service, the rule there laid down does not apply. If we look carefully at the statement I made—I made it on behalf of the Government and therefore a following Government should accept what was then said, and it was accepted by the House—it will be seen that I indicated, on behalf of the Government that fhe employment had to be permanent and pensionable within two years. No one is going to say, I hope, that to be offered after all these years, permanent and pensionable employment is in keeping with what was then said.
  I therefore think that when we look at this Bill in Committee we should hesitate long before we pass the subsection which gives the Treasury power of veto without giving any reason whatever. No criteria are laid down in the Bill. It is just the word of the Treasury, and that alone, which in individual cases can prevent any agreement made on behalf of an individual or classes of individuals and the Colonial Office being carried out. Not only is the Treasury action I think mean in this particular case, but it is an example to warn the House to look closely at any Bill which gives the Treasury powers of this kind.
  I hope that when we reach Committee we shall take steps to see that what has happened to members of the Indian Civil Service shall not happen to those

  77
  coolies by this Bill and who may be employed in the Colonial Service whereever that Service may be.
  5.46 p.m.
  Mr. John Tilney: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), with his past experience at the Treasury, should have referred to the pensioner. If my plea later in what I have to say for these forgotten men takes some time, I hope that the House will bear with me. I am glad that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is on the Front Bench, because these men, although a fairly numerous band, are forgotten men. I am glad, also, that the right hon. Member has paid tribute to the vision which my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary has shown in the White Paper and to his imagination in bringing in this Bill.
  Like the right hon. Member for Colne Valley, some of us on both sides of the House have urged for many years that some such action should be taken and some of us wonder whether it has been taken in time. I hope that it is not too late, because this vast scheme of technical aid, at considerable expense to the British taxpayer, is something which I believe is vital to the mutual benefit of the underdeveloped countries and the United Kingdom. There are, of course, some independent territories which may be somewhat sceptical of this aid and may be suspicious, possibly, of imperialist spies in their midst.
  I hope that they will bear in mind what Mr. Kenneth Younger wrote in his book, "The Public Service in New States". He said:
  "A second difficulty arises because, in the course of the transfer of power, there comes almost inevitably a period of exceptional psychological difficulty, when the new Ministers…still find it hard to believe that the old service is really going to relax its hold upon the Administration.…"
  If there is this doubt about divided loyalties, I urge the independent Governments to bear in mind what the White Paper says when it points out that
  " although members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service are members of a common Service under Her Majesty… the claim of the territorial Government upon the loyalty of that officer is in no way affected."
  I hope that any independent territory which thinks it a blow to its prestige will remember that Europe did not think it
  78
  a blow to its prestige when it accepted Marshall Aid after the war.
  Provided that the standards of living of the indigenous civil servants and the expatriate civil servants doing the same job are not too dissimilar, and provided that by some independent commission to administer this scheme the Government are not right in the middle of it, I believe that the independent territories will accept the offer, because there is no doubt about the benefits of this scheme to emerging territories and where their interests lie.
  Perhaps I may quote again from Mr. Younger:
  " Should it prove impossible, for whatever reason, to retain the necessary overseas personnel for a sufficient period, the price paid by the new states will be heavy… In Ghana … the major difficulty arose from the new burdens imposed on the service by the dynamism of the new Government. This pattern is likely to be repeated elsewhere. A new State will naturally wish to signalize its independence by accelerating development to the limit of its resources and often beyond. Ministerial decisions can be taken rapidly and each one sets a fresh task for the Administration."
  The Bill seems to be a kind of continuing marriage settlement, and in this case the beneficiaries are one of the trustees. Although it is only one support for a development programme—the other, in my opinion, being some form of investment guarantee fund for new private capital—it is still a vital support without which some States might degenerate into a quasi-Congo status, and I therefore congratulate my right hon. Friend on his imagination.
  There are, however, numerically small but important sections of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service, and numerically larger ones which used to be in the Government service, to which I should like to refer. Taking the latter first, I refer to those who were in the service of the Nigerian Government before they were seconded into corporations such as those dealing with the railways, electricity, coal and the ports, being told at the time that they would be no worse off than if they had been in the Government service.
  I will not go into the arguments which they put forward, but when I was in Lagos last November I found that the morale of both the expatriates and the engineers in the railway, both of whom

  79
  are badly needed, was very low indeed. I believe that the Nigerian Government is one of the soundest and most progressive in the whole of Africa, and I also think that possibly the fears of these people may not be based on fact. But they are very much present. I stress that it affects only the ex-Government servant.
  If Her Majesty's Government could agree in some way to take the underlying securities of the corporations' pension funds and accept in return the pension liabilities, their erstwhile servants would feel that the future for themselves and widows was more secure. If that means taking out of the country money which the Nigerians are now using, perhaps that could be adjusted by a Government-to-Government loan.
  May I turn to a numerically small but important group of civil servants both in West and East Africa who are questioning their future. I am thinking of those in the intraterritorial services, such as West African Cocoa Research, the West African Council for Medical Research and the West African Institute for Trypanosomiasis, whose conditions are now very different from those which they enjoyed a few years ago. At present, their morale is reasonably high. I hope that when he replies to the debate the Under-Secretary of State will say something about their future. I hope that their morale will remain high.
  Unfortunately, this cannot be said of the East Africa High Commission, from members of which I heard, from Nairobi, on 16th January as follows:
  " A large number of us are members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service and were formally members of the Colonial Service. We understand that the recent White Paper on Service with Overseas Governments is not intended to supplant paper Col. No. 306."
  I particularly want to refer to this Paper to show that those in active service now are as much interested in the question as are the pensioners. They continue:
  " This latter Paper clearly stated: 'Constitutionally, all officers of the Colonial Service, using this term in the widest sense, are in the same position. They are servants of the Crown… "
  I will not read all this quotation, because it can be found in the White Paper, but the letter continues:
  " The above-quoted words have been embodied in the Colonial Office recruiting
  80
  pamphlet, Appointments in Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service '. This means that Her Majesty's Government has sought to use them as reassuring words to encourage people to join the Overseas Service. We who are servants of the Crown serving in the High Commission are certainly entitled to no less consideration on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom than our brother officers serving with the territorial Governments.… I should be most grateful if you would draw attention to the position of the High Commission staff in the context of the intending political changes in East Africa and urge that we be treated in accordance with the spirit of… No. 306 to which I have referred. If we are not so treated but are required to serve on in what will virtually be a foreign country, without the benefit of diplomatic immunity which is enjoyed by members of the Foreign Service when serving in foreign countries, then we will have been betrayed and abandoned."
  I think that they may well have stated their case too highly, but I am not sure, from what my right hon. Friend said earlier, whether they are covered, or whether they will be treated in the same way as civil servants in territories about to be independent, such as Tanganyika. Although they may be sent into those territories to do the job of the High Commission, they have no doubt that in housing, medical benefits and general conditions of work, if they are sent, they will be undertaking work very different from which they have done in the past I hope that my hon. Friend will say something about this when he replies to the debate.
  If this great salvage operation—and it is a salvage operation—is to be a success, the people to whom this money is to go will surely consider how they are likely to be affected when they decide whether they will stay on or not. They will consider how their predecessors have been dealt with. I urge my right hon. Friend, having offered so much, not to cheesepare on a small section.
  The right hon. Member for Colne Valley referred to the pensioner. He may know, and the House may know, that the Service Pensioners' Associations have got together. They represent about 5,000 paid-up members, and they think that they will get about 10,000. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will tell the House how many pensioners there are. The associations have produced a most interesting document, which I should like to show to the House, and in it they say:
  " It is not, therefore, acceptable for Colonial Service pensioners now to be told, in reply to

  81
  representations about this differentiation in the matter of pension increases, that they were, in fact, employed by individual territories to whom appeal for redress must be made."
  They have shown in tabular form in black figures those territories which have been more generous about pensions than the United Kingdom and in red figures those which have been less generous.
  The Bahamas, Fiji, Hong Kong and Mauritius have been more generous. Cyprus, Jamaica, and East and Central African territories have, to some extent, been more generous and in other cases less generous. There is no shadow of doubt that the red figures far exceed the black. No doubt those who are thinking of staying in the Overseas Service will take note.
  I believe that Nigeria, in the near future, may be taking action to lift her pensions. If she does it will be another example of a sound and progressive Government and will increase the good will of this country towards her.
  Many of the pensioners here are receiving £2 a week less than pensioners of the Home Civil Service on a similar basic pension. Their increase is that much less. When I find that a rich island such as Bermuda has nothing but red figures, I hope that those who have anything to do with sending capital to Bermuda, or helping Bermuda, will bear her parsimony in mind. Many of these people have served, not only Her Majesty, but her father, her grandfather and even her great-grandfather.
  I regret that on the 9th January, 1961, I received a letter from the Transvaal, dealing with this table, which reads:
  "… The difference in pension scales as given in a recent Association circular, is remarkable and varies much more than did salary scales in different colonies prior to the Unified Colonial Service scheme, which came into being about 1929–30. That scheme was a long term one for the benefit of colonial officers and was planned to eliminate the very abuses which have now occurred among pensions. Its immediate effect at the time was to make it difficult to get technical and scientific officers to come to West Africa when conditions of service were the same in healthier East African colonies. Prior to the scheme pension conditions were more favourable in West Africa. Now Ghana is the worst of the lot, thanks to pensions having been passed on to the Ghana Government which I and my confreres never served."
  The writer then makes some possibly regrettable remarks about the Ghana
  82
  Government which I will not repeat to the House.
  Her Majesty's Government continue to say that it is the responsibility of the overseas Governments to pay pensions. Those who we want to stay on in the Overseas Service will remember what happened about the pensioners in Somaliland. This year, Somaliland virtually promised to look into the question of raising pensions. I have seen a letter from the Colonial Office to that effect. I wrote to the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs weeks before Somaliland became independent, yet nothing was done. If that happens how can independent territories be expected Ito "pony up" to the level of the United Kingdom?
  May I refer to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the Corona Club Dinner, that he would always make it his responsibility to see that the services of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service were constantly in mind. I believe that the Bill shows that he has carried out his promise.
  A report of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the same dinner says:
  "To the Overseas Service, he would say that they were happy and proud to remember their services in the past…"
  Have we remembered, or are we remembering?
  I have a number of letters with me. One letter, dated 13th January this year, from Yorkshire, says:
  " For the information of anyone whom it may concern in the efforts being made to improve the retired Colonial Civil Servants' lot, please note that at the age of 88 and after many years of struggle on the most meagre of pensions my parents have finally had no recourse but to resort, most unwillingly, to help from the National Assistance Board."
  I have two more letters here, both of which deal with widows, one of whom had to go to the National Assistance Board and the other the widow of a man who served for thirty-five years in Malaya. She has a pension of under £80 per annum and total assets of just over £200.
  Another letter from which I would like to read says:
  " My husband and I cannot understand the discrepancies in pensions between one Colony and another. considering the people concerned

  83
  were all appointed by the Colonial Office and liable to be seconded to any other colony or protectorate. It seems the Government help financially with roads and bridges in West Africa, but not the human beings who have given many years' service to them.
  My husband was in the administrative service of Nigeria over 25 years. Had he been, for example, in East Africa, he would now be receiving a bigger pension. He may also have been in better health.…
  We are living in a boarding house at the moment, having recently sold our house because we could not afford the upkeep.… My husband does not know I am writing".
  On 2nd June, 1959, the House will remember that there was a debate on the Pensions (Increase) Bill. During that debate my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said:
  " Most overseas Governments are at least as generous as Her Majesty's Government in this matter.…The Government have that question very much in mind, but it is not appropriately dealt with in a Bill which deals only with increases in pensions paid by Her Majesty's Government. I can assure hon. Members that the Government have and will keep this matter under review."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June, 1959; Vol. 606, c. 130.]
  That was over eighteen months ago.
  A few months later I received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which it said.
  " We must, therefore, look to the Governments who employ overseas officers and are responsible for their total emoluments, including their pensions, to make such increases in their pensions as they consider to be right… But it is fair to say that in the past the majority of overseas Governments have treated their officers in this respect as well as Her Majesty's Government has treated its officers … a comparison made immediately after the passing of the United Kingdom increase measure would be no more valid on a long-term basis than a comparison made, possibly to the detriment of Home Service officers, immediately after a particular overseas Government had introduced its own increased service scheme".
  That may be so, but that was eighteen months ago. The red figures remain. If it is still argued by my right hon. Friend that, despite Colonial No. 306, the Secretary of State is not responsible for his own servants butt only the colonial Governments, I would refer him to two photostat letters I have. They are of some age, but we are dealing with people who are old. The first letter is dated 13th April, 1921, and says:
  " I am directed by Mr. Secretary Churchill to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 7th instant, and to inform you that your transfer from Sierra Leone to the Gold Coast
  84
  does not in any way affect your status as a confirmed officer in the Colonial Service."
  It did, however, affect his pension.
  The second letter is dated the 16th July, 1915, from Mr. Bonar Law, and says:
  "…No servant of the Crown is at liberty to resign his appointment except by permission of the Crown, and this should be clearly understood by every member of the Colonial Service. … It is not, however, for the individual officer to decide in what capacity he can best serve his Majesty the King. As, moreover, such conduct,… may cause most serious detriment to the public service… I am compelled to regard it as a grave dereliction of duty which cannot be excused."
  This was dealing with those who wanted to serve His Majesty in the Army.
  The letter continues:
  "It must, therefore, be understood that. should any member of the Colonial Service hereafter resign his post without permission he will be treated as absent from duty without leave, and will be gazetted as dismissed from the Service, with the result that he will be debarred from further employment under the Crown in any capacity, civil or military."
  There is not much control by overseas Governments indicated in that letter. It is firm control from the centre—from Whitehall. Admittedly, it was a long time ago, but there are still people alive who were directed under Mr. Bonar Law, though I regret to say that they are rapidly dying. They are the people who have the lowest pensions. They did not derive benefit from the rise in salary scales immediately after the war. They are the people who served in the tropics before the days of Paludrine, or refrigeration, or air-conditioning, or any of the amenities we have today. Well may they say, "It would have been better if we had stayed at home". That lesson may not be lost on those that we want to keep in the Overseas Service today.
  I ask my hon. Friend to give us some idea of the cost of bringing their pensions up to the United Kingdom level. Is it a few hundred thousand pounds? Does it go up to £1 million? Nobody appears to know. If the Government cannot find out, can there not be some form of Gallup poll by taking a few individual cases through the Crown Agents?
  As the right hon. Member for Colne Valley said, inflation is our responsibility, not the responsibility of the overseas Governments. They do not control the cost of living in this country. I do

  85
  not believe that it is the job of an overseas Government or an underdeveloped country to be burdened with the increase in our pensions.
  I want to read one final passage from Mr. Younger's book. The passage appears on pages 87 and 88:
  " The argument appears to be that the undoubted obligation which is owed to the pensionable officials is an obligation of the Government of the territory…
  It is at least arguable, however, that the obligation is essentially an obligation of the United Kingdom Government. The United Kingdom has always kept enough power in its own hands to ensure effective control of the Colonial Service, and has always claimed credit for deliberately following a policy leading to self-government and independence. It is all the more appropriate that it should accept at least a share of the obligation to officials, because it has insisted that the Government of the territory should pay compensation not only to officials whose careers it cuts short, but also to any official who desires, for whatever reason, to leave the Service.…
  This is essentially a political and moral rather than a legal issue, and it would seem to be very much in the interest of the United Kingdom to handle it liberally, all the more so since United Kingdom technical assistance is likely to be given after independence, some of it devoted to sending men to replace officials who have left."
  I appeal to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to take powers in the Bill, if necessary, to pay for the lifting up of existing pensions to the United Kingdom level. There is bound to be a time lag, even if my right hon. Friend's Circular Despatch No. 1065 of 2nd October, 1959, achieves better results in the future than it has in the past. No British Government for long in the past have been callous, and this is a dying commitment.
  I apologise to the House for the length of my plea for these forgotten people. I urge the Government not to spoil a most imaginative Bill, which will help the Civil Service tremendously, by failing to do that little extra which will make all the difference.
  Having said all that, I assure the Government that I welcome the Bill. It is a new charter for overseas civil servants, who work in difficult conditions, who will see promotion of less able Africans and Asians over their heads, and who will have to be more and more advisers on contracts. The Bill will give them scope to go on for as long as they wish for the benefit of the mutual trade and well-being of the overseas
  86
  Governments and of the United Kingdom. It is a great advance. I congratulate the Government and the Minister, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) on the strength with which he presented a strong case. I hope that he receives a satisfactory answer from the Under-Secretary later tonight, and that action follows. Action is certainly overdue.
  I share with my hon. Friend and the Colonial Secretary the belief that the Colonial Service as a whole has made a vast contribution to the progress of civilisation. I share the belief that this contribution need not necessarily end when territories emerge into independence. The thirteen rebellious Colonies in North America would have got over their teething troubles a great deal more easily if, following the surrender of Yorktown, they had kept a few Colonial Office administrators on their books.
  In far too many instances in the past compensation schemes have been designed, so it would seem, to encourage the expatriate civil servant, regardless of his wishes and the wishes of the new Administration, to pack his bags and go home. It has been clear for a long time that what we needed was a scheme which would make expatriate administrators no more, but at the same time no less, expensive than local civil servants of a similar grade locally employed.
  In essence, that is what this scheme brings about. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the Bill. The fact that a reform is obvious and has been obvious for some years does not mean that action is always taken. As a result of the Bill more men and women will be able to stay at their posts for longer with better pay.
  The Bill cannot be a comprehensive Bill. A number of items have not been dealt with which I wish could be dealt with. For instance, Hong Kong is specifically excluded from the benefits of the scheme. We know that Hong Kong is a comparatively rich Colony. The salaries and pensions offered there are high in comparison with those offered

  87
  in other parts of the world, but in the past few years Hong Kong has tried to deal with a vast influx of refugees from Communist China. It has tackled the problem with great courage, almost independent of help from this country. It seems a pity that we are not extending to Hong Kong this form of help that is to go to other parts of the Commonwealth.
  Again, there is the question of the Armed Forces. We have seen in the Congo what a vital part the maintenance of discipline in the Armed Forces plays, and, just as it is important that British administrators should not too hurriedly leave the emergent nations, so I hope that there will be no outflow of officers seconded from Her Majesty's forces to the armies of these emergent nations. Yet, only too often, it seems that we have quibbled over the amount of extra allowances to be paid to those officers. I hope that the Army will itself adopt a scheme similar to this one.
  Then there are the local government employees. There have been a number of pleas today on behalf of employees in various nationalised industries—in particular, in Nigeria—but I believe that the position of expatriate employees in various local government organisations should also concern this House, although I do not see how we can help them under this Bill. It has seemed to me that the way in which Her Majesty's Government stood aside and allowed the expatriate employees of the City of Singapore to be driven to the wall by a new, unfriendly Administration was a shameful episode in the history of that part of the world and of the colonial Administration.
  Good as this Bill is, it cannot provide a career structure for the men who remain in the Colonial Service in these emergent territories; by now I think that most of us have reluctantly come to the conclusion that in a large number of cases there is really not very much that can be done about it. But this certainly does not apply to every one in the Colonial Service.
  A new Department is about to be formed for the channelling of overseas aid. The Commonwealth Advisory and Technical Service will no doubt form
  88
  part of that new Department, as will the Colonial Development Corporation and other branches. It may be that Her Majesty's Government will choose to start this new Department with displaced civil servants or displaced officers of the British Transport Commission, but I should have thought that the Colonial Service could claim a large number of the new posts that will presumably become available.
  Then there is the question of the merger of the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office. I believe that the Colonial Secretary's reply to the debate that we had just before the Recess, in which he advanced the reasons why the Colonial Office could not merge now with the Commonwealth Relations Office was exceptionally convincing, but it is perfectly clear that the situation is changing, and that within two, three or four years the reasons advanced against this merger will have largely disappeared.
  I believe that at this moment we should be discussing the marriage settlement between these two great Departments of State, and that representatives of both Departments should be going through the lists to see who can fill what job when this marriage takes place. There will be a need for a much expanded Commonwealth Relations service in the technical, the administrative and the semi-diplomatic fields. I cannot understand why so many people seem to think that work in the Colonial Service should debar a man from diplomatic success. It seems to me that having to deal with Dr. Banda or Mr. Mboya is a supreme form of diplomatic examination, and that those who can pass that particular examination with flying colours might well be called upon to fill any diplomatic post anywhere.
  I therefore think that a case can now be made out for approaching those people whom we want to attract—and particularly those of about 30 to 40 years of age today, to whom special reference has already been made—and saying to them, "We shall need you in the future. Please do not seek employment elsewhere." Unless something like that is done, it is probable that the best of those young men will slowly drift from the Service and will be lost to it for all time.

  89
  The Overseas Civil Service does lot work in a vacuum and, as has been said by speaker after speaker in this debate, this Measure is very largely designed to help the great emergent territories of East Africa. It will certainly have a major part to play in strengthening the Administrations there, but it will do little good if the economy in that part of the world continues to run down at its present pace.
  The Bill is designed to restore the confidence of those in the Civil Service but, regrettably, it would seem that almost nothing is being done to try to restore the confidence of those who have to support the economy in those parts. I refer, in particular, to the British farming community in Kenya. Those people fear, reasonably enough, that with the passage of real power to an independent African Government there will be a sort of Congo. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) says that he does not think that there will be a Congo in East Africa, but it seems to me that the safety margin is perilously small and that if things go wrong, as they can so easily go wrong, we could easily have the sort of tribal fighting and administrative chaos that we have seen in the Congo.
  The Bill, as I have said, is designed to strengthen the morale of the Overseas Civil Service in that part of the world, but the fact is that the Colonial Secretary has managed to give the impression that he does not understand and does not care about the problems of the British farmer in that part of the world. Certainly, the statement about safeguards that was made shortly before the House went into recess did absolutely nothing to dispel that impression. It would be a disaster if the Civil Service in Kenya disintegrated. It would add enormously to the problems of a new Kenya if the British farming community there were allowed to slip into a state of gloomy, cynical fear.
  We have no duty to protect this community from loss, but we have a duty to protect it from absolute ruin. I hope that this Bill, which does so much for the Civil Service, will be followed by other realistic Measures to protect this other vital part of the community in East Africa. The ending of imperial obligations can be as expensive as, if not more expensive than, the winning of an
  90
  empire. The Bill is expensive, but it is an expense which we shall bear with willingness because I am sure that it will perform its jab excellently.
  6.32 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Clark: I should like to say how much I too welcome the Bill and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. This Bill incorporates many ideas that were discussed some time ago. but I think it is due to my right hon. Friend personally that the Treasury has been induced to foot the bill. Most hon. Members, I think, were amazed and pleasantly surprised when we first heard the Bill proposed.
  This Bill has been doubled in importance by the publication since Christmas of the Flemming Report on salaries in East Africa. The Bill is one not so much for colonial servants as for colonial or ex-colonial Governments. The Flemming Report is designed for colonial servants themselves, and possibly had this Bill and the Flemming Report been implemented two years ago I might have stayed in the Service and been one of those people, to whom reference has been made, who would be better employed than they are now.
  The Flemming Report marks the end of an old principle that one always suspected is revered in the Colonial Service. namely. that one can afford to pay a man a good deal less than he is worth so long as he has a sense of vocation for the job. Now we have a now principle, that money may not solve all the problems of the Colonial Service but it goes a long way to make them easier.
  I can honestly say that the Hemming Report has done everything that I hoped for and has gone a lot further than I expected it would. Certainly any members of the Colonial Service to whom I have talked since the publication of the Report have agreed on that. We all talked in terms of a 10 or 15 per cent. increase. Since we have heard that it is to be in the region of 25 to 30 per cent., a lot of champagne has been opened in the last few days. I wish to congratulate the Flemming Commission.
  There are two or three extremely pleasant things to debate this evening, but there are some snags also. The mere fact that we give colonial servants an

  91
  increase in salary of 30 per cent. means that we have been paying them far too little in the last four or five years. Why was there not a 10 per cent, increase in salary three years ago, a 5 per cent, increase two years ago and another 10 per cent. increase last year? That would be more logical than increasing the salaries by 25 per cent. all at once.
  I wish to refer particularly to the Flemming Report itself. It states in paragraph 34:
  " We think it most unfortunate that the Colonial Office did not draw the attention of the East African administrations to the changes that were taking place in United Kingdom salaries over the years 1956–1959."
  For four or five years, ever since the Lidbury Report was published in 1954. the Colonial Office has done nothing. Every time an increase in salary was suggested, it was stated that it would cause inflation in East Africa. Inflation came to a limited extent, but there was no increase in salaries.
  I should like to have an assurance from the Under-Secretary that from now on there will be continual reviews of salaries in the Colonial Territories; and in ex-Colonial Territories there should be a review of the overseas portion of salaries which will now be paid by the Treasury. There must be regular reviews, we must not have these appalling delays which cause so much hardship in the Colonial Service. There will be a lot of passports coming out of Indian shops in Dar-es-Salaam in the next two or three months, for a large number of colonial servants have had to leave their passports there to cover their debts. Let us not have that state of affairs again. Instead, let us have regular reviews and decent salaries. The Colonial Service has been driven to the end of its tether, and I hope that the present Bill will bring the members of the Service further back from the end of their tether
  I should like some clarification of the position of the officers serving in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Although their future is entirely tied up with the Federal Review Conference which is still going on, could we be assured that as soon as that Conference presents a report we shall get a statement from the Northern Rhodesian and Nyasaland Government and from the Colonial Office on the future of the
  92
  officers there, on how the present Bill will apply to them and what guarantees they have been given? I had a letter the other day from an officer who is the secretary of an association that represents overseas Civil Service officers in those countries, and I understand that they are very concerned about their position, particularly as their own Government have hardly mentioned the existence of the present Bill.
  Having done so much by means of this Bill and the Flemming Report, let us now have something done for pensioners. I cannot equal the eloquence or the good argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), who made the best of a case which is unanswerably strong. The Colonial Office has hidden far too long behind the principle that it is the responsibility of the Colonial Territories to raise pensions. Many of the colonial pensions are based on the cost of living in those countries before the war. People who retired in 1938 in Sarawak had possibly been living in Sarawak on £150 a year and were possibly paid between £300 and £400 a year. Any increase in their pensions which they now get will have been based on those low levels. We must pay those people pensions commensurate with the positions which they held and which will enable them to enjoy a good standard of living in this country. If we are going to spend £16 million, I do not imagine it will cost more than £1 million or £2 million to give these pensioners a square deal.
  There are one or two points which arouse strong feelings still, but, nevertheless, I congratulate the Secretary of State on the Bill and on the Report which goes with it. In my opinion, it will do a great deal for the Colonial Service and it will undoubtedly strengthen the Commonwealth, which we all desire to do.
  6.40 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: I, of course, add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the Bill, but, having said that, I wish to make my observations on the subject of pensioners. I noticed with great interest that when my right hon. Friend was introducing the Bill he went out of his way to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  93
  He spoke of the wonderful reception he had had when he went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to his predecessor to negotiate the terms of this new Bill. I try to notice all these things. I think it is very important that we should. What my right hon. Friend did not say, however, was whether, when he went to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he put forward to him the case for the pensioners. This is what I want to know from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, unless, of course, he gives us—as I hope he will—a wholehearted pledge that when the Bill reaches Committee we shall find that the pensioners are covered.
  To a certain extent, of course, it is one of the problems of democratic government, but in this House it is extremely difficult to get at the person who has responsibility. When we ask Questions about Colonial Service pensioners, as we do from time to time, the Questions have to be addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It may well be that he has put up an eloquent and magnificent case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that the blame lies with the Chancellor, but the House of Commons does not know this. The freely elected representatives of the people are thus denied the information on which they can press the case they wish to argue and they are prohibited from getting at the Minister who may have the responsibility.
  I want to know, since the Secretary of State so generously paid his tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessor, whether he did, in fact, include the pensioners in the list. I am sure that the pensioners would be at the bottom of the list of priorities. Long experience in arguing on behalf of people living on small fixed incomes has made me realise only too well that they are always at the bottom, even if they get on the list at all. Did the Secretary of State for the Colonies put them on the list at all? If he did, was he refused? If he was, those who are interested in this matter will know on whom to turn their thunder, because, of course, the Budget is soon to come.
  I well remember the occasion when several of us, led most ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney), went on a deputation to
  94
  discuss the problem of these particular pensioners. It seemed to me then that the responsible Ministers really had not the facts before them. That is not to say that the facts were not available in the Colonial Office or in the Commonwealth Relations Office. Of course, we have to attack over the whole field. I believe that the future unity and happiness of the Commonwealth depends to a very large extent on the colonial territories as well. We have been to see all the people concerned, and, as I say, my impression has been that the matter has never been examined at the top level at all. The Ministers concerned were, of course, extremely charming. They always said that we had a very good case and they would look into it. The fact remains, nevertheless, that, in spite of all the Questions which have been asked over recent months and years, no proper examination on the basis of justice has ever been undertaken.
  This brings me to a point which, although it may be a little unfair, should be made because we so rarely have an opportunity of putting such a case as this. When Members of Parliament ask Questions, do the Ministers who reply have personal knowledge of the subject? When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, for instance, answers Questions, or when he winds up a debate such as this, has he himself seen all the papers and documents setting out all the arguments, or does he just take a brief? Has he done any arguing? I know that he has not been at the Colonial Office very long, but has he ever bothered about these people?
  Anyone who has a sufficient number of voices in this country, whether in the House or outside, to speak for him can gain a hearing, but if a person who has served the country well is old, is retired, or has not powerful trade unions or powerful business interests to speak for him, nobody from the Prime Minister downwards cares at all. I think that the Prime Minister is vulnerable because he certainly gave pledges, as did the Home Secretary in his capacity as chairman of the party to which I belong, that those who are retired will benefit from the prosperity which this country at present enjoys. If those promises and pledges mean anything—and they have been repeated by every single Conservative Member of Parliament and by

