Sitting of 2 April 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ZINC CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed.
  KENT QUARTER SESSIONS BILL [Lords]
    ROYAL RUSSELL SCHOOL BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Dairy Products
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he takes to ensure that imported dairy products are produced in conditions as hygienic as those required in this country.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): I cannot control the conditions in which imported dairy products are produced.
    2
    But medical officers of health are empowered to examine them on importation or sale in this country, and to seize them if they are unfit for human consumption.
    Mr. Digby: Does not this detract from the value to health of our own rather stringent regulations, which are obviously not followed in many of the countries from which we import dairy produce?
    Mr. Soames: No, Sir. There is obviously a difference between what we are empowered to do and can do in our own country and what we are not empowered to do in other countries. The vast proportion of milk produced in this country goes for liquid consumption.
    Mr. C. Royle: In view of the report in the newspapers the other day of the intention of the Milk Marketing Board to pour millions of gallons of milk down disused coal mines, is it not possible to reduce our imports?
    Mr. Soames: This is a Question concerned purely with the hygienic conditions under which the milk is produced. What the hon. Member has asked is very wide of the Question.
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in his recent conversations with the Common Market countries, he emphasised the need for parity in regulations for milk production, with particular regard to cowstalls, if competition is to be fair.
    Mr. Soames: We have not yet reached the stage of discussing this sort of problem with the Six, but I have the point raised by my hon. Friend very much in mind.
    Mr. Digby: If there is to be fair competition, either some of the Six will have to raise their standards of cowstall production, or we shall have to lower ours. Otherwise, the competition will be very unfair.
    Mr. Soames: This is a matter which is very much in my mind. I hope that there will be a levelling up rather than a levelling down of standards.

    Barley, Oats and Mixed Corn
    Sir L. Ropnerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that in the last two years the first acreage payments in Yorkshire for barley, oats and mixed corn were received on 19th December, 1959, and on 19th January, 1961, respectively, but that this year the first such payments were not received until 1st March, 1962; and what action he proposes to take to restore payments to a day in December in future.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): Advance deficiency payments to Yorkshire growers of barley, oats and mixed corn were completed by 25th January, 1962, except where payments required adjustment under the new incentive arrangements for barley, and these adjusted payments were made in all straightforward cases at the end of February. It was expected that the new seasonal payments arrangements for barley would involve some delay in the first year of operation, but we hope to improve on this in future by an increase in mechanisation of the payments procedure.
    Sir L. Ropner: Is it not a fact that these payments are falling back year by year? Can my hon. Friend give me an assurance that they will fall back no further?
    Mr. Vane: I have just said that we hope next year to improve on this year.

    Secondhand Fishing Boats (Loans)
    Mr. Buckasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to implement the decision to allow loans to be made in appropriate cases to assist the acquisition by inshore fishermen of secondhand fishing boats.
    Mr. Vane: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) on 15th February, 1962. I hope the necessary revision of the loan arrangements will not take too long.
    Mr. Buck: In the Answer to which my hon. Friend has referred me, my hon. Friend said that it was hoped that arrangements for loans for secondhand vessels would be available "before long". How long is "before long" to be? Many months have passed since the Ministry decided that these loans should be made available to fishermen, and it is many months since the Fleck Committee reported and its recommendations were accepted. Is it not about time that the scheme was put into effect?
    Mr. Vane: I know that my hon. Friend is particularly interested in this subject, and I hope that it will not be long before the final rules are worked out. He must remember that when an arrangement like this has to be worked out among the Government Departments concerned, the Treasury and the industry, it is not as simple as it probably seems.

    Peas
    Mr. Bullardasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to prevent the home-grown acreage of dried, threshed peas from falling below its present level, following the rejection of the application for a higher import duty on such peas.
    Mr. Soames: There has been a marked change in the market prospects in recent years for dried peas compared with vining peas. This I would expect to be reflected in the acreages grown, and I think it would be a mistake for me to interfere with this process.
    Mr. Bullard: Do I gather from that reply that the Minister sees an improving market for home-grown fresh peas in future? Was that the purport of his Answer?
    Mr. Soames: What I said was Chat there has been a marked change in the market prospects for dried peas compared with vining peas. This has reflected itself in the number of peas grown for vining.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While I appreciate that there has been a marked change in the demand, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that apparently quite a few counties are affected by this and that the growing of these peas has been particularly important in relation to resistance to eelworm through over-cropping of such crops as potatoes and sugar-beet? Can my right hon. Friend explain how the Board of Trade can justify this importation on the grounds of national interest?
    Mr. Soames: The main competition comes from the United States in the shape of the Alaska pea which, on account of its various qualities, is easier to process and suits the British public's taste. This pea cannot be grown at the moment in this country, but it is the type of pea required for canning. I cannot see what advantage there would be in raising the tariff on these peas, because the only effect that would have would be to put up the price to the consumer without benefit to the grower.

    Ordnance Survey Maps
    Mr. C. Johnsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the Ordnance Survey authorities to commence publication of the proposed new series of 2½ inch maps.
    Mr. Vane: It is the Ordnance Survey's intention to publish a new series of 2½ inch maps in about two years time when the revision of the present series is completed.
    Mr. Johnson: I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is important that full information about public rights of way should appear in this new series which, as he knows, is awaited with considerable interest. In this connection can he say, having regard to the preparatory work involved, what effect the long delay
    6
    in completing the survey on rights of way under the National Parks Act, 1949, will have on the project? Secondly, will he press his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to have this survey completed, because it should have been completed as long ago as 1955?
    Mr. Vane: The second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question goes a very long way beyond his original Question, but I can assure him that the rights of way will be shown where the relevant definitive maps have been received from local authorities.

    Wheat
    Sir H. Harrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that in the last ten years the guaranteed price for homegrown wheat has fallen by 4 per centnd that of imported wheat by 10 per cent., but the price of flour has risen by 64 per cent. and the produce of bakers by 145 per cent.; and what steps he is taking to protect consumers or to help producers of wheat.
    Mr. Soames: The basic facts are not quite as stated in the Question. The price of the 280 lb. sack of flour for bread making increased over the ten years between the end of 1951 and 1961 by 48s. 3d., or 84 per cent.; but the greater part of this—45s.—was due to the removal of the flour subsidy. In the same period the price of the standard 1¾ lb. loaf increased by 6d., or 100 per cent.; a further increase of ½dccurred in February: but about half of the 6dncrease was due to the removal of the subsidies: the remainder arose from the general increase in costs. Consumers benefit from competitive conditions and a wide freedom of choice. Wheat producers are protected by the guarantees under the 1947 and 1957 Agriculture Acts.
    Sir H. Harrison: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, but I draw his attention to the fact that these figures have been widely quoted by a Labour peer, Lord Walston, and have therefore caused a great deal of dismay to the farming industry and others. I shall be grateful if prominence can be given to the correct figures.
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for giving me the opportunity of replying to the Question.

    Charollais Cattle
    Mr. Mackieasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now consider allowing the importation of Charollais females into this country.
    Mr. Soames: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 6th November. 1961.
    Mr. Mackie: Could the Minister give the House one valid reason why this particular breed has been singled out for so much attention and prohibition of breeding in this country? There are Danish Reds, Dutch Friesians, Landrace pigs, American Polled Shorthorns, Canadian Holsteins, Polled Ayrshires—practically the lot—brought to this country for breeding, why pick on Charollais? Can he give any valid reason for this, other than that of sheltering behind the Terrington Report which, as he knows, is completely out of date?
    Mr. Soames: If the hon. Member goes back over the centuries he will be able to find all sorts of breeds of cattle which have been imported to this country. I see no reason why he should say that the Terrington Report is out of date. I know his interest in this breed of cattle. He is anxious to get them established in this country. The Terrington Committee had been asked to look into the question of the importation of Charollais and advised us as a first move that we should import a number of bulls to see whether crossing them with our dairy cattle was likely to improve the standard of our dairy herds. This, I should have thought, would have pleased the hon. Member. What he is trying constantly to do is to jump beyond this and to say that before we have done this test we should straight away import females. As we have imported these bulls and they are in this country, we wish to see the result of this test before taking further decisions.
    Mr. Mackie: The right hon. Gentleman must have seen that the Secretary of State for Scotland was attacked from all sides by people who gave evidence
    8
    to the Terrington Committee. They did not want these cattle, but the moment the bulls came to this country they demanded that they should come to Scotland. So the evidence was not worth the paper it was written on.
    Mr. Soames: The fact that the Secretary of State was attacked by certain individuals does not lead me to the conclusion that the importation of Charollais bulls is out of date.

    Fishing Boat, Lundy Island (Incident)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the infringement of fishing rights involved in the recent incident when a fishing boat near Lundy Island was fired at from the island.
    Mr. Vane: Yes, Sir. The person claiming to be the owner of Lundy Island also claims an exclusive right of fishing within three miles of the coast. I have no evidence of the validity of this claim. This is a matter for the courts. I am unable therefore to acknowledge that there has been any infringement of fishing rights.
    Mr. Hayman: That seems a very unsatisfactory Answer. The newspaper reports alleged that the owner admits that he fired at least one of the shots, that a shot was embedded in the mast of one boat, and one of the Crown authorities had said that fishing rights belong to ordinary fishermen below medium high tide, whatever that may be. Surely the Minister has done something more than to quote to a Member of Parliament what has happened and the state of the law? Has he taken no action in regard to this illegal act of firing on what the owner might call a trespasser?
    Mr. Vane: It is unsatisfactory, I agree, but it is a curious case, and the irregular use of firearms, as the hon. Member knows, is a matter for the police.

    River Hull (Flood Prevention)
    Commander Purseyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the number of deficient wharves on the River Hull below the 1925 Hull Corporation Act

    9
    height where no permanent flood prevention work has been done and temporary sandbagging has been carried out at the ratepayers' expense; what are the names of riparian owners of these wharves; and what steps will be taken to recover the expense from the owners.
    Mr. Vane: Permanent work has not yet been started on one wharf belonging to the British Transport Commission, but the Commission are doing some temporary works before the April spring tides. The question of recovering the expense of temporary sandbagging is a matter for the Hull Corporation and I understand that it is being considered by them.
    Commander Pursey: What was the work required to be done and why did it take twelve months from the March, 1961, flooding to carry out flood prevention work by British Railways, who have within their power labour and material and resources to do this work at short notice? Why should it take twelve calendar months?
    Mr. Vane: That is a question which should be addressed to the British Transport Commission. The important thing is that during these twelve months, approximately, we have seen all the wharves in Hull, with the exception of one, raised to the level stated in the 1925 Act.
    Commander Purseyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for expediting flood prevention work at the Barmston drain outlet into the River Hull; what is the estimated cost; and what will be the dates of commencement and completion.
    Mr. Vane: A scheme for reconstructing this outfall, which is the responsibility of the Hull and East Yorkshire River Board, has been approved for grant aid by the Ministry. I am informed by the river board that the sluice gates will be ready for delivery in two months' time. Work can start as soon as a tender has been approved for the civil engineering works. I understand that tenders will shortly be submitted to the Ministry. The estimated time for completion of the work is six months at a total cost of about £36,000.
    Commander Pursey: I thank the Minister for that reply and for his previous reply. Will the problem at this drain outlet of the Yorkshire Electricity Board suction and discharge be dealt with in order to stop erosion under the drain works of adjoining wharves? Will the board work be properly linked to adjoining wharves to ensure a watertight joint and no more seepage flooding out poor people's houses in this area?
    Mr. Vane: I should be obliged if the hon. and gallant Member would put the first part of his supplementary question on the Order Paper, because I could not answer it straight away. In regard to joining this work to the other work, I should imagine that common-sense would ensure that this would be done so that after all this time and all this work at least people in that area will be safe "come Hull or high water".

    Agricultural and Horticultural Advisory Services
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food how many officers have been recruited to the Agricultural Advisory Service during the last 12 months; and how many vacancies in this service still exist.
    Mr. Vane: During the year ended 31st March 65 officers were recruited to the advisory officer grades of the National Agricultural Advisory Service. There are at present 20 vacancies which we expect to fill in this year's competition.
    Mr. Boyden: While an improvement has been made, can the hon. Gentleman say whether these officers of the Ministry's Department visit the university departments of agriculture every year so that students taking agricultural courses in the universities know all about the service and have personal contact with the region?
    Mr. Vane: I cannot say exactly how many visits are paid, but we have very close contact because we are anxious to fill a few vacancies among science specialists, and that is where they are to be found.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that those trained officers in Kenya and Nyasaland and

    11
    other African territories will be given a fair chance to obtain this employment when they come back to this country?
    Mr. Vane: We are very sympathetic to officers in those circumstances, but the problems of agriculture in Kenya and other overseas territories are not necessarily the same as those here, and it is to advise people in this country that we want these officers to be appointed.
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman mentioned a figure of 65 for recruitment. Can he tell us what was the annual wastage?
    Mr. Vane: I am afraid that I cannot give an answer without notice.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many officers in his Agricultural and Horticultural Advisory Services have qualifications and experience which enable them to give advice on marketing agricultural and horticultural produce.
    Mr. Vane: County staffs of the National Agricultural Advisory Service, especially the horticultural advisory officers, are generally well qualified to advise producers on how to meet market requirements.
    Mr. Boyden: That was not the Question. Have they some particular experience and qualifications when they come into the service, and are they kept up-to-date in respect of marketing while they are in the service?
    Mr. Vane: We appreciate that this is one of the most important parts of their work; but, of course, to meet market requirements is one thing. The actual marketing of the produce is not the responsibility of the advisory service. My predecessor conducted an inquiry into marketing and other conditions not only in this country but in other countries as well. Our officers are acquainted with this report, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would also find it interesting.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would not my hon. Friend agree that one of the great difficulties in recent years has been that a great many of these advisory officers, who are fully qualified from an advisory point of view, have been giving advice which has resulted in the greater production of particular types of produce,
    12
    especially milk, of which there is already a superabundance, and will he assure us that these officers are given some context in which to work concerning the general production policy?
    Mr. Vane: The advisory officer gives advice to the individual farmer and takes into account his particular requirements. On questions particularly concerning marketing, he is prepared to help him to meet market requirements. We cannot expect him to go further than that.

    Fishery Limits
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received in favour of establishing a six-mile fisheries limit off the British coast.
    Mr. Soames: Representations have been made to my Department from the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees and from a joint deputation representing the English and Welsh Inshore Fishermen's Associations, Scottish inshore and herring fishermen, and the Chambers of Trade of several Yorkshire coast towns.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very strong feeling on this matter along the Yorkshire coast? Would he agree that although the earlier balance of advantage might have been against Britain extending the limit, now that so many other nations have increased their fishery limits this argument is no longer valid? Would he be prepared to receive further representations on this matter?
    Mr. Soames: I cannot accept that the argument is no longer valid. We are watching this all the time. It is a question of a balance of interests. My hon. Friend will be aware that about 10 per cent. of the fish for this country is caught by our inshore fleet around our own shores. The remaining 90 per cents caught off other shores. This is a matter of balance of advantage which we are constantly keeping in mind.
    Mr. Paget: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this applies to the Isle of Lundy and whether the local artillery has adequate range?

    Beef
    Mr. Bullardasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has noted the increase in the quantity of beef imported from Yugoslavia

    13
    in the early months of 1962 compared with previous years; and to what extent there is a risk of wholesale beef prices being so reduced as to increase unduly the liability on the taxpayer in meeting the price guarantee to the home producer.
    Mr. Soames: Yes. I have noted the increase in imports of beef from Yugoslavia, but these still represent only 3 per cent. of our total beef supplies. Imports as a whole during January and February of this year were lower than in the same months last year, and in fact in these months the market price was slightly higher than we allowed for in the estimates.
    Mr. Bullard: Although the proportion is relatively small, is the Minister quite sure that the market will stand this importation? Is there any danger of the subsidy bill suffering as a result of this importation as it did from the importation of dumped Irish beef last year, when the bill ran up to a very high figure? What inquiries have been made about the cost of production of this beef in the country of origin? This is the old problem of ascertaining the true price in the country of production to know whether it is dumped produce. If it is dumped, will he stop it coming into this country?
    Mr. Soames: This beef is imported under open general licence within the overall considerations of our imports and exports and trading policies generally. My hon. Friend asked whether this beef is dumped. As my hon. Friend knows, technically, for a product to be dumped it has to fulfil three qualifications. It has to be subsidised in the sense that it is being sold cheaper in this country than in the country of origin; it has to be materially damaging the interests of the industry concerned; and it has to be contrary to the national interest.
    Mr. Prior: Will the Minister talk this over with the President of the Board of Trade? Last year we imported £5 million worth of meat from Yugoslavia, which was the exact amount of the imbalance of our trade with Yugoslavia. Is it not time that we took some action in this sort of case and stopped this meat, which we do not require, being imported into this country?
    Mr. Soames: This raises a very big question well beyond the ambit of this Question—the general import policy of the Government.
    Mr. Morris: Will these imports increase the amount of subsidy payable?
    Mr. Soames: Who can judge what will be the effect of a certain percentage of meat on the market price? It is exceedingly hard to judge what will be the effect of any particular shipment of meat on the market price of meat.

    Forestry Commission (Staff)
    Mr. Hiltonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why it is proposed to increase the number of the non-industrial staff and to reduce the number of the industrial staff employed by the Forestry Commission in the financial year 1962–63; and if he will make a statement as to his future employment policy of employees in these two categories.
    Mr. Soames: The proposed increase in the non-industrial staff is I per cent. and consists almost entirely of additional foresters. These are required to deal with an increase in the acreage under plantations. The reduction in the directly-employed industrial labour force reflects a trend which has been going on for some years due to improved techniques, mechanisation and greater productivity.
    As the total acreage increases, the management of the Commission's plantations will require small increases in non-industrial supervisory staff. As the volume of timber put on the market increases, the total employment in forestry as a whole will rise, but since it is the Commission's policy to sell as much of its timber standing as practicable, there is unlikely to be a corresponding increase in the numbers of its industrial staff.
    Mr. Hilton: Is the Minister aware that the growing practice of taking work from regular forestry workers and giving it to private contractors is causing not only grave concern but also redundancy in certain forestry areas? These men have a splendid record of work. They live in the Commission's houses, often in very remote areas, and they deserve better treatment than this. If

    15
    there is any extra money to be earned, the men employed by the Commission should certainly be entitled to it. Will the Minister give this matter serious consideration, otherwise I can see him having on his hands forestry houses stuck in the middle of forests with nobody in them.
    Mr. Soames: I look to the Forestry Commission to run its enterprise in as economic a fashion as it possibly can. It has decided to sell as much of the timber standing as is practicable. It regards that as the most economic way to do it.

    World Food Programme
    Mr. Hiltonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further consideration has been given to the nature of the practical support to be given by Her Majesty's Government to the proposed world food programme of the Food and Agriculture Organisation.
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional help will now be given by Her Majesty's Government to the Food and Agriculture Organisation to match the contribution that other countries have pledged themselves to make to the world food programme which was launched at the Food and Agriculture Organisation conference in Rome last November.
    Mr. Darlingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent it is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the setting up of a world food bank, as proposed by the Food and Agriculture Organisation, so that food surpluses can be diverted to underdeveloped countries and thus help countries in great need of food supplies and at the same time help to provide a sound imports policy for the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Soames: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) on 5th February, 1962.
    Mr. Hilton: Since this country was the first to send missionaries to many of these countries and to teach them a better way of life, would it not be well for us now to take a positive Christian attitude towards these starving people?
    16
    Will the Minister consider asking farmers in this country to increase production—many of them can do so—in order that we can send the increased food to these starving people? Will he also consider sending trained advisory agricultural officers there to teach the natives a better way of farming? Surely it is better that we should teach these people how to feed themselves than leave the countries as they are at present—a breeding ground for Communism.
    Mr. Soames: The Government's contribution to developing countries has doubled over the last ten years and stands at a very high figure. The hon. Member asked whether we should not do something to help them feed themselves. Advice and equipment in this respect is included in the amount of money which is devoted to this purpose. This is quite a different story from providing food for those countries, which in the interests of the Western world as a whole would obviously come from those countries which have surplus production rather than from importing countries.
    Mr. Prentice: In his original reply to me, to which the Minister referred, he said that this country will not have any surplus foodstuffs available. Can he maintain that attitude in view of the announcement that the Milk Marketing Board is about to dump 2 million pints of milk down disused coal mines, this being the fourth time it has done such a thing in six years? Does he think that this is morally defensible in view of the terrible degree of protein deficiency in under-developed areas which would be relieved by the supply of dried milk?
    Mr. Soames: This is not a surplus production of milk inasmuch as we import a great deal of milk products into this country. Liquid skimmed milk is not a product which could be exported. The reason that this is having to go to waste is that the manufacturing capacity for liquid skimmed milk is not sufficient to cover the production in a handful of months in the flush of the year, and it would not be economic to provide it.
    Mr. Darling: Apart from the strong humanitarian case for supporting the specific proposal for helping with food

    17
    surpluses, will not the Minister give further consideration to this, bearing in mind that it might help our own import policy in that we could help to divert surpluses from other countries which sometimes are dumped here?
    Mr. Soames: The Government's contribution to developing countries has increased from £80 million ten years ago to £160 million. This does not include foodstuffs because this is not the best help which we in this country can give to developing countries. Those countries which have committed themselves to this programme, such as Canada, the United States and Denmark, are all food-exporting countries.
    Mr. Prior: If we stop cheap imports coming into this country, will not that encourage other countries to send those imports where they are more needed?
    Mr. Morris: In view of the scandalous statement by the Milk Marketing Board that this milk will be dumped, may I ask the Minister what would be the cost of the machinery required to utilise this liquid milk?
    Mr. Soames: It is not milk in that sense; it is skimmed milk. There is a world of difference. Already a lot of the good has been taken out of it. I should require notice before I could give the exact cost of the machinery required, but I am assured by the Milk-Marketing Board that it would be uneconomic to put in this machinery and to have it standing idle for the majority of the months of the year.
    Mr. Nabarro: What further thought is the Minister giving to this problem? While recognising that it is not a problem for his Department alone, surely we cannot as a progressive and humanitarian nation countenance the huge wastage of valuable liquid food, which will be the subject of a Question to the Prime Minister next Thursday, without his Ministers devoting themselves to the cost of trying to turn it into useful food or even cattle feed for overseas underdeveloped countries.
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has always been a great exponent of the argument of handling one's affairs in an economic manner. I can only repeat that I have been told that this machinery
    18
    is not there to handle the extra quantity which we get in the spring months because it is simply not economic to install it.