  95
  every Conservative candidate in the country—how is it that the people for whom I am now speaking are now included under the Bill?
  The next thing we shall be told will be that there is no time in the legislative programme. As it will be a matter involving money, we shall not be able to do anything about it by a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule. Therefore, we must press for an assurance tonight. I see that my hon. Friend is going to consult the Official Box. Perhaps he is going to send for the Secretary of State. I see he is there, too. Good for him. I should like to put the question to my right hon. Friend himself. Perhaps he will give me an answer now and say whether he did, in fact, argue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter.
  We all agree that we must build up the morale of those who have gone to work in very difficult circumstances in the Colonial Service, but, human nature being what it is, people pay attention to what has happened in the past. There are grandfathers and fathers and sons who are concerned to watch how Governments look after those who have served their country well. However proud we may be—and I am sure we are proud—of the independence which the new nations are gaining, we know that they would not have been able to gain their independence if they had not been well served by the officers of the Colonial Service who went there in the past. Reasonable people in the territories themselves would not disagree with that. However much the new emerging territories may wish to assert their views against the Colonial Office, the individuals who served them over the years are regarded as their friends and the friends of the people who will continue to live there and help to build up their countries in the future.
  Now is our opportunity. Otherwise. we shall be told that Ministers have the greatest possible sympathy with these pensioners, but, of course, there will be no room in the legislative programme for them. Moreover, we have not, as far as I can remember, had an opportunity since the last General Election of discussing a Bill which does, in fact, give an opportunity to redeem the pledges made by my party on behalf of those
  96
  who are retired. I say again that the opportunity is now here.
  I suspect that when the Under-Secretary replies we shall be told that something will be done. I can think of no other way of protecting the interests of those who have served the Colonial Service well in the past than by speaking for them in this House. I know that it is always said that one can vote against the Bill, but that would destroy a Bill which has been acclaimed on all sides. Therefore, that is not a course which can be followed. I can think of many things which could be done, but it is very difficult to find the right Parliamentary opportunity to do them. I could not be better pleased than to find myself on the back benches here tonight with all the Ministers concerned sitting on the Front Bench. I shall wait with the greatest possible interest to see what answer they give.
  I am reaching the point of judging my Government on whether they are interested in those who have served them in the past and on whether they propose to keep their pledges. My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree put forward a forcible and well-argued case. I feel that the future of our party depends on how we treat those who have served our interests well. Woe betide any Minister who does not remember the pledges which have been given and does not say that they will be honoured.
  6.52 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemoutdh (Dame Irene Ward), with her usual vigour, has put forward a case which is peripheral to the Bill. She has, however, put it forward with great tactical skill. She has chosen her moment well. In the course of my remarks, I hope to turn to the points which she and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) and others have raised.
  I am sure that every hon. Member will welcome the general tone of the debate which, I may say as a newcomer to the Colonial Office, although I was there many years ago, has been extraordinarily well informed and very much to the point. Inevitably this is an enabling Bill, but it is one which raises questions of considerable complexity in

  97
  each territory. I think that it would be advisable if I were to start by saying something about the territorial limitations of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark), who has bad a distinguished service in the Overseas Civil Service, and the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehause) asked whether the Bill would be applied to the Services in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. As hon. Members will have noticed, there is reference in the Command Paper to the fact that these territories would be temporarily omitted. We have looked at this matter again. As hon. Gentlemen know, there was mention in the Monckton Report of the fact that all three Services of the Federation should be looked at together, and in 1959 there was an agreement that eventually this should be the position. We have. however, come to the conclusion that the review should start now and that this would not be inconsistent with the recommendations of the Monckton Report or of the agreement. We therefore expect shortly to begin discussions with the Governments of these territories on the terms of the agreement necessary to apply the scheme having regard to local circumstances. Of course, as one of my hon. Friends said, the scheme does not apply to certain areas, such as Hong Kong and other places where there are special circumstances.
  To continue with the point about the importance of the territorial aspect, we have spoken a great deal today about East and West Africa, but the impact of the scheme will be very great outside these areas. This is one of the great advantages. The benefits of the scheme can, I suggest, be divided into two parts. One will help the overseas Governments with the heavy but just burden of compensation, and the other will make possible the improvement of the conditions of service. The second part can apply to all territories which wish to take advantage of it and still require expatriates in their public service apart from those listed in paragraph 10. Thus, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland will be included.
  This will be a very great benefit to smaller territories which may not be independent for many years and which will never be, to use that odious word, viable in the economic sense. It will make a
  98
  tremendous difference to places like the Seychelles, the Solomon Islands and British Honduras to be able to obtain a forestry expert, as the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said, because under the scheme we will be able to ensure that the rate which will attract the expatriate officer for the job will be paid. This will apply not only to the smaller territories but to territories like Sierra Leone and Singapore. This may be quite an advantage in these territories.
  I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North and the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East and other of my hon. Friends referred to the Flemming Report. I believe that the Report, in conjunction with the Bill for which my right hon. Friend has received high praise from all hon. Members, will do a great deal to allay the fears which rightly have been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott), who has just returned from Kenya, and the hon. Member for Wednesbury. The combination of these two documents will be a great steadying influence in the East African Territories. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington about the problems which await our civil servants in these territories. On the other hand, I could not disagree more with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Wednesbury. Surely, at this stage, what we have to do is to reinforce the administration wherever we can throughout the Colonial Empire or the emergent territories. Wherever one looks, the growing problem, almost the greatest problem, is the burden which the modern State puts on the emergent territory.
  Let us take some quite simple statistics. Recent reports show that between 1954 and 1960 in a country like Uganda, which has been a peaceable country, the number of people in the public service has gone up from 16,000 to 22,000. To take another East African example, in Zanzibar the number rose from 4,000 to 4,700 in six years or so. This is the great problem and this is where the hon. Member. despite his knowledge of Africa, is wrong. What we have to ensure is that the injection of overseas skill remains and is encouraged so that these people who are emerging towards self-Government acquire the requisite skills against the

  99
  day when they will govern their own countries. I cannot see a more valuable use of money at this stage than to put f16 million or so a year into the colonies to make certain that their administrations remain efficient and are powerful.
  The Flemming Report sets a standard which is of great value to all Colonial Governments throughout the world. It sets a standard which is not immediately applicable everywhere, because there must be variation between the enormous continental spaces of Africa and remoter areas like the Solomons or the Pacific territories. It lays down, however, the principle that there shall be paid the rate for the job. Vital economic factors will be taken into consideration, not only concerning the cost of living, so that there shall be comparable salaries to those which can be earned in this country and which will attract the efficient man from overseas. The Report is an important document, and I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend has accepted its main principles as far as they apply to action which can be carried out by this country.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the question of contract officers. My neighbour from Staffordshire, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), referred in his excellent speech to the encouragement which should be given to younger people, especially to those with professional qualifications between the ages of 30 and 40, to accept a contract in one of the overseas emergent or Colonial Territories. I wholeheartedly support what the hon. Member said.
  Here again, the Flemming Report has dealt with the question of contract officers. Hon. Members who know Africa will, I am sure, agree that over the years, the number of contract officers is bound to go up while the number of pensionable officers is likely to go down. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East asked how we made our calculation. It is made partly on the basis of the former figure increasing and the other going down. Obviously, here again, we shall give great study to the question of contract. Indeed, various propositions put forward in the Flemming Report are receiving our attention.
  A question was raised reflecting feeling in Tanganyika concerning the use of the
  100
  instalment system of compensation and the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, raised the question of the differential between a man who is required to leave and somebody who leaves of his own free will. All these are matters for negotiation between this Government and the local government in consultation with the staff association.
  There are clearly two principles which should be observed in the negotiations. One is to ensure that the compensation is such as not to induce people to desert the service. The other is to see that it is fair to all parties. The Tanganyika negotiations will, I hope, be begun at Dar es Salaam in February this year. These are complex points, but as the evening is drawing on I do not think I need go further into the question of the actual compensation.
  Mr. Marquand: Are these negotiations to be between three parties together discussing the matter, or are the two Governments to negotiate and then to go to the staff association with a fait accompli?
  Mr. Fraser: Strictly, it will be negotiation between the two Governments, but it is naturally in the interests of both Governments to keep the staff association informed. Obviously, the people negotiating will have consultations with the staff association. That will be well worked out.
  Various other points have been raised in this interesting debate. One to which I should like to refer especially is the question raised by the right' hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) concerning the permanent appointment of persons coming from overseas to the Civil Service in this country. This is an extremely complicated matter, and I will not attempt to anticipate my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in his dealings with it. I can, however, give to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East and to his right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, as well as to my hon. Friends who touched on the point, the assurance that it will have my most serious study. I hope that in Committee on the Bill, we will be able to make the point clear. This is without commitment concerning the case raised by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley but is on the question of principle.

  101
  Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) asked whether a person who had finished his term in one territory could get a contract job in another territory without loss of compensation. I think it is quite clear that he could. A man who has finished his career and has been compensated for loss of office in, for example, Tanganyika could then get a job on a contract in, say, the Solomons or elsewhere under Her Majesty's Government. He would be under the same Government here, so to speak, but working in a different local office. I can give my hon. Friend reassurance on the point.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Perhaps I did not nut it clearly. The case I had in mind was an officer from the Overseas Colonial Service who had already retired and received his compensation for a disrupted career. Under the terms of the Bill, is he eligible to go into Service again in one of the new territories without paying back the compensation which he has already received?
  Mr. Fraser: I would have said so. if he did it under contract with a gratuity instead of pensionable terms, he would be eligible. I thought that my hon. Friend raised the question in terms of a contract, in which case it would be all right. I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. Taken together, the Flemming Report, which in general principle the House is clearly prepared to accept, and the Bill will go a long way to reassure and to give confidence to our overseas officers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth and other hon. Members raised the question of the responsibility for pensions on retirement. We must abide by the principle which has always existed that the pensions are the responsibility of the overseas Government concerned. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that there has been a good response to the approach made after the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, and that a large number of territories have increased their pensions. I am happy to say that within the last few minutes I have been informed that the Nigerian pensions system has been improved.
  102
  There have been many other points raised—
  Mr. Tilney: What happens when an independent territory, possibly Ghana or one of the other territories, just does not do this? Are we to abandon our ex-servants?
  Mr. Fraser: No. We obviously would not abandon them, but that case has not arisen.
  Mr. Tilney: It has.
  Dame Irene Ward: Can my hon. Friend say what would happen? What would we do? If I am right, did not he just make the half pledge that we would not abandon them? Let us have it in black and white in HANSARD. What would we do?
  Mr. Fraser: I am not prepared to answer hypothetical questions however charmingly put by the hon. Lady. I must stick to the principle. The principle must remain.
  Dame Irene Ward: My hon. Friend did say we would not abandon them. That is not hypothetical.
  Mr. Fraser: I said we would not abandon them, but the principle still remains that the responsibility for their pensions must be to the overseas Government. If the overseas Government fail in the discharge of their responsibility a new situation arises, which we should have to consider.
  Mr. Tilney: How long would they be allowed to fail?
  Mr. Fraser: That is again a hypothetical question. I am not prepared to answer it at this point.
  Dame Irene Ward: Rotten.
  Mr. Fraser: Thank you, thank you very much.
  There is only one other point I should like to touch on before I conclude, and that is the situation of the East African High Commission. Here the situation is rather complicated. What it really means is that it is not necessarily when the first of the countries of East Africa becomes independent, that the time would come to negotiate a compensation scheme for the members of the High Commission. We have to review the whole of East Africa as a totality, and I think the tendency

  103
  will be for us to decide that the time when the members of the East African High Commission will be free to opt for compensation terms will be when the Commission itself is subject to constitutional change. That is to express simply a very complicated series of events.
  I welcome the way the House has received this Bill. I thank hon. Gentlemen and my hon. Friends for their co-operation and I with great pleasure recommend it to the further support of the House.
  7.12 p.m.
  Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: I am sorry to be tiresome to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House and rather particularly, on personal grounds, to the Under-Secretary of State who has just wound up for the Colonial Office. but really I think the importance of the matter which he dismissed in one sentence, until he was dragged back to utter one or two more sentences, is such that it would not be decent were something more not to be said. I do not flatter myself that I am going to add to the strength of the case which has been put. but I am at least adding one to the number—I shall be very grateful if the Colonial Secretary will listen to me and allow the Under-Secretary of State to listen to me—of those who have made plain that they are on this matter extremely dissatisfied.
  There are perhaps only two political crimes which are also blunders and always punished as such. Lots of crimes can be got away with and a good many blunders, but there are two political crimes which also constitute blunders which one cannot get away with. One is not providing, and not even looking as if one wanted to provide, protection for those who properly look to one for it; and another is not maintaining the currency.
  Now the question which has been put to the Treasury Bench is, do they not really think that more ought to be done than has yet been promised or indicated for those former members of the Colonial Services who are not now in a position to persuade themselves that the remuneration they are receiving in retirement is what they have a right to expect?
  104
  We have had this matter up before the House over and over again. It is one of the important arguments against inflation, which is itself necessarily dishonesty, and a dishonesty we never cease paying for. We have had it over and over again—about teachers, about home civil servants, about Members of Parliament—that there ought to be surely some system of priority about the order, the numerical order, in which we do our best to put things right for people who have been ruined by inflation. Surely at the top of that queue should go those people who demonstrably and undeniably have nothing to do with the cheat which we are now trying to buy our way out of. Members of Parliament, therefore, should always come last. I think that probably home civil servants should come next to last, and in an honest world—we all know it is not possible in this world—I think that probably trades unions should came next to last after that.
  But on these men—men who went abroad to earn their livings with very little hope of reward except the hope of a certain kind of retirement—no blame can be put for the inflation from which we are all suffering, at least all those of us who are not very clever in the property market.
  It is no way out of this to say, as the Under-Secretary of State was put up to repeat, "These things"—that is to say, superannuation for overseas servants" have always been the responsibility of the Government concerned." Who were the Government concerned responsible to? The Government concerned were responsible to the Secretary of State and thus to this House. But by the act of the Government, I am not going now to argue whether wisely or unwisely, these Governments have no longer any such responsibility.
  I say with the deepest conviction that we have heard a good deal of hypocrisy about this over and over again, about our anxiety to help under-developed areas. I am alone in this House apparently in always being extremely dubious whether it is right for Her Majesty's Government to tax Her Majesty's British subjects in order to do that, in order that Her Majesty's Government then may do good to somebody else and especially somebody else not one of Her Majesty's subjects. I consider it is dubious in

  105
  morals, I think it is very dubious in economics, I think it is extremely dubious in economics, whether that is the best way of helping them. But that is not now to be discussed.
  But it is Her Majesty's Government's business to see that territories overseas which require and get service from Her Majesty's British subjects in a technical or non-technical sense get the best service and the right sort of servant, and they have to go on doing it while they abdicate, whether the abdication is wholly noble generosity or whether it is mainly a tiredness or weakness: there are some foreigners who take the second view.
  It is our business to think about that, and how we can go on doing that: if we demonstrate to the world day after day in this House—we are going to have a Trustee Investments Bill in a day or two, are we not—that we despair of protecting the currency; that we do not much care about protecting persons in territories for which we are responsible, least of all when they are our own first cousins; and also that when our own first cousins find themselves in these sorts of situations, find their incomes ruined by our failure to protect the currency, we then write the thing off in one sentence from the Under-Secretary of State after a short debate: If so the chances of our helping underdeveloped territories with the best services and the best advisers will not be very great.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: Perhaps I might ask for the leave of the House to make a short reply on this most important matter. I made no reference to this question in my opening speech because, frankly, I did not realise that it was within the scope of the Bill on Second Reading.
  Sir K. Pickthorn: I quite agree about that. I was the last, not the first.
  Mr. Macleod: All right. I am just explaining why I did not deal with this matter at the beginning.
  I should like very briefly to make a few points on this. Yesterday I had a long meeting—it lasted one and a half hours—with representatives of those whose case has been urged—the pensioners' associations—and we arranged to meet again in the summer or the
  106
  autumn to review the progress of the 1959 Act. I mention that to show that this is not a matter which is forgotten. On the contrary, as with all matters relating to the Service, whether those concerned are serving now or have served, nothing has a higher priority in the Colonial Office and on my desk than that.
  What we discussed at the meeting yesterday was the follow-up, as it were, of the 1959 Act. It has always been the position that although people may be recruited by the Secretary of State for the Colonies or by the Crown Agents, they are employed by the Governments concerned to Whom they have given their service, and different rates of pay have always been paid, and they have accordingly, because these things obviously have close correlation, had different rates of pension.
  The problem arises that people who have served in the territories come back to this country, and then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) says, if inflation occurs it eats away at the value of their pension, and it is, after all, understandable that overseas countries should take the view that they do not see why they should, in effect, pay for Britain's inflation.
  This is the heart of the problem as I see it and as my hon. Friend has put it, but I do not think the picture is as black as he suggests. It is right, I believe, if we possibly can, to hold to the position that it is the responsibility of the Governments concerned. I can speak effectively at this Box only for the Colonial Office, but my predecessor and myself have tried on the basis of the 1959 Act to bring the territories up to—and some of them have gone beyond—the comparable British standard. Eighteen territories are still shown as in the red, as it were, in the list which was discussed with me yesterday by the representatives of the associations, but there are already passing through the different legislative councils, or in preparation before the legislative councils, or in contemplation by them plans for twelve of those eighteen to bring them up to the United Kingdom standard. When that happens the balance will swing from those who were behind the United Kingdom standard to those who are in front of it.

  107
  It is arguable that this is too optimistic a view. I cannot tell, because I am prophesying about other countries. However, I can tell my hon. Friend and all other hon. Member's who have spoken on the matter that they are wrong if they think for a second that this matter is neglected. It has, and always has had, a very high priority with ma, arid I should be very glad to tell them the details of the success that we have had in following up the 1959 Act. I believe that if we hold to that policy of pressure upon the Governments we shall be able, as far as the Colonial Office is concerned, at least to produce a very satisfactory answer within a comparatively short time as the result of the 1959 Act and the follow-up.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Peel.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  OVERSEAS SERVICE [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That. for the purposes of any Act of this Session to authorise the Secretary of State to contribute to the expenses incurred in connection with the employment of persons in the public services of overseas territories or in respect of compensation paid to persons who are or have been employed in those services, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums falling to be paid to the government of any such territory under any agreement entered into by the Secretary of State for reimbursing that government in respect of expenses incurred by them—

  (a) in connection with the employment in the public services of their territory of persons designated by him, or

  (b) in respect of compensation paid to persons so designated who are or have been employed in those services.—[Mr. H. Fraser.]

  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES (CONFERENCES WITH COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES AND REPUBLIC OF IRELAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.26 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I think that I should start by saying that my right hon. Friend fully recognises the jealousy which the House has always shown in regard to proposals to extend immunities to new categories of individuals coming to this country for representational purposes. The object of the Bill, however, is to ensure that those who come from Commonwealth countries and from the Republic of Ireland do not do so in any less advantageous position than those coming to do precisely the same work in relation to their Governments and to our Government from foreign countries throughout the world.
  The House will know, I am sure, that diplomatic representatives from Commonwealth countries who are appointed to this country have for some time past been accorded the same immunity from suit as is accorded to envoys from foreign States. The purpose of the present Bill, as I have said, is to correct the anomaly by which representatives of Commonwealth Governments, and their staffs, attending conferences in this country do not have immunity while representatives of foreign Governments on similar occasions do.
  The Bill is concerned with representatives of the Governments of the countries listed in Clause 1 (5), and their staffs, attending conferences in this country with representatives of our own Government.
  Under Section 4 of the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, which in this respect was a consolidation of legislation first passed in 1944, representatives of foreign Governments attending conferences with representatives of the United Kingdom Government can, by their inclusion in a list published by the Secretary of State, be accorded diplomatic immunity. Burt there is at present under our law no

  109
  means by which immunity can be conferred on similar occasions upon representatives of Commonwealth Governments. The purpose of the Bill is to provide machinery by which this can be effected.
  The procedure provided for in the Bill is the same as that now in force in the case of conferences with foreign representatives. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has power to publish in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes the names of those representatives and their staffs qualified for immunity under the existing Act and the dates of the beginning and termination of that immunity. We propose in this Bill, in respect of Commonwealth personnel concerned, to follow precisely the same procedure.
  The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland is included in Section 1 (6) of the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act, 1952, which deals with the position of Commonwealth diplomats appointed to this country, and similar treatment is accorded to our High Commissioner in Salisbury and his staff. It is, therefore, I think the House will agree, appropriate that the Federation should be included in this Bill dealing with those coming to the United Kingdom for conference purposes.
  The Republic of Ireland is also covered by this Bill because, under the Republic of Ireland Act, 1949, it is not a foreign country—that is, it is not a foreign country for the purpose of the United Kingdom law—and is, therefore, not covered by Section 4 of the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950. Again, therefore, from the point of view of fairness and equity, we wish to include the Republic of Ireland in this Bill. Clause 2 will allow its extension to other countries which may in the future become members of the Commonwealth.
  The immunities conferred by the Bill are to be precisely the same as those which a diplomatic envoy of a foreign Power and his retinue enjoy at the present time. However, if a member of the staff of a representative from a Commonwealth country is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and is not a citizen of the country repre-
  110
  sented, he will have immunity only in respect of his official acts. He will, in fact, have a limited immunity.
  Her Majesty's Government have asked other Commonwealth Governments and the Government of the Irish Republic whether they are prepared to introduce similar legislation in cases where this does not already exist. In some cases, it already exists; in some the matter is being considered and investigated to see whether local law already covers the problem; in others there are undertakings that, when the legislative programme permits, they will follow the same procedure which we are following, or are asking the House to follow, in this present Bill.
  I am sure that the House would agree that it is important that representatives of Commonwealth Governments who come here to attend conferences with the United Kingdom Government should not be in a less favourable position than representatives of foreign Governments. The forthcoming Prime Ministers' conference is an example of only one kind, though the most important kind, of Commonwealth gatherings which are continuously taking place both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Representatives and staffs attending such conferences are entitled—and I think the House will agree with this—to expect that they should not, by doing so, lay themselves open to legal process which would not otherwise have been possible. The Bill will ensure, too, that, when a conference takes place in this country at which both foreign and Commonwealth Governments are represented, Commonwealth representatives will not be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis their foreign colleagues.
  We have had, and will continue to have, I hope, a very large number of meetings in the United Kingdom with our Commonwealth friends to discuss various matters of common interest to us. I am sure that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom that every facility should be given to ensure that these conferences take place here and that they do so in an atmosphere which ensures their success. From the point of view of fairness, therefore, and in the interests of the United Kingdom, I recommend to the House that the Bill be read a Second time.
  7.34 p.m.
  Sir Frank Soskice: I think that we all must agree that the very limited purpose of the Bill is one which cannot be opposed. At the moment the representatives of foreign countries attending conferences with representatives of the United Kingdom Government in this country are entitled to a common law privilege in relation to their immunity. I understand that the Bill simply extends that immunity to representatives of Commonwealth countries coming to this country for the same purpose. With that limited objective nobody can quarrel. Indeed, if we believe, as I am sure Members on both sides of the House believe, in the immense value for the future of civilisation of our Commonwealth system, and in the reality of independent Commonwealth countries adhering to it by consent and for no other reason, we must commit ourselves readily and without reluctance to what that involves.
  One of the results of the acceptance of that system is that we must regard Commonwealth countries' official representatives—whether diplomats in the full sense or representatives—who come to this country for a limited purpose as being on precisely the same footing and entitled to precisely the same privileges as diplomats and representatives coming from foreign countries. For that reason, I readily assent to the general purpose, limited as it is in scope, of the Bill.
  However, I equally agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we both do and should view with a considerable degree of jealousy the progressive extension in this country of privileges which put certain persons above the law. Perhaps, as hon. Members must recognise, we ourselves in many respects fall in that category, and I am sure that all of us feel a full sense of responsibility when we avail ourselves of the immunity we possess, in respect of matters stated in this House, from the law which affects other persons who make statements outside the House.
  For that reason it would be quite wrong—and the right hon. Gentleman intimated that this is also his approach —simply to regard this Bill, technical though it is in purpose, as the sort of Measure which should go through on the nod without inquiry and examination. It is appropriate to spend a little time looking at precisely what it does.
  112
  The number of persons who are privileged from the application of the ordinary law seems to grow almost every year. The number of Bills I speak upon at this Box which deal with immunities afforded to one category of person or another grows at an alarming pace. I do not know how many Acts there are now on the Statute Book conferring various sorts of immunities. We should, as time goes on, look at that with growing care to see that we are not extending the privilege beyond what is really necessary.
  Following that approach, it would be right to put certain questions to the right hon. Gentleman. If the House gives him leave to speak again I will be grateful to him if he will answer these questions. I would like him to tell the House, and the country, roughly speaking, what the common privilege is which a representative, as distinct from a diplomat, from another country—whether it be a foreign country or, under the Bill, a Commonwealth country—now gets or will enjoy when the Bill is passed. What is the extent of the immunity?
  Everybody will agree that in matters of statements which are made in the course of conferences there should be some protection to enable a representative or diplomat to speak with perfect freedom in the discharge of his duties. We also say, however, that outside the conference room he should, in general, be on the same footing as the ordinary citizen. We view with some degree of doubt whether the privilege should extend very far beyond statements.
  If the right hon. Gentleman makes a closing speech I would like him to say what other immunities—apart from the making of statements and the immunity accorded with regard to statements made —representatives of a foreign country have when attending a conference here together with representatives of the British Government. As he has told us, those immunities now are accorded by the Act of 1950 confirming, in that regard, the common law. That Act uses the same language in respect of foreign Governments as is now used in Clause 1. It confers immunity on representatives coming here to attend conferences with representatives of the United Kingdom Government.
  To be certain of the scope of the Bill, I think that it is necessary to know what