    Fowl Pest (Report)
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take on the recommendations of the Plant Committee on Fowl Pest.
    Mr. Soames: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) on 30th March, consultations will be held with representatives of all sections of the poultry industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will consider future policy in the light of those consultations. We are very grateful to Sir Arnold Plant and his committee for their thorough and comprehensive report.
    Mr. Peart: Is the Minister not aware that a committee has reported and that we have had a debate in the House? There has been a recommendation for immediate action. When shall we have some action?
    Mr. Soames: This Report, which took a good time to prepare—I make no complaint about that because it covers a wide field—was published about a week or so ago. This is a complex matter involving a large amount of money and affecting a considerable part of the industry. We intend to consult those parts of the industry which are interested before deciding what we shall do. There is nothing unusual in this.
    Mr. Peart: If the Minister will not give a general answer, will he give a specific answer: will he step up the research into this disease?
    Mr. Soames: The extent to which it would be right to step up research will depend upon the decisions taken as a result of this Report.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Is the Minister aware that the recommendations of this Report are doubly welcome because they point to some economy in the expenditure of public money? Will he learn the moral that when large sums of public money are being expended research, whether by specially appointed committees or in the form of thought by his

    19
    Department, must be expeditious because in the meanwhile the money is being spent, possibly unnecessarily?
    Mr. Soames: The Report recommended that a levy should be raised, beginning in April, 1963.

    Support Buying
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what inquiries he is making into support buying methods.
    Mr. Soames: We are constantly reviewing means of limiting the taxpayer's liability for agricultural support within the framework of our international obligations and our obligations to home agriculture. Support buying is, of course, one method that features in our studies.
    Mr. Peart: Has the Minister appointed any individual to make investigations? I am informed that certain individuals are doing this survey for the Ministry Can he give any information about when the report will be made?
    Mr. Soames: There axe many technical aspects to this. It is a matter of very considerable concern. Within the Department we are seeking the advice which we consider necessary to form judgments about these matters.

    Landlords and Tenants
    Mr. Jegerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will set up a committee to examine all landlord and tenant legislation as it affects farmers, and to make recommendations.
    Mr. Soames: No, Sir. I am not aware of any general demand for such an inquiry.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the Minister not aware that tenant farmers are getting very worried because arbitrators are settling rents in accordance with the current market values which in times of land scarcity are very inflated? Will he not re-examine this question with a view to values being expressed more in terms of the economic rent to a good farmer?
    Mr. Soames: Arbitrations are settled on the basis of a willing landlord letting a farm to a willing tenant. That is the
    20
    test which the arbitrator applies. Rents are decided by arbitration in respect of about 3 per cent. of the farms. The fact that the rents are very high reflects the very high demand for farms at the present, and presumably reflects considerable confidence in the future of agriculture in this country.
    Mr. Jeger: Will not the Minister reconsider the matter in the light of the fact, which is generally known from all the property publications, that a high price is now being demanded for farms because of City speculators, who are not necessarily good farmers, investing their capital in them? This puts good tenant farmers at a disadvantage.
    Mr. Soames: I do not accept that the value of any major proportion of straight farming land is affected by City speculators.
    Mr. Peart: Is the Minister not aware that there is concern about this matter? Surely he has read the discussions of farming conferences. Has the N.F.Uade representations?
    Mr. Soames: Of course, there is concern on the part of sitting tenants that they should not have their rents raised—I appreciate that. I have not had any representations made to me by the N.F.U.

    Uncovered Water Courses
    Mr. Darlingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the dangers to health and of flooding and the possible spreading of Weil's disease as a result of rats moving along uncovered water courses in urban areas, whether he will provide adequate assistance under the Land Drainage Act to urban local authorities which undertake to cover or culvert such streams and open drains.
    Mr. Vane: I am always prepared to consider schemes for the control of flooding, but in so doing I can only take into account for grant-aid the cost of works required for that purpose.
    Mr. Darling: Will the Minister bear in mind that in many cases where the danger of flooding is acute there is also this new menace of rat infestation? The situation in some urban areas is serious

    21
    on both grounds, flooding and rat infestation. If a strong case could be made on the ground that rats are coming up the water courses, would that be taken into consideration?
    Mr. Vane: Probably the hon. Member has a particular case in mind. Rat infestation is not a new menace. Rats have been with us for a long time. It may well be that a pied piper would be the most appropriate remedy. None the less, we try various measures, and we have been known to culvert water courses where this is cheaper than constructing low retaining walls. Where the problem is purely a sewerage problem, it is not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Darling: Would the Minister agree that in certain parts of eastern England and the Midlands, in particular, the number of rats is rapidly increasing?

  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Graduated Pension Scheme
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the latest number of employees who have contracted out of the Government pension scheme.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter): The number is 4,437,703.
    Mr. Allaun: Has the Minister noticed the fabulous rise in the profits and share prices of certain insurance companies as a result of the Government having framed such a rotten pension scheme and so many people contracting out; that, for instance, the Legal and General 5s. shares soared from £9 12s. to £39 17s. in the last three years and that insurance shares as a whole rose by no less than 31 per cent. in 1961 alone?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have not followed the market in shares as closely as the hon. Member has done.
    Mr. Allaun: But the Minister's friends have.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It was one of the original purposes of the 1959 scheme that there should be a proper and further
    22
    development in private and occupational pension schemes, and I am very glad that that should be so.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a substantial shareholder in all insurance companies is the National Union of Mineworkers?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In that case, in the light of what the hon. Member for Salford. East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has said, one must congratulate the union on the excellent counsel it appears to have on investments.
    Mr. DugdaleIs the Minister aware that, as a result of these additions to their capital, the insurance companies now own more than half of British industry?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to ask questions about the share ownership of the insurance industry, he must certainly not ask them of me.
    Mr. Houghtonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what will be the procedure in his Department after the expiry of the Income Tax year on 5th April regarding the recording of graduated contributions, and the notifications to insured persons of contributions paid; what will be the approximate number of contributors involved; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Inland Revenue will send employers' P.A.Y.E returns to my Department's Central Office at Newcastle-upon-Tyne for entry of the employees' graduated contributions in their individual insurance accounts; these will be maintained on an electronic computer. When the recording process is complete, each employee shown as having paid graduated contributions will be sent a statement of account and explanatory leaflet. The number of contributors cannot be precisely forecast but is likely to be of the order of 11 million.
    Mr. Houghton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that interesting description of an administrative nightmare. Will he say on what ground he calls the Tory Party soft, when it has erected this elaborate machinery for fleecing millions of graduated contributors?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The charge of softness—as I am sure the hon. Member will agree—was directed only at the kindliness with which we treat him.

    Rents and Rates
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, in view of the effect recent local authority rate increases will have on those in receipt of widowed mothers, widows, sickness benefit, and people in receipt of National Assistance, whether he will increase the benefit for those people.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So far as National Insurance benefits are concerned, I have nothing to add to what I said during the debate on 13th March. As the National Assistance Board normally takes full account of rates in assessing the needs of householder recipients of National Assistance, these people are in general unaffected by rate changes.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that there are many recipients, such as those drawing sickness benefit, widowed mothers, widows drawing widow's benefit and the unemployed, who just do not reach the subsistence level to entitle them to get an allowance from the National Assistance Board to help them to meet this extra increase? Will the Minister consider what is happening throughout the country concerning rate increases and the large number of people who cannot draw this money by way of the National Assistance Board? What will he do about it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member mentioned widowed mothers among those he listed. He will be glad to know that the real value of the widowed mother's allowance for a widowed mother with three children is 57s. 6d., or 75 per cent. greater than when the present Government came in.
    Mr. Manuel: Try to live on it.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that while National Assistance takes care of the poorest people and meets the rent and rate increases, recent rent and rate increases have wiped out all the benefits that he as Minister has given to those who are just above the poverty line which qualifies them for National Assistance? Will he look into this?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is a considerable exaggeration to say that rent and rate increases, which are, of course, taken into account in the Index of Retail Prices, have done anything of the sort. But they are certainly one of the factors which one follows in keeping rates under review.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the total of National Assistance granted in the last 12 months to cover rent; to how many recipients it was granted: and how this compares with 1956.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I have several times explained to the House, there is no such figure as that asked for in the first part of the Question. At the end of 1961 the number of recipients of weekly National Assistance allowances who were householders for whom an allowance for rent and rates would be added to the appropriate scale rates was 1,439,000, and the average amount paid by them was 21s. 10d. per week. The comparable figures for 1956 were 1,276,000 and 14s. 2d.
    Mr. Allaun: Does not the increase in rents under the Rent Act account very largely for this increase in National Assistance payment? In other words, does it not mean that a very large sum of public money is going not to National Assistance recipients but into the pockets of the landlords?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That hypothesis does not stand up when one recalls that the average amount in respect of local authority tenants is 24s. 6d week as compared with the general figure of 21s. 10d. and that the figure in respect of local authority tenants has risen more in the last year than the other.

    Office, West Bromwich
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware that in spite of the increase in the population of West Bromwich since November, 1961, there has been no increase in the staff of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance office in West Bromwich; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no reason to believe that the population of West Bromwich has altered much in the last three months. The answer to the second part of the Question is therefore. "No, Sir".
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the Minister aware that the reason why I put down that date was to keep the Question fully in order? Is he aware that there has been a considerable increase since 1951, and that the staff has remained exactly the same to deal with this increase? Is he further aware that during one week recently the staff, very much overworked, had to work without any heat whatever in their office and with water running down the walls? Does he regard that as a satisfactory way for the staff to work?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In reply to the first part of the question, comparison of staff in post today and in 1951 is vitiated by the fact that the area covered by the office is less than it was in 1951, having been reduced as long ago as 1953. On the second part of the question, although it quite plainly does not arise out of the right hon. Gentleman's Question on the Paper, I will naturally look into it.

    Retirement Pensions
    Mr. G. Johnson Smithasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance by what percentage the value in real terms of retirement pensions has been increased since 1951; and what is the comparable figure for the increase in personal disposable income per head.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The latest available figures show that the increase in real terms for the single rate of retirement pensions since October, 1951, is 37 per cent.; for the married rate 32 per cent.; and for personal disposable income per head, 27 per cent.

    Discretionary Allowances
    Mr. Houghtonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will place in the Library a copy of the instructions issued to officers of the National Assistance Board in relation to the granting of discretionary allowances.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir, for the reasons authoritatively stated by the late
    26
    Mr. Ernest Bevin on 9th December, 1943.
    Mr. Houghton: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the late Mr. Ernest Bevin has been dead for a long time and conditions are very different now. Is not he aware that he recently told the House that it was no longer possible to consider the scale rates in isolation in view of the large number of discretionary payments? Cannot we therefore know on what basis these are given?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. If he studies what the late Mr. Bevin said, he will appreciate the good sense of a clear statement that
    "the Government cannot be a party to having all the instructions and Regulations of its Departments issued in this way … If we do not interpret the Act aright, the House can challenge us. .."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1943; Vol. 395, c, 1243.]
    That seems to be a very proper statement. As for discretionary payments, I am always willing to tell the House how many have been made, and I am glad to be able to tell it now that the number made in 1961, in supplementation of weekly payments, was 938,000, 24,000 more than in 1960.
    Mr. Houghton: As an alternative to the laying of instructions, can the Minister give a summary, for the benefit of hon. Members, of the way in which the scheme works? That would surely help.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Members knows, we have often had an opportunity of discussing this matter in this House and upstairs. I am always willing, on those occasions, to give a full description. I very much doubt whether a written summary will be at all helpful.

    Earnings Rule (Widowed Mothers)
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what changes in the administration of the earnings rule for widowed mothers were made at the time of the 1961 increases in National Insurance benefits.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: None, Sir.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a very misleading and damaging article was published last month in the Daily Sketch, stating that the benefit increase of last April was

    27
    being snatched away from many widows by the reduction in the amount that they were allowed to earn without deduction? Will he ask the Daily Sketch to correct the wrong impression that it has created, and, furthermore, suggest that it should consult his Department in future to make sure that it has its facts right?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend is quite right. A statement to that effect appeared in the leading article of the Daily Sketch on 5th March. On 6th March my Department drew that newspaper's attention to the inaccuracy and suggested that it would be proper, seeing that it was wrong in fact, to publish a contradiction. So far, no such contradiction has appeared.

    National Assistance Board (Publicity Expenditure)
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how much money the National Assistance Board spent on publicity in 1960, and 1961; and how much it proposes to spend in 1962.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: About £6,000 in 1960–61, and about £8,000 in the two following years. These figures do not take any account of the time spent by the Board's staff at all levels, other than information staff, in giving explanations of the Board's work.
    Mr. Gourlay: I appreciate the services which the staff of the Board give in explaining the operation of the National Assistance Scheme. I also appreciate the necessity for publicising the supplementation to the present inadequate retirement pensions. But would not the Minister consider it better to raise the pension and thereby reduce considerably the number of people requiring assistance?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not see how that arises out of a Question asking how much money the National Assistance Board spent for this purpose.
    Mr. Manuel: Can the Minister indicate whether a proportion of the amount spent last year was spent in connection with the publicity campaign to restore the deficit in welfare foods consumption?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot answer that question without notice. The figures that I have given relate to the general information expenditure of the Board.
    Mr. Ross: In view of the increasing importance of discretionary allowances, can the Minister tell us what public information was given about the powers of local officers in relation to this matter?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should be grateful if the hon. Member would put down a Question on that matter. A good deal of information is published. I agree with him that it is important, and I would like to get it complete before giving an answer.

    National Health Service (Contributions)
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will estimate the total amount to be collected by the National Health Service contributions in 1962–63.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: One hundred and sixty-three million pounds.
    Mr. Ross: Can the Minister tell us how much of this is attributable to the "bob-a-job" increases last year?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is the total amount under the present Act. I cannot break it down without notice.

    Death Grant
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would need to be added to the death grant presently payable in respect of an adult to retain the value it had when it was raised to its present level.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the basis of the Retail Prices Index, about £2 6s.
    Mr. Ross: In this case, rather than taking the cost of living index, would it not be more relevant to have a special "cost of dying" index, in order to see if we could bring this matter much more into relation with the purposes for which it was intended? The £25 is inadequate at present. Will he consider the point?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The only increase made since its origin in 1946, when it was a new benefit, was the

    29
    one that I took through the House in 1957, operating in 1958. I will certainly consider the claims of this benefit as against the claims of others, from the point of view of priority, when the time comes.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Gas and Electricity (Meter Readings)
    Mr. Skeetasked the Minister of Power whether he will consider investigating methods which would enable gas and electricity meters to be read by one reader on behalf of the two nationalised corporations instead of by readers by the two authorities independently thus providing a saving in costs.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): No, Sir. The Weir Committee on cooperation between Electricity and Gas Boards reported that joint meter reading would not be justified on grounds of efficiency and economy.
    Mr. Skeet: Can my hon. Friend state the number of meter readers in the two authorities concerned? Is it not bureaucratic to have two separate divisions running this system when one could do the job? Would not he agree that the London Electricity Board is making one reading a year, and would there not be ample time in which to collect the necessary information and hand it to the other authority concerned?
    Mr. George: This very responsible Committee spent much time in studying this matter and was assisted by the advice of a firm of independent consultants. It did not take the view of my hon. Friend, that it was a case of two staffs doing a job that one could do. It took the opposite view and said that the Board should be left to organise its affairs in the best interests of efficiency and economy, and it so reported.
    Mr. Bellenger: Does not the Minister know that in the case of local authorities information is often given by one committee to another, so that if a road is to be taken up for one purpose the gas people and the electricity people can do
    30
    their work simultaneously? Does not the Minister know of the difficulty of getting into flats in London when the occupants are out all day? Would it not be in the interests of those occupants, at least—quite apart from bureaucratic interests—if one man did the two jobs at the same time?
    Mr. George: I repeat that this Committee studied this question very thoroughly. One of its suggestions, in respect of the situation referred to by the hon. Member, was that the tenant should be allowed to send in an estimate of his consumption by postcard, or that the authorities should estimate the consumption themselves. That is being done in many cases.

    Underground Electricity Transmission Lines
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Power what research has been or is being carried out into more economic methods of carrying electric power lines underground; and what progress has been made.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): The Electricity Council and the boards aim to reduce the cost of moving electricity underground by the use of alternative insulating materials, and by research to discover what cheaper cables and methods of installation might be suitable. I hope that the wide difference in cost may be reduced, but there is no real prospect that the use of underground cables will ever be as cheap as overhead lines, especially at high voltages.
    Mr. Robinson: Would not the Minister agree that if the present trend of increasing electricity consumption continues there is a serious risk that the whole countryside will become a network of pylons and overhead cables? In view of the consequent damage to amenities, is the Minister satisfied that enough effort is being put into this research, which could produce wonderful results if it were pursued to a successful conclusion?
    Mr. Wood: The hon. Member has drawn our attention to a risk which we all want to avoid. I am convinced that a great deal of effort is being put into

    31
    this, and I am also convinced, after having had expert advice, that it is unlikely—especially at the high grid voltages—that the cost of putting the cables underground can be brought down to anything less than about ten times the cost of overhead cables

    WELSH AFFAIRS
    Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire, 1961 (Command Paper No. 1643), being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  COLONIAL LOANS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.31 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a short and a fairly simple Bill, and one which, I am confident, will commend itself to the House as a whole. I should like briefly to explain its purposes.
  The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which, since its foundation, has made such an immense contribution to the development of the countries of Africa, Asia and South America, lends money primarily to its members. But it can lend money to dependent territories if it has a guarantee from the parent Government, being a member of the Bank. In our case, therefore, the Bank can lend money to Colonial Territories if, but only if, the British Government guarantees the principal and interest. For some years now it has been the practice of the British Government, supported by this House, to give these guarantees. The purpose of the Bill is not to change the principle, or the procedure, but to extend the amount for which guarantees can be given.
  Clause 1 (1) proposes to increase the aggregate amount of loans from the Bank to dependent territories which can be guaranteed by the Treasury from £100 million to £150 million. The purpose of subsection (2) is to deal with a situation which has arisen in East Africa. As the House will be aware, the East Africa High Commission, which consisted of three Governments, Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika, had been running certain common services partly of a purely governmental nature, such as the collection of revenue, and partly of a quasi-commercial nature, such as operating the railways, posts and telegraphs. Now, already, Tanganyika is independent and we look forward to an independent Uganda this year. If the High Commission, now called the Common Services Organisation, is to be able to borrow from the World Bank—which I

  33
  am sure we all wish to see it doing, if possible—we must be able to provide a guarantee.
  To do so we must have the authority of Parliament to provide a guarantee for an organisation in which, at any rate, one territory is a Colony. As I say, we may find that of the three territories Uganda and Tanganyika are independent and Kenya is still dependent, but we shall want to guarantee loans from the World Bank to the Common Services Organisation which covers all three. The purpose of subsection (2) is to enable us to do so, and I have little doubt that the House will support the proposal.
  Subsection (3) deals with a separate point regarding the New Hebrides, where we have a condominium with the French Government, and where we cannot guarantee loans from the World Bank. There is at present no proposal for such a loan. But we thought it wise, while introducing the Bill, to include the power to guarantee such a loan if at any future time it appeared to be wise to do so. If there were a proposal for a loan we should, of course, act in consultation and co-operation with the French Government.
  The main purpose of the Bill is to continue a process which has been going on for a number of years and to give scope for a greater aggregate amount of money to be guaranteed by the Treasury to cover special cases relating to the East African Common Services Organisation and the New Hebrides. I think that the need for the Bill now is clear. The current limit fixed by the Acts of 1949 and 1952 is £100 million and already we are getting close to that total. The amount of International Bank loans now guaranteed under the Acts of 1949 and 1952 is about £88 million.
  A very large number of these loans have been to the African territories, the East African High Commission, the Federal Power Board, to Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and again to Kenya. Also, there have been loans to British Guiana and to Trinidad. By and large, these loans have been made to meet such needs as railway development, basic power development, harbour, agricultural and land settlement schemes and agricultural credit. The moneys loaned under these schemes have been used to develop the
  34
  basic economic potential of those services. I have no doubt that this is of great advantage to this country and our Colonial Territories and I am sure that it will command the support of the House.
  As I have said, the loans already guaranteed amount to about £88 million and at present there are applications lodged with the International Bank for another £6 million, one from Malta and one from Mauritius. Both loans are for electric power development. It is clear that, with other proposals coming along, the limit of £100 million will soon be reached. Therefore, we propose that the limit be increased to £150 million.
  There can be no doubt about the value of the work of the World Bank. It is one of the great institutions which have been established at Bretton Woods in recent, years and I think that its performance has been praised thoughout the world. Under its distinguished President, Mr. Eugene Black, whom many of us know for his outstanding qualities of character, the World Bank has contributed to the peace and well-being of the world, not merely by the money it lends, but also by the way in which it is lent. Loans are made on a practical banking basis.
  Any proposal or scheme is examined on a hard-headed basis to try to ensure that the territory borrowing the money will be in a position to service the loan from its own resources over the period of the loan. The Bank has done great service in providing technical advice and economic surveys for many countries. I have no doubt that we are right in doing all we can to assist and to make it possible for the Bank to participate in the economic development of Colonial Territories. That is the main purpose of this short Bill.
  I wish to refer briefly to what we ourselves are doing towards the development of the Colonial Territories, because it is a story which cannot be told too often, and one which, I think, is sometimes imperfectly understood. The grants and loans made under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts since the war aggregate over £250 million. During recent years the average rate has been £25 million a year. In addition, we have

  35
  been making Exchequer loans during the last two or three years of about £16 million or £17 million a year. Then there are grants made under the Colonial Services Vote, grants in aid, assistance for relief and natural disasters, emergencies, accidents and that kind of thing, and last year they amounted to no less than £32 million. Advances to the Colonial Development Co-operation, which was set up in 1948, are about £85 million now, net of repayments.
  These are all very large figures and, in total, our financial aid to the Colonies, which falls upon Government expenditure and the balance of payments, has increased from about £35 million a year in 1957–58 to about £80 million in 1961–62. During the last four years our general overseas aid has risen from £80 million to £180 million, which, as a proportion of our national income, I claim bears comparison with any other country in the world, without exception. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not with France."] Yes, it stands comparison also with France. It may be lower than some, but it is more than most. I said that it stands comparison, and that is precisely what I meant. As an effort it is something of which this country can be proud, and should be proud.
  An interesting fact to know is that, although the number of territories which have become independent and moved outside the colonial sphere is substantial, in 1961 the colonial Dependencies received the same share of our total overseas aid as they did four years ago, namely, 44 per cent. This shows that we are concentrating our help very much on the remaining dependent territories.
  In addition to the aid we give, there is the very large investment by private enterprise—probably £80 million a year—by means of the technical assistance schemes; the training schemes; and the various Colombo Plan United Nations schemes by specialised agencies. In this and in many ways we are contributing to the aid given to the Colonial Territories. At a time when we are doing our best to contain Government expenditure, and are often urged to do so, and even to reduce it, it is notable that the ceiling upon aid is a very high one indeed and that the proportion of Government expenditure going to aid, and
  36
  particularly the proportion of Government expenditure going to aid to the Colonial Territories, is one for which the House and the country can claim credit.
  The purpose of the Bill, to sum it up briefly, is to continue a process which has been going on for several years enabling, through the medium of British Government guarantees, capital for development to flow from the International Bank to the Colonial Territories, in addition to the massive sums we ourselves are making available. I believe that this is a purpose with which the whole House agrees, and I confidently urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  3.43 p.m.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: I am glad, as I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are, that the Colonial Secretary has tried to put the Bill in perspective against the background of the Government's overseas aid policies generally. I was inclined to agree with the interjection to the effect that, although the figures no doubt stand comparison with other countries, they are by no means as generous as a country like us with our special position in the world might achieve. However, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's rejoinder was apt, because it hardly lies in the mouths of hon. Members opposite, who are continually badgering the Government to reduce expenditure, at the same time to say that the Government ought to do more in providing overseas aid.
  The Bill is a modest one, but, as the Colonial Secretary went on to say, it raises big issues. In one way it raises what is probably the biggest issue of the times in which we live, namely, how we are to close the gap between the 1,000 million members of the human race who live on levels of relative affluence and prosperity and the 2,000 million members of the human race who suffer from chronic hunger, disease and illiteracy. The Prime Minister is fond of saying that we in this country have been able to wipe out the two nations which existed in the time of Disraeli. However that may be, we certainly still live in a world in which there are in effect two human races.
  To put it crudely, there is the overfed world and there is the underfed world.

  37
  There is the world in which some proportion of our national resources is spent on advertising to try to persuade us that we ought to eat the kind of foods which contain the minimum of calories, whilst, at the same time, the other two-thirds of the human race—the underfed world—are struggling to prevent themselves starving.
  For example, the average income in this country, which is by no means the wealthiest country in the world, is £338, whereas in the High Commission Territories within our own Commonwealth the average income per head is £20. We in this country think that an old-age pensioner on the kind of pension that the Government award him is very harshly treated in terms of living standards here, but by African standards and the standards of other overseas countries for which we are responsible an old-age pensioner in this country is very much on the level of a millionaire.
  We shall not have a decent or a moral world so long as this gap exists. Very probably we shall not have a safe world so long as we allow it to continue. Yet the terrible truth is that this gap, despite all the efforts which have been made, despite the very considerable efforts which the right hon. Gentleman has just described to the House, is widening rather than narrowing. Mr. Paul Hoffman, the former Marshall Plan administrator and the head of the United Nations Special Fund, showed recently in a pamphlet that during the 1950s the income per head in developing countries had risen at an average rate of 2½ per cent., whereas in the under-developed countries the income per head had risen by only 1 per cent. These dangerous inequalities are widening, despite the scale of aid so far given from the wealthier part of the world to the poorer part.
  For this reason, we welcome the provisions made in the Bill. The Bill does something to help to make the wealth of the developed world flow more easily towards the under-developed world through a United Nations agency, the World Bank. We on this side join in the tribute paid by the Colonial Secretary to Mr. Eugene Black, the head of the World Bank. However, although we accept the Bill generally, its provisions deserve a closer scrutiny.
  More than half the loans made under the Colonial Loans Act have had only
  38
  a limited application to the poverty stricken masses of the dependent territories. I refer to the fact that, so far as I can see from the figures, probably rather more than 141 million out of 245 million dollars have gone on the Central African Kariba scheme and its associated developments. It is true that the Kariba scheme brings benefits to the African majorities in the territories, but the fact must be faced that the prime motive of the scheme has been to provide power for what has turned out to be a brittle boom in secondary industries in Southern Rhodesia.
  It is time that someone said something heretical about the Kariba scheme in terms of the development of the underdeveloped territories. Kariba is a magnificent scheme, but in terms of priorities and scarce resources it is by no means necessarily the best way of lifting the living standards of a poor agricultural African population. If the World Bank had been able to make its criterion the raising of living standards throughout the whole of Central Africa, it would not have concentrated on Kariba to the extent that it has done.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: Would the hon. Gentleman associate the Owen Falls Dam, which was started by his party, with this criticism?
  Mr. Thomson: The Owen Falls Dam is on a different scale in relation to the development which has been going on in Uganda, but Kariba has overshadowed other developments.
  I do not want to make too much of this criticism. I put it forward merely because it illustrates one of the weaknesses of the way the World Bank has to operate. If Mr. Eugene Black and the World Bank had at the time been able to carry out one of their economic surveys in Central Africa, as they have done with such tremendous success in the East African Territories, and if they had drawn up a development plan on the basis of priorities, I believe that some of the money which has gone on Kariba would have gone into agriculture or into smaller irrigation and development schemes in Nyasaland, which is the poorest of the Central African Territories.
  I mention that because it underlines the fact that the World Bank is limited

  39
  by its own regulations about the servicing of interest to the relatively developed underdeveloped territories, if I may use a rather Irish phrase. The Secretary of State commended the World Bank for having to operate in that way, and for having to make sure of the creditworthiness of the kind of projects which it finances, but if one looks at the World Bank's activities, one finds that a remarkably high proportion of them have to be in the South American countries, because they are relatively more developed than some of the dependent territories for which we are responsible.
  It is that kind of compromise with commercial criteria of investment that the World Bank has to make that puts the West at such an undeserved psycho logical disadvantage compared with the Communist countries in giving aid to the under-developed countries. I say "undeserved" because, of course, the West gives aid on a scale several times that of the Communist countries—
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): Ten times.
  Mr. Thomson: The Minister says that the scale is ten times, and I accept that We handicap ourselves by some of the commercial tests we impose, and by the interest charges we make. The World Bank's interest charges, judging from its last Report, vary between 4¾ per cent. and 6 per cent.
  Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the first Colonial Loans Act, under the Labour Government, was not used at all, mainly because the World Bank then charged 4¾ per cent., which was so much higher than the interest charges then being asked in this country under our Administration. Jamaica recently raised the first loan for some time on the London market, and had to pay 6¼ per cent.—a crippling burden on a developing country. For the underdeveloped countries of the Commonwealth the price of Toryism is a very high one indeed.
  For that reason, therefore, we welcome the setting up by the World Bank in 1960 of the International Development Association, which can give no-interest loans over fifty years—with, I think, ten years' grace before repayment has to begin. I notice that the Colonial
  40
  Territories have so far received 3 million dollars from the I.D.A. out of a total of, I believe, 137 million dollars of loans so far issued by that Association. I should like to ask why the Colonial Territories have so far benefited relatively little from the I.D.A.'s operations, which seem to me to be so especially relevant to the kind of problems we get in our colonial dependencies. I should also like to know whether this Bill, guaranteeing, as it does, loans by the World Bank, is also taken to guarantee actions by the World Bank's subsidiary, the International Development Association. It is very important that the British Government should give the maximum possible encouragement to the expansion of the work of the I.D.A.
  It is true that in their efforts in the realm of overseas help the Government are very much hampered by the balance of payments problem. We appreciate that. But it is also true that the Government's balance of payments problem is very much one of their own creation, and results from their own domestic policies. It would be tragic if the Colonial Territories were to be made the victims of the Conservative Government's domestic philosophy of, "I'm all right, Jack." Some of the Government's balance of payments difficulties arise directly out of the kind of spending spree that they have been encouraging at home.
  It is because of those balance of payments difficulties that it is especially necessary for the Government to give every encouragement it can to the World Bank and to the I.D.A., because, through those United Nations agencies, we can do something to ensure that our own balance of payments difficulties are offset by increased multilateral aid to the Colonies.
  The Government can do some other things, if they really want to, to face the balance of payments problems in giving aid, and I shall very briefly indicate some of them. The Government might do something to make available to some of the hungry, under-developed, under-nourished countries the surplus skimmed milk we have in this country. I understand that the Government are just about to pour about a quarter of a million gallons of surplus skimmed milk down derelict coal mines, at a time when in our own Commonwealth countries in

  41
  West Africa, children are dying from the deficiency diseases caused by the very lack of that same skimmed milk.
  When this was raised with the Government, not long ago, the Foreign Office spokesman, in reply to a Question, said:
  "… it would hardly be sound economics to be both importing milk products and giving them away at the same time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 1285.]
  I do not know whether it would be sound economics to do that, but I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would think it sound humanity to do so. What, apparently, seems sound economics to the Government, will really seem insane to the ordinary person. I beg the Government to reconsider that position before it is too late. The season of this milk surplus is still ahead; there is yet time for the Government to take action. They would enjoy widespread public support if they were to break some of the rules in order to help in this way, and it would involve very little payment across the exchanges.
  Then there is the matter of pensions. We could give more aid to some of the Commonwealth countries that need aid without aggravating our balance of payments troubles simply by ourselves taking over the responsibility of paying compensation and pensions to colonial civil servants of territories that have recently become independent, or which soon will become independent. So far, the principle has been that the newly-independent Governments accept responsibility for those matters; in practice, it very often means a severe hardship for colonial pensioners in this country, who find that the value of their pensions is dropping in an inflationary age. It also often means a burden on emerging countries that has caused varying degrees of friction with us.
  With rising prices here, some of the pensions have failed to keep their value, and have imposed a humiliating retirement on people who have served the country well—
  Mr. Maudling: There is quite a distinction here between compensation payments and pensions. With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little confusing the two.
  Mr. Thomson: That may be. I was thinking primarily of the pensions pay-
  42
  ments. They tend to drop in value as time goes on, and there are the greatest difficulties in persuading the newly-independent overseas Governments to grant pensions increases—
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I do not follow how he relates that matter to the provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. Thomson: I think that for the Government to justify the Bill, it has to be seen in perspective against the Government's overseas policies generally. The right hon. Gentleman did so in his speech. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that in earlier debates of a similar nature that Ruling has been given by the Chair. However, I do not want to develop it at any great length, but I do want to ask the Government to consider whether they might not reexamine with the newly-independent Commonwealth countries the whole principle of the arrangements for pensions.
  I think that it is wrong in principle for such a country as this, with an average income per head of £340, to seek to obtain English standard middle-class pensions from an underdeveloped country with an annual income per head of only £20. If the Government were prepared to re-examine that matter, and do something about it, it would be the equivalent of the kind of aid that is envisaged in the Bill, and it would help to put right an injustice to many of our own retired public servants in this country. It would also greatly increase the good will we enjoy from the former Colonial Territories.
  The Secretary of State referred to the Colonial Development Corporation. I hope that the Government will give fresh consideration to allowing the Corporation to initiate new projects in Colonial Territories after they become independent. The Corporation has got together a unique body of expertise and "know-how", and although, no doubt, there are problems about the kind of capital provision which may be made from this country to the Corporation's operations overseas, it would be immensely helpful if its teams of experts were allowed to participate in new projects in newly independent Commonwealth countries. We all welcome the Report from the Corporation to the effect that it has been able to establish

  43
  good and cordial relations with the World Bank. Indeed, on one sugar estate in Tanganyika, it is already cooperating with the World Bank in a very useful project.
  I now wish to deal with the colonial development and welfare money which the Minister mentioned. We very much welcome the figures for the past which he has given. What we should like from the Under-Secretary is a more lucid explanation of exactly what will happen in the financial year ahead of us. The Colonial Secretary used a somewhat vague expression in this connection. He said that we had the kind of ceiling on overseas aid which would stand comparison with any other country.
  What we want to know is whether we are to give as much overseas aid next year as we gave last year. Is there to be a cut, or will we be able to give more? There have been reports that the Colonial Office has been asking the Administrations of the High Commission Territories to make a 5 per cent. cut in their budgets for the next twelve months. I should be grateful if this could be denied, because it would be shocking if we imposed such a cut in those territories at this stage.
  The coming to independence of a Colonial Territory nowadays makes very little difference to the economic situation in which that territory finds itself. I hope that the Government will seek means to continue into the period of independence the kind of balanced development expenditure which they have given under the colonial development and welfare arrangements. These arrangements are different from the World Bank arrangements in that social expenditure is possible and expenditure can be related to a general development plan. It does not need to be related simply to the kind of credit-worthy commercial undertakings which can be expected to repay their capital in a fixed time. It would be immensely helpful if the Government could take a much more imaginative look at this sort of situation.
  In Sierra Leone, the last Colonial Territory to become an independent member of the Commonwealth, more than half of its expenditure on educational development came from colonial
  44
  development and welfare funds. This has been completely cut off now that Sierra Leone is independent and it will be in the greatest difficulty in making progress unless the Government adapt their aid policies to fit the changing shape of the Commonwealth and the reducing size of the dependent Colonial Territories.
  In conclusion, I commend to the Government what may well turn out to be the most important resolution passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations during its recent session. This resolution proposed that the 1960s should be regarded as the United Nations decade of development. The idea originated with Mr. Paul Hoffman in the booklet to which I have referred. It was backed by President Kennedy, in his speech to the General Assembly. It has been taken up as part of the official policy of Her Majesty's Opposition.
  I hope that the Government will feel that Britain, in particular, should give a real lead in ensuring that this development decade is a success. It involves setting a target for aid to underdeveloped countries on a global scale which would allow such countries to increase their income per head by 2 per cent. a year. Because of the population explosion in those under-developed countries, this means the increase in wealth in those countries needs to be of the rate of 4 to 5 per cent. a year. This is by no means impossible if the developed countries act wisely and generously.
  For our part, it might mean the Government accepting as an immediate target in terms of their own governmental aid to under-developed countries the suggestion of the Labour Party at the election that we should put aside each year 1 per cent. of our national income for helping under-developed territories.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The total figure of public and private investment in the underdeveloped countries is much more than 1 per cent.
  Mr. Thomson: I distinctly referred to governmental aid. I was deliberately excluding private investment.
  The Opposition's proposal was that the Government, the community, the

  45
  nation, should put aside 1 per cent. of its national income through public means to do this. It is true that the £180 million which the Secretary of State announced this afternoon is probably about 0·8 of 1 per cent., so that what I am putting forward is a very modest immediate target, something that is practicable even in the light of the financial difficulties which the Government have created for themselves. If the Government were to adopt this suggestion, it would give a notable lead to other countries.
  I do not think that this can be seriously argued that a country like ours, where we spend 2½ per cent. of our national income on advertising, on persuading people that they want something which they do not want until they have seen or heard the advertisement, cannot afford to spend 1 per cent. of its national income on helping with our Commonwealth responsibilities.
  I hope that the Government, in spite of the somewhat disappointing remarks of the Secretary of State about a ceiling on overseas aid, will take a lead in making a ten-year plan for world development through the United Nations a reality.
  4.6 p.m.
  Mr. John Tilney: I hope to refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson)—some good, some rather partisan—in my speech. I say at once that I give only a qualified welcome to the Bill, because I think that some fresh thought should be given to the whole of our policy on loans and gifts overseas. I am beginning to wonder whether Great Britain is like the daughter of a great house, brought up on a large estate with great possessions, who wishes to remain the lady bountiful even after heavy death duties of two world wars have been paid.
  We are inclined to distribute our largesse as of old, forgetting at times whether we earn it ourselves, and to countries irrespective of whether they play the democratic game, work, and treat other members of our Commonwealth family properly. In fact, we are inclined to give our aid to the deserving and undeserving without proper thought.
  There are certain fundamental principles which we should consider. The first is that capital is not just clutched out of
  46
  the sky. It is what we save ourselves individually, through pension funds, by our own saving and by insurance policies. It is not gained by speculation, which is merely taking somebody else's possible profits. It is not gained from a national bag in the sky from which wealth can be produced.
  Secondly, there are many people in this country who believe that we are not investing enough in the United Kingdom. I confess that I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee, East that we have a moral obligation, in view of our affluence, to help those who are much worse off than ourselves. But there are people who say that if we merely put an extra spurt into our own economy, in five years' time we will be able to give and loan overseas much more than we can now and that we will be able to compete with the Common Market.
  The third point I wish to make is that it is no good talking about guarantees as though they do not affect our own credit. The more guarantees one gives, the more one is liable. The hon. Member for Dundee, East referred to the high cost of some of these loans. I agree that in many cases it would have been cheaper to borrow the money ourselves and lend it rather than give these guarantees.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: It is not true.
  Mr. Tilney: The British Government can still borrow money on short-term more cheaply than some of these guarantees to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary whether these guarantees will continue for many years even after independence is achieved, and that, therefore, we are virtually guaranteeing a completely independent country. I believe that an overall policy for developing countries as a whole, and particularly those of the Commonwealth, should be considered.
  Let us consider the information paragraph of this exercise. The first point is that for many years since the war our balance of payments position has been very precarious. Because of this, we have a way pause, to which the hon. Gentleman referred as a spending spree. We have also, morally anyhow, a dividend freeze. We have the Common

  47
  Market challenge, which industry must be geared to meet. The more we invest overseas, obviously the less we have to invest at home, and yet the demand for capital overseas in these developing countries is virtually limitless. As I see it, therefore, the aid must be limited. We cannot give everyone what he wants.
  What is our intention paragraph? I agree with my right hon. Friend that we ought to help, first, our remaining Colonies. We also want to help the independent members of the Commonwealth. Then there are certain foreign countries to which we must give aid. But the first priority must, of course, be the Colonies.
  What is our second intention? I am not sure whether the Government agree with me that there should be a division in those three categories. Because the amount that we can lend is limited, certain standards of behaviour should be applied to the three categories. First, they should have a free democracy and not be a police State, and any individual of any race or creed should have equal rights with anyone else. This would eliminate some from the list of possible recipients of aid.
  Secondly, fair treatment should be given to existing investments. Many of these investors have made the territory's viability economically possible, and such investors should be fairly treated. If they are not, it is a bad advertisement for fresh private capital or, for that matter, Government capital. If this standard were followed, some more countries would be eliminated.
  Thirdly—and the hon. Member for Dundee, East referred to this—the territories should not have forgotten those who made their political viability possible. No doubt the hon. Gentleman has seen the Motion I tabled, signed by nearly 70 of my horn. Friends. I regret that it is signed by only two hon. Gentlemen opposite. I hope that after his speech today the hon. Gentleman will add his name to this Motion.
  [That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise the hardships inflicted on many former members of the Colonial Service, Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service, and the Sudan Civil Service, by the effects of
  48
  inflation in the United Kingdom since 1939 and, while taking whatever steps are possible to increase the pensions paid so as to accord them treatment no less favourable than that already accorded by Her Majesty's Government to retired members of the Home, India, Burma, Pakistan, and Palestine Civil Services to take into consideration when giving or lending British taxpayers' money to colonial or successor Governments whether such Governments have taken action to bring the pensions of their former civil servants into line with the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, in the United Kingdom.]
  The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the pensions of the ex-servants of some of the territories, and I should like to add that pensions for widows—
  Mr. Charles Royle: It would be helpful if we knew the Motion to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Some of us might want to sign it.
  Mr. Tilney: It is the Motion calling on Her Majesty's Government to consider, when lending British taxpayers' money to overseas territories, the pensions paid by those territories to their ex-servants, and calling their attention to the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959.
  I call attention to the fact that premiums payable for pensions for widows were made compulsory by a fiat of the predecessor of my right hon. Friend. Many of those who had their salaries docked perhaps wish that they had taken out their own life insurance policies for the benefit of their widows, because with profits they might have shown a better return than they get now.
  My point is that the record varies greatly in this matter. The worst offenders are among the independent members of the Commonwealth, and as we are discussing the actual Colonies for which we are responsible it is as well to notice that not one independent country, with the honourable exception of Nigeria and possibly Somalia, due to a grant-in-aid has bothered to do anything about pensions since it became independent, and little has been done by Her Majesty's Government.
  On 27th March, I asked the Colonial Secretary:
  "when he drew the attention of the Government of Sierre Leone to the United Kingdom's