  113
  is meant by a conference in that sense. I do not know of any definition of "conference" in the 1950 Act. It may be that the phrase is well recognised in common law and, if so, I would like the Minister to tell us. What the Bill enables the Minister to do is to draw up a list of persons who, because they are attending conferences, are entitled to the immunity, and in order to know exactly to what persons the list applies we must know exactly what a conference is.
  It may be that "conference" is something which is incapable of a completely precise definition. But is it meant to be a conference which takes place formally in a conference room, or would the immunity extend to casual meetings between a few persons around a luncheon table? That may seem to be a technical matter, but it is of some importance, if we are to give immunity in respect of conferences, that we know in respect of what conferences the privilege will be accorded.
  It may be that other matters will occur to other hon. Members, but those are the two of some importance which occur to me and on which I think that the Minister should enlighten the House. The two questions on which he ought to enlarge are, first, exactly what the immunity is. It would not be enough for him simply to say that it is the same immunity which is now given to representatives of foreign countries, and I am sure that he will not try to give such an incomplete answer. What is the immunity which representatives of foreign countries now have and which representatives of Commonwealth countries will have, when and if the Bill is passed? I would accept an answer in general terms, for I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to constitute himself into a kind of legal dictionary.
  The second question is whether the right hon. Gentleman will tell us where we should look when we want to know what is meant by a conference. Is there a definition in a Statute? If so, I have missed it. Is it a word well recognised in common law, which has been explored by some judicial decision, so that we can see the decision and know approximately what is meant by a conference? Those are the two matters
  114
  which I want to raise and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer.
  I sometimes think that we make too heavy weather over conferring immunities. I am not sure that we do, but we must watch the position carefully. Having said that, I agree to the principle of the Bill and do not cavil at it at all. I support its Second Reading.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: I echo the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and welcome the Bill, which remedies what appears to be an anomalous shortcoming in the existing law. It reminds us that our relations with the nations of the Commonwealth on an official plane are somewhat newer than our relationships with foreign countries.
  I think that there is room for slight apprehension about the number of persons who may be given immunity from time to time. In some respects it is an indefinite number, because it can be changed by the action of the Secretary of State. It would be interesting to know, roughly, how many people on any given date can have immunity in this way. I appreciate that it is impossible to state a permanent number, but it would be interesting to have some idea of the approximate number in any one month of the present year, for example.
  The Bill meets a shortcoming in our law and I think that most hon. Members will feel that it is more than proper that the representatives of Commonwealth countries should be in a position as good as that of representatives of foreign territories. I did not agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He suggested that outside the conference hall representatives should be in exactly the same position as the ordinary citizen.
  Sir F. Soskice: What I meant to do was to raise the question of how far outside the conference hall the privilege should extend.
  Mr. Gower: With some diffidence I suggest that that might be too rigid, because to fulfil their duties properly in the conference ball the representatives will obviously require further privileges beyond those of the mere ordinary citizen. However, with those few remarks I, too, welcome the Bill.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: This is a good Bill and I welcome it, but the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) raised a very important topic. Good as the Bill is, I suggest that it might be improved by a definition Clause. What "immunity" means and what "conference" means and how far the immunity extends are points which could well be defined in a proper definition Clause and I hope that when the Bill goes to Committee the Minister in charge of it will take steps to deal with those matters.
  As I have said, I welcome the Bill in general and, in particular, I welcome the last five words of Clause 1 (5), which apply the benefits of the Bill to the Republic of Ireland as well as to the sovereign and independent realms which constitute the British Commonwealth of Nations. The express inclusion of the Republic of Ireland, although it is not actually a member of the British Commonwealth, is a further recognition of the special place which the Republic of Ireland now occupies in these Islands. The Bill accords with that special place and with the history of these islands and of that republic in our constitutional, political and economic affairs.
  This was well summed up more than 100 years ago by Henry Grattan. when he said:
  "You have the Irish Sea protesting against Union and the Atlantic Ocean protesting against complete separation."
  Those words accord with the inspiration and the spirit of the developing Commonwealth today and it would be anomalous, in those circumstances, if that position were not recognised, as it is recognised, in the Bill.
  As an independent republic, Ireland has attended many conferences of the kind mentioned in Clause 1 (1). I hope, and I am sure that the House hopes, that the Republic of Ireland will be represented at many more conferences. Pars passu and as a result of such conferences, Ireland has played her part with the Commonwealth in various ways. She has given a distinguished chairman to the United Nations—Mr. Frederick Boland. She has sent troops to the Congo and suffered for that. Those things involve conferences of a kind analogous to those
  116
  mentioned in the Bill and it is, therefore, right and proper that for future conferences of that kind the Republic of Ireland should be, as it is, expressly mentioned in the Bill.
  For those reasons, I support the Bill, but I hope that it will be improved in Committee. I give it such blessing as it is within my power to give.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Alport: With the permission of the House, perhaps I may try to answer one or two of the points which have been raised. In reply to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) I think it very appropriate that we should hear a quotation in the House from one graduate of Trinity College, Dublin, from the speech of someone who, I think, was also a graduate of that College.
  I am grateful to the House for the welcome which has been given to the Bill. True, it is not a very exciting Measure, but I think it is recognised as being part of the build-up of the whole diplomatic structure which has been created over the last few years within the Commonwealth, and which is so important today.
  For reasons which, I think, would be precisely the same as in the drafting of the 1950 Act, it has not been possible to define precisely the conferences which will be covered by the publication of lists under the provisions of the Bill. As I said, it is intended that the meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers will be covered. Also, conferences at which Ministers represent their Governments, those held for the purpose of concluding agreements between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of another Common wealth country, will also normally be covered.
  Under the provisions of the Bill only people attending a conference for the purpose of representing their Government may be granted the immunity, and, therefore, discussions between civil servants wild not normally be covered. We hope that the House will agree that in this case it is right to give discretion to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in the same way as discretion was given to the Foreign Secretary in relation to foreign representatives coming to conferences here.

  117
  Although I cannot give the details asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), I think that the House may be interested to know that during the last ten years on only six occasions have lists been published under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950. Therefore, the use of this Act has been limited, although I must say. frankly, that because there are many more Commonwealth conferences, we anticipate that the use of this legislation will be more extensive than the use of that dealing with foreign representatives in the United Kingdom. But it is not intended that it should be abused. Indeed, I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and the House that the sense of jealousy with which the House regards these things will be carefully borne in mind by my right hon. Friend, and no doubt by his successors, in the implementation of this Measure.
  I was asked what immunities are covered by the Bill. There is the inviolability of persons and official premises and residences; the inviolability of archives; the exemption from liabilities under social security legislation and for personal service, which, of course, includes jury service and included National Service, which no longer applies.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Would that include torts and actions for negligence, and running-down cases, and that kind of thing?
  Mr. Alport: I am neither a legal dictionary, nor a legal expert, but I understand that it would give that immunity; unless, I think I am right in saying, immunity is waived at the discretion of the High Commissioner or the head of the Mission. I see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport is shaking his head, so I will not venture too far on that. If the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North wishes for further information, I shall be only too glad to get it for him, and if I am wrong on this subject, to correct the matter. It includes exemption from taxation. The House will recognise that this is hardly applicable to the people with whom we are concerned under this Bill, because they will be here for such a short period of time that they are unlikely to benefit very much.
  Mr. Gower: Does that include exemption from Customs on entry and departure?
  Mr. Alport: There is also exemption from Customs duty and from the inspection of their personal baggage when coming into the United Kingdom.
  It is true that this list sounds extensive, but the fact is that in a great many cases these immunities will not have very great practical effect on the vast majority of those people coming into the United Kingdom on this form of representational employment. In any case, these immunities are already provided for those coming from foreign countries, and I think that the House will recognise the importance of ensuring that those coming from the Commonwealth shall not be at any disadvantage vis-à-vis their opposite numbers when they come to the United Kingdom to transact business on behalf of their Government for the benefit of their country and ours and the Commonwealth as a whole.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Peel.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  NURSES (AMENDMENT) [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 amend the law relating to nurses for the sick. it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section twenty-six of the Nurses Act, 1957, which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session authorising the General Nursing Council for England and Wales to make payments to members of any committee of that Council who, for the purpose of enabling them to perform their duties, have suffered loss of earnings or incurred additional expenses.—[Miss Pitt.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  TRANSIT OF ANIMALS (WATER SUPPLIES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: This debate stems from a letter which I received on 1st November from a gentleman in Norfolk who wrote:
  " The enclosed Press report of the stampeding last week of 100 cattle near Newark Railway Station, attributed by the R.S.P.C.A. to have been brought about as a result of thirst, has caused concern to many."
  The newspaper report to which the Gentleman referred was in the Daily Express of Saturday, 29th October. It is headed:
  " Stampeding cattle were thirst mad—says R.S.P.C.A."
  The Daily Express staff reporter wrote:
  " Thirst started the stampede of 100 black Aberdeen-Angus cattle near Newark railway station, Nottinghamshire, it was stated last night. Four animals were drowned as they ran into the flood-swollen River Trent. For nearly five hours drovers and police with lassos and sticks rounded up the rest of the herd. The only watering trough at the station, from where the cattle were being driven to the market, was removed a year ago despite protests, says a report by the R.S.P.C.A. Had there been a trough there would have been no stampede. The society says the trough should be replaced, more drovers be employed, and cattle should not be driven along an unfamiliar road at dusk."
  This prompted me to put a Question to my hon. Friend on 14th November, which was reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day under the heading "Transit of Animals (Water Supplies)". I asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food:

  (1) what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that animals in transit on British Railways are provided with water in accordance with the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, and Transit of Animals Orders;

  (2) if his attention had been drawn to the circumstances in which 100 cattle stampeded, because of thirst, when being driven from Newark Station to the market on Friday, 28th October; and if he will take immediate steps to satisfy himself that water is available for farm animals at every railway station at which they are habitually loaded or unloaded."

  My hon. Friend replied:
  " Railway authorities are required to provide water at all stations habitually used for loading and unloading animals, and I understand
  120
  that water was available at Newark Station on the occasion to which my hon. Friend refers.
  It is of the greatest importance for the health and comfort of animals that water should be offered and we are telling our veterinary officers to keep a closer watch on this. Under the Diseases of Animals Act this is the responsibility of the consignor and of the person in charge of the animals."
  I then asked my hon. Friend if he was—
  " aware that in fact the troughs have been removed from this station, and that the only watering facilities available were two shallow narrow buckets? "
  This report came from the R.S.P.C.A. I went on to say:
  " These cattle were loaded on to the train at 1 p.m. on the 24th and off-loaded at 5 p.m. on the 25th. They were without water for at least 28 hours. Does my hon. Friend realise that the watering conditions at Newark were just not available to ensure that these animals could be watered in a reasonable time if it had been so desired? "
  My hon. Friend replied:
  " I know that the animals had been on the train for a long time, but the information which my hon. Friend has given does not exactly accord with the information that I have been given. It is, of course, intolerable to deny animals water in a way that amounts to cruelty. but local authorities are responsible for the enforcement of these regulations and I understand that investigations are taking place in this case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 4, 51
  I was not completely satisfied with this, but I had already written a letter to Sir Brian Robertson, Chairman of the Transport Commission, on 1st November, the day on which I first put down the Question to my hon. Friend. On 25th November, I received from Sir Brian a letter which showed that he had very kindly carried out a close investigation of this matter. In his letter to me, Sir Brian Robertson wrote:
  " The General Manager of the Eastern Region tells me that 213 calves …"
  I believe that is an error and that they were in fact store cattle—
  " were loaded on to ten wagons at Newcastle-ton, Roxburghshire, between I p.m. and 2.30 p.m. on 24th October, 1960. The Goods Agent at Newark learned that these animals were expected to arrive at Newark (Northgate) Station at 12.30 p.m. on 25th and they would be in position for unloading at Newark (Castle) Station at 2.0 p.m. In fact, the wagons were in position for unloading at 1.45 p.m., By this time these beasts had been in our charge for about 23 to 25 hours. The regulations stipulate that cattle in transit must be watered at intervals of not more than 24 hours, or 27 hours where the journey can be

  121
  completed within that time. You will see therefore that British Railways were not required to water these stock before they arrived at Newark.
  The consignee, Mr. Murphy, did not apparently arrive until 3.0 p.m., when he started to unload the first five wagons."
  Five only.
  "He accepted delivery of all ten wagons and gave a clear signature for the consignment. Mr. Murphy enquired about facilities for watering the cattle and was shown the portable troughs provided. I notice that in your supplementary question last week you referred to troughs which had been removed from Newark Station. The point is the fixed troughs were removed because traffic at the station includes attested cattle which, of course, may not use the same troughs non-attested beasts…"
  This is at variance with the information I received, but I am quite willing to accept it.
  " In their place, therefore, four portable troughs were provided; these can be cleaned out and disinfected when necessary. Mr. Murphy did not however make use of these troughs, apparently because he was pressed for time, and at about 5.0 o'clock he drove away the 105 cattle he had unloaded to the cattle market, a distance of about 100 yards."
  The cattle had then been without water for a minimum of 28 hours.
  " He was allowed to leave the remaining five wagon loads of cattle over-night at his sole risk and expense. It is important to note that at this juncture the Goods Agent drew Mr. Murphy's attention to the fact that the R.S.P.C.A. might find cause for criticism in this arrangement, but Mr. Murphy accepted the responsibility for feeding and watering. The cattle left over-night were driven away the following morning without incident; the 'stampede' mentioned in the Press referred to the beasts which had been driven off on the afternoon of 25th October; this incident occurred after they had left our premises.
  When the Divisional Veterinary Surgeon of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. called on the Newark Goods Agent on 2nd November and told him that the Minister required full details about what had happened, he was supplied with all the relevant information in regard to the transit and delivery of the cattle. Two days later the Vetinerary Surgeon called again. The mains water supply to the cattle dock at Newark (Castle) Station was demonstrated to him, and the Doncaster Traffic Manager, who showed him round, gave a full explanation of the way in which the railway staff had correctly carried out their duties."
  I want to make the point that Sir Brian has stated that the British Railways employees correctly carried out their duties. I find no quarrel whatever with that. The letter concluded:
  122
  "The General Manager has carefully reviewed the matter, and he is satisfied that the staff at Newark were willing and able to supply water for these cattle on arrivel. It seems, therefore, that any criticism in regard to the way in which the beasts were dealt must be levelled against the consignee."
  It is perfectly clear that some at least of these animals received no water between 1 p.m. on 24th and 5 p.m. on 24th and at 5 p.m. on the 25th. Even if the troughs which were provided at the loading point had been used it is quite likely that they were without water for some considerable time before they arrived. It is possible that that is the case. I would go no further than that.
  When we are dealing with animals in circumstances such as this when they are driven into unfamiliar surroundings, into pens at railway stations with all the noise there and forced into narrow cattle trucks with all the inconvenience and unnatural circumstances of travel, a high state of anxiety is created. I think we all know that, whether it be human or any other animals, those conditions always promote thirst, very considerable thirst.
  Only 105 of the 235 cattle were unloaded on the 25th. They were given no water because of the circumstances which I have mentioned. They were driven away at 5 p.m., and Mr. Murphy, the cattle dealer concerned, gave the railway authorities a clear signature and took responsibility for feeding and watering those animals.
  It is almost always dark at 5 p.m. at that time in October, and it is very seldom light before about 8 a.m., but in any case I think we can accept that those cattle would not have been fed or watered between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m., when the cattle which had stampeded were being rounded up by Mr. Murphy, his stockman, the police and others. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me whether those cattle were fed and watered before they were removed from that station the next morning, whether they were given an opportunity of taking water before they were driven out and, if possible, at what time those 130 animals were driven away from the station the next morning. If, indeed, they were loft until 8 a.m., there was a period of at least 43 hours in which those cattle were neither fed nor watered. Surely—and I put it no higher than this—I have

  123
  established a prima facie case. I should like to know whether my hon. Friend has been able to ascertain the exact circumstances of those cattle which remained in the trucks overnight.
  The conditions about the transit of animals is clearly laid down in Statutory Rules and Orders, 1927, No. 289; namely, the Transit of Animals Order of 1927. One section is headed,
  "Watering of Cattle and Swine during Transit "
  In paragraph 18, we read that they shall be watered within 24 hours or, if the journey can be completed, within 27 hours. It adds, dealing with water supplies at railway stations, that
  " At every railway station at which animals are habitually loaded, unloaded or detained during transit, the railway company or companies concerned shall make a provision of water to the satisfaction of the Minister…"
  I remind my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend that they are responsible. The Order lays it down that this provision of water shall be made
  " for the animals carried, or about to be or having been carried, on the railway, and such provision of water shall be easily accessible to the animals so carried ".
  It then lists the offences and makes it clear that,
  " If anything is done or omitted to be done in contravention of any of the provisions of Part 11 of this Order, the owner of the animal or his agent—the railway company carrying the animals or owning or working the railway on which they are carried and also in the case of overcrowding… shall be deemed "
  to have committed an offence.
  In 1950 we had the Diseases of Animals Act. Section 22 is headed "Provision of water and food at railway stations". It reads:

  " (1) The British Transport Commission and every railway company shall make a provision, to the satisfaction of the Minister, of water and food, or either of them, at such railway stations as the Minister, by general or specific description, directs, for animals carried, or about to be or having been carried, on the railway of the Commission or company.

  (2) The water and food so provided, or either of them, shall be supplied to any such animal by the Commission or company carrying it, on the request of the consignor or of any person in charge thereof.

  (3) As regards water, if, in the case of any animal, such a request is not made, so that the animal remains without a supply of water for twenty-four consecutive hours, the consignor and the person in charge of the animal shall
  124
  each be guilty of an offence against this Act; and it shall lie on the person charged to prove such a request and the time within which the animal had a supply of water."

  The Act also gives the British Transport Commission power to charge the consignor for any services which provide food or water to an animal.
  In his letter Sir Brian Robertson stated that one of the reasons that there was no permanent trough at Newark was that it was not permitted to allow attested cattle to drink from troughs from which non-attested cattle had been drinking. But that no longer applies. That difficulty has been removed in view of the clear order to the effect that there are now none other than fully attested herds in this country. If there were any difficulty for the British Transport Commission or anyone else on that score previously, it has now been removed, and it should be seen that proper and permanent troughs are made available at all unloading and off-loading cattle points.
  On 19th January, I was very glad to receive a latter from the R.S.P.C.A., whom I naturally had asked to pursue their inquiries. It reads:
  "As I mentioned, we have only recently heard that two large water troughs have been installed at Newark Railway Station, and in reporting this our inspector states 'Cattle etc. arriving at this station should never again be kept short of water '. These permanent cattle troughs are, I understand, approximately six feet long by one foot wide and one foot deep".
  I think that we can all rejoice in the action obviously taken by the British Transport Commission at Newark, and I sincerely hope that similar action will be taken at every other station which is habitually used for loading or offloading cattle.
  I want to make it perfectly clear that I have no desire to blame anybody—neither the British Transport Commission's employees nor even the unfortunate and misguided Mr. Murphy, who does not seem to have carried out his duties as he should—for what has happened in the past, for nothing can rectify:the position of these poor, unfortunate cattle. But I ask that this shall not be allowed to happen again. I hope that this occurrence will prove an example of what can happen, I believe largely through ignorance, and that we shall be able to do something about it.
  I thought that one of the right steps to take was to write to the British

  125
  Veterinary Association who, after all, know more about the care of animals than do most people and to ask them for their views about the regulations as they now are and whether they have any proposals. They were very kind and looked into the matter, and they wrote to me on 19th January in a letter which reads:
  " Following your conversation with Mr. Anderson "
  —incidentally, he is the secretary—
  " the Farm Livestock Committee of this Association discussed the regulations governing the transport of animals by rail. These regulations are set out in the Transit of Animals Order of 1927 and further conditions are imposed by the veterinary staff of the British Transport Commission."
  It is an important point to establish that there is a fully qualified veterinary staff associated with and working for the British Transport Commission. Undoubtedly they will be watching this matter very much more closely in future. The letter, referring to this committee of the British Veterinary Association, continues:
  "The members of the committee are of the opinion that the regulations provide adequate safeguards in relation to feeding, watering and the number of animals conveyed in each wagon and that the veterinary surgeons employed by the British Transport Commission are fully alive to the necessity for ensuring that animals are carried speedily and humanely as possible. However, we would stress the need for ensuring that animals are allowed access to water immediately before loading and that all employees of the Commission are aware of the provisions of the Order and of the necessity for implementing them."
  I have one or two suggestions to make. I suggest that at any stations through which large numbers of cattle pass the members of the veterinary profession who are associated with the British Transport Commission should ensure that at least two men at those stations have had some instruction in dealing with animals that may pass through. It is unnecessary for me to stress to any greater degree the necessity—particularly now that there is no difficulty regarding non-attested herds—of ensuring that adequate permanent troughs are available.
  I say, further, that I cannot understand why there should be any great difficulty in producing permanent troughs that can be drained and disinfected from time to time. That seems a simple precaution
  126
  that, even with permanent troughs, should not be beyond the ingenuity of man. It seems to me one of the vital points that could be dealt with.
  When a contract for the conveyance of farm animals by rail is made, the consignor and consignee should be provided with a summary of his responsibilities to those animals under Acts of Parliament so that he should be left in no doubt whatsoever and, if there is any contravention of an Act, there will be no excuse. I hope local authorities, the police and others will make examples of such people.
  In this enlightened age—and time has passed since the original Order in 1927—has my hon. Friend or his officials ever thought of looking into this whole question of the transit of animals? I feel it is important that animals should not in any circumstances be left travelling on railways, shunted into sidings, or penned in cattle trucks for longer than is absolutely necessary. I hope the British Transport Commission will do all it can to ensure that any goods trains to which cattle trucks are attached are sent to their destinations as quickly as possible. I hope that farming newspapers and others who are interested in informing the farm industry and keeping them informed will take note of the responsibilities of farmers and cattle dealers under Acts of Parliament. I hope that they will do all they possibly can to ensure that they are made aware of them so that we may at least retain our name for the humane and proper treatment of our animals.
  8.24 p.m.
  Mr. George Thomas: Like the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), I have received some correspondence about the newspaper articles to which he has referred. I wish to express to the hon. Gentleman my deep gratitude—and, I believe, the gratitude of animal lovers throughout the country—for the way in which he dealt with this case tonight.
  One of the most deeply-seated characteristics of the British people is a love of animals. Apart from cruelty to children. nothing arouses the wrath of the public more than cruelty to animals. The correspondence received by right hon. and hon. Members is an indication of the depth of feeling which there is whenever illustrations of cruelty, caused

  127
  either by thoughtlessness or deliberate cruelty, are brought to public attention.
  The hon. Member for Gillingham has already given the full details of this case, and, like him, I do not wish to apportion blame. However, I believe there should be a special injunction for people responsible for moving animals in any part of the country, not only on the railways but on the roads as well, to remember how easy it is, by inadvertence, to cause fear and, therefore, cruelty, to animals. The mere fact of travelling under unusual conditions is enough to strike fear into the animals. Special consideration should be given by the Department as well as by those organisations concerned with the well-being of animals in the country to devise ways and means of lessening fear. Could there be a permanent water supply with the animals? It seems to me possible that they could have a water supply on the journey. I do not know the difficulties, but it may be that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is himself very well versed in the care of animals, will have some observations to make.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): British Railways sometimes seem to find it difficult enough to have drinking water on passenger trains.
  Mr. Thomas: I am willing to leave two-legged animals for the time being.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that British Railways need prodding from time to time, and on this question I believe they are a little too conservative, with a small "c". They have been accustomed to things going on in one way. Even good people can take risks they should not take and can be thoughtless about animals, much as in this case where animals were left overnight and where everybody thought it was someone else's job to see to them.
  The letter of the law protects some people who can say, "It was not our duty to see to them; they had been signed off our hands". I earnestly hope that the fact that the hon. Member for Gillingham has raised this matter in the House on the Adjournment will have given a warning to the farming community and to people in the transport industry who are responsible for moving
  128
  animals that public opinion will not tolerate any indication of cruelty caused by thoughtlessness or indifference.
  8.28 p.m.
  Mr. R. W. Elliott: I join with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) on having raised this case of the transit of cattle. I have always been concerned with the treatment of animals in transit and, like the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, with the treatment of animals generally.
  In recent years there has been a great improvement in the treatment of animals in transit. The treatment of animals, especially fatstock animals destined for slaughter, was at its worst, probably by circumstance, during the days of the Ministry of Food. I suggest that it was at its worst then because vast numbers of live animals had to be shipped to centres of intensive population, often in difficult circumstances. Now that there has been a return to the free trade in livestock, it is not to the financial advantage of anyone, be he Irish cattle importer or a person who has bought stock at a fatstock centre in this country, to leave animals in discomfort for lengthy periods.
  Animals suffer much harm in such circumstances. If they are fatstock, their condition deteriorates rapidly. If they are store stock on their way to a store market, their value is apt to fall very rapidly if they are without water for any length of time. Nevertheless, there are circumstances, even today, when animals experience grave discomfort in transit—on the railways, especially, but also on the road.
  I wholeheartedly join my hon. Friend in suggesting that wherever possible watering facilities be installed at railway stations. It would not be very difficult to make sure, and in so doing satisfy our general conscience, that watering facilities are installed at all stations where they are needed. After all, the cattle trade is fairly regular. Cattle are constantly imported into this country from Ireland to the same ports. They make their way from those same ports to the same selling centres. It should not be too difficult to instal reasonable watering facilities at all such centres and at all points in between.