  49
  Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, in relation to pensions of ex-members of the colonial and Her Majesty's overseas services … and what was the nature of the reply of the Government of Sierre Leone."
  To my surprise, he replied:
  "A despatch was addressed to the Governor of Sierre Leone … on 2nd October, 1959. This did not call for a reply."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1962, Vol. 656, c. 109.]
  That despatch was sent two-and-a-half years ago, and yet I have been told constantly that the Government have this matter very much in mind and are doing all that they can to put it right.
  Despite the Colonial Office publication No. 306 of 1954, to which reference was made by Lord Boyd in another place, in a first-class speech, I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government have abandoned the hopes of these wretched ex-servants.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand how the point about "these wretched ex-servants" might arise in another context. While the territory in question remains a Colony, which seems to be the only context in which the provisions of this Bill would relate to the matter, no doubt they could possibly reasonably be related to the subject matter of the Bill, but once the country is independent I do not understand how that can be so. I do not follow.
  Mr. Tilney: Many of the territories that we are discussing are about to become independent, and I wanted to call the attention of the House to what happened in the case of a Colony which became independent. When one asks a Question about an independent country, one is told time and again that this is a matter for the independent country to decide. This makes it extremely difficult to discuss the problem of pensioners of existing Colonies, and many of them will in due course become pensioners of independent countries.
  I have here a list of the guarantees to loans made by the International Bank under the Colonial Loans Acts, 1949 to 1952. The list shows that 28 million dollars went to Southern Rhodesia; 14 million dollars to Northern Rhodesia; and 28 million dollars to Nigeria. I have no objection to this. Both the Rhodesias and Nigeria have played the game extremely well by their ex-servants.
  Now I come to the 5·6 million dollars given on 27th May, 1960, to Kenya and
  50
  the 8·4 million on 29th November, 1961, and again in January, 1962, to Kenya, where 110 out of 370 pensioners receive less than those who worked in the United Kingdom; and £3,300 per annum would put them right. Uganda received 8·4 million dollars in August last year, and there, 75 out of 280 receive less than people in the United Kingdom and yet only £2,500 a year would put them right.
  British Guiana, receiving 1¼ million dollars in June last year, pays all those receiving over £200 per annum smaller increases than the increases awarded in the United Kingdom under the Pensions (Increase) Act, and the same applies to Trinidad and Tobago, where five out of 50 of those receiving pensions over £300 per annum get less. I come to British Honduras which, according to the Estimates of this year, I see, will get £375,000, and there nine out of 10 get less than in the United Kingdom. In the Gambia, which, according to the Estimates, gets £600,000, 10 out of 25 get less.
  Unless the Government, while we are in control, do something about those pensioners, what chance is there of their ever getting a fair deal?
  Finally, there is Singapore, which is a more difficult case, I admit, and where those receiving pension of over £400 get very much less. There are, I believe, 350 of these officers and the total would be as much as £25,000, but even that £25,000 is very small considering that the expenditure we are discussing this afternoon is of £50 million, or a guarantee of it. It is really a fleabite. And with the widows and orphans—of these, 2,300 get less, and the cost would be £110,000. I am not surprised that many of the pensioners think of the words of Lord Strafford:
  "Put not your trust in princes"
  I should like to stress that I am particularly thinking of the pensioners who retired immediately after or even during the war who did not get the benefit of the uplift of salaries which happened in many territories in the late 1940s. If the policy of the Treasury is that the affluent State prefers to forget these people, let the Treasury say so, and those who are thinking of serving the Crown overseas in future can make up their own minds about it. We still, however, control many territories, and

  51
  I can only hope that we shall use the sanction of the purse—I see no reason why we should not do so—to see that these countries play the game properly.
  After all, it has really been a matter of luck as to where a colonial servant has been sent. If he went to Hong Kong he would have done extremely well. On the other hand, if he was sent originally to Ceylon and then went to a Colony he would find that any increase in the Colony's pension is taken off by the Government of Ceylon, and that seems to me to be extremely unfair.
  We have a Welfare State. It may be the policy of the Government that these people who have served the Crown so well should rely on National Assistance. I can hardly believe it, but I can hardly believe that those who have served us so well in the past should be quietly forgotten—forgotten, perhaps, till they have to vote in places like Orpington, or somewhere else. Many of them, let us remember, have held high office in their territories in days gone by. In the old Tennysonian line, they who serve the Crown find that
  "Sorrow's Crown of sorrow is remembering happier things"
  applies very much to them.
  I should like very much—
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot compete with the hon. Member any more. I do not understand how that position is to be improved by increasing the maximum which can be guaranteed under the Bill, or by the method in the Bill. I cannot understand the connection.
  Mr. Tilney: I am trying to debate the whole lending policy of the Government, Mr. Speaker, surely the power of the purse—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member referred to somebody living on National Assistance because in the past he missed out his chance of getting his pension increased under the Pensions (Increase) Act. I understand the hon. Member's difficulties, and I am in no way out of sympathy with him, but the occasion seems inapt.
  Mr. Tilney: I want to avoid this happening again in the territories which are to get the benefit of these guarantees
  52
  from the World Bank where the credit of Great Britain is engaged. I am hoping that by the sanction of the purse over these guarantees the Government will ensure that this situation does not arise again in the future. I believe that it can be put right and that these wretched, poor relations of the Victorian novel will just fade away and will not be re-created in another edition.
  I believe that if the Government take a consistent line in this matter they will do a magnificent job for their old servants, that the territories concerned will realise that in the end it is only our money which is paying, or our credit which is paying, for their obligations.
  So, finally, may I turn to the method paragraph of fulfilling this intention to help the developing territories? Before money or credit, and especially before independence, is granted, I hope that the Government will consider the principles which I have suggested. I hope that they will follow them and that the limited amount of capital we have available will be for those countries which have played the game with their investors, and their ex-servants, and that it is they only who will receive the benefit of the guarantees under this Bill.
  4.27 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Royle: Even if my knowledge were sufficient to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) in the main part of his speech, I should be prevented from doing so, Mr. Speaker, in view of your Rulings. Therefore I would only say to him that I am mainly in agreement with him on the things which he has said about greater help for the Colonial Territories. In that respect the hon. Member followed my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson). All of us on this side of the House are very concerned indeed that the help given to the Colonial Territories should be as much as it possibly can be.
  I remember that very early in my membership of this House a friend of mine from the Colonies said to me that the House was not interested in colonial matters. I supposed that he had been in the Gallery and had seen the number of Members who had attended colonial debates. I tried as well as I possibly could to assure him that the House

  53
  really was interested in all matters connected with the Colonies and that the number of Members occupying places in the Chamber during our debates was no criterion of interest.
  So it will be today. In spite of the fact that there are so few of us in the Chamber at the moment there is no doubt either that the House as a whole is very deeply concerned in these matters, or that the House as a whole will be ready at the end of the debate, to give approval to the Bill.
  The Bill, in principle, is excellent. None of us can dispute that fact. This is a move in the right direction. I am one of those who welcome any increase in the guarantees. It was about the time that that remark was passed to me by my friend in the Colonies, soon after 1945 or 1946, that things started to happen. They started to happen in a rush, with the introduction of C.D.C. and C.D. and W. and, in 1949, the Colonial Loans Act itself.
  Perhaps I may be permitted, as a back bencher on this side of the House, remembering what happened in those days, to pay a modest tribute to two of my right hon. Friends whom I am happy to see in the House at the moment—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech-Jones) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). At that time, the latter was Minister of Food, and I remember that when we started off the Colonial Development Corporation and the colonial development and welfare funds, we were having to do it at tremendous sacrifice. The imagination which was shown by my two right hon. Friends at that time was something very much to be admired. It probably was not a popular thing at that time. We were calling upon our people to make tremendous sacrifices.
  May I remind the House that about the same time we were compelled to impose bread rationing on our own people, to make sure that people in other parts of the world were not dying of hunger. If we were able to do those things in those difficult years immediately following the war, how much more important is it that at this time this country should be giving a greater measure of aid to our Colonial Territories and all
  54
  the under-developed nations of the world.
  Those days to which I just referred were days when our people generally were being called upon to make sacrifices. Today, we live in a different kind of atmosphere—one of plenty. We have been told that we have never had it so good, and there is no doubt that the standard of living in this country is higher than ever it was in our history. Therefore, have we not a right to call upon our people, not to make a sacrifice, but at least to make substantial grants and loans to the territories which are so much needing our help?
  The word that we have to think about more than anything else today is "adequate". Are the things that we are doing for our Colonial Territories an adequate contribution to their great needs? I agree with the Secretary of State for the Colonies that in recent years we have made very substantial contributions to these territories. That is something of which we have a right to be proud, and I do not hesitate to say so, but is the word "substantial" just enough? Are the contributions that we are making adequate contributions? My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East has referred to the Labour Party's suggestion that 1 per cent. of our national income should be devoted to this purpose. We could afford this so easily, and we could do it without asking our people for sacrifices. We know that we can do these things, and I hope that in their further consideration of thus matter the Government will make sure that what we are doing for our Colonies and the underdeveloped nations generally will be properly adequate.
  During the present Session we have given quite a lot of attention to the Colonies, one way or another. Some of us seem to have been talking about Colonial questions for almost the whole of the Session. Therefore, I do not want to speak at length today, but there is one final matter to which I would like to refer. It concerns British Honduras. There is a very startling short article in The Times this morning pointing out what has happened in that Colony. It is a long time since I was there, but I can visualise just what has happened because of my knowledge of the topography of the area. I can picture just

  55
  what the effects of the hurricane have been.
  It was the privilege of a few of us last week to have a conversation with Mr. George Price, Chief Minister of British Honduras, who, I understand, was having, and maybe still is, talks on his great problems with the Colonial Office. I suppose it is right to say that no British Colony has been as badly shaken in recent years, in proportion to its size, population, economy and its resources, as British Honduras has been. This is a country which, in effect, has been wiped out. Therefore, my plea is that, maybe through the guarantees in the Bill which we are now considering, or by other forms of grants, but not loans, we can do something really good for British Honduras. Mr. Price told us last week, for example, that the Colony is seriously considering—and, I take it, putting it up to the Colonial Office—moving the capital of Belize further inland, where it would not be subject to hurricanes in the way in which it has been on the coast.
  The great need of British Honduras at this time is for outside finance; it has nothing of its own, and is one of the poorest of our Colonies. It has not been included in the general setup of the Federation of the West Indies, which we shall be considering later today, and, therefore. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that as much generosity as possible shall be extended to the Colony.
  I know that perhaps this does not come strictly within the terms of what the Bill does. I see that the Under-Secretary of State agrees with me. Nevertheless, this is an opportunity for saying the things that we want to say about the needs of the Colonies. I will not pursue that point any further, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to have British Honduras uppermost in his mind when considering grants and loans. I hope that he will do all he possibly can to help the Colony.
  Apart from that, I want to welcome the Bill, as far as it goes. We could offer the criticism that it does not go as far as we should like it to go, but we welcome any step forward, and I am completely confident that the Bill will receive a Second Reading without a Division or any disagreement at all.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: I am sure that both sides of the House will agree with the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) that it is incumbent upon us as the richest member of the Commonwealth to do all we can to speed up the development of the less fortunate members. If the Commonwealth means anything it means that the strongest members must help the weakest.
  As I understand it, this Bill guarantees loans by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to assist development in all the British colonial Dependencies, but there is one Dependency to which I want to direct most of my remarks and that is Kenya. The land schemes in Kenya are very much in the minds of all hon. Members. They have already attracted a considerable amount in loans from the International Bank and I suggest that they are likely to need to attract even more.
  In the summer of 1960 there were, broadly speaking, two development schemes in Kenya designed to encourage the transfer of agricultural land from European to African ownership. One was the yeoman farmer scheme of £3¼ million and the other the peasant farmer scheme of £3 million. Then there was the Land Bank, which was designed to attract international funds, and funds from the national bank, to help economic development in Kenya through these and other schemes. The assistance given the Land Bank by the World Bank at that stage was about £3 million.
  In the middle of 1961 there was a change of policy with regard to these funds. I should like to quote briefly from the periodical East Africa and Rhodesia dated 14th September, as follows:
  "An additional 12,000 African families are to be settled on land to be bought by the Kenya Government in the White Highlands. This amplifies an existing £8½ million project for resettling 8,000 families with a £4½ million loan from the World Bank and the Colonial Development Corporation. Less stringent qualifications as to the financial standing and the experience of the farmers will be required under the new plan."
  About 350,000 acres of ex-European farmland were to be purchased, representing about 5 per cent. of the total

  57
  of European-owned land and on this African families were to be settled giving about 25 acres per family. These families were expected to live off the land and in addition to make a profit of about £100 a year. Repayment to the World Bank and to British funds sunk in the scheme were to be over long periods.
  These schemes do not seem to have been working out as was expected two years ago and I should like to know why. I suggest that one of the reasons is that the African farmer, knowing that Kenya will be independent soon, believes that he will get the land free. He therefore does not want to spend even 10 per cent. of the value of the land, which is required as a deposit, if he is to have the land free in a year or two's time. If that is so, we should think of a much more ambitious scheme which will prove to the African majority in Kenya that we intend to settle large numbers of Africans on the land. This would greatly strengthen the economy of Kenya and would enable these loans eventually to be repaid to the Treasury and to the World Bank.
  Seventy-eight per cent. of the Scheduled Area, which is now the name for the old White Highlands, comprises small farms of under 2,000 acres, and would include some 2,800 holdings totalling 2 million acres. I suggest that with the assistance of the World Bank we should introduce an ambitious scheme to purchase about 50 per cent. of the land, or about 1 million acres, on which some 100,000 African farmers could be settled. This could be done through a new land authority or board, or by stepping up the power and scope of the present Settlement Board.
  The board should be under an obligation to purchase any small mixed farm in the area and within the categories specified in the scheme. A farmer who wished to sell his land should, however, be required to remain on as a tenant until the board could take over the land and divide it up between the required number of African farmers. If the farmer who has sold his land is required to stay on as a tenant he is assured of an income and, at the same time, the land will be kept in good use until the time comes to settle African families. Experts have calculated that such a scheme, spread over five years,
  58
  would cost between £30 million and £35 million. Obviously the main burden would fall on the British Treasury, but this would be far cheaper than any form of civil disturbance or emergency which might arise if some such scheme were not carried out.
  If a board were set up with Kenyans of national standing of all races and possibly men of international standing, it would attract World Bank money and it would have a great effect on the economy of Kenya, particularly on the employment situation which is causing grave anxiety to those who are concerned with security. A scheme of that kind financed by the loans which we are discussing under this Bill would be of great benefit to Kenya and to Africa as a whole.
  I should like to mention economic assistance needed in two other countries. The first is the George Cross island of Malta. My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, in reply to a Question of mine, illustrated to the House the other day how much we in Britain have done to develop the economy of Malta during the time we were directly responsible. While the Constitution was suspended thirteen new industries have been set up, a further twelve have been approved, together with six new hotels, giving additional employment to 6,000 people. The dockyard is being converted and the civil harbour completed. These schemes cost £35½ million, of which the British Treasury has furnished just under £30 million. I understand that the main need in Malta today is for a new power station. My right hon. Friend mentioned this in his own speech today. It is required not only to ensure that industries attracted to Malta will have sufficient power to function satisfactorily but also to enable a new water distillation plant to be set up so that adequate supplies of fresh water can be made available to industry and to the population.
  I understand that a World Bank mission went to the island a month or two ago and that it has now agreed to finance or part-finance this scheme. I should like to know when we are likely to see the power station completed, as it is of fundamental importance to the island. I am sure that we all welcome the fact that Malta now has an elected Government and Prime Minister of her

  59
  own. The next two or three years will be vital in establishing her civilian economy on a firm basis and this power station, furnished largely from World Bank funds, would be a key factor in her economic development.
  I shall mention the next country only briefly because I am not quite certain whether Southern Rhodesia can still be included under a Colonial Loans Bill, though I think that my right hon. Friend referred to that country in his speech. Southern Rhodesia has an outstanding record in education. About 80 per cent. of African children there receive education, which is a higher figure than for any other independent country in Africa. I should like to know from my right hon. Friend how much money in loans or grants we in this country have made available to Southern Rhodesia. Are these not very much less than those granted to other countries for which we have a responsibility, for example, in East Africa, or in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia? I hope that we shall be generous in helping Southern Rhodesia to advance her educational development. I hope that we shall do all we can to encourage the World Bank to put money into this very deserving cause, which is of such fundamental importance to the people of Southern Rhodesia, which will enable Africans to be gradually trained up to take their rightful share in government and industry.
  I do not want to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) in discussing the case of civil servants who have already retired, but I should like to make a few remarks about some of the problems which are facing civil servants in Kenya today. I believe that this will be in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as I submit that unless the civil servants remain in Kenya through the difficult period of transition and immediately afterwards when the country is independent we shall have a difficult position there and Kenya will not attract loans or grants from the World Bank or anywhere else. Indeed, the fact that there are likely to be disturbances means that the country will not be able to pay back the loans to the World Bank which we are proposing to guarantee by means of the Bill. I think
  60
  that that is a justification for touching briefly on these facts.
  There are four points that I want to make. My first concerns the members Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service. I refer here to the designated officers. They have been treated well, even generously. Those who are to be Africanised have received adequate, and even generous, compensation. Those in Kenya and the other countries of East Africa who remain serving will have their inducement allowance made up by Her Majesty's Government so that they will not become more expensive to the Governments concerned than one of their own people.
  There is, however, one difficulty and my right hon. Friend knows about it, because I have been in correspondence about it. The members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service who retired under this scheme last year—9th December was the key date, I believe—were supposed to receive compensation in the form of a lump sum together with further instalments until the total amount was reached. The compensation was expected at the time of their retirement. However, I know several cases where those concerned retired in December, but have not yet received a penny in compensation. They have come to this country and in order to buy a house they have had to raise a mortgage, at fairly high interest rates, and yet they have not only received no capital sum in compensation but have also been refused interest.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray): I think that the hon. Gentleman is tending to get rather a long way from the Bill.
  Mr. Wall: I will bear your remarks in mind, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I hope that I shall be able to relate my next few points rather more closely to the Bill.
  I suggest that unless the situation in Kenya is satisfactory over the period leading to and immediately after independence, the economy cannot be strong, and if the economy cannot be strong, Kenya cannot attract loans from the World Bank or any other source. In relation to this Bill we are discussing the fact that we are trying to attract World Bank loans to Kenya by guaranteeing their repayment. If the

  61
  situation in Kenya is bad, we may have to meet these guarantees.
  On these grounds, I crave indulgence to mention two other factors about overseas civil servants. My first point concerns the position of the non-designated officers. They are vital to the future of the country during the transitional period. They have as yet no scheme to deal with them after independence. They do not know how they will be treated. They do not know whether they will be allowed to retire at independence or not. I know that my right hon. Friend has done all he can, and that he says that the ball is now in the court of the East African Governments, but I hope he will exert every effort to ensure that some scheme for the non-designated officers is announced in the very near future. Otherwise the morale of the Civil Service will deteriorate very much indeed, and, as I have said earlier, a strong Civil Service with a good morale is vital to Kenya and to the future of the loans that we are discussing.
  There is also the question of discrimination between men and women in the Civil Service—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It really is impossible to follow the hon. Gentleman in his endeavours to keep his remarks within the bounds of order. I hope that he will come back to the Bill.
  Mr. Wall: I will not, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, discuss the question of women, but I hope that that will not be taken to imply any reflection on the fair sex
  I am sure that all hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that we should be as generous as possible in the loans and grants that we make to all the colonial Dependencies. I feel that these loans should be so directed as to attract other loans; in other words, World Bank loans—so that we can build up the economies of the countries concerned.
  Western investment is of great importance. It is said that we cannot provide enough for the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth countries need £400 million a year for their development, and we provide about half. Therefore, they have to go to other sources for the balance, to the World Bank and to the other countries of Europe—indeed this
  62
  is one of the justifications put forward for Britain's joining the Common Market.
  There is also the question of Communist activity. It is often said by African countries that if they do not get financial aid from Britain or the World Bank they can go to Peking or Moscow. It is also said that there are strings attached to British aid and to World Bank aid but no strings attached to Communist loans. I think that if we asked President Nasser he would confirm that there are very many strings attached to Communist aid. I will not pursue this subject but, it is important to people in Africa to realise that Communist aid has far more strings attached to it than any aid from the World Bank, the United Nations or this country. If anyone wants to see the moral pointed, he should examine what happened in French Guinea and to the Soviet ambassador in that country.
  The nub of the problem of helping the under-developed countries of the Commonwealth is the promotion of better understanding about the Commonwealth in this country. I believe that our taxpayers, who, after all, are finding the money for direct loans and any sums required to guarantee the World Bank loans we are discussing, would be much more willing to do so if they really understand the problems. We should do all we can to ensure that the facts about the Commonwealth and its development are spread far more than they are among our youth in our schools and by all the propaganda means that we have available.
  4.58 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: In welcoming and supporting the Bill I want to make a few general observations, because I had some responsibility originally for bringing Bills of this type before the House.
  The debate illustrates very clearly the remarkable change which has come over our thinking on colonial development. I well remember that over twenty years ago the mood of the House was distinctly that of letting alone and permitting territories to develop their economies in the light of their limited resources and doing the best they possibly could with what means they had. This doctrine of