  129
  I join my hon. Friend in suggesting that all employees of the British Transport Commission should be made fully aware of the orders which are in existence for the treatment, particularly the watering, of cattle in transit and of the necessity of implementing them.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this subject. I hope that his valuable action in getting this debate under way this evening will help to make conditions better for livestock in transit in the future.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. F. H. Hayman: We all know that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) speaks with great authority in matters of this kind, but I am sure that he would not wish to imply that the Ministry of Food was responsible for cruelty to animals in transit in the time that it was in existence.
  Mr. R. W. Elliott: It was the system.
  Mr. Hayman: That was during the years immediately following the war when there was a shortage of vehicles, etc., everywhere.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North that we are indebted to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) for bringing this matter before the House tonight. I am glad that we have rather longer than is usual in an Adjournment debate to discuss this vitally important subject.
  Much has been said about British Railways, but the owner of the animals is the man mainly responsible. From what the hon. Member for Gillingham said it seems that British Railways did what they were required to do at Newark. It was the owner who, from thoughtlessness or carelessness or for some other reason, was responsible for the cruelty to the animals.
  I am not in agreement with the hon. Member for Gillingham in his statement that he feels that, once the case has been ventilated, there will be no need for prosecution. I had an old friend who was a magistrate for very many years. He is dead now. I well recall him saying. I am hard on two lots of offenders."
  Mr. Burden: Nothing that may be done to that gentleman now can help those poor unfortunate cattle. I shall be happy to know that in future he will give no cause for prosecution. If that is the case, I shall be happy if no steps are taken against him in this, instance.
  Mr. Hayman: I certainly hope that that individual will not give cause for concern again. As I was saying, my old friend once said to me, "There are two classes of offenders against whom I am hard—those responsible for cruelty to children and those responsible for cruelty to animals, because neither types of sufferers can speak for themselves in a court of justice".
  This may be just one example of something that may be far more prevalent than we know. During Question Time on 14th November, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
  " Railway authorities are required to provide water at all stations habitually used for loading and unloading animals…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 4.]
  Later, he said that he was telling the veterinary officers of his Department to keep a closer watch on this matter, and later still he said that the local authorities had some responsibility.
  It seems to me that some Government Departments have had some responsibility in this, but that in this Newark case no one seems to have kept watch to prevent what happened before. I certainly hope that British Railways will make these things clear to all their employees concerned, and that at other stations where animals are dealt with they will provide, as they now have at Newark, new and suitable troughs. Local authorities, too, should be asked to look again at the duties that fall on their responsible officers, and occasionally to keep an eye on things.
  As other speakers have said, the ill-treatment of animals, whether wilfully or by neglect, is a source of great concern to our people, and I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will seek to give full effect to what has been asked for by hon. Members on both sides in this debate. I would just make the further plea that hon. Members who are interested in animal welfare will themselves join the small all-party committee on animal welfare, which tries to do a good job.
  8.38 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) for raising a subject which has aroused very great interest. He has illustrated the general interest by citing a particular case which, I think, most of us will agree is not typical of the conditions under which hundreds, if not thousands, of animals are moved by road and rail every day. All the same, there is no reason why we should overlook any single case of apparently unsatisfactory conditions that is brought to our notice.
  Anything that touches the welfare of animals quite properly arouses wide interest in every civilised country, and in this country perhaps more than in any other. We are traditionally a people with a love for animals, and at all times we are concerned to see that they are treated with humanity and kindness. I venture to doubt whether there is another country with a more acute conscience and a more comprehensive series of legislative requirements on this subject.
  In the course of this reply I want to concern myself more with the general position, as I really think that that is of greater interest to the House. First, there are the basic Protection of Animals Acts to which my hon. Friend has referred, and those Measures make it an offence punishable by fine and/or imprisonment to convey or carry or permit to be conveyed or carried any animal in such a manner as to cause it unnecessary suffering.
  That is a basic provision. This legislation is very comprehensive and covers every conceivable kind of case where it is alleged that unnecessary suffering has been caused to animals. I understand that the animal welfare organisations are fully aware of its scope, and they prosecute and frequently take other action under it.
  Then there are the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, and the Orders made under it to which my hon. Friend has also referred. These are more specific requirements as distinct from the general provisions of protection of animals legislation. Under them the British Transport Commission and other railway authorities have to provide, to the satisfaction of
  132
  the agricultural Ministers, water and food or either of them at railway stations for the use of animals in rail transit, and that is generally done, even though the number of animals passing through some stations is not as great as it was before road transport developed as an alternative means.
  Water and food so provided must be supplied to animals by the railway authority concerned at the request of the consignor or of any person in charge of the animals. The hon. Gentleman made that point, that it is the consignor on whom the first responsibility lies. As regards cattle, if such a request is not made, so that animals are without water for twenty-four consecutive hours, the consignor or the person in charge of the cattle is deemed to be guilty of an offence under the Act. There are certain exceptions to that, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  There is certainly a strong case behind this statutory provision that the responsibility for feeding and watering animals in transit should be laid fairly and squarely on the consignor or the person in charge of them. No one, and I least of all, will deny that it is of the greatest importance for the well being and comfort of animals that water should be offered to them when they are really in need and can take it without subsequent discomfort of ill effects. I made that point when answering the hon. Gentleman's Questions in December last.
  It would be unreasonable to expect other people to take the ultimate responsibility. Let us suppose that some well-meaning person over-watered calves on a journey. He might have had the very best of intentions but this could easily have the worst of results. In those circumstances, the consignor might consider that he had a grievance against that person or even a case for an action for damages. But there are some consignors who do not take the trouble they ought. If a consignor is held to have failed in his duty to the animals under the general provisions of the Protection of Animals legislation or Orders made under the Diseases of Animals Act, he exposes himself to the risk of prosecution.
  That is probably the most sensible way of dealing with this problem. All the same, no one's mind can be finally

  133
  closed on a subject like this, and I am sure my right hon. Friend would consider any suggestion for improvement that any hon. Gentleman would put forward. f have noted the suggestions that have been made about British Railways administration. I cannot answer for British Railways, but I can assure hon. Members that we will see that their suggestions are conveyed to that body.
  My hon. Friend has made it clear that although he was raising a general question, he none the less wanted to give certain emphasis to the point that arose as a result of the unfortunate occurrence at Newark in October last. I believe we are all familiar with the general circumstances of that case and, as I said at the time, it is intolerable to deny animals water in a way that amounts to cruelty. But that does not detract from the generality of the argument that the responsibility for complying with the law rests on the consignor and the person in charge of the animals, and that the appropriate local authority is charged with the duty of enforcing the regulations made under the Diseases of Animals Act. I think they are alive to those responsibilities.
  I was also asked if I could give details of what happened to the second batch of animals when they were unloaded and finally moved, I think on the second morning. To the best of my knowledge, they were given hay. I am doubtful about water. My hon. Friend will bear in mind that the consignor had taken over responsibility for those animals. They were no longer in transit and, therefore, the Order does not apply. I am glad that he made no attempt to pin any responsibility on British Railways, after the consignor had taken over responsibility.
  Again, because British Railways do take a very great deal of 'trouble, I wish to make clear that the provision of troughs is very widespread in this country.
  Mr. Burden: Before my hon. Friend leaves the other point, I hope he will forgive me for interrupting. According to what he has said, it would appear that there is evidence that these animals were given some hay. There is no evidence whatever that they were given any water. It seems to me that the provision of hay in those circumstances
  134
  would, if anything, increase the suffering the animals endured as a result of lack of water. I emphasise that point. Whether it was ignorance or gross negligence on that occasion, I think it should be made perfectly clear that no recurrence of that kind of happening will be tolerated.
  Mr. Vane: The local authorities and the animal welfare services concerned with that particular case have, I think, followed up such information as both my hon. Friend and I have mentioned. I think we ought to deal with the general position and with future administration rather than try to discover the exact circumstances of that particular incident.
  I do not suppose that I am the only Member of the House of Commons who has driven cattle straight off the train and through a built-up area. Anyone who has done that knows that, however carefully the animals have been unloaded and driven, the job is by no means an easy one. People who have not had that sort of experience may not realise how easy it is for cattle, especially when there are large numbers of them. almost to panic and to start to gallop in different directions.
  Rather different provisions apply to horses because, of course, the horse's digestive system is different from that of cattle. The railways there have certain wider responsibilities, but, nevertheless, the consignor or other person in charge does in the end have responsibility. If the journey is likely to exceed twelve hours, horses must on occasions be fed and watered.
  Various suggestions have been made today about what British Railways ought to do in training their staff. It is not generally known that they have issued to all staff concerned with the handling of livestock a most comprehensive handbook on the subject, and in addition to that they have issued a very readable little book. with illustrations by Fougasse, who will be well known to readers of Punch. I do not think that they can be expected to do more. The matter could not be more simply set out with diagrams, and I think that this does meet the point which was made. These are admirable manuals, and the short guide is, in effect, a general code of conduct.

  135
  Without, I hope, giving anything away that I should not, I want the House to know that the burden of the advice given to railway staff about animals in transit is that, if no one else has given them water by the end of the period stipulated by the Orders, the staff may do so. In my view, that is an admirable concept of humanitarian instinct. The railways are prepared to stand by and make good the shortcomings of others, and when we in this House are sometimes very ready to criticise them for all sorts of other things we should, at least, give them credit where credit is due.
  Transport by road is a somewhat different matter. There are no specific requirements of the law for watering cattle, sheep and pigs because, of course, it is so much easier and one has not to stop a train in order to arrange for such things. The general provisions of the Protection of Animals Ac ts apply, and, again, special conditions are laid down with regard to horses.
  I hope that what I have said will satisfy the House that the law provides in a comprehensive way that animals in transit should be properly looked after from the point of view of food and water according to the circumstances of the particular case. I am not saying that more could not be done. Of course, circumstances change. Not so long ago road transport played a much smaller part than it is playing today, but I should like my hon. Friend to know that we are at present in the concluding stages of a review of the whole of our transit regulations. My right hon. Friend recently reminded members of his veterinary staff of the need at all times to carry out their transit and animal welfare duties as a regular routine. Our veterinary staff have a great many duties. When all is said and done, there are some things which cannot be guaranteed by legislation, and the way in which a man treats animals in his charge is probably one of them.
  Mr. Hayman: I am grateful for the Parliamentary Secretary's concluding sentences foreshadowing the bringing up to date of regulations. However, I wonder whether he would consider carefully the point made by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) that the National Farmers' Union might be asked
  136
  to make known the feelings of the House concerning the responsibilities of owners of animals.
  Mr. Vane: I cannot answer for the National Farmers' Union any more than I can answer for British Railways. I believe that the Union's annual conference is taking place at the present moment. If the hon. Gentleman wrote to the president what better platform could he wish?
  8.51 p.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: I wish to add one or two wards to this short but important debate and to congratulate the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) on having initiated it.
  It was very good of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to pay tribute to British Railways, and I should like to be associated with that tribute. So often hon. Members come to the House and criticise British Railways, and sometimes a great deal of it is quite unfounded. It is good to know that British Railways have taken such considerable pains to make transport as easy as possible for animals. We are indebted to the Minister for the information which (he has given us about the lengths to which British Railways have gone to ensure that animals placed in their charge travel in comfort.
  Mr. Burden: I do not think the hon. Member was present When I referred to this very important point. Sir Brian Robertson obviously took this incident very much to heart and a most extensive investigation was made into the whole matter. As the hon. Gentleman said, I think that British Railways have come out of it very well indeed.
  Mr. Hoy: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have known Sir Brian Robertson for a long time. I knew him before he took over British Railways, when he acted in another sphere. I was under him in a junior capacity. I should have expected Sir Brian, with his efficiency, to have done that job. Although he has done that, it is not a bad thing that it should be said in the House of Commons that British Railways take trouble over the transport of animals.
  I was a little disappointed that the Minister did not say something further

  137
  about road transport until the concluding stages of his speech, when he replied to the question of one of my hon. Friends. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had the question of legislation in mind, but I should have thought that the transport of animals by road called for a great deal of consideration, because this business has increased tremendously over the past few years. In these circumstances, I should have thought that legislation ought to be brought up to date.
  I was glad that the hon. Gentleman singled out the question of the transport of horses. This is a matter which has filled the newspapers in recent months because of the considerable horse traffic between another part of the world and France. Perhaps the opportunity should be taken during this debate to pay tribute to the many men and women in this country who raised funds to safeguard these horses from the kind of torture Which was proved on a previous occasion.
  Mr. Vane: I did not contemplate legislation, but I said that a review of the regulations was now nearing its close. That is a different thing. I hoped that I had made it clear that the general legislation applied to the transport of animals by road. The feeding and watering of animals moving by road,
  138
  which is the subject raised in this debate, is not as difficult, because it does not mean stopping a whole train to feed and water them. It must be borne in mind that if a lot of animals have to be watered at small troughs, it may take a long time and it may not be easy to do the operation smoothly. None the less, it is important to see that even where animals are only occasionally loaded, the proper facilities exist.
  My concluding word is again to the credit of British Railways. Many hon. Members have, no doubt, seen stock travelling by train and have noticed a brown ticket stuck on the side of the wagon. If they have taken the trouble to look at it closely they will have seen that 'it states not only where the animals were loaded and the station for which they are destined, but when they were last fed and watered, at what times they have to be milked, and so on. In fact, there is a proper record of all that is necessary to ensure their welfare during transit. In the end, however, it is surely the owner or consignor of the animals who should make arrangements with those with whom he contracts to move his animals to ensure that proper humanitarian measures are carried out.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Nine o'clock.

MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Old Manor House, Deal
  Old Manor House, Deal
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Coast Protection Grants
  Coast Protection Grants
  Penrhyn Castle, Bangor
  Penrhyn Castle, Bangor
  Highways Act, 1959 (Appeals)
  Highways Act, 1959 (Appeals)
VIRGIN ISLANDS
  Financial Assistance
  Financial Assistance
MALTA
  Government
  Government
  Dockyard
  Dockyard
EAST AFRICA
  Education (United States Conference)
  Education (United States Conference)
FIJI
  Sugar Industry (Dispute)
  Sugar Industry (Dispute)
SOUTHERN CAMEROONS
  Imperial Preference
  Imperial Preference
  Election Statements
  Election Statements
SCOTLAND
  Pontoon Dock, Aberdeen
  Pontoon Dock, Aberdeen
  Anderson Drive, Aberdeen (Accidents)
  Anderson Drive, Aberdeen (Accidents)
  Direct Labour Schemes
  Direct Labour Schemes
  Hospital Beds, East Fife
  Hospital Beds, East Fife
  Commonwealth Technical Training Week
  Commonwealth Technical Training Week
  Remote Area Subsidy
  Remote Area Subsidy
  Milk Marketing Board (Payments)
  Milk Marketing Board (Payments)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  T.U.C. (Meeting)
  T.U.C. (Meeting)
  Lighters
  Lighters
  Universities
  Universities
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Life Stories of Criminals (Press Publication)
  Life Stories of Criminals (Press Publication)
PERSIAN GULF STATES (TREATY RELATIONSHIPS)
  PERSIAN GULF STATES (TREATY RELATIONSHIPS)
  PERSIAN GULF STATES (TREATY RELATIONSHIPS)
LAOS (SITUATION)
  LAOS (SITUATION)
  LAOS (SITUATION)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Defence White Paper
  Defence White Paper
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  North-East (Airport)
  North-East (Airport)
HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES
  Nurses (Training)
  Nurses (Training)
EDUCATION
  Commonwealth Technical Training Week
  Commonwealth Technical Training Week
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Council on Tribunals (Report)
  Council on Tribunals (Report)
  Bronchitis and Pneumonia (Children)
  Bronchitis and Pneumonia (Children)
HOSPITALS
  Doncaster Royal Infirmary
  Doncaster Royal Infirmary
MEDICAL RESEARCH
  Traffic Fumes (Bronchitis)
  Traffic Fumes (Bronchitis)
ROADS
  M.1 Motorway
  M.1 Motorway
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Council on Tribunals (Report)
  Council on Tribunals (Report)
POST OFFICE
  Postmen (Bronchitis)
  Postmen (Bronchitis)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  National Research Development Corporation (Report)
  National Research Development Corporation (Report)
  HIGHER EDUCATION (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)
  HIGHER EDUCATION (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)

Preamble
Reassembling, for Public Business, after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PrayersߞRead by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield

LORD GUEST
The Right Honourable Christopher William Graham Guest (commonly called Lord Guest), one of the Senators of the College of Justice in Scotland, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, under the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, as amended by subsequent enactments, with the dignity of a Baron for life by the style and title of Baron Guest, of Graden in the County of Berwick—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PRIVATE PATIENTS AND FREE DRUGS
2.42 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order
[The Question was as follows:
To ask her Majesty's Government whether they have any date in mind for implementation of the Conservative Party's 1949 pledge "We shall allow private patients to obtain free of charge drugs prescribed by their doctors on a parity with people in the state scheme."]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no date in mind at present for the introduction of legislation to enable private patients to obtain drugs on the same terms as patients receiving general medical treatment under the National Health Service.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask whether this is another of the promises unfulfilled by the Conservative Party?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, I do not think that is at all a fair question. The promises of the Conservative Party are always kept. The reference of the noble Lord was to an Election manifesto of 1949, when we lost the Election.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether the fact that the Conservative Party loses an Election absolves them from all responsibility for pledges they have given?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the merits of the question are one thing, but I should have thought it was well understood that when you lose an Election you are not bound by the promises in your Election manifesto.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, whether it was that which caused him to change his allegiance?

PROSECUTIONS UNDER OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS ACT
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if it is proposed to take action under the Obscene Publications Act in respect of the book by Mr. Frank Harris, My Life and Loves, and if so, or in any other future prosecution of this kind, whether experienced editors, authors, and journalists might be called as witnesses for the Crown.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, it is not for Her Majesty's Government to take action under the law relating to obscene publications in respect of any book or other material which might be alleged to be obscene. The duty of deciding whether to institute such proceedings rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions. I understand that at present there is available to the Director no evidence that would justify proceedings under the

1103
Obscene Publications Act, 1959, in respect of the book to which the noble Lord's Question refers.
In the second part of his Question the noble Lord asks whether in future prosecutions of this kind experienced editors, authors and journalists might be called as witnesses for the Crown. Under Section 4 of the Obscene Publications Act, an accused is entitled to be acquitted if he can prove that publication of the article in question is justified as being for the public good on the ground that it is in the interests of science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern. For the purpose of establishing or negativing this defence the opinion of experts may be admitted in evidence. It follows that unless an accused puts forward this defence, the Crown has no occasion to negative it and therefore cannot call expert witnesses. Since one cannot foresee the cases in which this defence might be relied upon, nor the particular circumstances of such cases, it follows that the second part of the noble Lord's Question is hypothetical and I regret that I cannot give him any answer to it.

CAPITAL MURDERS BY "PROFESSIONAL CRIMINALS"
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the persons who have been convicted of capital murder under Section 5 (1) (a) and (b) of the Homicide Act, 1957, can properly be described as professional criminals.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there is no generally recognised definition of the term "professional criminal". The only tests that can be applied for statistical purposes are those which relate in some way to the individual's known record of offences. Of the 26 persons who have been convicted of capital murder under Section 5 (1) (a) or Section 5 (1) (b) of the Homicide Act, 1957, 21 had previous convictions for offences involving theft or violence;
1104
13 of them had been convicted of such offences on three or more occasions.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his Answer. And may I ask whether he is quite happy with a situation in which even five persons who are not classified as "professional criminals" may be hanged in order to discourage those who fall into that category?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, although, as I told the noble Lady on the occasion of her last Question, it is too early to reach any conclusion on the working of the Act, the figures which I have just given to your Lordships seem to indicate that most of the persons convicted of capital murder, done either in the course or furtherance of theft or by shooting, can properly be described as "professional criminals". The Government, however, made it clear in the course of the debates on the Homicide Bill in 1957 that one of its objects was to deter from carrying firearms not only those who already had substantial criminal records, but also those who were starting on what might be called a professional career of crime. I believe that the figures justify that objective and aim.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble and learned Viscount aware that the figures he has given indicate, as my noble friend mentioned, that some five persons who had not previously committed a crime and could not therefore be described as criminals, professional or otherwise, have been hanged? Would he deal with that particular point? Because that seems a complete weakness in the present legislation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I entirely disagree with the noble Lord. Taking his five cases, I would point out that these persons have been convicted of murder, either in the course of theft or when carrying a gun. I think these circumstances are clear evidence that they are either starting on a career of crime or have already started and been found out for the first time.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether this applies to the case of a young man in a university who shot a girl and a man, apparently

1105
in consequence of some love affair, and who had no previous convictions but who did in fact carry a gun? Is that evidence that he is starting on a career of professional crime?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think it is fair for anyone in my position to give a view upon a particular case until he has seen all the facts of the case, and I am afraid I cannot respond to the question
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, might I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he is aware that the attitude, though no doubt sincere, of noble Lords and Ladies opposite is not shared by the general public, the vast majority of whom have no sympathy with their views?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think it would be simpler if, instead of answering for everyone else, I answered for myself. My view remains as it was expressed to your Lordships, that this is an essential for the preservation of the minimum law and order in the country.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, whether these men can be described as professional criminals or not, is it not also desirable to deter amateurs from committing such murders?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That was what I tried to point out: that it is important to deter those who may be embarking on a career of crime. And I point out that that aspect of the matter was made perfectly clear in the speeches, made both in another place and by myself, when the Homicide Bill was discussed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, with regard to the question of Lord Winterton, is the noble and learned Viscount aware that the views which have been expressed from these Benches are not confined to the Labour Party by any means, either in this House or the other House, and such aspersions as that ought not to be made in your Lordships' House? May I further ask the noble Earl whether he does not consider that, after this very short experience, the Lord Chancellor is probably right not to form a judgment? All the world statistics are against the noble Earl.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think we should all agree that this is a subject which cuts right across Party divisions, anti is one upon which we must form our own view. As regards the second part of the question of the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, it would obviously be unsuitable if I remade to-clay the speech which I had the honour of making to your Lordships four years ago on this subject. But I should like to assure the noble Viscount that all of us who have considered the matter, and a great number of those who share the general view that I have expressed, have given years of study to statistics in all parts of the world before forming our view.

TELEGRAMS BY TELEPHONE CALL CARD SYSTEM
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to publicise the availability of the telephone call card system to telegrams sent over the telephone and also to overseas cables sent the same way.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the telephone credit card system was extended on January 1 to cover inland and overseas telegrams dictated over the telephone, and was publicised in the Press shortly beforehand. Newspaper advertisements currently appearing in the Press also refer to this extension of the use of credit cards. The publicity leaflets on the credit card service which at present refer only to the telephone credit card service are being amplified to include the new facilities. My right honourable friend the Postmaster General is grateful to the noble Lord for his continued interest in the credit card service, and for the opportunity he has given me of drawing the attention of your Lordships' to this very useful extension of the service.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord for his very sympathetic Answer to my Question.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will ask his right honourable friend to convey this information to the telephone exchanges? I tried to send a telegram over the telephone only two weeks ago with the use of my credit card, and I was informed that it was not possible.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords I will certainly draw the complaint of my noble friend to the attention of my right honourable friend and try to find out what explanation there can be for it.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Construction]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, which is a Government Amendment. Clause 1 of the Bill emphasises the continuity of public health legislation by indicating the links between this Bill and earlier Statutes. Parts II, III and V of the Bill, dealing with sanitation and buildings, with the prevention, notification of disease and with trade effluents, are to be construed as one with provision of earlier Public Health Acts on the same subjects. Parts IV and VI of the Bill, although they contain clauses on matters touched on in previous Public Health Acts, are not so closely associated with public health legislation. For this reason they are not integrated with the Public Health Act, 1936, but have applied to them only those sections of that Act as are set out in the table which forms part of subsection (4) of Clause 1.
The purpose of this Amendment is to add Section 341 of the Public Health Act, 1936, to that table and to the sections of that Act which apply to Parts IV and VI of the Bill. As this section already applies to other parts, the effect is that, with the rest of those listed in the table, it will apply to all the operative provi-
1108
sions of the Bill. Section 341 of the Public Health Act, 1936, provides that the provisions of that Act—and of this Bill if the Amendment is accepted—shall apply to Crown property if the authority in charge of that property agrees. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("341 Power to apply provisions of Act to Crown property").—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to
Clauses 2 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Advertisement of proposal to relax building regulations]:
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH moved in subsection (1), after "publish" to insert "at the expense of the applicant". The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to enable a local authority to recover the cost of advertising the application of an applicant who wishes to obtain a relaxation of the bylaws to his benefit. It may be said that the cost would not be high, but in these days the cost of advertising in two or three papers may well amount to not less than five or ten guineas per application, and in a year when these national regulations are more known about and applicants are familiar with the procedure it is thought that the cost may easily amount to £100 or more. It is for that reason that the local authority association of which I have the honour to be a member suggest that this Amendment might be considered by Her Majesty's Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, after "publish" insert "at the expense of the applicant".—(The Earl of Gainsborough.)
LORD SILKIN: I have no objection in principle to this Amendment, but I can conceive cases where it would not be proper to charge the cost of advertising to the applicant. The application may be a perfectly reasonable and proper one, and it may be in the interests of the general public that there should be a relaxation of the by-laws. I fail to see why there should be an absolute rule that in all cases the cost should fall on the applicant. If the mover of the Amendment were willing, I should be perfectly prepared to accept that there should be a

1109
discretion on the part of the local authority to recoup the costs of advertising in proper cases, but my own view is that we should not go beyond that and make it an absolute provision.
LORD DERWENT: While I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin has said. I wonder whether if a discretion were given to the local authority, they would ever find against themselves.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: In spite of what the noble Lord who spoke last has said, as a member of a local authority I know that in fact discretion is exercised on many occasions, and I think there would be little objection, if Her Majesty's Government were prepared to consider the Amendment, to its being drafted in those terms. I should be glad to hear the noble Lord's comments.
LORD BRECON: I think I had better explain that at present Section 63 of the Public Health Act, 1936, leaves it wholly to the local authority to decide whether to apply for the Minister's consent to a relaxation, and no expenses of advertising are incurred until the local authority have applied for his consent. The section does not require the developer to reimburse the local authority for the expenses of advertisement. Perhaps that was because the expenses could be incurred only as the result of a positive initiative taken by the local authority themselves.
The Bill repeals Section 63, and under Clause 6 it will in future be for the developer to set the wheels in motion by applying to the local authority if he thinks there are grounds for a relaxation in a particular case. This may lead to expenses on advertisement being incurred under Clause 8 without the local authority having taken the initiative, and in these changed circumstances it seems reasonable that these expenses should fall on the developer. It is, after all, the developer who will benefit if the requirements of the building regulations are eventually relaxed in his favour.
Having heard what has been said, I think I can say that the Government find the Amendment acceptable in principle. After what other noble Lords have said, I am prepared to have another look at it, if the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, is willing to withdraw it now, to see
1110
whether we can find suitable words to meet his views and those of other noble Lords.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: I am much obliged, and in view of what the noble Lord has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Minor Amendments]:
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out five weeks "and insert "two months". The noble Lord said: Subsection (2) of Clause 10 provides that there shall be an overall period of at least five weeks in which a local authority must come to a decision on the passing or rejecting of plans. Under the earlier Act the period was four weeks. The purpose of the Amendment is to extend the period of five weeks to two months, and the reason for that is that in the majority of cases where plans are submitted on building by-laws simultaneous application is made for planning approval under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Under this Act a period of two months is prescribed for the rejection or approval of the application, and I suggest that it would be both sensible and realistic to make the periods the same for both statutory codes.
In addition to the conformity this would bring to the methods of dealing with the two types of application which must be made jointly, the Amendment would enable local authorities dealing with applications for the approval of plans tinder the building regulations to give some complicated applications really proper scrutiny. Straightforward applications would be dealt with in the usual way as a simple application for planning permission and in such cases no additional delay need be expected. The overall effect of the Amendment would be to remove what appears to many lay members of the public an anomaly for which no reasonable explanation can be given. I trust that the Government will take a favourable view of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 39, leave out ("five weeks") and insert ("two months").—(Lord Amulree.)
LORD BRECON: I appreciate very much what the noble Lord seeks to do by this Amendment, but Section 64 (4) of the Public Health Act, 1936, provides that the prescribed statutory period within which local authorities are required to give notice of the passing or rejection of building by-law plans shall he one month, with a possible extension to five weeks in the case of plans submitted less than three days before the meeting of an authority that meets only once a month. Clause 10 (2) is to be read with the repeal, effected by Clause 79 (3) and Part I of the Fourth Schedule, of Section 64 (4). The effect is to prescribe a maximum period of five weeks in every case.
The reason for this change is a technical one. Variations in the prescribed period are acceptable when they are expressly incorporated in building bylaws made locally by the local authorities concerned, but it would not be admissible for the prescribed period within which action must be taken under centrally made regulations to vary in accordance with the changing administrative practice of local authorities. The solution adopted in the Bill is to specify a period of five weeks as the maximum in all cases, since it would not, of course, be practicable to require local authorities to meet oftener than once a month.
The Amendment seeks to extend the period to eight weeks in all cases. The Minister has no evidence that the present four-week period (five weeks in some cases) has caused any general difficulty, although it may well be that when complicated and detailed calculations of steel or ferro-concrete work, for example, have to be checked there may be some difficulty in getting the work done in time in local authority offices. A general extension to eight weeks would, on the other hand, inevitably have some tendency to slow down the rate at which architects, engineers and builders could get going on the site. This would be a substantial disadvantage and would need very careful consideration. The scope of those provisions of the Bill relating to building control is limited to the replacement of building by-laws by building regulations, alterations in the relaxation procedure and amendments directly consequential thereon. The
1112
extension of the period to five weeks in all cases is, as already explained, a necessary technical consequential of the replacement of by-laws by regulations. To go further and to substitute a period of eight weeks would, quite apart from the practical difficulties that might be caused, be amending the present system of building control in a matter falling outside the restricted objectives of the building provisions of the Bill. For those reasons, I am afraid that the Government are unable to accept this Amendment.
LORD AMULREE: I should like to thank the noble Lord for his full reply to my Amendment. I quite appreciate the point of view of the Government, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
3.12 p.m.
LORD BRECON LORD BRECON moved, after Clause 11 to insert the following new clause:
Contribution to cost of sewering highway
"—(1) Where a local authority—

(a) resolve to construct a sewer in a street or part of a street which is a highway maintainable at the public expense, and

(b) include in the resolution a declaration that the construction of the sewer will, in the opinion of the local authority, increase the value of premises fronting the street or that part of the street,

the provisions of this section shall have effect as respects the recovery by the local authority of payments from the owners of those premises in respect of the construction of the sewer.
(2) A notice of any such resolution shall be published by the local authority in a local newspaper circulating in their district; and the resolution shall come into operation for the purposes of this section on the date of the publication.
(3) This section shall not authorise the recovery of any payment in respect of any sewer if the construction of the sewer is not complete at the expiration of the period of two years beginning with the date on which the resolution concerning the sewer comes into operation.
(4) This section shall not apply to any street or part of a street if at any time before the construction of the sewer there was in that street or part of a street a public sewer into which foul water could he discharged by virtue of section thirty-four of the Public Health Act, 1936 (which relates to the connection of premises with public sewers).
(5) Subject to the provisions of this section, a payment shall be recoverable in respect of

1113
any premises fronting the street or part of the street in which the sewer is constructed—

(a) if a building is erected on those premises after the date on which the resolution comes into operation, and

(b) if that building is connected with the sewer for the purpose of discharging foul water.