  63
  laisser-faire was common among all sections of our people, and particularly was it the driving force—the negative driving force, perhaps—in regard to colonial policy.
  It is interesting to notice today that all of us are genuinely interested that the utmost should be done to help forward economic and social development in the territories and to bring to their aid all possible financial assistance. But the problem is of great complexity and difficulty because of the limited resources which are available and which are in desperate demand by emergent territories anxious to equip their States for nationhood.
  The intense poverty of most of these territories is recognised and known to all of us, but, because of the spirit of nationalism, because of the international interest which is taken today in the underdeveloped and underprivileged territories, and because, too, of the practical changes which have come about all over the world, the peoples of these countries, whether we think it wise or unwise, or whether we think their demands practical or otherwise, are determined that they shall rid themselves of alien government and equip their countries with all the necessary factors in civilised living. They want to take their full place in the life of the world.
  To cope with that situation, the contribution which can be made to these developing nations is comparatively small. If it should be, as I believe it to be the case, that the great industrial nations are increasing their production and their wealth while the less privileged nations are increasing their populations and growing poorer in spite of the aid that is forthcoming from various quarters of the world, then a very dangerous situation is being created, and it is one to which we in the more developed nations must look.
  It is, therefore, important that we should mobilise all the resources we can to help forward these aspiring peoples. We have, of course, started to do a large number of important things to help the progress of these new nations. Reference has been made today to the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, funds, which have become increasingly
  64
  available for economic and social growth. There is also the Colonial Development Corporation, with its vast reservoir of technical knowledge which can be applied for the benefit of developing peoples.
  When I introduced the Overseas Development Act, 1947, and the Colonial Loans Act, 1949, I was concerned that not only those industries and undertakings which might produce a profit and pay their way should have the support of the Corporation and Bank, but that those projects which involved risk yet were essential to the well-being of the nation concerned should be equally encouraged.
  One of the bodies now in operation is the International Bank. It is important that a word of caution should be uttered. The Bank issues its funds under the most onerous and difficult conditions. Moreover, the interest charges and the other terms are rather heavy. That means that, as a new nation is building up its economic life and is exploiting its resources, it becomes increasingly aware of the very heavy burden of interest and other charges which it has to meet in order to equip itself. The problem of the future for the emergent countries is: if they are to go forward with the necessary enterprises for their own well-being, how are they to meet the very heavy cost these loans involve?
  Another point should be made. Unless the technicians and skilled workers are available to carry out a project, it matters little whether the money for it is available or not. I remember that in my own administraton at the Colonial Office we were frequently in the position where the funds required for big projects were available, having been voted by Parliament and having received the approval of the Treasury, but we had not, on the spot, the skilled workers and technicians necessary to carry them through.
  It is very important therefore, that, while we are making resources available to territories we should do all in our power, through technical training, to provide the skills so that these projects can materialise. I emphasise that point because it is too often overlooked. It is not only money we want—we also

  65
  want skills and technicians. The great advantage of the Colombo Plan has been its emphasis on technical training. It has utilised, in all quarters of the world, the schools, training colleges and technical colleges so that men and women may be trained and, that, back in their own countries, they are able to play an active part in the building-up work so desperately needed.
  Mention has been made of priorities. I agree that we should pay a little more attention, in planning inside the respective territories, to those things which are most urgent and likely to contribute to the general standards of the people in the community. In my day I did all I could to encourage large-scale hydro-electric schemes, big damming, soil conservations, and so on. But all the time I was conscious that probably a great deal of the money available by grant or loan could possibly be better employed in other ways, such as transforming primitive agriculture through the teaching of better methods, and through simple soil conservation, simple irrigation and a whole variety of other small things touching the villagers. It seemed that often the money would have been more wisely spent by emphasising the small projects, for they help to pull up the general level of living.
  Finally, it has always seemed to me to be an extraordinarily short-sighted policy that the Government should have taken a rather pedantic view of the terms of independence. It is true that schemes which have been sanctioned prior to an emergent country becoming independent are allowed to work their way out, and that the same is true for funds employed by the Colonial Development Corporation on certain projects which have been sanctioned. Under pressure, the Government also agreed that the Colonial Development Corporation could employ its great reservoir of managerial and technical knowledge should an independent State ask for it and perhaps pay for it.
  I sincerely hope that the new Department of Technical Co-operation will face the problem of the technical needs in overseas territories, whether they are dependent or not. Its terms of reference now cover foreign States as well as Commonwealth countries. But it is im-
  66
  portant that we should take a view different from that which has prevailed in recent years about moneys made available for colonial development and welfare after independence.
  Over the last twenty years a whole variety of services of vital importance to emerging territories have been built up in the Colonial Office and have now been transferred to the Department for Technical Co-operation. Those services are almost unique. They are highly specialised and vitally important in the developing life of emerging countries. I hope that we shall insist that the Government think again about financial aid which should be made available under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts and by the Colonial Development Corporation itself.
  It is along these lines that we can secure the maximum of good will and well-being for the people in the territories for which we are responsible. It is remarkable how the climate of opinion in the House and the country has changed over these years. Today, we record another stage in our thinking about the necessity of meeting some of the desperately urgent requirements of the Colonial Territories.
  5.12 p.m.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I want to make two pleas as strongly and as briefly as I can. The first is that the good we do should be not only done but seen to be done, and the second is that the good we do should be enhanced many times.
  I have travelled to all parts of Africa in the last eighteen months and experience has borne in on me the fact so often these countries, whether independent or still dependent, do not know the sources from which they gain the good things of life. British goods are apparent everywhere in a straight trading connection, and when horror is expressed about our declining share of Commonwealth trade and our growing share with Europe and that which Europe has with the Commonwealth, we should sometimes look at the gross figures and appreciate that, both ways, ours is about 40 or 45 per cent. while that of the next country, whether it is France, Germany, or the United States, is less than 10 per cent.

  67
  It is not about straight trade that I am pleading but about investment projects and gifts. It is about the exciting projects on which colonial countries and those newly independent lay so much stress as giving them a sense of the greatness of their approaching independence, or new-found independence. Everywhere one finds signs of the World Bank and the United States agencies of various complicated sorts, with many American businessmen and politicians and the semi-politicians associated with them, and we are beginning to see some Germans and Israelis, not to speak of the quite forceful and enterprising people from behind the Iron Curtain. These are the sorts and types who seem to be concerned with the exciting new endeavours in which the new countries in East and West and Central Africa are especially interested.
  I would have liked the Bill to lay more stress on the establishment of some kind of new British agency for the investment of money overseas, or the development of the Colonial Development Corporation into a new concept into which foreign money could be enticed, so that when expenditure took place in our Colonies or ex-Colonies, it would be quite obviously a British concept. It could be known by a side wind that the Americans, Canadians, Australians, Swiss and Germans, whoever it might be, had also contributed.
  I do not know whether it will be possible to amend the Bill in any sense which does any good, but I shall look through it to see whether it is possible to insist that where these increased guarantees are given by Her Majesty's Treasury to the investments made by the World Bank, there is some British sign or purpose associated with them to make sure that these countries realise the good which we are doing to them. Let not our good be done by stealth. Lest it be done with all high Biblical authority—candles to be seen about the house and not shrouded, as is so often the case, within their bushels.
  Mr. H. Fraser: Or kilt.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I thought that when my hon. Friend went to the Commonwealth in his kilt he did not attempt to use it to hide anything, but
  68
  rather to flaunt his virtues and Scottish lineage.
  The other point which I wish to make equally briefly is that the figures should be enhanced. In the last few weeks I have been looking up some of the figures connected with Commonwealth development and I have found them absolutely staggering. First, there is the total. This country generates about £22,000 million worth of goods and services every year. Regarding us as the major lending and giving agency in the Commonwealth, I have left out of account those who might be associated with us in any figure, namely, Canada, Australia and, to some extent, New Zealand. I go next to India and all the countries down to the tiniest fortress island, adding them all together—India, Pakistan, Malaya, Nigeria, Ghana and so on down the scale of geographical size, if not importance. Does the House appreciate that that total from the rest of the Commonwealth, minus Canada, Australia and New Zealand, is merely £16,000 million? We have a power potential of £22,000 million generated annually while the rest of the Commonwealth generate only two-thirds as much.
  We ought to do more than we are now doing. We are not doing as well as France. I looked up the figure for France in the last forty-eight hours, and found that it was 1·3 per cent. of her national income against 1·1 or 1·2 per cent. in our case. Be it remembered that French dominion responsibilities are very much reduced. One can see the contrast when one goes to Senegal, as I was privileged to do quite recently for forty-eight hours. No doubt one would see the same sort of thing in the other French territories of West Africa.
  French commonwealth-associated Powers are fewer and France's dominions are less, and yet for these purposes France generates more money, relative to its national income, than we do, so that the standard of living enjoyed by those countries is consequently very much higher. I argue that we should do as well as France in absolute and also relative terms—that is, spend enough to make the standard of living in our territories as high as theirs.

  69
  I shall try to say how this should be done, but I should like first to take up a very weighty point which was made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones). His speeches in this House on this subject perhaps carry more influence than those of anyone else because of his great knowledge of these matters. Going round one gets the same picture. People speak with grief about the British having dressed their Colonies up for the feasts of independence like trussed up Strasbourg geese, and the moment that independence and feasting have died away practically nothing takes place.
  The loans which have been organised by the Colonial Development Corporation and the technical aid mean that a certain amount is done. I found in Ghana and Nigeria some laboratories which, to the extent of a few thousand pounds were still being completed because independence had taken place and it was felt that we should be honest and continue the operation. But everywhere in these Dominions and independent republics one finds an atmosphere of sadness that Britain has not been able to continue the pace of development which she initiated when they rose towards independence.
  Of course there must be limits to this. We could pour money into India, but it would be lost down the drain. There are 400 million inhabitants. Every pound we invest in India we somehow think produces a new life which in due course will suffer from privation. Of course there must be limits and some criteria must be applied to stop the thing getting out of hand, but I do not think that the criteria should be the date of becoming independent. The French, more wisely and intelligently, carry the process over. When the daughter of a Frenchman marries, she gets her dot of course, but her father does not forget her for the rest of her life. I sometimes think that that is the policy of Her Majesty's Treasury in regard to overseas lending.
  In Sierra Leone—a very recently independent country—I was told that the loan which the Treasury offered was 6¼ per cent., 6 per cent. because that was what the British Bank Rate was and ¼ per cent. for handling charges. Next door, in Guinea, the Russians had
  70
  offered £3 million at 2½ per cent. I think those were the figures. Of course the contrast is made straight away. I am not saying that we could take on the Communist world in its mass bribing techniques. That would be ridiculous and would yield us no good at all.
  Yet the British Government are able to propose a £30 million loan to the Cunard company and so to arrange matters by an associated grant of money that the interest is cut down to something which the company is able to tolerate. I wonder why we cannot think up in the Colonial Office this same sort of device so that we could give a loan of whatever is required and give, associated with it, a grant of money which is a permanent grant and which in effect cuts by half the interest which the country will have to pay upon the loan. Devices of that sort, which we have applied already at home, I should have thought could be applied to the Commonwealth also.
  We are always being told by Chancellors of the Exchequer, by Treasury officials and by financial writers in the Press, "You cannot make these great loans to the Colonial countries because they are all on independent currencies. You will have a balance of payments crisis on your hands in five minutes." If we cannot get round that situation, what is the use of the Commonwealth and of Britain continuing to suggest how it can be run? I have said this before in the House. We should think of the schemes which the Russians use to trans-ship men, materials and goods and services from one end of that vast territory to another, not always by political persuasion but often by subtle financial and economic techniques. We see how from north, south, east and west the United States of America can send capital consumption goods right across that vast continent without suffering balance of payments crises. Surely we can think of something by which we can ship gifts from this country to deserving members of the Commonwealth. We should perhaps lose a fraction more of the £22 thousand million and be giving them a fraction more than they are getting now, but we should avoid a balance of payments; crisis supervening.

  71
  I should like to propose a motif, "Buy and ship", lease-lend to the Commonwealth. Let the Treasury buy outright certain industries and services in this country and the technique associated with them and send them out across the exchanges to establish them in the appropriate parts of the Commonwealth. That is the kind of technique, in default of a Commonwealth Bank and payments union, which we have to think of if we are to keep these people supplied.
  These are things perhaps not for this moment but for after the certain collapse, which I am sure it will be, of the approaches which the Government are making towards union with Europe. I am quite sure from the attitude which the Labour Party is now beginning to adopt in the country that it too is thinking in these terms and will join some of us on this side of the House in turning that zeal and enthusiasm to new projects for assisting the Commonwealth when the time arrives and when the Government finally acknowledge defeat.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: I would, of course, agree with the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) in his final sentences if in nothing else, but in fact I think that most of us would agree with practically everything he has said today. His plea was for greater streaks of imagination in our approach to the development of the Commonwealth. Heavens above, that is needed. The tendency, which is as much the fault of the average politician as of the Government, is to treat expenditure in the Commonwealth as one part of administrative expenditure to be rationed, calculated and decided upon like anything else on which we spend our taxation.
  The plea which many of us have made before and are making again today is that if some Government will take the lead in presenting this as what it is, an imaginative attempt to capture people's interest in contributing to various parts of the world, partly from humanitarian and partly from narrow self-interest motives—which are important—I am sure that we could voluntarily, so to speak, have a greater slice
  72
  of taxation devoted to expenditure in the Commonwealth and to development in particular.
  I was sorry that the noble Lord was not here when we were debating the setting up of the Department of Technical Co-operation. Some of us on this side of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), myself and others, pleaded that that was the opportunity to set up a Ministry for Aid. Perhaps that was a bad name to give it, but it was with the same intention as the noble Lord has been suggesting. It would examine the whole scope of Commonwealth needs and would be a department for funnelling public investment and co-ordinating private investment in a planned sense in the Commonwealth. The noble Lord ought to have been there on that occasion when we were making precisely the sort of plea that he has been making today.
  Before I come to give a welcome to this Bill, which will be a very qualified welcome, let me say one other thing about our total investment in the Commonwealth. The Colonial Secretary was enthusiastic over the spending of £180 million a year. He is, of course, entitled to say that this is an increase and how well it compares with that of other countries. On the other hand, I think that those of us who can still reduce these matters to simplicity, as opposed to what Governments do, are entitled to point out that if we knocked £50 million off the £2,000 million spent annually on defence and added it to the £180 million spent on Colonial development, we should be doing more good for world peace than we are.
  I am not a pacifist, and I do not want to cut defence expenditure by anything of great moment, but at least we are entitled to say that if within the orders of magnitude that we are dealing with in terms of expenditure on defence, money raised from tobacco, from Purchase Tax and from alcohol, £180 million spent on colonial development is chicken feed. It is miserable by any comparison. What does it mean? It is 1s. 2d. per head of the population per week. If that means the equivalent of another five cigarettes—and it does not mean that, because a large part of the taxes are paid by companies on profits as opposed to individuals—it would not

  73
  be a very great sacrifice to add another quarter for the good that it would do in parts of the Commonwealth.
  I want to say why my welcome to this Bill is qualified. My welcome is restricted for this reason. Most of the lending activities of the International Bank, which we are guaranteeing under this Bill, are inevitably towards developing nations whose economy is what one might say off the ground already. It is by its traditions and by its businesslike methods of approach—I am not complaining of that—confining its investment to Colonies relatively well-off already—Colonies where the economies have got going off the ground.
  One example, which I quoted to the House recently, is the raising of a loan of 40 million West Indian dollars to Trinidad for developing its electrification. I am delighted to see that loan. I am delighted that by our legislation here we are underwriting the guarantees there. Let us look at the position. This is a 40 million dollars loan to Trinidad. It has been done by a careful economic analysis made by the International Bank into the state of the Trinidad economy. It is happily reporting that interest on foreign loans is now less than 1 per cent. of the annual exports in value from Trinidad. In other words, what it pays out in interest on loans is less than 1 per cent. of its annual exports. That is a marvellous position. How lucky they are. I imagine it is less than ours.
  Their income per head in Trinidad is 500 United States dollars annually. People are well-off in Trinidad. It has a progressive Government. It has free secondary education and a five-year plan, which is a delight to see. There are posters all over Trinidad stating: "So-and-so school is being erected in this phase of the five-year programme. It will cost so much and will be completed at a later date." Later, there is inserted the date on which it was completed. There is a sense of economy being on the move. A large part of that is financed by budget revenue surpluses. That is a very good thing.
  From 1951·1960, in Trinidad the national income has gone up 60 per cent. at constant prices. That is a real advance of 6 per cent. added annually. That is progress. Now the International Bank underwrites that development and
  74
  that success with a loan of 40 million West Indian dollars for further electrification. I am delighted to see it, but it must be only a qualified welcome. If one looks at the extent of this, one must not pretend that these loans which we are primarily facilitating under this Bill are actually helping the terribly bad off parts of the Commonwealth as we know them today.
  Let me give some examples from nearby. How much better it would have been, if I may put it that way, that a loan like this should go to the Windward and Leeward Islands, which are Trinidad's poor relations. In Trinidad and in Jamaica, the crucial figure is the relationship of gross fixed capital formation annually. About 25 per cent. of their resources are devoted to investment in fixed capital each year. In the Leeward and Windward Islands—a stone's throw away—it is 10 per cent. to 11 per cent., taking into account the colonial and welfare grants that we have already made. What has been done by the Trinidad Government as a pilot for development in the West Indies indicates the enormous need for development capital in areas like the Leeward and Windward Islands for the next ten years.
  To give other figures, they are looking in the next ten years for about 316 million West Indian dollars to develop the area, and that is 200 million to 250 million more than is on the horizon at the moment. That is the sort of thing that we are dealing with in these really backward areas where they need 300 million dollars. It is only investment on that scale that will bring the gross fixed capital investment annually up to the scale of the better-off Colonies and the better-off countries in that area. We have to provide all this. As the noble Lord said, we are not doing in many areas as well as other countries are doing.
  The Report stated:
  "The proposed West Indies and British Guiana figures are less than one-half of the figures for Guadeloupe, about one-third of the figures for Martinique, and about one-tenth of the figures for British Guinea. On the other hand, the figures for the French Cameroons and Italian Somaliland, although lower than the proposed West Indies and British Guiana figures, come reasonably close to them."
  Not only is there no prospect of the large part of the capital needed, but if they get it on the sort of scale they want we

  75
  should be away behind the figure that France has poured into the West Indies in recent years.
  These are important matters. Let us, therefore, not be over-enthusiastic about the Bill. This is a Bill which underwrites the successful Colonies and the successful development areas, but we have to think all the time not only of these. Let us welcome every penny we can get but not be so enthusiastic as to disguise the fact that the Bill is leaving us with an enormous burden in the badly-off colonial areas throughout the world.
  I disagree with one point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones)—and I do so despite his great knowledge on the subject. He saw a danger for the underdeveloped parts of the world in that our national income was advancing rapidly whereas theirs, because of their rising population, was falling. This is not true. I am sure that it is not true. Certainly I am sure that it is not true throughout the West Indies, which is one of the areas of biggest population growth. The growth in the population of the West Indies is 1-2-2½ per cent. per annum, but the recent increase in national income has been at the rate of 6 or 8 per cent. per annum. Given enormous amounts of capital, we can sustain a rate of growth which will contain the rate of growth of the population.
  Let us be happy about the Bill but not too enthusiastic. I want to see every penny made available—and let us bring more British pennies into the Commonwealth and the developing areas. But let us not for a moment overlook the need to put more money into the backward areas where the dangers of poverty lie.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I followed with interest the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, North-field (Mr. Chapman), but I am sorry that he raised the question of defence expenditure because it seems to me that this is very much of a red herring which is frequently drawn across the colonial development scene. Only a few months ago I was talking to the Finance Secretary for Kenya in Nairobi, and he pointed out to me that the contribution made by Her Majesty's Forces to Kenya amounted to £9 million to £10 million a year and that if this contribution were
  76
  withdrawn the economy of Kenya would virtually be brought to bankruptcy. I believe that the hon. Member is an enthusiastic supporter of the Labour Party official defence policy, which believes in the withdrawal of these forces from Kenya and their transfer to Germany, which would be a most severe blow to this part of the Commonwealth.
  Mr. Chapman: Labour Party official policy also includes abandoning the nuclear deterrent, which would save quite enough for the purposes which I outlined in my speech.
  Mr. Goodhart Mr. Goodhart rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are getting a long way from the Colonial Loans Bill.
  Mr. Goodhart: I am not sure that the hon. Member is interpreting his party's policy correctly, but I will not pursue that further.
  I wish to recall that, to my surprise and pleasure, I found mentioned in Clause 1 (3) the New Hebrides. This allows me modestly to point out that I am the only back bench Member I think in history to visit these isolated islands, for which we have a considerable responsibility. As my right hon. Friend pointed out in his opening speech, these islands are a condominium. When I went there I hoped that I would find a suitable memorial or museum where it would be possible to recollect the two glorious Colonial Empires of Great Britain and France. The expenditure of Great Britain and France per head of the indigenous population in the New Hebrides has been quite high, but the amount of economic development which this has generated is, alas, almost entirely negligible.
  The blame, I feel, falls not on the British and French authorities but on the fact that until recent years—indeed, until the school days of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—the main form of economic activity in the New Hebrides was the cultivation of curly pigs' tusks, which formed the basis of wealth in their society. It is possible to make pigs' tusks grow in a circle, and a man's wealth was reckoned by the number of circles which he could develop on the tusks of the pigs which he owned. I have heard of one tusk which went round in three circles. To

  77
  buy this pig one had to offer the three daughters of a chief. I owned one tusk which went round once, which probably entitled me to a baby sitter for a week or two but not much more. One of the troubles about the tusk economy is that it is very difficult for the pigs to eat and the women, who play a major part in the economy of the New Hebrides, used to spend some time in ancient days chewing grass and then spitting into the mouths of the pigs. I think that World Bank loans will be a more palatable form of economic diet!
  The Second Reading of this Bill is a somewhat more melancholy occasion, oddly enough, than the Second Reading of its predecessor in 1952. At that time, although the Mau Mau revolt had recently started in Kenya, the whole House, I think, looked forward to the notion that there would be a considerable period of rapid economic development within the Colonial Empire. These hopes have very largely been justified. There have been ups and downs, but in the last nine-and-a-half years there has been a tremendous expansion in many parts of Africa and other parts of the Commonwealth. The hon. Member for Northfield referred to some of the expansion which has taken place in the West Indies. I remember Mr. Manley telling me of the vast increase, some 15 to 16 per cent. in some years, in the gross national product in Jamaica.
  But now there is a growing realisation and fear that the problem of our remaining Colonies in East and Central Africa is not one of expansion but rather one of a desperate attempt to see that past expansion is not destroyed. In 1952 the House devoted much of its time in the debate on the predecessor to this Bill to Kenya, and it is there that the problem is still most acute. As most hon. Members know, the economy is based largely on the tiny minority of British farmers, who generate over 80 per cent. of their country's exports and almost 50 per cent. of the national revenue. Alongside this comparatively large area of extremely well-run European farms, however, there is a large and growing mass of landless Africans.
  78
  Therefore, unfortunately, the facts of economic life in that part of Africa do not fit the political realities of today. It is easy enough for us in this House to say that the African electorate should recognise the economic benefit that the European community brings to them—one should recognise the value that any entrepreneur may bring—but we are demanding of the large African electorate a higher degree of political sophistication than we would expect from our own electorate at home if we do not imagine that they will cast envious and covetous eyes on this rich land.
  To my mind, therefore, the question is not whether British farms should be handed over to African yeoman farmers for resettlement, but whether this resettlement takes place in such a way that it becomes a disorganised rout in which both black and white in Kenya suffer or whether the British Government will accept their responsibilities and ensure that this transfer of land is done with the minimum of disadvantage to Kenya's economy.
  I salute the great skill with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has conducted the current conference on Kenya at Lancaster House. He has done just about everything that could be done to retrieve a most dangerous situation. In the past twelve months, however, an increasing number of people, both in this country and in Kenya, have come to realise that whatever constitutional manipulations there may be, whatever soft words may be uttered and however much the concept of Uhuru may be accepted, the problem of the minority of rich farmers and a large landless majority remains.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I find it difficult to connect his argument with the Colonial Loans Bill.
  Mr. Goodhart: I hope to be able to point out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it has a direct relevance, as some of the loans from the World Bank are used for these purposes of resettlement. We should accept the fact that although the organisation of the Loan Board proposed by my right hon. Friend may be exceedingly sound, the time has arrived when we need cash and not committees.

  79
  The International Bank is already associated with schemes for the resettlement of Africans, as my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) has pointed out; at least, money has been offered by the International Bank for the various resettlement schemes. My understanding, however, is that so far practically none of this money has been taken up. The fact is that the resettlement schemes have been an almost complete failure when it comes to the transfer of Africans to British farms.
  I believe that the reason why these projects, backed by the International Bank, have failed is that the Colonial Office did not really want them to succeed. I suspect that the Minister concerned in Nairobi was also anxious not to see a transfer of large numbers of the European population out of the country.
  Mr. H. Fraser: Do I hear my hon. Friend saying that we did not want these schemes to succeed?
  Mr. Goodhart: I will expand on that if my hon. Friend wishes.
  Mr. Fraser: It would be interesting to hear my hon. Friend do so.
  Mr. Goodhart: I suspect that within the Colonial Office and in the Ministry of Agriculture in Nairobi, there was a lurking feeling that it would be desirable to retain the maximum number of British farmers in Kenya and that, therefore, it was desirable to devote an entirely disproportionate amount of the capital available to the so-called development of the property and to apply the minimum amount to the purchase of land. Indeed, the figures are extraordinary. Only £5 million has been devoted to the purchase of land and £11 million to redevelopment and subdivision. That is an extraordinary allocation of capital.
  Despite that allocation, one finds that the International Bank has not received applications for any of the credit which it has offered to make available. This suggests that the scheme was entirely ill-founded. Knowing the skill involved, I can only imagine that there was not the will to see a major reallocation of land in Kenya.
  In recent months, however, there has been a radical change of heart, both
  80
  here and in Nairobi. How much can the International Bank contribute to these schemes? I am doubtful whether it can contribute much. After all, the International Bank is entitled—indeed, charged—to look for a profit before making an investment. There will not be much profit in the sort of salvage operation on which we ought now to be embarking. I do not, therefore, think that we can look to this sort of international organisation to take over responsibility for the British community in Kenya, which to my mind rests squarely on the Government here, on this country and, above all, on this House.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. James Boyden: It would be pleasant to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) to the New Hebrides, but I doubt whether that opportunity will come my way. We welcome the Bill to the extent that it guarantees an extra £50 million, but against the background of general enthusiasm and interest in the encouragement of development in the under-developed territories it is disappointing that the Government have not been able to do even better, under the terms of the Bill, in respect of social development.
  The great weakness of the Bill—and, indeed, one weakness of the technical assistance department—is that there are no massive loans at much lower rates of interest for investment in social services. There are grants, such as those from the colonial development and welfare funds, which have been going on for a long time. Much good work has been done with them. But there is a need not only for commercial investment but for social investment at low rates of interest, under a recognised plan, in a Bill of this sort. The Government ignore this in local government, where it is still needed in England. How much more is it needed in the Colonial Territories?
  Not only would such a scheme and such a set of loans be of value in developing the economic side; it would also have a good effect in increasing the confidence of the staff who have to serve in the Colonial Territories. The question of the break when a Colonial Territory becomes independent has been

  81
  referred to on several occasions during the debate, and it is referred to indirectly on a number of occasions in the last report of the Colonial Office in connection with colonial research.
  For example, paragraph 8 of the Report of the Colonial Social Science Research Council states:
  "The Council viewed with great concern the break between the United Kingdom and overseas territories in the field of social science research which would ensue on the attainment of independence by colonial territories. The Council considered that it was of the greatest importance both in the interests of the emergent independent territories and of the United Kingdom that measures should be adopted to provide facilities for United Kingdom research in the social sciences in the colonial territories which became independent, and to provide liaison between the United Kingdom and the Independent territories."
  Just as in social research, so in relation to these loans, there is far too little concentration on the gap. In relation to our own domestic affairs in these days we have the National Economic Development Council. We go into detailed considerations about the form of estimates, the method of budgetary control and the better development of our economic system. But in the Colonial Territories concentration still seems to be placed far too much on a harsh sort of commercial loan.
  Mr. Maudling: I shall be happy to debate this point with the hon. Member, but this Bill is designed to increase the loan guarantees that we can give to the World Bank, and the World Bank can lend only for commercial projects. I do not see how Government policy outside this sphere can be in order at this stage.
  Mr. Boyden: The Government should use their influence with the World Bank to create and operate a section in this field. If we are allowed to debate the provision of another £50 million for commercial development in Colonial Territories it would seem very much to the point to debate a similar provision in respect of social development. Up to now the Chair has not ruled me out of order. Perhaps I may be allowed to continue until I am interrupted by the Chair.
  Enough thought does not seem to be devoted to the multiplying effect of loans of this description—the multiplying effect of social investment—the
  82
  Keynesian theory of using one's resources to the best advantage. In relation to the general economic situation in England, it took the Conservative Government a very long time to take action in respect of the location of industry and economic development generally. In fact, it was not a Conservative Government at all; it was the Labour Government which first applied this kind of doctrine to the economic situation. My argument is that in this Bill the Government lag behind, just as they did in national economic development in the 1930s and up to the outbreak of war. Today this is a very serious problem for underdeveloped territories.
  I want to give two small examples of the sort of thing that I have seen with my own eyes, where inadequate concentration on social investment has not produced the results that could have been obtained had there been loans for social development at low rates of interest which an emergent country could call upon. I am thinking, for example, of Malta, where there is a big expansion in the tourist industry and where proposals for six large hotels have been made. The weather and general amenities are favourable for holidays, but many of these projects may run into snags if there is inadequate development of the water supply. I know that this is an intractable problem. Numerous reports have been made on the Malta water supply. The water that comes from the taps in the hotels is salty and unpleasant. If, under the terms of the Bill, there were a massive loan at a low rate of interest upon which the Maltese Government could draw, they would be able to keep in step the development of their hotels and the amenities to go with them.
  My other example is Sierra Leone. When it was a Colony there was a drive towards adult literacy. There was a literacy bureau in Kenema, but it was very frustrated.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am getting a little anxious about the hon. Member's speech, which seems to be going very wide of the Bill.
  Mr. Boyden: My argument is the same as I would make on the economic issue. Just as we need an economic multiplier

  83
  so we need a social development multiplier. I am pointing out that inadequate thought is being given to this matter by the Government. Considerable money was expended in raising the standard of adult literacy in Sierra Leone, but when the people were literate inadequate printing apparatus was available in the centre, and so there was insufficient reading material for the people to use. In other words, the social investment was to some extent successful but nothing like as successful as it could have been if more money had been expended on it.
  We are debating a system of loans for Colonial Territories, and it seems to me that this is a field in which there should be some accompanying promise from the Department of Technical Assistance or the Colonial Office that much more attention will be given to social investment. It seems to me that this is an investment which would produce even greater dividends than the commercial loans proposed under the scheme.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: I wish to underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) and refer again to the fact, brought prominently to our notice yesterday, that about 2 million pints of skimmed milk were poured down the shaft of a disused coal mine. I have had much correspondence from constituents, who were scandalised that such waste should occur at a time when, as we all know, all over the world, and particularly in some of our Colonies, many small children are suffering from deficiencies in their diet and from diseases. The milk could have been used to help to alleviate their sufferings. I cannot believe that it is beyond the bounds of possibility to devise a scheme to enable surplus milk to be dried, preserved and sent overseas to places where young children and others are badly in need of it.
  It seems to me to be a complete disgrace and a reflection on our civilisation and the whole of our colonial organisation that what was announced in the Press yesterday was allowed to happen. It does not make sense that 2 million pints of skimmed milk, containing nutriment of great value particularly to
  84
  children, should be poured down a derelict coal mine shaft, when there is so much malnutrition in other parts of the world. I hope that the Minister will deal with this point which was referred to so forcibly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East.
  As I say, I have received a volume of correspondence on the subject already, and I am sure that all hon. Members were shocked when they read accounts of the matter in the Observer and other newspapers. I hope that we shall receive a satisfactory reply from the Minister and that the Government will take immediate steps to deal with this vital human problem.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Denis Healey: This has been a valuable debate, although inevitably rather ragged. Everyone welcomes the Bill. Our only criticism of it would be that in some respects it does not go far enough. But many hon. Members are concerned about the context in which the Bill must operate in the Colonial Territories. So the debate has been wide, and has dealt with subjects ranging from the curly pigs' teeth in the New Hebrides to the Land Board in Kenya.
  I hope that many of the points will be dealt with when the Minister replies. In particular, I wish to reinforce the requests of my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) and Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). I hope that we shall be told whether the Minister's own Department is capable of initiating a scheme to make use of milk which may otherwise be thrown down coal shafts.
  Inevitably, such a debate as this is a rather unsatisfactory basis on which to discuss the problem to which the Bill mainly refers, the problem of aid to the developing parts of the world from the West in general and Britain in particular. I sympathise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with the difficulties caused to you on more than one occasion in deciding whether particular points were in order.
  I think that I am justified—as was the Colonial Secretary in opening the debate—in saying a word about the general context within which the Bill must operate. We are all conscious that the

  85
  challenge of poverty in Africa and Asia, and many other parts of the world, is likely to be the most important single, political and economic problem facing Britain, and the world in general, over the next thirty or forty years. Irrespective of party we must all admit that the efforts now being made by the richer countries to solve this problem are inadequate.
  Since this debate started at half-past three, nearly 15,000 new babies have been born, and the problem of the developing parts of the world even to keep pace with this enormous explosion of population is one to which the developed countries are making only half of the contribution required of them. It has been estimated by Mr. Hoffman, to whose work other hon. Members have paid tribute, that to double the standard of life in the African. Asian and Latin-American countries, and the many poor island territories—for some of which we have a responsibility—the richer countries will have to contribute 2·3 per cent. of their own wealth per year for the next fifteen years. At present, they contribute under 1 per cent.
  With respect to the Colonial Secretary, I do not think that any country which is failing to reach the required target, as set out by Mr. Hoffman, can be satisfied with what it is doing, although it may well credit itself that it is doing anything at all. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, to whose work everyone has rightly paid tribute, is fortunate, as an international institution, in having at its head a man like Mr. Eugene Black, who seems to combine the authority in Wall Street of an extremely experienced American banker with the appeal, in Africa and Asia, of an extremely sensitive human being.
  The World Bank is fortunate to have such a man as Mr. Black at its head during its critical initial years. But the total expenditure of the World Bank in the whole of its operations so far amounts to little less than one year's expenditure on defence in Britain. I do not think that the Colonial Secretary or anybody else can be satisfied with the impact which the rich countries are making on the problem of poverty so long as that can be said.
  There is justification in the criticism made by my hon. Friend the Member for
  86
  Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) that the terms of reference of the Bank and the conditions under which it is able to lend money are unnecessarily restrictive. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to say whether the Bill will apply also to the activities of the subsidiary to the World Bank, the International Development Association, which is able to lend money on less restrictive terms than is the Bank itself.
  The real problem which arises regarding the operations of the World Bank in the Colonial Territories, to which the Bill refers, is the qualification that the Bank lends only to those countries with a substantial ability to absorb the loans. In the last resort, this comes down to the potential borrowing country having sufficient trained personnel and the type of economic and social infrastructure capable of supporting a loan on normal financial terms. Whether countries have the type of trained personnel and the infrastructure to enable them, first, to obtain a loan from the Bank, and, having obtained it, to repay it—which, after all, is what the Bill is concerned with—will inevitably depend upon what other forms of external aid the Colonies may obtain.
  This makes it inevitable that in such a debate as this we should discuss at any rate in general terms, the scale and nature of the effort of the Government in respect of the Colonies. On this issue I felt that the Colonial Secretary was strangely complacent. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman personally. We all know that the main responsibility lies with the Treasury. But I hope that when he is talking to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Colonial Secretary will not appear to be quite so satisfied with our effort as he seemed to be when addressing the House this afternoon.
  The total volume of Government aid to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is still under 1 per cent. of our total national income; and although, to quote his own odd phrase, it "bears comparison" with that of other countries, the comparison when applied to countries with responsibilities similar to our own, is by no means a favourable one.
  The Colonial Secretary knows, for example, that France, which is the only European country with colonial responsibilities in any way analogous with those

  87
  of Britain, has been spending over twice as much in Government aid to her external territories as Britain, although in many respects the range of her responsibilities is less than ours. She is responsible for fewer people than we are. The United States of America, which has no direct political responsibilities for any countries abroad, other than Hawaii and Puerto Rico, has been spending per million of the population more than twice as much as Britain.
  I do not think that it is for the Colonial Secretary, of all Ministers in Her Majesty's Government, to declare himself satisfied and complacent about the scale of British aid to her Dependencies so long as our aid compares so unfavourably with that of France, which has similar responsibilities, and with that of the United States, which has not. Moreover, during last year, of the £94 million which went from the British Government to our Dependencies, £44 million were loans at a very high rate of interest. In many cases these loans were made to enable colonial Governments to repay their debts to Britain—in other words, it was a vicious circle. We must also face the fact that many of the grants which are included in the existing figures will inevitably fall off as Colonies become independent and no longer qualify for colonial development and welfare aid and as assistance from the Colonial Development Corporation begins to taper off.
  I want to confine my remarks from now on to the area with which the Bill is particularly concerned, namely, East Africa. As the Colonial Secretary said, the main purpose of the amendment of the old Colonial Loans Act is to enable aid to be given to groups of countries of which only one is a Colony, is to enable the Government to guarantee World Bank loans made to East Africa. Incidentally, I commend the valuable article appearing in The Times today on this subject by Mr. William Clark. Director of the Overseas Development Institute, which is doing so much to stimulate interest and develop knowledge in Britain on this range of problems.
  We all hope that the whole of East Africa will be independent in about a year from now. I, too, congratulate the Colonial Secretary on the skilful way
  88
  in which he has so far succeeded in guiding the Kenya Constitutional Conference towards what we all hope and pray will be a successful conclusion during the next few days.
  The real responsibility we must carry is what is to happen to these territories when they become independent. Not only our chance of saving the money which we are guaranteeing under the Bill, but our reputation in the world as a whole, will depend very largely on the ability of these countries, which are now in the last stages before standing on their own feet, to survive the extremely rigorous economic problems which will face them the moment they become independent.
  Unlike the noble Lord the Marquess of Salisbury, I have always been a great supporter of disengagement, not only in colonial affairs but also in foreign affairs generally. However, I have never thought that disengagement should imply a lack of interest or a writing-off of one's responsibilities in an area. I believe that the abandonment of direct colonial responsibility for the East African territories must be accompanied by a long-term economic effort to ensure that these countries will remember us happily and will not curse the day on which they were pushed into this new status.
  We must face the fact that these territories are, financially, by far the weakest of all the territories which, so far, have been moving towards independent status in the post-war period. Ghana became an independent country with reserves amounting to £40 per head of the population, whereas Tanganyika went into independence last year with reserves amounting to only 8s. per head of the population. This shows the scale of the problem involved. Again, Tanganyika started with a deficit on its current account of £1 million. Uganda is likely to start in October with a deficit of £2 million. The financial problems of Kenya are more serious still.
  I hope that in replying to the debate the Under-Secretary will say something about the Government's plans for providing financial assistance to these territories when they become independent. In particular, has he yet succeeded in Teaching agreement with the Finance Minister of Tanganyika about the rate

  89
  at which the so-called "Golden handshake" is to be distributed to Tanganyika over the next few years?
  Apart from the problem of aid in general, the problem which is most acute in these countries, to which several hon. Members have referred, is that of technical expertise. None of these bank loans is likely to be repaid unless these territories can provide more trained people to run their economy than they seem likely to be able to provide at present. There is at the moment an appalling shortage in all three territories of African technicians. For example, in the whole of Uganda at present there is only one trained African electrical engineer. There is no doubt that education at all levels is desperately needed.
  I cannot help feeling that the Government should be doing more than they are doing to stimulate the educational development of these territories. I understand that under the "Teachers for Africa Programme", which is a joint British-American programme, the Americans are by now providing 150 teachers but only nine are going from this country. This is an extremely inadequate and unfavourable comparison for this country to have to sustain.
  Whatever we do about training Africans, it is inevitable that in the short run the real problem is whether we can do anything to make it possible for these countries to keep the British experts and technicians who are at present serving them. At present, a mass exodus of trained British personnel is beginning from all the East African territories with which the Bill is concerned.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is that to be wondered at?
  Mr. Healey: It is reckoned that in the first year of independence Uganda is likely to lose 45 per cent. of her doctors and 58 per cent. of her trained engineers. This is a haemorrhage which, unless it is staunched rapidly, can lead to the foundering of the independence of these countries in the very near future in circumstances which can be even a threat to world peace.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Who is responsible?
  Mr. Healey: If the noble Lord will listen for a moment, he will hear what I think the Government can do about it.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does not the Labour Party bear some responsibility?
  Mr. Healey: I would not accept any blame for it. The Tory Government have been in power for eleven years, which is far too long for us to take responsibility for this.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Socialist cries of freedom throughout the world!
  Mr. Healey: This is a very serious problem. Even the noble Lord will agree that, whatever the responsibilities were in the past—I for one do not accept that my party has any responsibility whatever—drastic action is needed in the immediate future. One of the ironies of the present position is that these newly independent Governments will have to pay compensation to the departing British personnel they desperately need and borrow money from Britain to be able to pay this compensation.
  I should like to ask the Under-Secretary two questions in this respect. First, is it not possible, even at this late hour, to consult all the other Commonwealth countries in order to see whether we can rapidly establish some sort of Commonwealth technical service which would guarantee a secure career for people who have acquired expertise in our own Colonial Territories; as, for example, in East Africa?
  There is no doubt that the central problem is that technicians do not expect long-term security in Uganda alone, in Kenya alone, or in Tanganyika alone. Nothing can possibly give them that, but might it not be possible to consult the other Commonwealth Governments to see whether a scheme could be jointly worked out to ensure that experts in these rather limited spheres like tropical agriculture and agronomy should have a guaranteed long-term career in one territory or another? We all know for certain that if there is to be continued economic growth in Africa and Asia there must, somewhere or other, be some guaranteed career for all the experts the world can produce over the next few generations.
  It should not be beyond the wit of the British and the other Commonwealth Governments to create some machinery now by which we can, at least, stop