(6) Subject to the provisions of this section, the amount of the payment in respect of any premises shall be one-half of —

(a) the actual cost per yard of the sewer constructed in the street or part of the street, or

(b) the estimated cost per yard of a sewer having an internal diameter of nine inches constructed in the street or part of the street at a depth of seven feet.

whichever is the less, multiplied by the extent in yards of the frontage to the street or part of the street of those premises.
(7) If a payment has become recoverable under this section by reference to any length of frontage, no further payment shall be recoverable by reference to that length of frontage.
(8) The local authority may, on the application of the owner of any premises in respect of which a payment is recoverable under this section, remit any part of that payment on the ground that by reason of the extent of the frontage of those premises the amount of the payment is disproportionate to the benefit received by those premises from the construction of the sewer; and if the owner if dissatisfied with the decision of the local authority upon his application, or if the local authority do not within one month of his application give him notice of their decision, he may appeal to a magistrates' court, and that court may direct that any part of the payment be remitted on the said ground.
(9) Where any part of a payment has been remitted under the last foregoing subsection in respect of any premises, subsection (7) of this section shall not apply, but any further payment which may be recoverable by reference to the frontage of those premises shall not exceed the amount remitted, and, for the purposes of this subsection, that amount shall be treated as distributed proportionately over the length of that frontage.
(10) This section shall apply to a sewer whether or not the sewer is constructed in the district of the local authority, but shall not authorise the recovery of any payment in respect of any premises situated outside that district.
(11) If a local authority have entered into any agreement (whether before or after the date on which this section comes into force) for the construction of a sewer for the benefit of any premises, this section shall have effect as respects the recovery of any payment in respect of those premises subject to the terms of that agreement.
(12) The provisions of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions concerning sewerage contributions) to this Act shall have effect in relation to this section"
The noble Lord said: This proposed new clause and the two which follow, together with the new Schedule, are linked, and it would perhaps be for the convenience of your Lordships that we should consider them together. They appear to be both complicated and obscure, but the main principles are neither. As with the case of other clauses in the Bill, they are well precedented. Some 300 authorities have powers on the lines of the first new clause (which deals with sewers laid in streets which are repairable at public expense) and nearly 400 have powers on the lines of the second new clause (which deals with sewers laid across land which is later made into a street).
The background to the clauses is this. Under Section 14 of the Public Health Act, 1936, each local authority is under an obligation to provide such public sewers as are needed for the effectual drainage of its district. This duty is related to the existing buildings—the local authority has no duty to lay sewers in anticipation of future development. When an authority lays a sewer, therefore, for the benefit of new development, it usually does so by arrangement with the developer who pays a contribution towards the cost. Contributions may be recovered by the local authority in another type of case also. If the council lays a sewer in a private street which is being made up, the properties fronting on that street may be required to contribute, under provisions affecting private street works which go back to the Public Health Act, 1848, and which are now incorporated in the Highways Act, 1959.
It is not unreasonable that contributions should be obtained in these circumstances. Once a public sewer is available property owners will have the right to connect their premises without charge. Alternative ways of drainage—by cesspool, for instance—will become unnecessary and property values will be increased. But there are other circumstances in which these benefits are reaped by property owners without any obligation to contribute towards the cost of the sewer. No contributions cart he recovered under the general law as it now stands in connection with sewers laid in a street which is a highway maintainable at the public expense or across land which although later made into a street, is not

1115
a street at the time the sewer is constructed.
It was to remove this anomalous situation that certain clauses were first incorporated in the Romford Urban District Council Act, 1931. I believe that Romford is now a borough council. The originators of these clauses have achieved a kind of immortality because, in Private Bill circles, these clauses are habitually referred to as "the Romford clauses", though they do not appear in the Model Clauses Handbook in exactly the form in which they first appeared in 1931. Criticisms of the clauses as they first appeared led to their examination by a Joint Committee of the two Houses which sat under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, the late Lord Onslow. Their Report was published in 1936 under the somewhat forbidding title of The Report of the Joint Committee on Public Sewers (Contributions by Frontagers).
That Committee were satisfied that it was reasonable to expect contributions from those who would benefit from the laying of a sewer by a local authority, but went on to say that it was almost impossible to frame a code which would satisfactorily reconcile all interests. They thought that rough justice would have to be the aim. They did not draft clauses to replace the then existing provisions, but laid down certain principles which they thought should be followed. Only three of these need be mentioned here. They suggested, first, that the basis of the apportionment on each frontager should be the extent of his frontage on the highway; secondly, that the cost to be apportioned should not exceed the average cost per lineal yard in the district of providing sewers in private streets, and thirdly, that payments should be recovered only when land is actually developed so that no contributions would be required from the owners of existing buildings. These principles were embodied in subsequent versions of the Romford clauses and on the basis of the new clauses now under discussion, though these clauses have been re-worded to meet the needs of general legislation.
The first new clause—that is, contributions to cost of sewering a highway—deals with the position where a local authority proposes to lay a sewer in a public high-way. It outlines the circumstances in
1116
which the recovery provisions are to apply, how the payments are to be calculated and the procedure for recovering them. It will be seen that the provisions dealing with the recovery of contributions apply only where the local authority considers that the construction of the sewer will increase the value of properties and specifically resolves to apply the provision. The sewer must then be laid within two years of the resolution, otherwise no contributions will be payable. Payments are recoverable only as and when new development takes place. Owners of existing buildings will still be able to ask the local authority to remit part of the amount claimed on the ground that it is disproportionate to the benefit he receives; in default of agreement with the local authority he may then appeal to the local magistrates' court. Subsection (6) of this new clause deals with the amount which the property can be called upon to pay. It will be seen that the amount is to be calculated by reference to the lesser of two amounts: that is to say, the actual cost per yard of the sewer laid by the authority, and the estimated cast per yard of a 9-in. sewer at a depth of 7 ft. in the street concerned. This subsection is slightly different from the model clause on this particular aspect, but it will probably not be thought desirable to elaborate on the difference at this stage or to explain the further details contained in the proposed new Schedule. The Schedule provides a right of appeal against the council's assessment of these amounts.
The second new clause applies very similar provisions to the case where a local authority has constructed a sewer in land which subsequently becomes a street. Again the local authority must pass a resolution declaring that the construction of the sewer has enhanced the value of land fronting the street. The recovery provisions of the first clause will then apply and there will be the same rights of appeal both against the local authority's assessments of cost and against their refusal to remit part of the amount otherwise payable as and when frontages are developed.
Finally there is the third new clause. For purposes of general legislation this has been based more on Section 209 of the Highways Act, 1959, than on the model clause, but the aim is identical:

1117
to prevent property owners from avoiding the payment of a contribution by selling a narrow strip of frontage. The clause empowers a magistrates' court to make an order where it is satisfied that this manœuvre has been carried out in order to evade liability. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 11 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Brecon.)
LORD SILKIN: I find myself in some difficulty about this new clause, as I imagine will many other noble Lords in the Committee. My difficulty is that I saw this new clause for the first time only last night. It may be my fault. I do not know when it was circulated, but I have been abroad and came back only last night in time for to-day's sitting. While I have no objection in principle to the three new clauses on the Marshalled List, I have considerable apprehensions about the details and should have liked to consider putting down a number of Amendments to them. Perhaps the most satisfactory course would have been for these clauses to be recommitted so as to make it possible to put down Amendments to them. I am not very familiar with the procedure, but I am sure that that would have been more satisfactory to the Committe, than having to deal with them to-day in a very broad way.
Having said that, I should like now to outline some of the difficulties that I see on a first reading of the new clauses. The first is that everything turns on the declaration by the local authority that in their opinion the value of the premises forming the street, or that part of the street on which it is proposed to provide a sewer, will be enhanced. That is purely a matter of opinion and valuation. In most cases the local authority, naturally, will take the view that the sewer would enhance the value of the property, although that is not necessarily the case. It may be that many properties are to-day functioning quite happily with cesspools, their occupants being almost unaware of the existence of the cesspools. I myself live in such a house in the country, and I have no inconvenience from it. I have not even the knowledge that there is a cesspool there unless I go and look at it.
1118
For all practical purposes, I cannot believe that if a sewer were provided where I am now living in the country—and this position applies to many other people—it would to any extent enhance the value of my premises. I do not believe that it would, but I can quite understand a local authority thinking that it would, and taking action on that basis. There is, of course, no appeal against that decision. I speak subject to correction: it may be that somewhere, tucked away under some provision of the 1936 Act, which I have not been able to study, there is some provision for an appeal. But I doubt it. The local authority have merely to pass a resolution that the value of a person's property will be enhanced by the provision of this sewer and thereupon, automatically, the owner of the property is called upon to make a contribution. I feel that there ought to be some provision by which an owner can challenge the decision of the local authority, the ipse dixit that his property will be enhanced by the provision of the sewer. Moreover, there is nothing in the Bill which deals with the extent of the enhancement. Supposing the value of the property is enhanced by £100 but the cost which is to be levied on the owner will be £500 (I take hypothetical figures), would it not be unreasonable to expect the owner to pay that amount, or even one-half of it, as the Bill provides? These are points which I am sure, merit further consideration in this new clause.
There is one other point. I found the noble Lord's explanation of the Bill a little difficult. That was not his fault, because it is a complicated subject; but I understood him to say that this did not apply to existing property. If he will look at the beginning of the first new clause he will see that it appears implicit that the premises are not in existence because the local authority have to:
"include in the resolution a declaration that the construction of the sewer will, in the opinion of the local authority, increase the value of premises fronting the street or that part of the street,"
Thereupon they are entitled to make a levy. But if the provision does not apply to existing premises how is it possible for a local authority to make a levy based on the frontage, as the clause

1119
later provides? Moreover, subsection (8) of the new clause provides that the local authority may remit any part of the amount simply "by reason of the extent of the frontage" of the premises. I find it a little difficult to make out what that means. Would that apply because there is a big frontage, or because there is a small one? On what grounds would the local authority have power to remit the charge against the owner of the premises who, according to the statement of the noble Lord in explaining the Bill, is not going to be liable at all?
I do not want to weary the Committee by going through this clause, which is a very long one; and the same applies to the next two clauses. If the noble Lord could devise some machinery by which we could discuss these clauses and put down Amendments to them, not on the Report stage but in some other way, I believe that would be generally more convenient to the Committee than merely trying to discuss these provisions to-day and passing them, leaving Amendments to be put down at the Report stage.
3.27 p.m.
LORD MESTON: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, whether he can give any indication of the cost per yard of making a sewer? I ask that question advisedly, because Parliament passes these Acts of Parliament while having no conception of the terrific burden that is being cast upon owners and occupiers of property. Take, for example, the cost of making up of streets under the Codes of 1892 or 1875, as contained in Part IX of the Highways Act, 1959. That may be £5 per foot. I know of somebody living near me who is faced with a probable bill of £400. I know somebody in Marlow—and I expect all your Lordships know beautiful Marlow—who is faced with a bill of £1,200 in respect of making up the street in front of his property. I understand that the laying of a sewer is an improvement and not a repair. Someone told me that one could get round the difficulty by calling it "rehabilitation", but I am not sure whether the Inland Revenue accept that term. As this is an improvement and not a repair, I presume that one can
1120
make no claim for relief under Schedule A in respect of the cost of laying a sewer fronting one's premises. While your Lordships' House has no concern with financial matters, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, if he would consult his right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point and ascertain whether any kind of relief can be given to owners of property who have to pay what undoubtedly will be a very heavy charge.
EARL WINTERTON: I find myself in considerable sympathy with the noble Lord on the front Opposition Bench, who, incidentally, is a neighbour of mine. I am in the same position as him, with this exception: that as my house does not front a main road I shall not come under the clause. And, like him, I have my own arrangements for dealing with sewage. I think he has raised, as the noble Lord sitting on this side of the House has, a very important point. I hope that it will not be considered outside the ambit of this Amendment if I say (and I think that probably my view is shared by other noble Lords) that I am always hesitant about legislation which places greater powers in the hands of local authorities, for this reason. Without saying anything against rural district councils, for example, the fact is that they are burdened with an amount of authority over the general public which they have not the expert knowledge for their clerk properly to exercise. Every Bill increases their powers. I would ask that full consideration should be given to the points raised by the two noble Lords.
LORD BRECON: I should like to explain that these new clauses were available before Christmas. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that they are difficult clauses, and I am sorry that they were not included in the Bill originally. But there were particular reasons why my right honourable friend was unable to put them in at that time.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord says that they were available and I would not dispute it. But available to whom, and how?
LORD BRECON: They were in the Printed Paper Office.
LORD SILKIN: They certainly were not available to me before I left this country on, I think, January 6. I found them when I got back. I daresay that other noble Lords were in the same position—we take holidays sometimes. They were certainly not available to me before that date.
LORD BRECON: I understand that they were available in the Printed Paper Office before Christmas. I agree that people go away, but that does not help us in our position here at the moment. However, I think it can be regarded that if a sewer is put into a particular area it increases the value of the property. One may argue about how much that value may be. Like the noble Lord, I have a cesspool which I never have to worry about at all; and I believe that cesspools are extremely good under certain conditions. On the other hand, I think one must admit that if a sewer is put in there is an increase in the value of the property.
A NOBLE LORD: Not if it is rent-restricted.
LORD BRECON: It may be restricted; it may be restricted in that way. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked about the existing property. No charge can be made upon existing property; it is only new buildings that are affected. The difficulty is that very often sewers are put across fields to a new development where an agreement is made with a new developer to share the cost of the sewer. Somebody develops that line of sewer because it is there, and starts to build houses on either side and makes the site into a street. I think it is fair and proper that he should pay some reasonable cost for that development. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the cost per yard. I understand that if one digs to lay a drain 7 feet deep and puts in a 9-inch pipe it will cost between 20s. and 30s. per foot, say £3 a yard. So on a 30-foot frontage the cost would be £30. If houses are built on either side that cost is divided between the two houses, aid it would work out at approximately £1,5 a house, which I think is a reasonable sum to pay to have a sewer in the road immediately outside one's new building; and it is certainly much cheaper than having to build a septic tank.
1122
I think there are safeguards so that there can be appeals against the local authority. I said that the recovery provisions of the first clause will apply, and there will be the same rights of appeal both against local authorities' assessments of costs and against their refusal to admit part of the amount otherwise payable. I hope that the Committee will accept these clauses. If there are particular points that noble Lords would like me to look at for the Report stage, I shall be happy to do so.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: I wonder whether the noble Lord who is speaking for the Government could satisfy me on one point. I am faced with the situation that a sewer is to be driven through a private street which I own, in front of existing houses that have been erected, to connect with development. Under this clause would those people whose houses are at present there be liable to pay a contribution towards that sewer or would it be done only in an area of development?
LORD BRECON: It is difficult to give a quick answer to a particular case like this, but if the noble Marquess will let me have the details I will certainly look into the matter and let him have an answer. I should not like to give one "off the cuff".
LORD SILKIN: I should like to return to procedure. I feel, in all the circumstances, that the Committee ought to have an opportunity of having a Committee stage on these clauses, which really constitute a fundamental alteration or, rather, an extension of the Bill. I think it is just not good enough to pass these clauses and to rely upon the opportunity of putting clown Amendments on the Report stage. If these clauses had been in the original Bill, of course we could have considered them carefully and put down our Amendments. We have been deprived of that opportunity. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would sympathetically consider it. I do not know whether the Lord Chairman could help us on this point, but I am sure that there is some machinery by which we could have a Committee stage on these new clauses. That is what I ask the noble Lord to arrange for, if it is within the Order of Procedure of this House.
LORD KILLEARN: I do not often intrude on matters of this kind, but it happens that like many other noble Lords, I have an interest in this particular question, and I should like warmly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has just asked for. Many of us would have to look at this matter with some care, including myself.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Perhaps it would be convenient if I said at this stage that after the Committee stage it is possible for a Bill to be re-committed or, in the alternative, it is possible for a group of clauses to be re-committed. It is not, of course, for me to say whether that procedure should be adopted or otherwise. I am merely informing the House that it is possible for that to be done.
LORD SILKIN: I am sure that the Committee will be most grateful for that statement; it is very helpful. If the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, could give us an assurance that these particular clauses, and any other new clauses that are controversial, will be re-committed, speaking for myself I should be quite prepared to let them go at this stage.
LORD BRECON: I shall be quite happy to suggest that these matters are considered through the usual channels. But I should like to point out that this particular clause was published on December 20. However, perhaps in the meantime if I give an undertaking that I shall ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to have the usual consultations to see whether some such arrangement can be arrived at, that will be satisfactory.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BRECON: I beg to move the second new clause.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
Contribution to cost of sewer in land subsequently laid out as street
(".—(1) Where a local authority—

(a) have, after the commencement of this Act, constructed a sewer in any land which has after the construction of the sewer been laid out as a street or as part of a street, and

(b) pass a resolution declaring that the construction of the sewer has, in the opinion of the local authority, increased the value
1124
of premises fronting the street or that part of the street,

the provisions of subsections (5) to (9) of the last foregoing section shall have effect as respects the recovery by the local authority of payments from the owners of those premises in respect of the construction of the sewer.
(2) A notice of any such resolution shall be published by the local authority in a local newspaper circulating in their district: and the resolution shall come into operation for the purposes of this section on the date of publication.
(3) Where compensation due to the owner of any land under section two hundred and seventy-eight of the Public Health Act. 1936, in respect of damage sustained by reason of the construction therein of the sewer has been diminished by setting off any sum on account of the enhancement in value of the land by reason aforesaid, no payment shall be recoverable by virtue of this section in respect of any premises forming part of that land.
(4) Subsections (10), (11) and (12) of the last foregoing section shall apply to this section.")—(Lord Brecon.)
LORD HAWKE: May I ask the noble Lord in the Chair at what stage a Motion for the recommittal of these two new clauses has to be moved?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: In my opinion, not to-day. The procedure, I think, is that the Committee stage to-day proceeds in the normal way. At a later stage, a Motion may be moved in your Lordships' House, that either the whole Bill or one or more clauses be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
LORD SILKIN: May I ask, to clarify the point, whether such a Motion can be moved by any Member of the House?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Yes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BRECON: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
Evasion of liability to contribute under two last foregoing sections
(".—(1) If on a complaint by a local authority it is shown to the satisfaction of a magistrates' court—

(a) that any premises which do not front a street or part of a street have by reason of any transfer of land been severed from any other premises which do so front (whether at the time of the transfer or subsequently), and

1125

(b) that but for the transfer a payment under either of the two last foregoing sections would be recoverable in respect of the premises so severed, and

(c) that the transfer was intended for the purposes of evading liability to make any such payment,

the court may make an order under this section.
(2) An order under this section may direct that the premises so severed shall be deemed for the purposes of those sections to have a frontage to the street or part of the street of such extent in yards as may be specified in the order.
(3) In this section "transfer" includes any disposal of land whether by way of sale lease, exchange, gift or otherwise; and references to premises and to fronting shall be construed in the same manner as in the two last foregoing sections.")—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12:
Recovery of cost of maintaining public sewers
12. In the proviso to subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the Public Health Act, 1936 (under which a local authority must. unless in their opinion immediate action is necessary, to give seven days' notice of any work for the maintenance of a sewer which is chargeable to owners of premises served by the sewer), for the words
"unless in the opinion of the local authority immediate action is necessary, they"
there shall he substituted the words
"unless the medical officer of health or public health inspector certifies in writing to the local authority that immediate action is necessary, the local authority".
3.42 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in the new words proposed to be inserted to omit "to the local authority". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. This Amendment and others in ray name have been put down after a detailed consideration of the Bill by the Association of Public Health Inspectors. In addition, the Association of Municipal Corporations, with the exception of one Amendment, support those which I have put down.
Dealing with the first Amendment, Section 24 of the Public Health Act, 1936, empowers a local authority who have carried out maintenance work on certain lengths of sewer to recover the cost of this work from the owners of the premises served by the sewer. They are, however, required to give the owners seven days' notice of their inten-
1126
tion to carry out the work, to quote the words of the 1936 Act,
"unless in the opinion of the local authority immediate action is necessary".
Clause 12 of this Bill, however, proposes to substitute the following:
"unless the medical officer of health or public health inspector certifies…to the local authority that immediate action is necessary, the local authority",
and so on. Undoubtedly, this Amendment to Section 24 of the Public Health Act, 1936, is designed to expedite the execution of urgent works which are necessary and to do away with the necessity for a meeting of the local authority or, if power has been delegated to a committee (say the public health committee), for a meeting of that committee. I take it that that is the intention of the clause, and I think the Minister will agree.
However, there is some doubt as to whether the words as they stand in this Bill might be held to imply that a meeting of the local authority or committee with delegated powers will still be necessary before action can be taken: and it is with the object of clearing up that point, so that, when necessary, immediate action can be taken without having to wait for a meeting of the local authority or committee, that I have put down this Amendment. I know that it is probably somewhat daring to challenge the wording of Parliamentary draftsmen, hut, as a layman looking at the clause as it stands, I must say that doubt exists in my mind. I should be quite happy if the Minister can give us an assurance either that my interpretation or reading is incorrect, or, if he feels that there is some doubt, that the matter will be looked at again. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 36, leave out from ("writing") to ("that").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD BRECON: I think that if I read what I have here it will give the answer to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has raised. It says that this clause is based on model Clause No. 43, which dispenses with the need to give seven days' notice of the work proposed to be done where
"in the opinion of the medical officer of health or the public health inspector immediate action is necessary."

1127
When the Bill was being drafted, it seemed desirable to ensure that this opinion of the medical officer or of the public health inspector should be put into some permanent form, so that it would be available as a record in case of future dispute —
LORD BURDEN: That I can see.
LORD BRECON: —as the cost of the works in these cases may be recovered by the local authority from the owners of the properties served by the sewers which have been repaired. For this reason, Clause 12 in the Bill requires the medical officer or the public health inspector to certify in writing that immediate action is necessary, and the certificate is to be to the local authority, because the only effect of the certificate is to alter the local authority's powers; but this does not mean that action has to wait until the council or committee next meet. Once the certificate has been made and handed to the town clerk or clerk of the council, the requirements of the clause will have been met. Without this certificate they would be able to recover the cost only if advance notice had been given to the property owners under Section 24 of the Public Health Act, 1936. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: If the Minister's advisers are quite clear that the legal interpretation is that delivery of a certificate on the lines suggested to the town clerk, or to whoever might be the appropriate officer, will be taken as advising the local authority, then I am quite happy in regard to the matter, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Summary power to remedy stopped-up drains
14.—(I) If it appears to the medical officer of health or public health inspector that on any premises a drain, private sewer, water-closet or soil pipe is stopped up, he may by notice in writing require the owner or occupier of the premises to remedy the defect within forty-eight hours from the service of the notice.
3.49 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "forty-eight" and insert "twenty-four". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. It will be seen that my Amendment seeks to substitute twenty-four hours for forty-eight hours as the period from the service of a notice requiring an owner or occupier to remedy a drain, private sewer, water-closet or soil pipes which are stopped up. I will make two points in connection with this Amendment. The first is that some local authorities have already embodied in local Acts the period of twenty-four hours as that within which action must be taken. The second point is that a period of forty-eight hours is too long when one takes into account the fact that a drain, et cetera, may have been stopped up for some time before it came under the notice of the medical officer of health or the public health inspector. My information is that local authorities who have power to take action after twenty-four hours have in practice found no difficulty at all arising from that period. A longer period seems, in those circumstances, to be a danger to public health, and I suggest that for other sanitary reasons 24 hours might reasonably be adopted as the national standard, seeing the manner in which progressive local authorities have led the way in adopting the 24 hours' period. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 5, leave out ("forty-eight") and insert ("twenty-four").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD DYNEVOR: May I say one word on this proposed Amendment? The noble Lord, Lord Burden, proposes his Amendments with such a benevolent air that one hardly likes to question anything he says, but in these days it is often not possible for a private owner to get anybody on a Saturday or a Sunday. We are finding, that the five-day week is being widely introduced, and 48 hours, I should have thought, should be the period stipulated in the Bill. It must be recognised that a stopped-up drain should be remedied as quickly as possible; nevertheless, with the best will in the world, if the drain becomes stopped up at the week-end, it may not be possible to remedy it within 24 hours.
LORD BURDEN: May I answer the noble Lord on that point, after thanking

1129
him for his kindly reference? Local authorities are obviously aware of difficulties of that kind, and they are not so overbearing as to want people to go out on a Sunday, let alone the sacred Saturday. In those circumstances, I am sure there is no real difficulty in mind.
LORD SILKIN: I also think that 24 hours is quite unreasonable—I might as well say it about this provision, because I am going to say it later on. The mere fact that it is included in certain Private Bill legislation does not convince me at all. A good many things have slipped through of which I myself would not approve. I think that 24 hours is quite unreasonable, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor. If you are going to confer power upon a local authority to take action in default at the expiration of 24 hours, you might as well give them the power to do the job straight away. There is very little one can do within 24 hours. If, as the noble Lord has said, you cannot get a workman, there is nothing very much you can do, especially at week-ends. I think the Bill is better left as it is.
LORD BRECON: The object of Clause 14 is to provide a more expeditious procedure than that already contained in the Public Health Act, 1936, for dealing with cases where a drain, private sewer, water closet or soil pipe is stopped up and urgent action is called for. The clause enables the medical officer of health or the public health inspector to serve a notice on the owner or occupier of the premises requiring him to remedy the defect within 48 hours. If the notice is not complied with, the local authority will themselves be able, under subsection (2) of the clause, to do the necessary work and recover their reasonable expenses. The point at issue is whether the owner or occupier should have as long as 48 hours or whether he should be required to remedy the defect within 24 hours.
This clause is based on model clause No. 46, which allows the owner or occupier 48 hours, and most local Act precedents allow this period rather than 24 hours. It seems unreasonable to prescribe the shorter period because, in effect, it means that the owner or occupier who receives a notice from the local authority must get a builder to come and carry out the necessary works
1130
that very day. It is very difficult indeed to believe that this will always be practicable, but it is not unreasonable to expect the owner or occupier to be able to find someone by the following day. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, will withdraw his Amendment and allow the 48 hours' period to stand.
LORD BURDEN: It is difficult for me to oppose my noble friend Lord Silkin, but I may have to oppose him a little later on, so I am glad he has set the precedent in opposing me this afternoon. Be that as it may, I can see the point so far as shortage of labour is concerned; I can see the point so far as country districts are concerned; but, of course, there is the problem of the towns. However, as the model clause has been quoted, and as the Minister is not prepared to accept my Amendment, I have no alternative, having ventilated what is the considered view of the people concerned, to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Power to repair drains and private sewers
15.—(1) If it appears to a local authority that a drain or private sewer—

(a) is not sufficiently maintained and kept in good repair, and

(b) can be sufficiently repaired at a cost not exceeding fifty pounds,

the local authority may, after giving not less than seven days' notice to the person or persons concerned, cause the drain or sewer to be repaired, and, subject to the next following subsection, recover the expenses reasonably incurred in so doing, so far as they do not exceed fifty pounds, from the person or pee-sons concerned, in such proportions, if there is more than one such person, as the surveyor may determine:
3.58 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection, (1) after "surveyor" to insert "or public health inspector". The noble Lord said: My reason for moving this Amendment is that the public health inspector is frequently concerned with drainage work, and he should therefore be authorised to stipulate the point where drains should be disconnected. Of course, local authorities generally delegate powers to a committee. Many councils have delegated powers to the public

1131
health committee, and when this Bill becomes an Act they will undoubtedly delegate powers to their public health committee.
Taking the dictionary definition of a "surveyor", one might argue that the public health inspector comes within that definition, as he, in the nature of things, would be surveying if the work were allocated to him by his Committee. But the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, will appreciate, and knows as well as I do, that in local government nomenclature a surveyor usually has the connotation "borough engineer and surveyor"; therefore, I cannot depend on the dictionary definition of the word "surveyor". I would respectfully submit that when work has been carried out under the direction of one department—say, the public health department—under the direction and supervision of a public health inspector, it is fair and reasonable that the department should apportion the expenses. There may be instances where, on the initiative of the public health department, the borough engineer carries out the work, and in those circumstances there would obviously be every reason for him to apportion the expenses incurred.
Let me say, here and now, that, so far as the public health inspectors are concerned—and here I apologise to my noble friend Lord Silkin—they have carried out this work where certain powers have been given to local authorities under local Acts. I am sure my noble friend is conversant with the long and detailed training which public health inspectors undergo in the work of the Public Health Examinations Board. They are fully competent to carry out this work. Moreover, the Amendment has the support of the Association of Municipal Corporations who, I need hardly say, are fully conversant with the detailed work of local authorities.
Is it really necessary to put councils in such leading strings and determine by Act of Parliament what particular department should do what is, after all, a matter of routine business? Surely local authorities, so far as their organisation is concerned, must have power to function in what they deem to be the best possible way. In this Amendment I submit no exclusive claim for the public health
1132
inspector. Both officers may have a part to play. And if the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, feels difficulty in regard to this Amendment, why not leave it to the local authority to determine? Why not let the local authority make their choice of whether it be the public health inspector or the borough surveyor? I should be quite happy. I make no claim for prior treatment for one or the other. I would not do that, because many borough engineers are close personal friends of mine, and I know their worth. I should be the last to say anything derogatory about their services. But surely, when a particular branch of local government service has undergone long and expensive training and are conversant with what is involved, it is quite wrong to shut them out from doing this work, if the council should desire them to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, after ("surveyor") insert ("or public health inspector").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD SILKIN: This is not an important Amendment and I do not mind very much if the noble Lord feels inclined to accept it. I should, however, like to point out what my noble friend is asking for. This clause provides that a person in the employ of a local authority should have power to apportion expenses as between one owner and another. That is clearly the function of a surveyor. In my view, it is not within the normal competence of a public health inspector. It involves some knowledge of the cost of providing services, land values and so on, which one would expect a surveyor to have, though not a public health inspector. While I have no objection to having these words in, I think it makes nonsense to require a public health inspector to survey as to the apportionment of charges between one owner and another in respect of any work done by a local authority. Incidentally, the same would apply to my noble friend's next Amendment. I think that in both cases it is quite inappropriate to add the public health inspector. We might just as well add the officer in charge of lunacy, because neither of them would necessarily have any particular knowledge of values.
LORD BURDEN: All I can say to my noble friend is that my experience of local government has been quite as