  91
  the absurd drain on the expertise now available—which means that people who have spent twenty or thirty years mastering the problems of African agriculture spend the next twenty years as secretaries of golf clubs, estate agents in Cumberland, or something like that. If the Government would take the initiative, inside the Commonwealth, for some such scheme it would be one of the ways in which they could revitalise the whole Commonwealth concept and give it a new meaning—
  Mr. Speaker: I hate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but that is really a very long way from the provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. Healey: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I made the point before you succeeded Mr. Deputy-Speaker in the Chair, but it was pointed out by Government speakers that the main obstacle to effective World Bank loans to Colonial Territories was the lack of trained personnel to carry out the projects for which those loans were being made. I think that if this House is to protect the sums of money that the Government are now guaranteeing as being lent by the World Bank, the House has not only the right but the duty to make some comment on the means by which the Government may safeguard their money—
  Mr. Speaker: On that principle, one could go in almost any direction from this Bill. I understand that the emphasis on the need for efficient technicians is right, but how to constitute those technicians into some inter-Commonwealth force is rather remote.
  Mr. Healey: In all sympathy with the predicament in which you find yourself, Mr. Speaker, I gladly bow to your Ruling, although it seems that if we are to mention all the implications of the Bill, there are very few fields of colonial or foreign policy into which one might not at some time divagate.
  Secondly, would it not be possible for the British Government to accept the whole cost of compensating those who do leave? It seems to me to be absurd that these countries, as they become independent—with no reserves at all—should have to borrow money from us to compensate the British technicians
  92
  whom they so desperately need but who leave their country. That is what is happening now; 10 per cent. of the budgets of Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya are likely to be spent in the immediate future on the compensation of trained European personnel who decide to leave.
  I hasten to reassure you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) into the realm of pensions, except to remind the hon. Gentleman that the reason why so few hon. Members on this side signed his Motion was that he sought to obtain some sort of economic sanction under which Britain would not lend money to colonial Governments unless they did exactly what he wanted about pensions.
  Further, on this subject of trained technical personnel, is there nothing that the Government can do to stimulate more than they so far have done some sort of voluntary service overseas by trained British people? On my recent tour of West Africa I was tremendously impressed by the political and economic impact made by two or three people from the Voluntary Service Overseas serving as teachers in a remote village. I am sure that the fund of idealism and ability that is available amongst our own young people here could be utilised more efficiently if the Government were to give a higher priority to the stimulation of that sort of activity.
  The second major problem that arises over East Africa—and this, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, is directly relevant to the Bill—is the sort of planning that is being carried out at the moment by the World Bank and by the local territorial Governments. Almost all the planning being done in East Africa is being done by the World Bank, which has already published a plan for Tanganyika and is, I believe, shortly to publish plans for Uganda and Kenya. At present, however, there is very little joint planning in those territories, and very much of the planning which the World Bank is suggesting involves simply a carrying over of plans already made by the present colonial Governments.
  Is it not possible for us, who are now guaranteeing the loans to be made to the East African territories, to use our influence with the World Bank and with

  93
  the local Governments to produce more effective regional planning in the area as a whole than is at present taking place; and, in particular, a more effective co-ordination of the various types of Western international aid that are flowing into the territory from countries Like Germany, France, Italy, as well as Britain; from private as well as public sources?
  In that respect, I hope that the appointment of Mr. Adu as the African in charge of the Common Service Organisation—a man whom all who have met him will agree is a man of exceptional vigour and ability—will lead to a more effective attempt by the Organisation to co-ordinate action there. Is it not possible for the British Government to press, inside the O.E.C.D. for the co-ordination of aid coming from the Western countries which are members of O.E.C.D.: an attempt, perhaps, to get some sort of consortium which would canalise and co-ordinate the various type of private as well as public investment that are going through?
  I regret that I may have trespassed on your kindness a little, Mr. Speaker, to enlarge the frontiers of this discussion, but, as I said earlier, I believe that in East Africa—which is, after all, the territory most directly concerned with the Bill—we see in microcosm the type of problems that we face in most of the Colonial Territories, and about which there is at present far too little being done. Though the Bill is limited in its application, it raises very wide problems—problems which, perhaps, may be more important than all others in the world for the next thirty years. Because this Measure makes a small contribution towards solving those problems, we on this side, welcome it.
  6.39 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): The terms of the Bill have not been followed very closely by many hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon—that is one of the problems—and I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, I think on behalf of us all, for our having gone rather wide. This is a matter not of colonial loans but of a guarantee of loans made by the World Bank. I should like to join in the tributes which have been so rightly paid to Mr. Eugene Black and the other
  94
  officials of the World Bank who, apart from the work of that organisation, have been so invaluable for the advice they have given; people like Professor Mason in Uganda, and other visitors from the World Bank who have been of great value to us all.
  If I may, I will turn for a few moments to deal with the advantages of the Bill and then turn to some of the—I will not say red herrings—but some of the things which have been built up ingeniously by my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite—with great ingenuity in some cases—as a great superstructure on the comparatively simple structure of this comparatively simple Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong when he said that in the past these guarantees have run us into trouble. In fact, so far none of these guarantees has been called upon. I am sure that that will continue. Not one Government reneged on their obligations, and I am certain this will continue. The Bill carries with it automatic safeguards. One hon. Member opposite talked about these loans as a banker's ramp—or words to that effect—suggesting that this was hard, harsh moneylending. On the contrary, I would say that the whole point of these loans and of this Bill is that they mean that this world money will be available for projects which we could not ourselves afford. It makes money available for more generous economic projects than we in this country could afford. The Bill and the arrangements it sets out have to be fitted into the general jigsaw of the pattern, and in that they are an extremely valuable contribution. The rates of interest are low. Of that there is no question. The rates of interest are running at about 5¾ per cent., which today is generous.
  My lordly Friend—
  Mr. Healey: "Lordly" is right.
  Mr. Fraser: My noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) compared our aid with Communist aid and said that by comparison we were not showing well enough. I would say that there are very great disadvantages in receiving Communist aid. First of all, all Communist loans are tied to Communist

  95
  projects. All Communist loans, however cheap they may be, at from 2 per cent. to 3 per cent., are tied to Communist bloc projects of which the prices are decided entirely by the Communist bloc. They may be prices well below world prices or well above them. Those who have suffered being tied to the Communist organisation would infinitely prefer on the whole, I think, to do business with Mr. Eugene Black and the World Bank. On this I think there is no argument.
  Certain hon. Members have suggested that we should withdraw our support for the guarantee for loans to those countries unless they do something for the ex civil servants. This system of guaranteed loans is of immense benefit to our own balance of payments. I am not going into the figures now, but it is absolutely clear that, from the point of view of the people of this country, by guaranteeing these loans a great deal of money freely flows back to this country. No less than £15 million flowed back in orders to this country last year from money lent overseas. That is a tribute both to our competitive costs in the world and to the excellence of this system of loans.
  I turn to one or two of the things said by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), if I may be allowed to reply to some of the points about East Africa which have been put to me on this simple Bill, because various hon. Members have made various accusations against my Department and I should like to answer shortly. The hon. Member for Leeds, East talked about the wicked showing of this country as compared with the showing of the United States in supplying teachers. He talked about our supplying nine as against their 150 teachers. That is not really the comparison. We are providing hundreds and thousands of teachers elsewhere while the United States are not. That is the comparison which ought to be made—the comparison with the total number of teachers we provide for backward areas as a whole. It is not a comparison of 150 and 9. The whole point was that by sending our nine we helped to show the Americans the way—and they were, so to say, the pilot fish for what might become a thundering herd.
  96
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) raised the point about colonial servants. I quite agree with him that this is a matter of great importance to the whole House. I am glad, personally, that he raised it, and I hope, speaking personally, and as a Member of Parliament, that he will pursue the matter. I would point out to him some of the things we have done in the past year. First there is the O.S.A.S. scheme, one of the most generous of such schemes in the world. In 1961 to 1962, the Bahamas, Bermuda, Gilbraltar, Northern Rhodesia, St. Helena, the Gilbert and Ellis Islands, the British Solomon Islands, and the Aden Colony have now come into line with our pensions scheme. This was a great act on their part. We are in negotiation with the Gambia and with the Leeward and Windward Islands. Obviously, after the hurricane, British Honduras is not in a position to make such payments. Singapore is tied up with the Malaysian matter, but we are in negotiation on this subject.
  I hope my hon. Friend will understand that we at the Colonial Office and my right hon. Friend will continue every possible action to see that this cause is brought forward and that our old civil servants, who have worked overseas for this country, are in their old age compensated in the normal, proper way, in line with those in the mother country. There are wide difficulties about this. I do not believe that this is the moment to go into them except to say that we are trying our best at the Colonial Office, and we can show some success with colonial Governments over the last few months. I do assure my hon. Friend that this cause is very near to my own heart and also to the heart of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: What is the hon. Gentleman's attitude to the compensation scheme for the East African designated staff?
  Mr. Fraser: That is still under negotiation. I cannot say more at the moment.
  Now to go on to some of the other points raised. The question of British Honduras was raised by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle). We are negotiating at the moment, and

  97
  aid of more than £750,000 has been given. As he will know from my visit and various reports which have been made available to this House, we have done all we can in that matter.
  I turn to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), who had some interesting tales to tell of pigs with curly teeth. He then turned, tooth and claw, on me. Curly teeth or not—and I have not actually looked inside his mouth—he made some remarks about our not having done the right thing about Africans and land settlement and European farms. I do not like using strong language, but I think that this was an absolute divagation from the truth of the widest sort. When we took over the schemes and I went out to East Africa last year, some 180,000 acres of European land were to be settled. We have 350,000 for settlement by African settlers. To say we have been trying to hold up this scheme is neither kind nor well-intentioned.
  Mr. Goodhart: Does my hon. Friend say these schemes are a success?
  Mr. Fraser: I say these schemes are going forward. The land is being bought. What more can we expect? The money is there. The point I make is that in the last year we have increased the acreage of settlement of European land to be purchased for settlement from 180,000 acres to 350,000 acres. It is scarcely helpful when people of one's own side say that nothing has been done.
  I turn to the question of milk supply. This is an important point, which I shall certainly raise with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Of course, an enormous supply of full milk, not skimmed milk, was made available by the Canadian and United States Governments, and is available free except for paying for the aircraft to distribute it. It is a question whether it would be worth while processing the skimmed milk here in this country, which would be expensive, when we can get from the Canadian Government full milk at the cost of the transport by either sea or air. I do not want to go further into the matter, but I must make that point to the House.
  My noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South talked about the investment which the French are making. It
  98
  is very difficult to compare like with like, first because of the Algerian investment, and because of our ability to concentrate larger sums of money on comparatively smaller territories, while having in the past made overseas investments, for which there was enormous opportunity, in larger territories, such as the amounts which we put into India and Pakistan, which have no corresponding investment in the French balance of payments.
  Turning to the general problem and the wider question raised by many hon. Members on both sides of the House—the need for wider investment in the backward areas—the problem, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) said, is between the over-fed and the under-fed, to put it at its crudest. We realise that this is a problem, but I want to say something about the general jig-saw into which all these things have to fit, and of which pattern this Bill forms a valuable part. Of all the activities of the World Bank, this one is certainly the one most devoid of any mean or base intent. This is a very fine performance by the World Bank, and certainly for the economically viable projects the World Bank has a huge part to play.
  In addition, there is the Colonial Development Corporation, and here we are still regarding the question, which we started to review, whether it cannot be extended into the period after independence has been reached. We have the system of grants in aid, which runs into millions of £s a year, and we have the colonial development and welfare scheme. We have the Department of Technical Co-operation, and we also have the assistance which we give militarily to some of our friends and allies, and even to some in colonial status who most desperately need the support of our Armed Forces. We have the system of Commonwealth loans for those territories that are in need of funds, and Tanganyika is an obvious example. We also have the resources of the City of London, and we have the various commodity schemes, such as the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and other agreements which I am sure we should like to see pushed further. All these are of value.

  99
  Finally, we come back to the question—and I see that my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South has now left us—of where is the dynamo and the root of all this. The dynamo is the power of ourselves in this country to provide a surplus, so that as a rich country we can have money to invest and to give abroad, and I underline that, because, apart from anything else, more than 40 per cent. of the money we gave last year to the Colonial Empire—some £93 million in various forms—was in the form of grant, which is a gift. This is of immense importance, and although my noble Friend has left us, I want to say that all this talk about Commonwealth loyalty and this and that is meaningless unless this country has the capacity to produce the goods to provide a surplus for investing overseas. That is what the present Government are resolved to do.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

COLONIAL LOANS [MONEY]
[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to amend the Colonial Loans Acts, 1949 and 1952, it is expedient to authorise the charge on and issue out of the Consolidated Fund, and the payment into the Exchequer, of any additional sums required to be so charged and issued or paid under the said Act of 1949 by reason of any provision of the said Act of this Session—

(a) increasing the aggregate amount of the principal of the loans which may be guaranteed by the Treasury under the said Act of 1949 from the equivalent of one
100
hundred million pounds to the equivalent of one hundred and fifty million pounds;

(b) enabling the Treasury to guarantee under the said Act of 1949 any loan made to an authority established for the purpose of providing or administering services which are common to, or relate to matters of common interest to, two or more territories of which at least one is a colonial territory; or

(c) extending the meaning of the expression "colonial territory" in the said Acts of 1949 and 1952—[Mr. H. Fraser.]

Resolution to be reported.
Report to be received Tomorrow.

WEST INDIES [MONEY]
Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable provision to be made for the cesser of the inclusion of colonies in the federation established under the British Caribbean Federation Act, 1956, and for the dissolution of that federation and for matters consequential on the happening of either of those events (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required by the Secretary of State for the purpose of making—

(a) grants to the government of any of the following colonies, namely, those included at the passing of the Act in the said federation and the Virgin Islands, being a government whose resources are, in his opinion, insufficient to enable it to defray its administrative expenses.

(b) to any federal government established by virtue of the Act for any colonies, grants for the purpose of enabling that government to make grants to the governments of any of the colonies for which it is established whose resources are, in its opinion, insufficient to enable them to defray their administrative expenses;

(c) grants to a government of any other form established as aforesaid for any colonies, being one whose resources are, in his opinion, insufficient to enable it to defray its administrative expenses;

(2) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament or out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase in sums payable thereout under any other enactment which is attributable to an Order in Council made under the Act.
Resolution agreed to.

WEST INDIES BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

WEST INDIES BILL [Lords]

  Clause 2.—(POWER OF HER MAJESTY TO PROVIDE FOR INTERIM PERFORMANCE OF FUNCTIONS HERETOFORE PERFORMED BY FEDERAL AUTHORITIES FOR BENEFIT OF FEDERATED COLONIES.)
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, at the end to insert:
  "and after consultation with the legislative council of the colony or colonies concerned".
  The Chairman: I suggest that with this Amendment the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) may discuss the Amendment also in his name, to Clause 6, page 6, line 1, after "Council", to insert:
  "and after consultation with the legislative councils of the colonies concerned".
  Mr. Chapman: It would be convenient if we could discuss together the two Amendments in my name.
  The purpose of Clause 2 is to give Her Majesty the power to continue in an interim organisation certain functions of the present Federal Government, pending a more permanent settlement of the constitutional situation in the present Federation. No one on this side of the Committee, and I do not think any hon. Member at all, will grumble at the Government for requesting in this Clause fairly wide powers in setting up this authority, to perform certain common services in the area for the time being. We are very ready to agree that the Government should have substantial powers and the ability to make decisions and carry them out quickly. On the other hand, we are concerned, after examining this Clause, and on thinking both of the situation in the West Indies and of other precedents, lest this interim organisation might well drag on for a very long time.
  I understood the Colonial Secretary to state that he very much hoped that we might get a new constitution agreed
  102
  in July, with, perhaps, these powers being handed over to a new constitutional system in the West Indies in August. I doubt whether the process will be quite as quick as that. My own view is that the discussions may well last for the greater part of the remainder of 1962, during which time this new Commissioner or authority, or whatever he is called, will be carrying out these common services and carrying on various functions. Therefore, we do not begrudge the fairly wide powers, because we feel that they may be needed for some time.
  But it is when we come to subsection (2, a) that we begin to be concerned. The subsection empowers the authority to make laws for the Colonies for whose benefit it is to perform functions. We thought that this was to be a somewhat temporary organisation, but if it is to reach the stage of actually making laws for the Colonies concerned, that is varying the federal system of common services—for it could carry on those without altering the laws of the Colonies—it is high time that we said that there should be clear consultation with the Colonies concerned. These, after all, are not directly ruled Colonies. Each has a legislative council of one kind or another and a system of representative Government of which the people are very proud.
  It is, therefore, elementary to say that if this authority is to get to the point of continuing for some time and, by alteration and making laws, change the functions which it will carry out and the service which it will undertake on behalf of those Colonies, the least we can ask for is a clear assurance in the Bill that the legislative bodies in the Colonies will be consulted. This is what we do in the first Amendment.
  The second Amendment, to Clause 6, is concerned with the time when we come to the further stage of the pending changes in the West Indies, when the British Government make up their mind about some new form of federation in the Caribbean and proceed to establish it by Order in Council. We seek to ensure that before such a vital decision is taken about the shape of the Federation, about what powers it shall have, about the whole pattern of its function and the system of representation inside

  103
  it, these vital things are done only after clear and really formal consultations with all the legislatures of the individual islands concerned.
  If I may put it bluntly, there is no place like the West Indies for misunderstanding.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser)The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser) indicated assent.
  Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman nods. He knows what I mean. If, especially coming from the Mother Country, one is unclear in what one says, it is ten to one that it will be misunderstood in the West Indies. We already have a situation there where the powers given in Clause 5 are being misunderstood. It is said in the West Indies that those powers are being taken to diminish the element of representative government in the West Indies. Much as I dislike Her Majesty's Government, I do not believe that they have that intention.
  It is absolutely imperative, therefore, to write into Clause 6 a provision that there should be clear, formal consultation before the future of these island peoples is decided in some new form of federation. It is very important that it should be an agreed form of federation and not one imposed in the way that we imposed the Central African Federation Constitution. All hon. Members know where that has led us. We do not want any more trouble like that, with a constitution opposed and lacking local support, because it was never agreed in consultation. It is imperative that in the West Indies the people concerned should have a stake in the new constitution by agreeing on the form of federation.
  Many things are to be decided when Clause 6 is put into operation. There is the distribution of functions between the Federation and the constituent islands. There is the type of representative system to be applied. There is the impact which this will have on the present electoral and governmental systems of the individual islands.
  It was mooted on Second Reading, for example, that the ministerial system in the individual islands should be reduced—a proposal which I favour wholeheartedly. I think that there should be
  104
  a maximum of two full-time Ministers for 50,000 or 100,000 populations in these small islands. Whatever the points may be, they are crucial to these people who love politics and love to argue and are intensely jealous abou their representative system.
  It is rather loose drafting to leave the Bill all the way through without any written assurance about consultation with the peoples concerned. There are in the Bill wide, sweeping powers such as we have hardly given in recent years to Her Majesty's Government to decide the fate of 3½ million people. We give powers by Order in Council to make, remake and undo all sorts of things in the West Indies and at no point in the Bill is there a written assurance of consultations with the people concerned.
  It is for these reasons that I move the Amendment and associate with it the second Amendment in my name. The people in the West Indies have the right to absolute cast-iron assurance on these two points.
  Mr. H. Fraser: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has made two very good points, in the sense that the more explanation can be given to the people of the West Indies the better. I am, therefore, grateful to him for putting down these two Amendments.
  The first Amendment is to Clause 2. Here we do not propose to take any powers except those powers which are set out and which are for the benefit of the people who will be concerned in the continuation of common services. The sort of powers which we would use here would be powers to deal with the terms of service for civil servants, pension provisions and other matters of that sort. It would be inappropriate to refer that type of action by the commissioner to the legislative councils of the various islands affected. We all understand the great need for speed in setting up this organisation. If we have to consult the legislative councils of the various islands on matters of this kind there might be interminable delays and the whole organisation might be held up.
  The matters which would be affected by the Amendments are matters for negotiation with the Governments concerned rather than with the legislative assemblies. As perhaps is well known,