1133
extensive as his, and from my experience I think that it is nonsensical and a bit of lunacy to ask a department to come in and assess work when they have no experience, in any shape or form, of how it has been carried out and would have to go to another department to get all the details. What officer can determine the cost of anything when presented with a completed job? When the work has been carried out under the supervision of one department, they know all that is involved and then it is purely a matter of arithmetic, which does not require a master of lunacy to do: even an office boy could do it.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: I do not want to enter into the private argument between noble Lords on my left.
LORD SILKIN: As a matter of correction, it is not a private argument; it is a public one.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I want only to say that some local authorities would much prefer that officers were not mentioned, but simply the local authority, because they are the body who have to decide in the end.
LORD BURDEN: May say that I have already indicated that I should be quite happy with a solution of that kind? Let the local authorities determine between my noble friend Lord Silkin and myself as to the officer who would be appropriate to carry out this work. Surely we can trust our local authorities to do their work efficiently without an Act of Parliament to say that Mr. A, and not Mr. B or Mr. C, is to do the job.
LORD BRECON: Perhaps what I have to say will bring agreement to the public disagreement on the other side of the Committee. Clause 15, to which this particular Amendment relates, is designed to supplement Section 39 of the Public Health Act, 1936. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, is the first of a number of Amendments much on the same lines, and perhaps he will bear that in mind while I am giving this reply. The clause enables a local authority to carry out comparatively small jobs of repair work on a defective drain or private sewer and recover the cost without going through the rather elaborate
1134
procedure of the Public Health Act, 1936. Where more than one person is concerned, the clause provides that the cost can be recovered from them in such proportions as the surveyor may determine. The noble Lord's Amendment would enable the apportionment to be made by either the surveyor or the public health inspector.
Parliament has always been reluctant in the past to confer powers or place responsibilities upon individual officers of local authorities, on the general grounds that so far as possible the responsibility for any action which is the concern of the authority ought to rest with the elected body itself The Government support that principle and the consequence that follows from it—that individual officers should not be placed in a special statutory position unless there are urgent and inescapable reasons for giving powers to them and not to the authority.
The noble Lord's Amendments to Clauses 15, 16, 23, 26, 31 and 35 all involve a consideration of this principle and the Government feel that there are other clauses in the Bill where the same issue arises and which ought perhaps to be reconsidered in the light of his proposals. In these circumstances, may I ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Burden, would withdraw those Amendments for the time being? If he can agree to do so, then the Government would undertake to examine all those provisions in the Bill which seek to confer powers on named officers, to ensure that all those provisions are necessary and that the right officers have been named.
The Government fully recognise the importance of the work of the public health inspectors and the contribution which they have to make to efficient local government, but it does not follow that they, or, for that matter, any other local authority officer, should be charged with responsibilities that ought properly to rest with the elected local authority. This is an important question, which needs to be gone into with some care, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, will feel able to withdraw his Amendment for the moment to enable further consideration to be given to it.
LORD BURDEN: I am obliged and indebted to the noble Lord for that

1135
statement. In my closing remarks I indicated that I should be happy if there could be a reconsideration of the point. The noble Lord has given a substantial reason for a re-examination of the matter, and with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall be agreed to?
LORD BURDEN: I should like to put two points to the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, on the Question that this clause stand part. As I read it, the clause gives power to recover the cost where the estimated cost does not exceed £50. It may be that, after the work has been started, unforeseen snags crop up which it would cost more than £50 to rectify. Do I take it that, if that should happen, all that the local authority could recover would be the £50? The second point is this. If there are urgent works which ought to be carried out that would cost over £50, do I take it that the local authority would have power to proceed under Section 39 of the Public Health Act, 1936? I ought to have given the noble Lord notice of these questions, and as he probably has not the answers available now, I should be obliged if he would let me know in regard to them at some later stage.
LORD BRECON: I shall be pleased to let the noble Lord have answers to the questions he has raised on this clause.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Disconnection of drains
16.— (l) Where any person—
(a) reconstructs in the same or a new position a drain which communicates with a sewer or another drain, or
he shall cause any drains or parts of drains thereby becoming disused or unnecessary to be disconnected and sealed at such points as the surveyor may reasonably require.
(5) This section shall not apply in relation to anything done in the course of the demolition of a building, or of an external part of a building.
4.13 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE LORD BROUGHSHANE moved to add to subsection (1):
"on or within the boundaries of the premises served thereby."
The noble Lord said: the object of this Amendment is to ensure that no one may be required, for the purpose of sealing all the drains in the circumstances detailed in the clause, to do any work outside the boundaries of his own property. This is in accordance with model clause No. 48 on which this clause is based. With regard to subsection (2) of the clause, it does seem that in certain circumstances the surveyor may still require that a street be broken open outside the boundaries of the owner's property for the purpose of sealing off a drain. This might well involve an owner in heavy expense and he would have no appeal against the surveyor's requirements: indeed, he would incur a penalty in the event of non-compliance. If it be suggested that in some cases it might be difficult to seal off a drain elsewhere than outside the boundaries of a property, it should be said that there is no provision for this in model clause, No. 48, which, so far as I know, has worked satisfactorily and has given rise to no practical difficulties. I beg to move.
LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord sits down, could he tell us what model clause No. 48 is?
LORD BROUGHSHANE: I am afraid I have not got it with me.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, after ("require") insert the said words.—(.Lord Broughshane.)
LORD BRECON: I have not the model clauses here, nor have I had time to look them up. So far as this Amendment is concerned, the object of this clause is to prevent disused and abandoned drains from becoming prejudicial to health. It requires the person who carried out work which results in a drain being put out of use to disconnect and to seal up any disused drain or portion of a drain at such points as the local authority surveyor may reasonably require. The model clause (No. 48) on which this clause is based says that the drain shall be disconnected and sealed at such points on or within the boundaries of the premises served as the surveyor may reasonably require, and the noble Lord seeks to have these words inserted in the Bill. Their purpose is to prevent an owner from being placed under an obligation to carry out

1137
works on another person's land, where he may be a trespasser.
The clause of the Bill, as drafted, makes a slight variation in the model clause, though without departing from the intention of the words the noble Lord has in mind. The clause does not require the point of disconnection to be on the owner's own premises; there may be a much more suitable place further along the line of the pipe. If a dead end of a drain is not to become a breeding ground for rats, then it should be sealed off at the point where it joins the sewer from which the rats might otherwise gain access. Subsection (2), however, which the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, would omit, says that no one shall be required to carry out any work in land outside the premises served by the drain if he has no right to carry out that work. If the best point for this purpose is outside the premises, and if the owner has the right to do the work there, it seems desirable that the drain should be disconnected and sealed there. It is suggested that the Bill achieves the object of the precedents in a more satisfactory way.
I would add that subsection (2) contemplates that a property owner might be required to break open streets in order to seal a disused drain at the point where it connects to the sewer. This could be more expensive than carrying out work within the curtilage of his own land, but the point might be made here that when a property is first connected to the sewer the cost of the work falls on the owner, so prima facie it is not unreasonable that the cost of disconnection should fall on the owner also. For the reasons I have given, I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: While thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him if he would consider whether some words might be incorporated so as not to put the owner at the mercy, so to speak, of the surveyor, and that any reconnection should be by agreement between the surveyor and the owner
LORD BRECON: I will certainly give that consideration before the Report stage.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: I thank the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.20 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, has an Amendment down to this subsection, and if my interpretation of it is correct it will not be necessary for me to press my Amendment. The noble Lord's Amendment refers to Clause 26 and, as I understand the matter, in regard to this topic of an dis-used drain action cannot be taken under this clause—that is, Clause 26—if the cubic capacity of the building or part of the building demolished is less than 1,750 cubic feet. On the other hand, if there should be a disused drain in a building or part of a building demolished less than 1,750 cubic feet, then action can be taken under Clause 16. I must admit: that it was somewhat difficult to get to that conclusion. The noble Lord's Amendment, if I may say so, is a subtle one; but if my interpretation is correct—and I hope and believe it is—then I shall have pleasure in withdrawing my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 20, leave out subsection (5). —(Lord Burden.)
LORD BRECON: I must ask for help on this matter. I was rather hoping that the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment and let me put mine.
LORD BURDEN: I will do so, of course, if my interpretation is correct.
LORD BRECON: The noble Lord's interpretation is correct.
LORD BURDEN: Then I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BRECON LORD BRECON moved, in subsection (5), to leave out from third "of" to the end of the subsection and insert:
"part of a building, being a demolition as respects which the local authority has power under section twenty-six of this Act to serve a notice on the person undertaking the demolition".
The noble Lord said: The subsection affected by this Amendment is one designed to keep two clauses of the Bill

1139
in step. Clause 16 enables a local authority's surveyor to require a person who is reconstructing a drain, or carrying out work which will result in its being disconnected, to seal up any drain which as a result is put permanently out of use. The purpose of this power is to prevent a disused drain from becoming a danger to public health. This could happen if, for instance, the dead end of a disused drain is allowed to become a breeding ground for rats.
The other clause concerned is Clause 26 which deals with the demolition of properties and the need to make sure that when a property is demolished proper steps are taken to seal off any water pipes, drains or sewers, to weatherproof any exposed part of an adjoining building and to clear the rubble from the site. Local authorities are given power to require, among other things, that drains which become disused because of demolition work shall be properly sealed off, and clearly there could be a slight degree of overlap between the two clauses.
Subsection (5) of Clause 16 removes this overlap by ensuring that where drains have to be sealed up as a result of demolition work any notice on the subject shall be given under Clause 26 and not under Clause 16. This is logical because the demolition may require other consequential work—the sealing of water pipes, for instance—and the same notice should deal with all of them. But not all demolition work is caught by Clause 26. Subsection (2) of that clause exempts certain minor demolition works —demolition work undertaken as part of an internal conversion, for instance, and the demolition of small buildings, sheds and greenhouses. For this reason, it is not sufficient to exempt all demolition work from the operation of Clause 16; it is necessary to exempt only those demolition works which can be covered by Clause 26, and the purpose of the Amendment is to clarify this point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 21, leave out from third ("of") to end of line 22 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Brecon.)
LORD BURDEN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Am I still correct in saying that under Clause 16, which deals
1140
with the demolition of premises of under 1,750 cubic feet, if there should be a disused drain that ought to be stopped then that drain could be stopped?
LORD BRECON: Yes.
LORD BURDEN: The noble Lord mentioned rats. He will be aware that the public health inspector is the person who has to deal with the rodent pest.
LORD BRECON:
Yes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Closet accommodation for separate dwellings
18.—(1) In subsection (1) of section forty-four of the Public Health Act. 1936 (paragraph (a) of which relates to the sufficiency of closet accommodation in buildings), after the said paragraph (a) there shall be added the following paragraph—
"(aa) that any part of a building, being a part which is occupied as a separate dwelling, is without sufficient closet accommodation; or"
(2) Among the grounds on which an appeal may be brought under subsection (3) of section two hundred and ninety of the said Act against a notice under the said subsection (1) as amended by this section shall be—

(a) that the need for the works to be executed under the notice would not, in whole or in part, arise but for the occupation of part of the building as a separate dwelling, and that the occupation of that part as a separate dwelling is a matter in respect of which the appellant has a cause of action, and

(b) that the person against whom the appellant has a cause of action ought to contribute towards the expenses of executing the works.

(3) Where the grounds on which an appeal under the said section two hundred and ninety is brought include the ground specified in subsection (2) of this section, the appellant shall serve a copy of his notice of appeal on the person or persons referred to in that ground of appeal, and on the hearing of the appeal the court may make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the contribution to be made by any such person towards the cost of the works, or as to the proportion in which any expenses which may be recoverable by the local authority are to be borne by the appellant and any such other person."
LORD BROUGHSHANE LORD BROUGHSHANE moved to insert after "accommodation" in paragraph (aa):
"Provided that, for the purposes of this paragraph, where any such part of a building

1141
has been let for occupation as a separate dwelling without the consent of the owner of the building the person so letting that part of the building shall be deemed to be the owner for the purposes of this section."
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak to this Amendment, and also to the consequential Amendment, No. 18. This Amendment is put forward for the purpose of safeguarding an owner of property who might otherwise find himself obliged to provide what is referred to by the draftsman delicately as "closet accommodation", which I understand to mean a W.C., merely because, without the owner's consent, a part of his property has been sub-get. Subsection (2) of this clause recognises that some provision should be made to protect an owner whose tenant has, without his consent, sub-let part of his house, but I submit that a right of appeal is inadequate and inappropriate protection in these circumstances. The owner would have to go before the court to prove that the responsibility was not his, and in order successfully to prove this he would have to show that his tenant's lease specifically prohibited sub-letting. If the terms of the lease were silent as regards sub-letting he would have no remedy at all.
Further, I suggest that it is desirable that the courts should not be burdened with appeals when, if this Amendment is effected, it would merely be for the sanitary inspector to ascertain whether the owner's consent has been obtained to the sub-letting. In recent years this point has been argued before Select Committees of Parliament and a clause, amended as I have proposed in my Amendment, was inserted in the Cheshire County Council Bill of 1953 and in the Wallasey Corporation Bill of 1957/58. Since then the same proviso has been inserted, to the best of my knowledge, in every Private Act in which a clause similar to Clause 18 has appeared—that is to say, once in 1959, in the Bootle Corporation Act, and in no fewer than four Private Acts in 1960, in the case of the Corporations of Bournemouth, Croydon, Oldham and Southend-on-Sea. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 17, after ("accommodation") insert the said proviso.—(Lord Broughshane.)
LORD SILKIN: I am bound to say that on first reading of this Amendment I did not like it, because I think it imposes
1142
an unreasonable burden upon the local authority of having to make a decision, which is not always easy, as to whether a particular letting was effected with the consent of the owner or not. I think a local authority is a singularly inappropriate and unsuitable body to make such a decision, and particularly the inspector of health, to whom the noble Lord himself referred. I must say that I am a little shaken by the fact that a similar provision—if it is the case—has been accepted in a substantial number of Private Acts. I said earlier that I did not think that that was a conclusive argument, and that now we were introducing public legislation we were entitled to have another look at these provisions. I still think so. But I must say, in all fairness, that I cannot feel as strongly as I did when I first read this, in view of the fact that so many local authorities already have this provision. I do not like it. I do not think it is the job of the local authority to decide, as between the owner and his tenant, whether permission has been given to sub-let and I think it ought not to be included in the Bill.
LORD BRECON: The proviso which this Amendment seeks to add to subsection (1) of the clause would take the place of subsections (2) and (3) which are proposed to be deleted from the clause by the following Amendment, and the two have therefore to be considered together. The purpose of the clause is to require a local authority, when parts of a building are separately occupied, to consider whether the available closet accommodation is sufficient for each part. This does not mean that there must necessarily be a separate closet for each separate part. The question is whether sufficient accommodation is provided, and this requirement may be met by a shared closet.
The clause is based upon a model clause, and although the words which the Amendment would introduce are not actually in the model clause, they have been added to it in many of the cases where the provision has been included in local Acts. Their purpose is to protect an owner of a property from the risk of having to instal extra water closets purely as a result of unauthorised sub-letting by his tenant. It is not disputed that the owner should be protected

1143
against that possibility, and subsections (2) and (3) of the clause have been included for that very purpose. The proviso which has been included in local Acts, however (and which Lord Broughshane's Amendment would substitute for these subsections in this clause) is open to a number of objections.
The first is that it would make the tenant who sub-lets part of a building the owner for the purpose of Section 44 of the Public Health Act, 1936, so that any notice to provide additional closets would be served upon him instead of upon the owner of the building. This would be undesirable, both because the tenant may have no right to carry out the work and because the owner may well object both to the unauthorised sub-letting and to having his property altered. This could operate most unfairly against the owner since, not having been served with a notice, he would have no right to appeal. Indeed he does not even have to be told what is being done. A second objection is that as the proviso is drafted the tenant who is responsible for the sub-letting would be called upon to provide additional closets, if a notice were served by the local authority, even though they might not have been made necessary by the sub-letting. This would be unfair to the tenant. A third objection is that a sub-letting without the owner's consent need not necessarily be unlawful. It would depend upon the circumstances of the case and a tenant may be perfectly entitled to sub-let without the landlord's consent. It would be doubly unfair if a tenant who sub-let in those circumstances should be called upon to provide additional closets, even although it was not the sub-letting by him which had made them necessary.
It was for these reasons that the proviso contained in Lord Broughshane's Amendment was rejected, when the Bill was drafted, in favour of the arrangements set out in subsections (2) and (3) of the clause. Subsection (2) provides that if the inadequacy of the closet accommodation arises from the subletting, and if the owner has a cause of action in respect of the sub-letting, then he may appeal to the magistrates on the grounds that the person against whom he has a cause of action should contribute towards the expense of the works.
1144
This will enable the court to look at all the circumstances of the case and make whatever order they think fit. If it is right to do so, the tenant responsible for the sub-letting can be required to pay a substantial contribution towards the cost of the works. It is felt that this is an improvement upon the provision which appears in local Acts and it is recommended that the Amendment be rejected.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: While thanking the noble Lord for his long and detailed reply, it still remains surprising that so many corporations should have found it desirable to include in legislation in very recent years. on no fewer than four occasions in 1960, the proviso contained in my Amendment. However, I should dike an opportunity of studying Hansard and reading what the noble Lord has said, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Defective premises]:
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved in subsection (1) to leave out "a local authority" and insert "the medical officer of health or public health inspector". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List, and perhaps I might suggest that this Amendment might conceivably, for various reasons I shall indicate, stand outside the general understanding, but if it does not I shall have to accept it. As I read the clause, it is designed to expedite the execution of urgent works, particularly on premises in such a defective state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance. As the clause stands, it provides for a meeting of the local authority or a committee with delegated powers before the notice can be served. I am sure that the noble Lord. Lord Brecon, with his knowledge of local government, will agree with me when I say that frequently, owing to the obligation for a meeting, appreciable delays could easily occur, with, I take it, consequential danger to public health. For example, many councils and their committees do not meet during the month of August and part of September. Again, if a public health committee has no delegated

1145
powers the matter would have to stand over to a meeting of the local authority.
I think these cases of urgency could be looked at as exceptional, seeing that there are precedents for it; and this Bill in Clause 14 mentions the public health inspector and medical officer of health. This is not moved in any hostile spirit at all but only, rightly or wrongly, to give effect to what I think is the intention of the clause, namely, to expedite the execution of urgent work. But again, if the view of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is that consideration of these terms should stand over to the general consideration, I shall accept it. On the other hand, I think there are these exceptional cases where an individual or individuals as designated should have power to act in the public interest. But again I am in the hands of the Minister. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 40, leave out ("a local authority") and insert ("the medical officer of health or public health inspector").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD BRECON: I can give the assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Burden that what we discussed in an earlier clause relating to the naming of particular officers will be considered for the whole of the Bill. In this particular case he is asking for a change from the word "local authority" to "medical officer of health or public health inspector". Here, again, it may be better if power is given to the local authority and the local authority itself delegates its powers to its individual officers, so that if the council go away on holiday in August and the officers do not go at the same time something will be done. But in the context of what the noble Lord says, all that will be considered in relation to the naming of the officers
LORD BURDEN: I thank the noble Lord, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Ruinous and dilapidated buildings and neglected sites]:
4.40 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: This Amendment seeks to ensure that the sites of demolished buildings which have been
1146
cleared shall be kept clear and not, as quite frequently happens, be allowed to develop into an eyesore or a danger to public health. I am sure that it is within the knowledge of everybody that cleared sites may easily become the dumping ground for old bedsteads, and even mattresses: all sorts of things are dumped on these cleared sites by people who want to get rid of this material. While I believe that there is power under the Public Health Act to call upon the owner to remove rubbish or material which could be deemed to be a danger to public health, there is nothing other than that power; and I doubt whether it could be said that an old bedstead is a danger to public health, however unsightly it may be. I am sure that the Government and the Minister have looked at this point, but I shall be glad to hear what they have to say about it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 42 after ("material") insert ("and for maintaining the size or land free of rubbish and material").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD BRECON: Again, Clause 24 is based on model clause No. 56, and its aim is Ito enable local authorities to take action when local amenities are injured either by the dilapidated state of a building or by the untidy nature of a site after a building has been demolished or has collapsed. It provides a rather more direct procedure for tackling this kind of problem than is contained in Section 58 of the Public Health Act, 1936. But essentially it contemplates a single operation.
Under subsection (1), if a building is dilapidated it must be restored or, alternatively, it must be demolished and the site cleared. Under subsection (2), with which alone Lord Burden's Amendment is concerned, a neglected site must be cleared. His Amendment is aimed at a different problem: how to keep an empty plot of land tidy after it has been cleared and how to prevent people from dumping rubbish—old bedsteads and other things—on it. No one denies that this presents difficulties, but it is a problem which applies equally where action is taken under subsection (1) of this clause and a building is demolished. Nor, so far as the Department are aware, is there any local Act precedent for anything on the lines of Lord Burden's Amendment. The problem

1147
is a general one, applying to all empty sites, and is, indeed, tackled as a general problem under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Section 33 of that Act deals with gardens, vacant sites and other open land the condition of which is seriously injurious to local amenities. Under that section the local planning authority may serve on the owner or occupier of the land a notice requiring him to take such steps as are needed to remedy the state of affairs complained of. Once land is cleared as a result of action under this clause, these powers in the Town and Country Planning Act are available to keep them clear. I hope that, after the reasons I have given, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: I understand from the Minister that there are really two strings to the bow. Speaking from my own experience, under the Public Health Act, where anything is injurious to public health the local authority can order the owner to remove it from the site. The second point is that if the rubble or the rubbish accumulated is a danger to the amenities there can then be brought into action the appropriate section of the Town and Country Planning Act.
LORD BRECON: That is so.
LORD BURDEN: With those two strings to the bow and having received that elucidation, I have pleasure in asking the Committee for permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall be agreed to?
LORD SHEPHERD: May I ask the Minister a question? Under this clause the local authority may instruct and require an owner to demolish a building. As the noble Lord may be aware, some old buildings have cellars. In one or two parts of the country I have seen places where houses have been demolished but the cellars have remained and constitute a danger, particularly to children playing in the area. Am I right in understanding that when an owner is required to demolish a building he must demolish it and put the site into such a state that nothing remains of the building or of its foundations, so that there is no danger,
1148
either of children falling into cellars, or of the accumulation of rubbish? I do not know whether the noble Lord can help me on that matter.
LORD BRECON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd for drawing my attention to that. I cannot give him an answer to the point now, but I will look into it and perhaps advise him on it. But it seems to me that if the local authority are to serve a notice on someone to demolish a building where there is a cellar, then perhaps they ought to put into that notice the condition that the cellar is filled up. But I will let the noble Lord know.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26:
Powers of local authority in relation to demolitions
26.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority may serve a notice under this section on any person who undertakes the demolition of the whole or of part of a building.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to the demolition—
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AILWYN): I have to point out that Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 must be transposed. I call first Amendment No. 23, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane.
LORD BROUGHSHANE LORD BROUGHSHANE moved to add to subsection (2):
"(c) of any building or part of a building situate within the curtilage of or used solely in connection with a factory which does not adjoin a street if the building or part (as the case may be) either—

(i) is at a distance from the nearest street not less than the maximum height thereof above the level of the ground; or

(ii) being at a less distance from the nearest street than as aforesaid is throughout its length or width on the side nearest to that street separated from the street by another building forming part of the factory not proposed to be demolished or taken down of which no part opposite to that side is of a less height than the maximum height above the level of the ground of the building or part proposed to be demolished or taken down."

The noble Lord said: Clause 26 requires notice to be given to a local authority before demolition of a building is carried out, and it empowers the local authority

1149
to require the person undertaking the demolition to take action in the various ways detailed in subsection (5). While these requirements are undoubtedly reasonable and proper where the proposed demolition adjoins a public street, I suggest that they may unnecessarily restrict owners of property in the case of a demolition which could cause no interference with the public. The proposed Amendment seeks to exempt from the provisions of the clause buildings which are within the curtilage of, or are used solely in connection with, a factory which does not adjoin a street. Further, such demolition would be exempt under the proposed Amendment only if the distance from the street of the building to be demolished is more than its height, or if it is sheltered from the street by another building, being part of the factory, which is at least the height of the building to be demolished. The field of the proposed Amendment is very restricted, but I submit that without it there would be in many cases unnecessary interference with industry.
There are a number of recent precedents for the exemption sought by this Amendment. The proviso is to be found in three Private Acts passed in 1958— the Acts of Blackpool Corporation, Gloucester Corporation and the Corporation of Wallasey. There were two further Acts in 1959, those relating to Bootle Corporation and Portsmouth Corporation, and as many as four in I960— namely, the Acts of the Corporations of Bournemouth, Oldham, Southampton and Cardiff. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 39, at end insert the said paragraph. —(Lord Broughshane.)
LORD BRECON: The purpose of this clause is to ensure that, when demolition works take place, the local authority can require that proper steps are taken to shore up and weatherproof adjacent buildings; to disconnect and seal off any water pipes, drains and sewers, and to remove the material and rubbish resulting from the demolition. Subsection (2) exempts certain minor demolitions from the scope of the clause. These exemptions relate to internal walls of buildings which are, and will remain, occupied, and to minor buildings, though these may
1150
alternatively be caught under Clause 16 which deals with the disconnection of disused drains. This Amendment seeks to add another category of works to those which are exempt from the operation of Clause 26. Its wording is not easy to understand, but it apparently seeks to exempt factory buildings or buildings used in connection with factories if they are at least as far away from the nearest street as their own height or if they are shielded from the street by another part of the factory.
The noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, will probably recall that art exemption on these lines has appeared in local Acts. This is true, but against this it must be pointed out that not all exemptions and saving clauses written into Private Acts are necessarily suitable for inclusion in general legislation. Very frequently, as the House will know, the promoters of Private Bills include saving clauses as the easiest and cheapest way of meeting objections, and it is difficult for Private Bill Committees to strike out such clauses, even if they disagree with their necessity, because of the requirements of Standing Orders. Once included in a local Act, such exemptions tend to get repeated in later Private Bills. The mere existence of one or even several precedents is not, therefore, a conclusive argument.
There seems to be no guarantee that the sort of demolition work contemplated by the Amendment might not create just the sort of problems with which the clause aims to deal. The demolition of an internal part: of a factory or the internal part of any building connected with a factory could in any case be exempted under subsection (2) (a) of the clause. Subsection (2) (b) also covers small buildings or sheds on industrial as well as domestic property. But what is the case for exempting other buildings? Surely they might be served by water pipes, drains and sewers which would need to be sealed up or removed? The Amendment includes buildings used "in connection with" factories—these could include canteens, wash-houses and lavatories. The mere fact that the building was back from the street by a distance equal to its own height would not prevent this from being the case, nor would it remove the possibility of uncleared rubble being an eyesore.

1151
The exemption speaks only of buildings "within the curtilage of or used…in connection with" factories. But if one departs from the two classes of exemption referred to in subsection (2) —internal works and minor buildings—it is difficult to see reasons for putting industrial buildings in a special position without giving weight to demands which might also be made from other quarters. Commercial properties, offices, transport undertakings, sports clubs and many others might make similar claims. It is submitted that this Amendment seeks to extend an exemption which might have been justified in the special circumstances of particular local Acts, but is quite unsuitable for general extension. For these reasons I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: While thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I am bound to say I found it difficult to understand why he so easily dismisses the precedents I was able to cite. He says that in certain cases local circumstance may justify what could not be justified in a national context. However, the nine precedents which I cited—I will not repeat them—cover a very large and wide range of the country. I do not feel in a position to press the matter further; and so that I may have an opportunity of studying further what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Cellars and rooms below subsoil, water level]:
LORD BROUGHSHANE LORD BROUGHSHANE moved to add to subsection (8):
"or in connection with any premises in respect of which a provisional grant of a justices licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises has been made before the construction of the cellar or room is commenced."
The noble Lord said: Clause 27 requires that the consent of the local authority shall be obtained before there is constructed a cellar or room below subsoil water level. The Amendment seeks exemption from the clause for premises in respect of which a provisional grant of a justices' licence has been made
1152
before the construction of the cellar has begun. I suggest that is both onerous and unnecessary that there should be an obligation to obtain the consent of the local authority in cases where the justices have already provisionally granted their licence, since such grant includes in all cases, I understand, full approval of all plans of the premises which are to be constructed, including, of course, cellars. Moreover, it is not impossible that the requirements of the local authority and those of the justices might be conflicting.
The exemption which my Amendment seeks does not include exemption for any existing licensed premises but only licensed premises in respect of which a provisional justices' licence has been obtained. I would point out (although I have the impression that this will not carry me very far with the noble Lord who answers for Her Majesty's Government) that there are precedents for this. The precedents for what is contained in my proposed Amendment are contained in existing Private Acts, the Bootle Corporation Act and two Private Acts of last year, the Oldham Corporation Act and the Southend-on-Sea Corporation Act. In those circumstances I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 8, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Broughshane.)
LORD BRECON: Exactly what the licensing justices do when they make their examination of the cellars is something of which I am not quite sure at the present moment, and I should certainly require to look at that to see for what reason they make their examination. I believe that the clause really seeks to ensure that no one builds below the normal subsoil water level a cellar in which perhaps people eventually might live in very damp conditions. However, I am prepared to look into this point and to come back to it at the Report stage.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. In view of what he says, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BRECON: Subsection (9) provides that rules made under Section 15 (6) of the Land Charges Act, 1925, may

1153
deal with the varying and cancelling of matters registered in the register of local land charges in consequence of action under subsection (4) of this clause. On consideration it became apparent that this subsection was unnecessary, since Section 15 (6) of the Land Charges Act, 1925, itself confers power to do all that is needed. This power is already exercised in the rules (Rule 13 of the Local Land Charges Rules, 1934) and to retain this subsection might cast doubt on the scope of the power to make rules conferred by Section 15 (6) of the Act of 1925.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 9, leave out subsection (9).—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Food storage accommodation in new houses]:
4.58 p.m.
LORD BRECON: This Amendment has the same purpose as a similar Amendment to Clause 30. Both Amendments are drafting, the purpose in each case being to make it clear that the clause applies to plans for the erection of new buildings and not to plans for converting existing ones. The clauses as drafted would have this effect, but it is desirable that there should be no possible grounds for misunderstanding. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 16, at beginning insert ("for the erection").—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
LORD BURDEN: This Amendment, No. 27, and the following Amendment are, of course, linked. I beg to move Amendment No. 27. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, will tell the Committee that the word "suitable" can he interpreted to imply that a larder must be "properly ventilated" and that if it is not a local authority could reject the plans. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that there are foodstuffs that require a properly ventilated larder. But I venture to submit that it is far better to avoid any ambiguity, and in the experience of those responsible for administration it would be helpful to remove any shadow of doubt and thus avoid any trouble arising in the future. They would know what they would have to provide
1154
for in the submission of any plans.I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 25, leave out ("and").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD BRECON: Clauses 28 and 29 are concerned with the provision of food storage accommodation in new dwellings and in existing dwellings. In each case the Bill uses the expression "sufficient and suitable" accommodation, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Burden, wishes the Bill to say" sufficient, suitable and properly ventilated "accommodation. The additional words proposed are not really necessary. If the accommodation proposed requires ventilation then it would not be "suitable" unless ventilation was provided. To that extent the reference to ventilation is not needed. Indeed, it might, in some circumstances, be not only unnecessary but also undesirable. A ventilated space may not be the only satisfactory way of providing for food storage, either now or in the future. Supposing, for example that the plans of a house showed that a large built-in refrigerator was to be provided, then clearly it would not fall within the description "properly ventilated", but it might be perfectly suitable. In such circumstances—and other examples might emerge in the future— it would be a positive disadvantage not to have the flexibility which the word "suitable" imports. It is for this reason that I am sorry to say the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: Can the noble Lord help me? So far as the word "suitable" is concerned, does that also include the question of locality where the food is stored—where the pantry is going to be, shall we say, in relation to the coal cellar?
LORD BRECON: It means a position in the house which the local authorities, through their officers, agree is a suitable position.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am extremely surprised to hear the noble Lord who is speaking on behalf of the Government say that suitable accommodation for storage of food would be provided solely in a refrigerator. I sincerely hope that that is not the official

1155
view, because it is very well known that certain articles of food should not be stored in a refrigerator. Therefore, the provision of the refrigerator is not provision of adequate accommodation for storage of food in general.
LORD BRECON: One may have a cold cupboard. It is not a refrigerator like a deep-freeze. A cold cupboard has a temperature lower than is normal and can be quite satisfactory to keep foods in, as I myself am well aware. But I do not think that at this stage we want to make it more difficult for the local authorities, which themselves must decide upon each particular case as it is presented to them.
LORD BURDEN: As I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, has really given me my case—that the word "suitable", if the circumstances require it, can be interpreted by the local authority as meaning "properly ventilated"—I agree that the words are redundant and I beg leave to withdraw them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Food storage accommodation in existing houses]:
5.7 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: I beg to move Amendment No. 31. It is put forward to safeguard owners who might find themselves obliged to provide additional food storage accommodation the need for which has arisen merely because part of their property has been let without their consent. The arguments here are precisely the same as those advanced by myself unsuccessfully a few minutes ago in connection with Clause 18. Here, too, the owner has a right of appeal which, as I suggested in the case of Clause 18, seemed to me inappropriate and insufficient protection. However, the only additional argument I can advance in this case, to increase my chances of receiving some sympathy from the noble Lord who replies for Her Majesty's Government, is model clause No. 61, which deals with food storage accommodation. It contains a proviso exactly equivalent to the words of my Amendment. I submit that the model clause should be operated.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 37, at end insert—
("Provided that, where a part of a building which is occupied as a separate dwelling has been let for occupation as a separate dwelling without the consent of the owner of the building, the person so letting that part of the building shall be deemed to be the owner.")—(Lord Broughshane.)
LORD BRECON: Clause 29 empowers a local authority to require additional food storage accommodation to be provided by the owner where a house or part of a building occupied as a separate dwelling is not already provided with sufficient and suitable accommodation for that purpose. Subsections (4) and (5) of the clause are on the same lines as subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 18, and they are designed to protect an owner of a property against having to bear the cost of installing additional larders as the result of an unlawful sub-letting by a tenant. They were included in the Bill in preference to the proviso which the Amendment would add to the clause (and which is in the same terms as that which Lord Broughshane's Amendment sought to add to Clause 18) because the proviso was found to be open to a number of objections. In brief, the proviso is not sufficiently precise in its application and could in some circumstances bear unfairly on the owner and in others upon the tenant.
It is felt that subsections (4) and (5) are an improvement upon the proviso suggested, in that they enable a court to look at all the circumstances of the case and order the tenant to contribute towards the cost of installing additional accommodation if it is necessary because of his action in sub-letting and if the sub-letting is a matter in respect of which the owner has a cause of action. It is for these reasons that I am afraid I cannot recommend acceptance of this Amendment.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: Before the noble Lord sits down, could he comment on model clause No. 61, which I understand contains the proviso put forward in my Amendment?
LORD BRECON: I have Clause 61 here, but I should not like to comment on it immediately.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: In begging leave to withdraw my Amendment I

1157
would ask my noble friend Lord Brecon to look at model clause No. 61 before Report stage.
LORD BRECON: I will.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
Provision of bathrooms
30.—(1) Where plans of a house, or of a building part of which is intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, have been deposited with a local authority in pursuance of building byelaw; or building regulations, and the plans do not show that the proposed house or, as the case may be, the part of the proposed building to be occupied as a separate dwelling will be provided with a bathroom containing a fixed bath, the local authority may, subject to the provisions of this section, reject the plans.
(2) If the local authority reject the plans under this section, the person by whom the plans were deposited may appeal to a magistrates' court, and if the magistrates' court allow the appeal they shall direct the local authority to allow the plans under this section
LORD BRECON: I beg to move this Amendment. Its purpose is similar to that proposed to Clause 28. It seeks to make it clear that this clause deals only with new buildings and not with the conversion of existing buildings.
Amendment moved—
Pape 23, line 24, after ("plans") insert ("for the erection").—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.10 p.m.
LORD BRECON LORD BRECON moved, in subsection (1), after "containing" to insert "either". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is linked with Amendment No. 36, and they should be considered together. Clause 30 deals with new buildings which are dwellings (houses, flats, et cetera) or which consist in part of dwellings (shops with flats overhead, offices with a caretaker's flat, et cetera). It provides that when plans of any such building are submitted to the local authority in accordance with building bylaws or building regulations, the local authority may reject those plans if they do not show that any new house or separate dwelling will be provided with its own bathroom containing a fixed bath. It is very unlikely, in these days, that new houses or flats would be planned without adequate bathroom accommodation. Local authorities are not expected.
1158
therefore, to have to use these powers save as a last resort in isolated instances. But the local authority associations have indicated that the power would nevertheless be useful—and, indeed, some 200 local authorities have it already.
This Amendment, and the other to which it is linked, would modify Clause 30 as it now appears in the Bill by allowing a shower bath as an alternative to a fixed bath. If these Amendments are accepted, local authorities would be entitled to refuse plans only if the proposed new dwelling would not have either a fixed bath or a shower: it would be open to the developer to decide which he wants. This modification of the clause is also precedented in local Acts, even though it is not in the model clause. In the Minister's view, it is right that the provision, when extended to all local authorities, should include the alternative.
This Amendment provides an opportunity to draw attention to the fact that the power now being extended to all local authorities is discretionary. The clause says that the council "may" reject plans if the dwelling will not contain a bathroom with a bath or shower: it does not say that the local authority "shall" reject the plans in all such cases. This is an important point, as there are a number of instances—for example, the blocks of flatlets which are specially designed to make life easy for the less active old people—where it is preferable for some sharing of bathrooms which could be kept clean by the warden. For this reason, the Minister is anxious that local authorities should exercise the powers of the clause in a flexible way. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 30, after ("containing") insert ("either").—(Lord Brecon.)
LORD SHEPHERD: I feel rather guilty that I have not done much homework during the Recess. I understand that this clause, which has just been amended by the previous Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, relates only to new houses. Am I correct in that?
LORD BRECON: Yes.
LORD SHEPHERD: And it does not make any provision in regard to houses that are being converted, or which to-day

1159
have not got baths, that the authorities shall direct that baths be provided. I believe that is the case.
LORD BRECON: Yes.
LORD SHEPHERD: It seems rather strange that in Clause 28 we require that houses which are being converted shall have suitable accommodation for food storage, and yet, when we come down to bathrooms, which are becoming an essential part of our life, the Government are not giving power to local authorities to say that if a house has not got a bath the owner must provide one. I do not know whether there is any other legislation which gives authorities power to direct an owner to provide a bath. I do not know whether the noble Lord could help me there.
LORD BRECON: At the present moment, it is only when plans are submitted that authorities may insist upon a bathroom or a shower being installed. If the conversion of a house is taking place, I should imagine that the local authority, when the plans for conversion are being presented, will see to it that a bathroom is provided: but I should very much like to look into this, matter a little more closely and report at a later stage.
LORD SHEPHERD: I should have thought that the clause as it stands in the Bill, where it refers to the plans of a house or a building, would have given such power to authorities in regard to conversion and rebuilding; but because of a previous Amendment moved by the noble Lord, which I did not resist (because I did not appreciate the point), find it now refers only to new buildings. I would therefore submit that the clause has been changed radically by the insertion of the words "for the erection". I should be grateful if the noble Lord would look into this matter, because I think it is very important.
LORD BRECON: I will.
LORD TEVIOT: I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Brecon a simple question, really for information. We all know of certain terrible tragedies concerning the electric supply for lighting or heating in bathrooms becoming detached
1160
and putting a current into the water in the bath. We know of people who have suffered death through that. I can remember one occasion where the family of a Member of your Lordships' House suffered in this way. I should like to know whether my noble friend could give me any definite information whether in regard to these new buildings and the conversion or resuscitation of old buildings this question of an electric supply into a bathroom has been definitely considered. Is there any provision in the Bill to prevent such accidents from happening any more? I should be grateful if 'he could tell me that.
LORD BRECON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that question, because electrical equipment in a bathroom can be extremely dangerous, especially as its installation is normally done by amateurs instead of people who know what to do. I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord has said, to see whether be can do something to let it be known publicly, but I do not think that we can put it in this Bill.
LORD TEVIOT: I beg to thank the noble Lord for his reply.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.17 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1), after "bath", to insert "with supply of hot and cold water connected to it,". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. When I first read this clause I wondered whether someone in the Department had had a recollection of old times, when it was thought that a bath was placed in a house as something to be used for storing coal; and, therefore, having thoughtfully provided such a receptacle for coal, had not deemed it necessary to have a supply of water, either hot or cold, to the bath—because the Bill does not provide for a connected water supply. However, the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, has come to my rescue in the next Amendment, to which he has already referred and which provides for a shower bath, if desired, instead of a bath. I welcome this Amendment, as it will, I think, be most helpful for old people, and also in cases where space may be limited and where it is not possible to provide a bathroom.
But then, again, my memory comes in, because obviously one cannot take a shower bath without water; and as old people will probably be those who will use the shower baths it occurred to me that not many of them will be spartan enough to want a cold shower. Therefore, in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, providing for a shower bath, it will be necessary also, in our opinion, to provide for the provision of a water supply, both hot and cold, to the bath, and also to the shower.
There is just one minor point. I would not stress this at all, but I believe it is possible to buy a shower bath which can be used as a shower without any connection to a water supply. I believe they are on the market, but I take it that that is not what is in my noble friend's mind. I would put it to the Minister that, while one would think that implied in providing a bath is also the necessity for providing a water supply, it is as well to make it quite clear and to make provision for a supply of both hot and cold. Without that provision it would be quite possible to say, "Well, you could fill the bath in another way by heating your water", and all that sort of thing. I am sure the noble Lord does not want people to carry pails of water from a gas or electric heater and empty them into the bath when they want to take a bath. I venture to say that this Amendment to make it obligatory to have a water supply is necessary to give effect to the intention of the clause, and I hope that, in those circumstances, the Minister will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 30, after ("bath") insert ("with supply of hot and cold water connected to it,"). —(Lord Burden.)
LORD CHORLEY: I hope the noble Lord will find himself able to accept this Amendment. It seems to many of us that it is necessary in order to make the clause in the Bill as it stands really effective. As my noble friend Lord Burden has pointed out, there are ways in which the obligation to put a bath into houses and dwellings of this kind can be made quite ineffective, and this is the view of the local authorities themselves. There is a good deal of interest in this clause on the part of local authorities, as has been brought to my notice, and that is
1162
why I join myself with my noble friend Lord Burden in connection with this Amendment. I understand that there are local government Bills at present in the legislative stage in which this particular provision appears; but I rather gather, although I am not very expert on the problem of the inter-connection between a Public Bill of this kind and a Private Bill of the type which a county council puts through, that the Ministry which the noble Lord is representing here will, in effect, say that the Public Bill must come first. That may very well have the effect of holding up the rather more complete provisions in some of these local authority Bills, which are written out more fully and are directed to securing that not only shall there be a bath in a house of this kind, but that the bath shall in fact be connected with a supply of hot and cold water, so that it may be an effective bath and the people who, live in the house may be able to use it in the most convenient, effective and efficient manner.
5.25 p.m.
LORD BRECON: I should very much like to know something more about Lord Burden's shower which he dots not connect to the water taps at all. That seemed an interesting innovation and I should like to know what comes out of it. The earlier Government Amendments to this clause dealing with shower-baths will have provided an opportunity to explain that the Minister hopes local authorities will never have to exercise the power, provided by this clause, to reject the plans of a new dwelling unless they showed that it would have a bathroom with a bath or shower. Fortunately, houses are not built nowadays without this essential amenity; and if they were the owners would not find buyers for them. It is for the same reason even less likely that a builder will try to evade this particular requirement by providing a bath without water laid on. If this was a serious possibility, one would have to go even further than Lord Burden's Amendment and legislate also for a waste-pipe, or an overflow pipe, and a plug. Surely it is not necessary to go into such detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Burden, may be much more concerned, however, to ensure that hot water is connected to the bath, and this may be the main object of his Amendment. Hot water is, of

1163
course, desirable, and again it is difficult to imagine a house being built to-day without a hot water system. But there is a difference between what is desirable and what can or should be statutorily enforced. There are no precedents in local Acts, so far as the Department is aware, for a requirement that hot water must be connected to the bath. Nor is there any general legislation on the point.
This Amendment would therefore represent a major legislative innovation in the housing field and is not suitable to be considered in this Bill. It requires much more study. But if it were concluded that the provision of a hot water system should be legally enforced even for new houses, it would still be preferable for the change to be made as part of housing legislation, rather than in this Bill. For those reasons, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am afraid I rather regret the reply of the noble Lord. If my memory serves me aright, in the Offices Bill we laid it down that hot and cold water should be provided in offices. I speak subject to correction here, but I understand that that is so. Therefore, if we have laid it down that this is a requirement for offices, I think we are entitled to say that the landlord, or a person building a house, should provide facilities to supply hot and cold water. I do not think that is unreasonable.
LORD CHORLEY: I hope the noble Lord will look at this matter again. The objection he has may be quite a reasonable one in certain parts of the country, but it can easily be got over. I have no doubt that the noble Lord has looked at the later Amendments which I have put down, which are directed to exactly that sort of difficulty and provide that, if the implementation of this provision is not reasonably practicable in some particular case, then this provision will no longer be mandatory. The noble Lord must have seen these later Amendments, and I really think they cover the argument which he is now putting up. Therefore, on that basis I think he can safely accept this Amendment, which seems to me to be essential to the proper
1164
implementation of the policy of the Government with regard to this clause itself.
LORD SILKEN: I have listened to the noble Lord, and I must say I found his reply singularly—for a change—unconvincing. First he says that it is unnecessary to legislate for the provision of hot water, because in these days no one could sell a house—or at any rate let it—unless a proper bathroom, with either a shower or other such facilities, was provided. But if that is so, why provide this clause at all in the Bill? The argument which the noble Lord puts forward, that nobody in his senses to-day would build a house without providing a bathroom, still holds good, and in those circumstances there is no need to legislate. Therefore, I am not convinced. Since we are legislating, let us do the thing properly. Everyone must recognise, in these days, that it is useless to provide a bathroom unless you provide adequate facilities for bathing. It is essential that there should be hot water as well as cold and it ought to be so provided, otherwise you are rendering nugatory the provision you are making.
But, says the noble Lord, such a requirement would be so far-reaching that it would not be appropriate in a Bill of this kind. I just cannot understand that. He is already providing in this Bill for a bathroom and for food storage accommodation in existing houses and in new houses. On his argument, all these things would be more suitable in a Housing Bill than in a Bill of this kind, but they are in the Bill and I see nothing, revolutionary or dramatic these days in providing hot water. Moreover, on his argument, nobody would build a new house to-day without proper provision for food storage; yet he has a clause providing for it. So I really do not think that the argument he is putting forward is convincing. I think that this is a case where he ought to look at the provision again to see if he cannot include something of the sort proposed in the Amendment, which I am happy to support, since on other occasions I have not supported my noble friend.
While I am on my feet, may I say that I am sorry that I had to leave the Chamber for a moment? I am not clear

1165
whether the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord about the erection of a house is intended to apply only to new houses or also to the conversion of existing houses into a number of flats. In reading this provision I feel some doubt about the intention to apply it to converted houses. I must say that I fail to understand why, when converting houses, there should not be the require-men, to have a bathroom in each separate unit. Why not? Since we are legislating to provide better accommodation, what possible objection can there be to providing a bathroom for each unit? Unfortunately, we have let this Amendment go by, but I would give the noble Lord notice that we shall came back to it, because I think that it is quite wrong nowadays to permit a conversion without each unit having a bathroom.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: We have just listened to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has used the word "facilities", which I think makes all the difference. When I read this Amendment about the supply of hot and cold water, I considered the fact that the builder does not supply the water hot—only the facilities for making it hot. I would press the importance of this because there are so many different ways in which water can be heated. I can see the difference when dealing with offices, where somebody has to be in charge of the supply of hot water and of cleaning an office; but here it is a house that is being built, and it means that there must be facilities for supplying hot water. But we must not suggest that it is the builder who supplies hot water.
LORD BURDEN: I agree with the noble Baroness. That is why I beg the Minister to have a look at this again. We have got on so well with this Bill up till now that I feel we ought not to come to a real difference of opinion on an Amendment of this kind. With the utmost respect, I say that the noble Lord's argument makes nonsense of his own Amendment. His proposal is an innovation. There is no local Act, so far as I know, which authorises local authorities to insist on either a bath or a shower; so to that extent the noble Lord is breaking fresh ground. And we are very glad that he is doing it. All we are asking him to do is to complete
1166
the logic of his own Amendment. As the noble Baroness has said, the Bill ought to provide that facilities for hot and cold water should be in the plan submitted by the builders. If I may say so, I think that the people who drafted this objection must have been tired, otherwise they would have seen the illogical way in which the Minister was asked to oppose the Amendment. I would ask the noble Lord to have a serious look at this point, seeing that the Amendment has been supported from the other side and we have had the valiant effort of my noble friend supporting me this afternoon.
LORD BRECON: I shall certainly be content to take this back and refer it to my right honourable friend, and to report upon it at the next stage. To go back to Clause 30, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I have noted what he said and will discuss the matter with him later.
LORD BURDEN: With the assurance that the Minister will look at this Amendment again—and I hope that he will come forward with something tangible, and will keep us informed on his views with regard to it—I beg leave of the Committee to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BRECON: This Amendment is linked with the previous Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 30, after ("bath") insert ("or a shower bath,").—(Lord Brecon.)
LORD SILKIN: If it is intended by this Amendment that the developer should have the option of providing either a fixed bath or a shower bath, I must say, speaking for myself—and it is a matter of taste entirely—that I do not regard a shower bath as a suitable alternative to a fixed bath. I think that as a supplement it is very nice; hut as a means of washing the baby, and of generally conducting tie ablutions of the household, I should think that a shower bath alone was hopelessly inadequate and, if I may say so, dangerous. I do not know whether other noble Lords have experienced this, but I find it difficult to regulate the supply of water with a shower. You think you

1167
are running water at a reasonable temperature and suddenly you find that you are getting scalded. I do not know whether that is a common experience, but I have had it over and over again. The result is that I always have a cold shower, and there is no risk. If a shower were the only means of having a bath, I think that would be unsatisfactory. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to reconsider whether he really intends to give the developer this alternative of providing either a bath or a shower.
LORD SHEPHERD: I fully support my noble friend in this matter, but I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, what exactly is meant by "a shower bath." Does it mean a pipe sticking out of a wall, with a nozzle, which simply squirts water? Or does it mean a proper installation by which, if the shower is used, the bathroom, or the room in which the shower is provided, is not flooded out with water? I imagine that in his travels the noble Lord may have seen some of these hasty improvisations in hotels where water is squirted in all directions. If that is what is meant by a "shower bath," I am sure it is not right. If what is meant by a "shower bath" is that it has proper installations—say, with glass walls—there may be something in it. I think we should know something more of what is meant by "shower bath."
LORD BRECON: It would be a proper installation in place of a bath, and not an improvised one in any way. It would be for the local authority, when they saw the plans, to approve of it and to ensure that it would be a proper substitute for a bath. There are people who find it extremely difficult to get into a bath, and even more difficult to get out of one. Therefore, it would be convenient for some people to have a shower bath. It may be advisable that one day every one will have a bath and a shower, and perhaps we may have a shower that does not run hot and cold, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, finds it at the present moment. However, I am willing to talk to my right honourable friend to see whether we can get a clearer definition of "a shower bath". But it is not intended as a loophole for those who do not want to put in baths.
LORD SHEPHERD: As the Bill is now framed, it might well be.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.43 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY had given Notice of two Amendments to Clause 30, the first being in subsection (2), after "under" to insert, "subsection (1) of". The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the succeeding one are really drafting Amendments. In other clauses the draftsman usually puts the whole words "subsection (1) of" instead of leaving the provision that appears in lines 33 and 36. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 33, after ("under") insert the said words.—(Lord Charley.)
LORD BRECON: Clause 30 enables local authorities to reject the plans of new dwellings if they show that such dwellings would not contain bathrooms. Lord Chorley's Amendment would add a further power enabling local authorities to require the owner to provide a bathroom with running hot and cold water for every separate dwelling already in existence which at present lacks this amenity. Saving clauses are included on the lines of Clause 29 and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will doubtless point to Clauses 28 and 29 which deal with food storage accommodation; the former covers new dwellings and the latter (on which this Amendment is based) enables local authorities to require the provision of larders in existing houses. The extension is unprecedented so far as the Department is aware and cannot be said to be an Amendment commonly made in local Acts. For this reason it could be regarded as outside the Long Title of the Bill.
The more important argument against these Amendments is based on the difficulty of tackling a very widespread problem in this kind of way. About 3 million out of the 14½ million of dwellings in England and Wales still lack a fixed bath in a bathroom. This is a relic of the days when building standards were not as high as they are now. It is obviously most desirable that, wherever possible, standards of accommodation should be improved and proper washing facilities provided. But this is not to say that the right solution is to enable local

1169
authorities to require people by Statute to provide bathrooms.
The Government are energetically encouraging property owners to improve their houses in this way, among others, and grants are available for such improvements. But practical problems are all-important here, and are far less easy to overcome than in the sort of case contemplated by Clause 29. The provision of a larder or some other kind of food storage accommodation would probably not be very difficult, but the provision of a bathroom and a hot water system is quite another matter. Often it would involve building on an annex to the house, involving extra, and probably expensive, plumbing. Where additional accommodation for the bath was not provided, it would have to be taken from accommodation now in use for other purposes. How the work should be financed, whether or not a tenant wanted such a reduction in his accommodation, and whether or not he was willing or able to pay more rent however the bathroom was provided—all these are extremely difficult issues raised by this Amendment. So, too, is its relation to the existing law of rent control and improvement grants. Due to these difficulties of providing bathrooms in existing houses, other than by encouragement through grants, I cannot, on behalf of the Government, accept this Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord is much wiser than I am about this Amendment. I was asked to put it clown without being given any very wide explanation of it, bat it seems to me that it is purely a drafting Amendment to alter the words as they at present stand,
"If the local authority reject the plans under this section."
The proposal is to alter that to,
"under subsection (1)",
which is the subsection that they have to see is complied with. I should not have thought that there was as much in it as the noble Lord suggests. However, if that is the right view—and I have no doubt he has been advised about this by people who are much better able to judge than I am—I suppose I must take that decision and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY had given notice of a further Amendment to Clause 30. The noble Lord said: This Amendment was really put down to provide safeguards in relation to Amendment No. 35 in the names of my noble friend Lord Burden and myself, as I explained in one of my interjections in regard to that Amendment. If it is to be put down again, in a perhaps slightly different form, at the next stage, there is no point in going into these proposals now, and it will be better if I do not move the Amendment.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Filthy or verminous premises]:
LORD BRECON: This Amendment is needed in order to correct a drafting mistake. The word "subsection" has been printed in line 30, on page 24, instead of the word "section". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 30, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section").—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Information to be furnished by occupier in case of notifiable disease or food poisoning]:
LORD BURDEN: I do not propose to move the next Amendment,
LORD NEWTON: I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to move his Amendment formally, so that I could make a few observations upon it?
LORD BURDEN: I formally move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 35, after ("health") insert ("or public health inspector").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD NEWTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord. It had been my intention to recommend to the Committee that they should not accept this Amendment, but in view of the general undertaking which has been given by my noble friend Lord Brecon already, I of course will give a similar undertaking that this Amendment will be looked at again by my right honourable friend the Minister of Health. I do not wish to promise that whatever new thoughts, if any, may

1171
be had about the earlier Amendments moved by the noble Lord will necessarily be true of this one. The general argument against accepting this Amendment is that in the past Parliament has been reluctant to confer powers or to place responsibilities on individual officers of local authorities except where it is clearly necessary to do so, on the general ground that, so far as possible, the responsibility for any action which is the concern of the authority ought to rest with the elected body itself. That is the proposition which my noble friend enunciated earlier.
So far as this Amendment is concerned, there are two other points which I should like to put before your Lordships. The first is that the public health inspector has no statutory duties under Part V of the Public Health Act, 1936, in relation to the prevention, notification and treatment of disease, and there is no precedent in local legislation for giving him direct powers relating to the control of infectious diseases. Thus, in that respect the present Amendment would involve a significant innovation. The other additional point I wanted to make is this. Public health inspectors, as members of the staff of the public health department, perform their duties under the general direction of the medical officer of health. In effect, what this Amendment is asking is that not only should a statutory power be given to an official but that it should also be given to an official who is in a subordinate position to another official. It is for those reasons that I was going to recommend to the Committee that the noble Lord's Amendment should not he accepted. But, as I say I will undertake that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health will consider it again.
LORD BURDEN: I cannot allow the noble Lord to get away with that remark about "subordinate position" and to say for that reason the name or term "public health officer" should not be included in the Bill. As a matter of fact, it is included in the Public Health Act, 1936. I am sorry, I am wrong; that mentioned the local authority. So far as public health officers and the medical officer of health are concerned, it is true that there is a statutory rule of order going back to the twenties which brings the public health inspector under the general super-
1172
vision. I am aware of that. But the fact is that there has been growing up, particularly with the development of public health functions, a difficulty in getting properly qualified inspectors. For various reasons, the medical officers of health have not been insisting on that general supervision—which a very vague term indeed—and public health inspectors, in the majority of cases, make their reports direct to the appropriate committee. I am sorry that the noble Lord has made me branch out on that subject, but it was his own doing—he asked for it. I am quite content if the general position is surveyed and if we get Amendments on the Report stage where, if necessary, we will deal with it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: There is rather an important omission in the description in Amendment No. 43. It should read:
"Page 26, line 36, leave out from the second ("district") to ("in") in line 37."
LORD BURDEN: In moving this Amendment, I am going to correct myself. I find that my memory was correct, and that Section 83 (1) of the Public Health Act, 1936, reads:
"Where it appears to a local authority upon a certificate of the medical officer of health or the sanitary inspector…"
The name "sanitary inspector" has been changed by legislation to "public health inspector", so I am afraid the noble Lord's argument falls to the ground. But we will leave the general position to be considered, and I beg, formally to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 36, leave out from the second ("district") to ("in") in line 37.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD NEWTON: Under Clause 35, as drafted, only the occupiers of premises in the district used for human habitation are required to help the medical officer of health in these inquiries. The Amendment of the noble Lord would extend the application of the clause to occupiers of business and other premises including shops, restaurants, offices and factories. This is an Amendment which appeals to my right honourable friend. He is grateful to the noble Lord for putting it down, and I am happy to recommend the Committee to accept it.
LORD BURDEN: I thank the noble Lord for accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
5.59 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 35, to insert the following new clause:
Restriction on attendances at public places, etc.
".section one hundred and forty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1936, shall have effect as if the following paragraph were substituted for paragraph (b) thereof: —
(b) having the care of a person—

(i) whom he knows to be suffering from a notifiable disease, or

(ii) whom he cannot permit to attend school without contravening section 150 of this Act,

causes or permits that person to expose other persons to the risk of infection by his presence or conduct in any such place as aforesaid; or'".
The noble Lord said: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who will be back shortly, I am moving this Amendment. I am glad to cite in its support the model clause (No. 75) of the 1960 revision—the model clauses which have beers repeatedly referred to during the course of the Committee's consideration of this Bill. Section 148 of the Public Health Act, 1936, makes it an offence knowingly to risk spreading a notifiable disease. An infected person must stay away or be kept away from public places, and any clothing, bedding or rags which have been exposed to infection must not be disposed of without previous disinfection. The proposed new clause amends this section by making it an offence for a person having care of a child to cause or permit the child to attend a public place during a period when fie child is not permitted by the medical officer of health to attend school because of infection by or exposure to a notifiable disease.
It seems to me this is a straightforward and sensible precaution which most parents are already scrupulously careful to adopt and act on without any legislation. But there are always some unco-operative parents, and in many cases unco-operative persons can be satisfactorily dealt with only if the medical officer of health can be reinforced by legislation and can say that the restriction he is imposing is that imposed by law. I submit that it is
1174
just as important to prevent children who have been infected by or exposed to a notifiable disease from attending public places, such as cinemas, swimming pools and so on, as to forbid them to attend school. It is going only a part of the way in the prevention of the spreading of the disease to make non-attendance at school compulsory and then allow the child to go into a crowded cinema when there is a children's performance, with hundreds of children gathered together in the cinema on Saturday mornings at a reduced entrance charge of twopence or threepence or something like that. To allow these children to associate with other children when they are forbidden to go to school seems to me an absurdity which ought to be put right by legislation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 35, insert the said new clause—(Lord Burden.)
LORD NEWTON: As the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has said, Section 148 of the Public Health Act, 1936, makes it an offence for a person knowingly to risk spreading a notifiable disease, either by his own presence or conduct in a public place while suffering from a notifiable disease or by that of a person in his charge suffering from a notifiable, disease. The noble Lord's Amendment would make it an offence for a person having care of a child to cause or permit the child to attend a public place when the medical officer of health of the district concerned had issued a notice that the child was not to be permitted to attend school because of infection by, or exposure to, a notifiable disease. If a child who has been excluded from school in this way, by virtue of a notice issued by the medical officer of health, is later found to be suffering from a notifiable disease then Section 148 (b) of the 1936 Act applies and makes it an offence for the person in charge to permit the child to expose other persons to the risk of infection by his presence or conduct in a public place. The practical effect of Lord Burden's Amendment would be to make a person having care of a child similarly liable where the child had been exposed to infection but was not suffering from a notifiable disease. I think I have made the distinction clear; I hope that I have.

1175
The noble Lord has said that this Amendment is incorporated in a number of local Acts, but my right honourable friend the Minister of Health does not think that it would be appropriate to incorporate it in general legislation, because Section 148 of the Public Health Act, 1936, is concerned with the prevention of the spreading of infection by a person suffering from a notifiable disease, and it seems inappropriate in general legislation to extend the provision of Section 148 to cover the different case of a child who although he has been exposed to infection has not been diagnosed as suffering from a notifiable disease. It does not necessarily follow that because specific provision has been made under Section 150 of the Public Health Act to exclude from school a child who has been exposed to infection it is necessary to exclude the child in such circumstances from all other public places and my right honourable friend is advised by his medical advisers that the risk of the spread of infection by a child who has been exposed to infection is considerably less in the majority of public places than in the confined atmosphere of a school classroom. I hope that for the reasons I have given the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: I do not follow the noble Lord. My Amendment says that Section 148 of the Public Health Act shall have effect applied to a person having the care of a person whom he knows to be suffering from a notifiable disease. As I read this Amendment, the child is kept away from school because it is suffering from some notifiable disease. All we say is that that child ought not to be allowed to go to a cinema or a swimming pool and risk spreading among other children the disease from which he is suffering; that as he is under the care of someone or other, the person who is responsible— parent or guardian, or whoever it may be—must see to it that the child does not go and spread disease; or, if he does do so, that the parent or guardian comes under the rigour of the law.
LORD REA: I wonder if the noble Lord could explain something which is perhaps not clear to us all. It seems to me that we are discussing what is called
1176
quarantine. If a child is forbidden to go to school because it is in quarantine, that is one matter; but the prohibition on going to cinemas or other places applies not when it is in quarantine but only when it is suffering from disease. If a child is in quarantine and is a potential disease-spreader, it should either be allowed or not be allowed to go to both such places.
LORD NEWTON: The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has in general terms stated the position very well. As I said earlier, to accept this Amendment would be an extension of the present ambit of Section 148 of the Public Health Act.
LORD BURDEN: What is wrong with extending it, if it is in the interests of the community?
LORD NEWTON: I also went on to say that in my right honourable friend's opinion, on the basis of advice given to him, the risk of spreading infection is greater generally in school than in most other places.
LORD LATHAM: Greater than in a cinema?
LORD NEWTON: I should have thought that children go to school, or ought to, far more often than they go to the cinema.
LORD BURDEN: All I can say is that I should like the noble Lord's right honourable friend to stand outside any popular cinema before the children's performance on a Saturday morning and see the children crowding in. When one knows that they are in a place where it is dark, where other people have been and so on, to say that a properly ventilated and clean school constitutes a greater risk than any cinema, to my mind is simply sheer, downright nonsense.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.10 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 35 to insert the following new clause:
Prohibition of tuberculous persons from handling food
".—(1) If the medical officer of health of a local authority certifies—

(a) that a person is suffering from tuberculosis of the respiratory tract and is in an infectious state and

(b) that he is occupied in the cooking, preparation or handling of food in the area

1177
of the local authority intended for consumption by persons other than himself or members of his household, and

(c) that his continuance in that occupation would in the judgment of the medical officer be a danger to the health of other persons,

the medical officer of health, or any other person authorised in that behalf by the local authority, may request him in writing to discontinue his occupation as aforesaid.
(2) If any person requested as aforesaid complies with the request, the local authority may, if they think fit, compensate him for any loss occasioned by his compliance with the request.
(3) If any person requested as aforesaid fails to comply with the request, a magistrate's court may, on the application of the local authority, order him to comply with the request, and may by any such order, if it thinks fit, direct that such compensation, if any, as it thinks equitable shall be paid to him by the local authority.
(4) If any person fails to comply with any such order, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds and to a daily fine not exceeding forty shillings.
(5) This section shall not apply to an employment or occupation to which the Public Health (Prevention of Tuberculosis) Regulations, 1925, apply."'
The noble Lord said: I expect I shall be told that this Amendment is an extension of existing legislation, because by this clause medical officers of health or some other person authorised by the council would be empowered to request a person suffering from tuberculosis who cooks, prepares or handles food other than for his own or his household's consumption, temporarily to discontinue his occupation. Before doing so the medical officer of health must be satisfied that his continuance in that occupation would be a danger to the health of other persons. The clause gives power to the local authorities, if they think fit, to compensate the employee for any loss occasioned by his compliance with this request. A magistrates' court also has power to compel the payment of such compensation. The requirements of the clause are enforceable by an order of the court, and for any failure to comply with any such order there may he imposed a fine not exceeding £5, and a daily fine not exceeding 40s. may be imposed for a continuing offence.
The Association of Municipal Corporations has pressed for the inclusion of this clause, but I am afraid that the Ministry take the view that there is no real risk of the transference of tuber-
1178
culosis by people who handle food, and that therefore this clause is unnecessary. I wish that the Minister and those who have advised him would read George Orwell's book Down and Out in Paris and London, especially the chapter dealing with employment in an hotel. From that they would know whether there was any risk of people suffering from tuberculosis spreading the disease. But that is by the way. Perhaps things are a little better now than when George Orwell wrote before the Second World War. But, quite apart from that, the Association of Municipal Corporations' medical officers, who are experienced local authority medical officers of health, have been consulted; they are unanimous in their view that this clause is necessary, and they do not agree with the Ministry's view. The consensus of their opinion is that persons suffering front infectious tuberculosis should be actively discouraged from handling food for consumption by the public. This is a reasonable view and I have no hesitation in recommending it to the Committee.
I think the proposed new clause is a sensible precaution and the minimum that ought to be applied to prevent the spread of tuberculosis. I agree that it is possible by figures to prove that the number of cases of pulmonary tuberculosis is falling. That may be due to many other considerations. It may be due to better housing, to better cleanliness and all that sort of thing. But the strong point is that experienced medical officers of health, who have before them the case papers of their own chest and tuberculosis officers showing the details of each separate case, are unanimous that a clause of this kind is necessary for the protection of the public. I most earnestly commend it to the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 35 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Burden.)
LORD SHEPHERD: I rise to support my noble friend in this Amendment. I have had some experience in British Colonies in dealing with tuberculosis and the danger of its spreading, particularly through people with this dreadful disease being in positions of work involving food and drink. I would say to my noble friend who moved this Amendment that I personally should

1179
have gone a little further. Had it been possible, I would have made it obligatory for all people involved in the sale of food to undergo X-ray examination. If this were done, I believe it would give to the public the protection which they deserve. Tuberculosis is a disease that can spread quickly and I think that the public should be protected. Therefore, I strongly support this Amendment. Perhaps in some directions it goes too far; but I would ask the Government most strongly to accept the principle behind the Amendment. If they quibble over certain of the words or phrases I am sure that my noble friend would not object to some revision, but I am certain that he will require the Government to accept the principle underlying the Amendment.
LORD NEWTON: I am most grateful to the two noble Lords for what they have said in support of this new clause. Honestly, I find this a difficult one, because it is extremely technical and I am not a technician. But I am bound to say that my advice to the Committee will have to be that they should not accept this new clause. What it does is to give the medical officer of health of an area power to require a person suffering from tuberculosis and in an infectious state to discontinue his occupation in the cooking, preparation or handling, of food intended for consumption by persons other than himself or his household. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health is advised by his medical advisers that there is no need for these provisions because, in the opinion of his advisers, they are not of value in the prevention of tuberculosis. That is the medical advice to my right honourable friend.
LORD SILKIN: Could the noble Lord repeat what he has said?
LORD NEWTON: I said my right honourable friend the Minister of Health is advised by his medical advisers that there is no need for these provisions because, in the opinion of his advisers, they are not of value in the prevention of tuberculosis. May I go on to amplify that by saying that in reply to a question in another place on February 16, 1959, the then Minister of Health said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 600, col. 16]:
1180
"There is no evidence that transmission of tuberculosis occurs through the handling of food."
While many people may feel an instinctive distaste to the idea of food being handled by tubercular persons—and I should think the noble Lords who have just spoken are probably included in that category—I am told that medical opinion to-day is clear that pulmonary tuberculosis is an airborne rather than a foodborne infection. The disease largely occurs in the pulmonary form and is acquired by close contact with sufferers; and there is no more reason—and this is all in the view of my right honourable friend's medical advisers—for preventing a tubercular person from handling food than from working in an office.
I am advised that, especially in infants and children, tuberculosis may be caused by an alimentary infection conveyed by milk from cows infected with the bovine type of tubercle bacilli. There are in existence regulations (the Public Health (Prevention of Tuberculosis) Regulations, 1925) to prohibit a person knowingly suffering from tuberculosis from entering, on any employment or occupation involving the milking of cows, the treatment of milk or the handling of milk containers but these regulations are no longer regarded so much as serving a purpose in preventing transmission of the disease directly from a patient to the consumer, as in preventing transmission of the disease through cattle infected by a tubercular person. In fact, no cases are known of tuberculosis conveyed by milk infected by contact with a human sufferer. It was formerly held that the pulmonary disease in adults was the result of an infection of the alimentary tract, but this theory has now been superseded. I am afraid that that explanation has been rather technical and I am not a technician, but it is because of this medical evidence that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, they would not be justified in singling out food handling for prohibition to tubercular persons by means of general legislation.
LORD SILKIN: This comes as somewhat of a surprise. The noble Lord is, on his own admission, no more competent to express a view than we arc. The noble Lord who put his name down to the Amendment—the noble Lord,

1181
Lord Amulree—unfortunately has not been able to move it himself and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, is no doubt in a stronger position as a result. I do not think we can ignore what the noble Lord has said, however surprising it may be, and I would advise my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment and consider what the noble Lord has said and possibly see whether there is any further evidence.
I am sure that what has been said by the noble Lord will come as a great shock to a large number of people throughout the country, who until this moment have been under the impression that persons suffering from tuberculosis are a danger in handling food. Incidentally, the noble Lord did not do justice to the Amendment itself, because in addition to the conditions that he has read there is the further condition that that person's continuance in that occupation would, in the judgment of the medical officer, be a danger to the health of other persons. What the noble Lord is saying is that that can never happen: that that person can never satisfy that condition because he could never be a danger to the health of other persons by handling food. I think all of us ought to look at this matter again. It may be that, on further consideration, the Minister may find there is some evidence of this having happened, but I feel we cannot ignore what the noble Lord has said. While it is entirely a matter for my noble friend, I believe that the right course would be for this matter to be reconsidered on both sides of the Committee and brought up again at a later stage.
LORD BURDEN: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Silkin and, with the leave of the Committee. I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, because I feel that if the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, himself had been here he would have been able to deal with the position which has been set forth to the Committee by the noble Lord the Minister. If I now withdraw the Amendment it will give the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, an opportunity between now and the Report stage to review what has been said and if necessary bring forward some alternative ideas which may be acceptable to him and the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36:
Exclusion of children from places of entertainment or assembly
36.—(1) This section applies—
(b) to any sports grounds, outdoor swimming baths, outdoor swimming pool, or skating or roller skating rink, to which the public are admitted, either on payment of a charge for admission or not, and
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "outdoor swimming baths, outdoor swimming pool". The noble Earl said: I beg leave to move this Amendment, which should be taken with the next Amendment standing in my name because they are dependent upon each other. Perhaps I may speak to both of them, and then formally move the second. There are two purposes for these Amendments. First, Clause 36 (1) (a) as it stands must cause one to wonder why indoor swimming baths and swimming pools are not covered by the clause. I understand that Parliamentary Counsel have advised that the words "or other building" which are used in paragraph (a) would include indoor swimming pools and baths. Your Lordships may feel that, technically, this may be correct; but one could equally argue that to refer expressly to outdoor baths is expressly to exclude indoor baths. One purpose of the Amendment, therefore, is to improve the wording.
Secondly, the clause applies only to swimming baths and swimming pools to which the public are admitted. The Amendment seeks to extend the clause to swimming baths and pools which are used by large numbers of people and where there is a danger of infection—for example, those at holiday camps, and school baths used by local associations during school holidays. The Rural District Councils' Association are advised that the clause as at present drafted would not cover such swimming pools. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 18, leave out ("outdoor swimming baths, outdoor swimming pool").—(The Earl of Gainsborough.)
LORD NEWTON: Clause 36 provides that with a view to preventing the spread of a notifiable disease a local authority, on the advice of their medical officer of

1183
health may, by means of a notice to the public, prohibit or restrict for a specified time the admission of persons under sixteen whether or not a charge for admission is made to any of the places of entertainment or assembly specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1). The noble Lord was worried, on the first count, that the clause as drafted will not catch indoor swimming pools. I think he may be assured that in fact they are caught by virtue of the reference in subsection 1 (a) to:
"any hall or other building which is used as a place of public resort,"
That is the legal advice, and thus, in so far as the noble Earl's two Amendments are designed to remove any doubt about the application of the provision to indoor swimming baths or pools, I do not think he need have any fears.
The second consequence of the proposed Amendment has much more substance to it. The application of Clause 36 as drafted is restricted to indoor swimming baths or pools which are "a place of public resort" and to outdoor swimming baths or pools which are either free or for which a specific charge of admission is made. Thus, indoor baths or pools of which the use is restricted to members of clubs or guests of hotels or holiday camps are not covered; nor are outdoor pools which are a facility included in a club subscription or a rate for accommodation and service.
If the noble Earl's Amendments were adopted, that would give a local authority, on the advice of their medical officer of health, the power to restrict or prohibit the admission of children to swimming baths or pools used only by members of clubs or the guests of hotels or holiday camps. But a specific provision to extend the general law to swimming pools in clubs, hotels or holiday camps would go beyond the scope of the model clause for local Acts, which deals throughout with places of public resort. The two Amendments are therefore contrary to the intention of the Bill as a whole, which is to enact well-precedented local provisions which are either non-controversial or, at any rate, not too controversial. The extension of powers to such premises as clubs or hotels or holiday camps would open up a wholly new and different field and one which I do not think I can
1184
recommend your Lordships to enter by means of this Bill. It would, in fact, be an extension of State interference; and it is not the purpose of this Bill to make innovations of that kind. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for what he said in regard to the first of the Amendments and for the assurance which he has given. With regard to the second point, I appreciate what he has said. In fact, I thought that that would be the answer: that in this Bill such a new proposal could not be considered. But I thought it worth while bringing the matter to the Committee's notice because there are a large number of these pools in places used by large numbers of people where there is a possibility of infection. But in view of what he said said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.
LORD BRECON: I think this is a convenient moment to break off the discussion on the Public Health Bill and, with your agreement, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

ELECTRICITY (AMENDMENT) BILL
6.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. Its purpose is to extend the statutory powers of the Central Electricity Generating Board so that they may be able to produce radio-isotopes by irradiating materials tin the reactors of their nuclear power stations and sell them commercially. By radio-isotopes I mean those artificially produced radioactive materials which are coming to be used more and more in industry, medicine and research for making examinations

1185
through thicknesses of material or tissue, for treating certain diseases and for tracing biological and industrial pro-ceases. Before saying anything more about radio-isotopes and their uses, let me explain why the Generating Board may not produce them without a specific extension of their powers.
Section 2 (7) of the Electricity Act, 1957, debars the Generating Board from manufacturing anything, except what they or any Area Board require
"for the purposes of research or development, or for the repair or maintenance of their equipment".
This provision was inserted after a good deal of discussion when the 1957 Bill was debated in another place, and it was also explained in your Lordships' House. Its main object was to ensure that the Board did not extend its activities beyond the initial purposes for which Parliament created it. Hence the Board may not manufacture and trade in radio-isotopes unless the 1957 Act is amended. That is what this Bill sets out to do.
To return to radio-isotopes and their uses, such information as I can give to your Lordships is not the result of practical knowledge or experience on my part, so I should like to apologise beforehand for any shortcomings of which I may be guilty. Radio-isotopes can take the form of solids, liquids or gases. Even when embedded in other material or tissue they emit radiation which can be detected by photographic films and electronic instruments. In medical research, for instance, radioactive iron injected into the blood has revealed the chemical mechanism of the blood's colouring matter. Radioactive iodine has similarly thrown light on the working of the thyroid gland. When a sample of the body's constituents is thus labelled with radioactivity and can be detected by the means I have mentioned, the course and timing of bodily processes can be followed. Radio-isotopes also have their uses in the treatment of diseases, such as cancers and tumours.
In industry radio-isotopes provide a cheap and convenient form of radiographic source, whereby photographs can be taken through thicknesses of material to test the quality of castings and welds. When they are incorporated in a liquid or gas the movement of the liquid or gas
1186
can be traced; leaks from pipes and spillage from tanks can be detected, the uniformity of mixtures can be checked, and even the movement of mud in estuaries, for example, can be determined. When incorporated in a metal bearing, a radio-isotope will reveal the extent of wear. When attached to a hidden part in a machine a radio-isotope will show its position or movement. Gauges containing a radio-isotope will accurately measure small variations in film or sheet in the course of production.
Most of the radio-isotopes made in the United Kingdom are at present produced by irradiation in the reactors of the Atomic Energy Authority. Sales have been steadily increasing, and last year about 700 firms in the United Kingdom were using them, resulting in substantial savings. The field for their use is capable of great expansion, both at home and abroad. Exports, at about £620,000, have more than doubled in the last four years, and represent more than half the total United Kingdom sales. The other principal exporting country is the United States, whose exports amounted to about £460,000 in 1959. The United Kingdom is thus occupying an extremely favourable position in this trade. We must, however, expect increased competition as other countries build reactors where radio-isotopes can be produced by irradiation.
The irradiation facilities available in the Atomic Energy Authority's reactors are nearing their limit. Fortunately, however, large additional capacity will be available when the Generating Board's nuclear power stations are commissioned. If this potential capacity can be used for isotope production, we shall be in a position not only to increase the use of radio-isotopes at home but also to take advantage of expanding markets abroad. Fortunately, these advantages cart be obtained at comparatively little cost. The Board estimate that adaptations in the Bradwell and Hinckley Point reactors, where they intend first to produce radio-isotopes, will cost about £200,000 in all. With the market expanding as it is, there is reason to believe that the return on this outlay will be very satisfactory indeed.
I would submit, therefore, that there is the strongest economic justification

1187
for enabling the Board to undertake this business. There are, however, three further points I should like to make. First, no one in this country, except the Authority, is likely to have capacity for producing radio-isotopes on any scale approaching that of the Generating Board, and there is thus no question of their trespassing on the preserves of private industry. Secondly, the Bill does not empower the Board to carry out any processing apart from the irradiation of materials in their reactors. They intend for the time being to sell the irradiated material to the Authority for finishing and marketing, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent them from selling to any private firms who may be equipped for these operations. Thirdly, I am assured that the generation of electricity will not be adversely affected, since the neutrons used to irradiate these materials are surplus to the generation of electricity and would otherwise have to be absorbed and so wasted. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mills.)
6.44 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is, of course, a completely non-contentious measure, and it is one that is welcomed on this side of the House. The noble Lord gave us a helpful description of what isotopes are; and the fact remains that the use for these products is quite infinite. We are at only the beginning of the use of isotopes as a research tool. I think there is little for me to say (I having, I regret to say, become aware of this Bill only a few minutes ago) beyond reserving, the possibility of making some points on the Committee stage.
There was one matter in particular that the noble Lord referred to which I did not quite follow, and that was whether it is wise to limit the powers of the Authority with regard to what I gathered he described as "further processing". We have already in this Bill the need to amend an Act, the 1957 Electricity Act; and, although I do not think the time of the House can be said to be wasted on a matter of this kind, which provides us with an opportunity to
1188
consider something of great importance and of great interest, I am wondering whether the Government may not again have to come to the House with a further amending Bill.
I hope that the position of the Central Electricity Authority will be looked at not merely from the point of view of being able to do something which nobody else is in a position to do. I am sure that, when we look at these things as objectively as I know the Minister does, there is no need to explain the matter away by saying that it is safe to give it to the Central Electricity Authority because private enterprise cannot do it. It might even be conceivable that a little competition in this field would one day be a good thing. In so far as they acquire knowledge and new techniques (which are bound to be expensive because of the handling complications of radio-isotopes), it may well be that the Central Electricity Authority will naturally 'wish, in the commercial interest of the country as a whole, to develop certain further techniques; and if the Minister would care to say something on that point we should be interested.
But, apart from that, we certainly welcome the Bill, and I am sure we ought to be very pleased to see a development of a kind that is going to enable us in the export field to perhaps get that lead in advanced products which is so essential. We have to bear in mind that electricity nuclear power stations are going to spring up in other parts of the world. Only a few months ago I saw the first of the nuclear power stations that are being built in Asia going up in Japan, and there is no doubt that one day we may be competing with Japanese radioisotopes. Therefore anything we can do at this stage to develop and keep the lead which we have won so far is to be commended.
6.48 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for his helpful remarks. I agree with him that we are at the beginning of what looks like a very important development in many directions—in the medical field and in helping industry. These developments are growing apace now, and we want to take every advantage of the nuclear reactors which are being built

1189
by the Central Electricity Generating Board to forward this business.
It is true that, for the moment, it is proposed that the Generating Board should not be concerned in the processing and marketing of the radio-isotopes, except to the Atomic Energy Authority. I am not going to say that at some future date we may not come forward with a flutter extension of the Board's powers; but we always have to keep in mind that their principal job is to generate electricity, and this seems a very happy combination: that they can produce the radio-isotopes and leave it to the Atomic Energy Authority to process them and market them, which they are doing very
1190
efficiently to-day. Also it leaves the way open for other people, if they are able, to come in and help to extend this business, in which we have the lead to-day. And, in spite of the competition we shall undoubtedly face, we have some reason to hope we can keep this lead. I am very grateful to the noble Lord and I hope that your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.