  105
  we are discussing with the Governments concerned and their representatives on a working party—whose work is almost completed—the details of the interim organisation which it is proposed to establish.
  I can give the Committee an assurance that under Clause 2 (2) the only type of laws that the commissioner would have to enact would be those dealing with pensions and so on for civil servants and possibly imposing income tax on them, but this would have no general effect on the islands. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. Chapman: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the first Amendment, whatever he may have said just now is not set out in the text of Clause 2. The Clause does not say that the power to make laws shall be restricted to matters concerning the pensions and pay of civil servants. The Clause relates to the whole question of the carrying on of functions of the Federal Government.
  Mr. Fraser: I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept it from me that what I have said is the case. I think that the subsection may be read in that way. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that Clause 2 (1) gives a general impression to that effect. Certainly I can assure him that that is all the Clause is concerned with.
  Mr. Chapman: What about the Amendment to Clause 6?
  Mr. Fraser: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment to Clause 2 and then I can move on to his Amendment to Clause 6.
  The Deputy-Chairman: We are discussing the Amendment to Clause 6 with the Amendment to Clause 2.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: If the hon. Gentleman feels that he cannot go on this point as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) would like because reference to legislative councils would mean delay which would make it impracticable to have an interim organisation like this, could he not go a little further than he has done in the verbal assurance that he has given?
  106
  My hon. Friend is right. The text of the Bill means that this authority can impose laws on any of the Colonies over any field. We welcome and accept the assurances which have been given, but they have been made at the Dispatch Box and would have no validity in a court of law if the authority decided to do something with which one of the territories profoundly disagreed.
  I return to the proposal made on Second Reading that with the interim authority there ought to be an advisory council set up which could be consulted about any action in the fields the Minister has suggested which affect the laws of a single territory. The hon. Gentleman told us that a working party is at work. Perhaps it could be constituted into an advisory council until the authority is finally agreed upon as a result of the negotiations which are to begin in July.
  We feel that we ought to have firmer assurances than the hon. Gentleman has been able to give us.
  Mr. Fraser: I can give an assurance that there will be consultation on these matters with the Governments concerned, but I cannot, as I said during the Second Reading debate, give an assurance on the other matter. It may be that we shall be able to wind up the organisation within three months, as we contemplate, and then we shall be able to hand it over to a wider and more permanent organisation which will be representative. Until it is quite clear that we cannot do this we prefer to keep it to a formal council. But we shall, of course, consult the Governments throughout. If we fail to get the organisation in its present form wound up and set up on a permanent basis, we shall after a few months consider the introduction of an Order in Council to set up the necessary representative body. We believe at this stage that if things go smoothly it will be unnecessary to make such provision.
  Mr. Chapman: I am in considerable difficulty, Sir Robert. I do not want us to proceed to a decision on my first Amendment until we have had a reply to my second Amendment, because a reply to my second Amendment would be impossible if a decision were taken on my first Amendment. Might I, through you, request the hon. Gentleman now to reply to my second Amendment?
  The Deputy-Chairman: As I said at the outset, we are discussing with the Amendment to Clause 2 the hon. Gentleman's Amendment to Clause 6, and that second Amendment will not subsequently be called. Therefore, it should be dealt with now.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Fraser: I apologise, Sir Robert, for having misunderstood.
  Clause 6 deals with the setting up of a new organisation, such as a new federation inside the eight or elsewhere. If that were to be done, it would have to come before the House for decision by affirmative Resolution. Therefore, it could be debated. It might be a question of two islands being politically joined together, or six, or eight, or three, and the setting up of a new constitution. As this could be debated in the House, there would immediately be a safeguard for the House and for the people in the West Indies.
  Also, it would be tying too much the hands of the local Government and of Her Majesty's Government in their negotiations if it were necessary immediately on the setting up of a new organisation to appeal to the electorate of the various islands concerned. I believe that it would give too little room for manœuvre for the West Indian leaders if before coming to agreement with Her Majesty's Government on a matter concerned with the setting up of a new organisation they had to gain the support of their own electorate. Frequently it is a matter of policy for a leading politician to decide on a course, and then, after the course has been shown to be successful, turn to his electors and ask them to approve what he has done.
  The effect of the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be that there would have to be immediate reference to the legislative assemblies of the various islands, but surely it is a matter which must be left to the Premiers or other Ministers of the islands rather than laid down at Westminster.
  Mr. Denis Healey: The views of the Under-Secretary on the last point are very difficult for the Committee to accept. In the first place, there is no suggestion in the Amendment that the electorate should be consulted. All that is required is that the legislative councils
  108
  should be consulted. The legislative councils may well be in session; if not, they can be called to consider a question which if it is about the future of the federal system is of absolutely major importance.
  I suggest to the Under-Secretary that the experience that we have already had with this Federation which is being brought to an end and buried in the Bill is the best possible argument against the position which he has just put to us. Surely what went wrong with the existing Federation was that it was put into operation without adequate consultation with the peoples concerned, and we do not want a repetition of that. To the extent that the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) would oblige the heads of unit Governments to consult their legislative councils before coming to a decision, it would help to protect us against the danger which finally brought the original Federation to an end.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: I find myself in some difficulty, because we are considering two Amendments in one debate. Having heard what has been said so far, my inclination would be to feel a certain amount of sympathy with the Minister with regard to the first Amendment, but I am totally dissatisfied with his explanation about Clause 6. Therefore, I am in the difficulty that if, as I gather your Ruling to be, Sir Robert, you are allowing us to discuss also the Amendment to Clause 6 but are not putting it to the vote, I should, in order to register my protest about Clause 6, have to support the Amendment to Clause 2.
  Mr. Chapman: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I understand that both Amendments are being discussed but that the Amendment to Clause 6 has not been selected.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The usual practice is to have discussion on one Amendment, which is the only one selected. But if hon. Gentlemen are in difficulty here I am quite prepared, when we come to Clause 6, to call the hon. Member for Northfield's Amendment for a Division. That is not usually done, but I shall do it on this occasion. I appreciate the difficulties, and I will

  109
  take this course on the distinct understanding that the Amendment to Clause 6, when reached, is put straight away without further discussion.
  Mr. Healey: On that assurance, Sir Robert, I recommend my hon. Friend, if he feels it possible, to withdraw his Amendment to Clause 2 on the assurance that his right hon. and hon. Friends will vote with him on the Amendment to Clause 6.
  Mr. Fletcher: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield will not withdraw the Amendment to Clause 2 until the Committee has exhausted all the opportunity it desires of discussing with that Amendment the Amendment to Clause 6. I understand from your Ruling, Sir Robert, that when you come to Clause 6 you will enable us to divide on the Amendment but will not permit further debate. I gather, therefore, that we must utilise debate on the Amendment to Clause 2 in order to voice dissatisfaction with Clause 6, and must do so before my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield withdraws the Amendment to Clause 2, if he is so minded.
  The Deputy-Chairman: My Ruling applied to the Amendment to Clause 6, of course, not to the Clause itself.
  Mr. Fletcher: I gather that we must discuss the Amendment to Clause 6 before my hon. Friend is tempted, if he is so tempted, to withdraw his Amendment to Clause 2.
  I think I understand what the Under-Secretary of State is saying about the Amendment to Clause 2. He has given an assurance that the powers sought from this Committee under Clause 2 are intended to be purely temporary and transient, and he hopes that the negotiations on which he is now engaged will enable him, as a purely interim measure, to make some arrangements for some authority to be charged with providing the common services for the various territories which it was hoped would have been linked in the Federation.
  The hon. Gentleman has assured us that these arrangements are purely temporary, but if, unfortunately, they drag on for an undue length of time he will come back here with alternative proposals. On that basis, I would not dis-
  110
  sent if my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield decided to withdraw the Amendment to Clause 2. But then the Under-Secretary of State said, in dealing with Clause 6, that the House would have an opportunity of discussing any Order in Council made under Clause 6.
  If I understand Clause 7 correctly, any Statutory Instrument containing an Order in Council under this Bill is to be laid before the House, and, therefore, the House will have an opportunity if it wishes of considering not only an Order in Council under Clause 2 but also an Order in Council under Clause 6, the only difference being that one is subject to affirmative Resolution and the other to negative Resolution. In view of what the Under-Secretary of State has said, it is desirable to get clearly on record that the House will have ample opportunity of discussing, if it wishes, any Order in Council made under Clause 2.
  Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has mentioned this right of the House as being in Clause 7. That is not so. Unless the Order in Council is altering an Act, it is not subject to the annulment procedure, and cannot very well be laid before the House. It may be that such Orders would only come to the House after being made.
  Mr. Fletcher: If the hon. Member is correct in his interpretation of Clause 7, I am sure that the Committee will wish to have something to say about that Clause when we come to it. It would be out of order, however, to discuss now the merits of Clause 7. We shall want to look at it closely when we reach it.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has pointed out, it is of vital importance that when the Government come to make proposals for a new federation of any of the territories the legislative councils of the Colonies concerned should be consulted. The objectives advanced by the Under-Secretary of State for trying to by-pass consultation with the legislative councils in regard to temporary arrangements for authority cannot possibly apply to the argument for consultation with those councils about permanent federation.
  Obviously, it is only common sense that, before any definite proposal is put

  111
  before the House for any future federation, there should be a statutory obligation to consult the legislative councils of the Colonies. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield might have gone a little further and used the words "with the agreement" in the Amendments instead of "and after consultation". He has not gone so far, but it would have been reasonable for him to do so.
  No new proposals for any new or limited form of federation should be laid unless the House knows in advance that they are approved by the legislative councils concerned. My hon. Friend has contented himself with asking for consultation. If there is consultation, we shall have plenty of opportunity of knowing whether the legislative councils agree or not with the proposals put forward.
  Though perhaps the Amendments do not go as far as I would have wished, I accept their form because it is the very minimum that the Committee is entitled to demand, the very minimum in justice to the Colonies concerned and in the interests of a sensible and reasonable federation that we are entitled to expect. I hope that if on Clause 6, the Under-Secretary of State does not as a result of this further discussion accept the Amendment, my hon. Friend will press it to a Division.
  Mr. Chapman: I tender my thanks to the Chair for so kindly agreeing on this occasion that, if we withdraw the first Amendment, we may later vote on the Amendment to Clause 6 without further discussion. That is a very helpful thing and I am most grateful.
  I was astonished by what the Under-Secretary of State said about Clause 6. He did not even pledge himself to much consultation. I believe that the Government believe in consultation to try to get a new federation on firm ground, but he did not even pledge himself to very much. This was the occasion, if he wanted to carry the Committee with him, when he should have gone to the utmost lengths by saying "Of course, this new federation will only be set up after the fullest possible consultation with every Minister who cares to come along and with everybody else who cares to submit his views." This was the
  112
  occasion for the utmost in assurances if he wanted the good will of the Committee.
  Mr. H. Fraser: I thought that I would be able to make those assurances in the debate on the Clause as a whole.
  Mr. Chapman: But we are not debating that now. We are now discussing whether or not we should press on an unwilling Minister the Amendment to Clause 2. Judging by his speech, the hon. Gentleman appears to be unwilling.
  I considered making the Amendment specify that there should be the agreement of the legislative councils as opposed to their merely being consulted, but I came down against that for the reason that, in view of the shifting sands and varying pressures of West Indian politics, it would be open for the legislative council in one island to hold out to the last ditch in order to get one point in the new Federation according to its own wishes. It would have been disastrous to have required unanimity among the legislative councils before any new Federation could be established.
  7.30 p.m.
  Returning to the general problem of consultation, let us take the example of the Island of St. Vincent, whose Premier is Mr. Joshua. He has recently been in trouble with his electors and his legislative assembly and with everybody else. There has been chaos in St. Vincent in recent months. Is it right that the federation of the little Eight, if it comes to that in the end, should be founded on agreement just with Mr. Joshua, when, behind Mr. Joshua, there is a legislative council composed of people who are jostling him and who disagree with him and among whom he cannot always command a majority, especially when there are independent members who may have something constructive to suggest about the form of a new federation, its powers and its duties?
  It is monstrous to say, as the hon. Gentleman did, that only Premiers are to be consulted, and not even to make much of an offer about that consultation. It is very short-sighted, because it will only land us in something which we all want to avoid—that local opinion will not feel that it has a stake in any new federation which may be formed. What we want is a federation formed

  113
  on enthusiasm, consent and participation by the people in the individual islands, and my Amendment to Clause 6 would have established exactly that. I am sorry that the Minister has not accepted it, and in due course I hope to press the matter to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Healey: I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, to leave out paragraph (d).
  The purpose of the Amendment is not to make it impossible for the proposed interim authority to operate—far from it. It is simply to ensure that it will be an authority with a very short life and that if there is any danger of its continuing its life beyond the two or three months of which the Minister has spoken the Government should propose a new authority differently constituted.
  As Sir Grantley Adams, the Federal Prime Minister, has pointed out, Her Majesty's Government's proposal, in paragraph (e), to give themselves the power to take money from the individual colonial Governments to contribute towards the costs of running the interim authority violates the basic democratic principle of no taxation without representation. On our side of the Committee we would have preferred the unit Governments in some way to be associated with the interim authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) has already suggested that there should be some form of advisory council.
  My noble Friends in another place moved an Amendment to provide that the individual unit Governments should be directly represented on the authority in some way. I would not go so far, provided that one could feel absolutely certain that this would be an authority with a very short life and provided that it was fully understood, both here and in the West Indies, that the authority would be replaced by a far more democratic authority if it were discovered necessary to continue its life beyond the two or three months envisaged.
  I should like to press the Minister to consider whether he should not accept the Amendment. The Government are giving themselves power, in paragraph (c), to take over any moneys which
  114
  belong to the Federation as such in order to cover the costs of this short-lived interim authority, and they should be perfectly adequate to cover a period of duration such as the Government themselves are suggesting. Incidentally, I hope that in commenting on the Amendment the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us yet whether the Government have any idea what the moneys surviving from the Federation will be and what will be available to Her Majesty's Government.
  The best possible way of assuring the peoples and Governments in the West Indies themselves that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of continuing the life of this undemocratic authority beyond the two or three months necessary to organise a formal conference of all the Governments concerned to set up a long-term authority will be for Her Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment. If there ever arises a situation in which it is necessary for this authority to draw on the resources of the unit Governments, the unit Governments themselves, by that very fact, will then be endowed with a statutory position in the working of the authority itself. I strongly urge the Under-Secretary to accept the Amendment for that reason.
  Mr. H. Fraser: The same sort of argument is applied here as was applied to the previous Amendment. This is the chief and obvious source of revenue over the period during which the new organisation will be set up before Jamaica goes independent on 6th August. That is the date which we have to consider and it is therefore a period of three or four months, perhaps four at the outside.
  I want to be precise about the Government's intention. We shall be negotiating with the unit Governments concerned the actual sums of money which they are to contribute to this interim organisation. It is merely a matter of our having the authority, which the Clause will give us, to conclude the negotiations and to authorise the contributions being made by them. We are in the middle of negotiations at the moment about collecting sufficient funds from them for keeping the interim organisation in being. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment for precisely the reasons which I gave before, but I assure the Committee

  115
  that not only will there be full consultation, but that there is indeed full consultation at the moment through a working party which includes representatives of the various islands concerned.
  Mr. Healey: Can the Under-Secretary answer my first question about the moneys available to the Government under paragraph (c) which are appertaining to the Federal Government, so that we can have some idea of whether they are likely to cover the cost of running the interim authority within the next four months? Secondly, can he give us some idea of the sort of size of contribution which, under paragraph (d), he will require from the unit Governments? What is the per capita contribution which he is requesting?
  Mr. Fraser: The capital sum under paragraph (c) is mainly to be used for the compensation of civil servants under Clause 3. This is a matter of millions—but not very many millions—of British West Indian dollars. What we are concerned with here is the running of the organisation—matters like the agricultural services and the meteorological services—for a period of months. We are planning ahead to have the money available to run the services up to September. I should say that the sum involved is probably rather less than £500,000 for the actual running of the services. The contributions will come mainly from the large islands and also,
  of course, from the smaller islands on a pro rata basis. In the depth of negotiations it is impossible to estimate what the contribution per head or per island will be.
  Mr. Healey: I am sorry to keep pressing the Minister, but this is an incredibly sloppy Bill. Paragraph (c) gives power to
  "vest in such an authority such of the assets and liabilities as may be specified in the Order of the government of the Federation or of any body which, for the purpose of performing functions on behalf of, or in accordance with directions given by, that government, is established by a law made by the legislature of the Federation;".
  In fact, it applies to Clause 3, which is concerned with something completely different, in which the authority as such is not mentioned.
  This is an appallingly badly drafted Bill, which has already given rise to great suspicion and misunderstanding—I hope it is misunderstanding—in the West Indies. If the Minister is able, in Committee, to give us assurances about consultation, why should he refuse to take any obligation to consult and to include in the Bill the assurances that he has given to the Committee? I strongly recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to carry this Amendment to the Division Lobby.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 111.

  Division No. 139.]

  AYES

  [7.42 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Coulson, Michael

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Allason, James

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

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

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Critchley, Julian

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Barber, Anthony

  Dance, James

  Holland, Philip

  Barlow, Sir John

  Digby, Simon Wingfleld

  Hopkins, Alan

  Batsford, Brian

  Doughty, Charles

  Hornby, R. P.

  Bell, Ronald

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Berkeley, Humphry

  du Cann, Edward

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Biffen, John

  Eden, John

  Jackson, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  James, David

  Bossom, Clive

  Fell, Anthony

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Jennings, J. C.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Braine, Bernard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Foster, John

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Bullard, Denys

  Freeth, Denzil

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Gower, Raymond

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Green, Alan

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Collard, Richard

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Gurden, Harold

  McAdden, Stephen

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  McLaren, Martin

  Costain, A. P.

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Sids)

  Maddan, Martin

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

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

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Mills, Stratton

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Miscampbell, N.

  Renton, David

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Morgan, William

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Walder, David

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Roots, William

  Walker, Peter

  Neave, Airey

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Seymour, Leslie

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Shaw, M.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

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

  Woollam, John

  Peel, John

  Smithers, Peter

  Worsley, Marcus

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Stodart, J. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Pitman, Sir James

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Mr. Noble and

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Mr. Gordon Campbell

  Pott, Percivall

  Tapsell, Peter

  NOES

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Harper, J.

  Pentland, Norman

  Beaney, Alan

  Hayman, F. H.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Blackburn, F.

  Healey, Denis

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Bottomley, A.

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, SW.)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Randall, Harry

  Bowles, Frank

  Hilton, A. V.

  Redhead, E. C.

  Boyden, James

  Holman, Percy

  Reid, William

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Holt, Arthur

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

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

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Ross, William

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Short, Edward

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Callaghan, James

  Kelley, Richard

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Chapman, Donald

  Lawson, George

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Ledger, Ron

  Small, William

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Snow, Julian

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  MacColl, James

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Darling, George

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Deer, George

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Delargy, Hugh

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Dempsey, James

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Diamond, John

  Manuel, Archie

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

  Dodds, Norman

  Mapp, Charles

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Mason, Roy

  Wade, Donald

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Weitzman, David

  Evans, Albert

  Millan, Bruce

  Whitlock, William

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Monslow, Walter

  Willey, Frederick

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Mulley, Frederick

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Oliver, G. H.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Oswald, Thomas

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Owen, Will

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Mr. Grey.

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Peart, Frederick

  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 3.—(COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR OFFICERS OF FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE.)
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, at the end to add:
  (3) No Order in Council providing for the making of contributions by the Government of any such Colony as aforesaid shall be laid before Her Majesty until the Legislative Council of such Colony has been afforded an opportunity of considering the proposed contribution and of making representations to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  This Amendment is very closely in line in the terms of its content with the Amendment that we have just been discussing. The Clause deals with the provisions of compensation for officers of the Federal Public Service who are facing loss of their jobs because of the dissolution of the Federation. We are proposing to add to the Clause a provision which will compel the Government to consult the legislative council of each Colony before it is asked to make a contribution to the compensation of the federal civil servants.
  The subsection which we are proposing would allow legislative councils to make representations to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. As the Under-Secretary stated, in replying to the last Amendment, this compensation provision involves very much larger sums of money than were involved in consideration of the previous Clause. According to my calculations, the amount involved may be £1½ million. I may well be underestimating, so perhaps we may have some information on that from the Minister.
  We are getting into an astonishing situation on this Bill. We have a Bill which gives very arbitrary powers indeed to the Government or to the authority which it appoints. The Government state that they are glad to give assurances that these powers will be exercised only in very limited ways and that there will be consultation, and so on, but there is nothing in the Bill to oblige the Government to have consultations. This Amendment deals with an aspect of the Bill where there is bound to be the most serious misunderstanding.
  It is all very well for the Minister to say, as no doubt he will say, that no steps will be taken to impose charges on the unit Governments to pay for compensation without adequate consultation and discussion with the Governments of the territories concerned. I suspect that the politicians of the West Indies will not read the eloquent words which the Minister is about to deliver to the Committee. The politicians of the West Indies will never see the HANSARD which contains our proceedings. What the politicians of the West Indies have seen is the Bill and its utter lack of provision for consultation. Here we have an obligation which may amount to a very large sum of money—no one knows the charge to be made on individual Governments to meet this—and there is no provision at all for consultation with the Governments or legislative councils in regard to the impositions which may be made on them.
  I spent this morning taking a group of about 40 civil servants from various under-developed countries, including a large number of Commonwealth countries, around the House of Commons. I gave them the usual lecture that every
  120
  hon. Member gives, as he goes round the House of Commons—all about our great traditions of Black Rod, King Charles I, and no taxation without representation. What is being done by this Bill is, in fact, to impose taxation without any sort of representation.
  The Government are proposing to send part of the bill, presumably for compensation of civil servants, to the unit Governments of the Federation, and in the context of this Clause there is no provision for consultation. This is taxation without representation. It is an astonishing proposal from the Government, and I hope that this time the Minister will not, because of the kind of charges that may be involved here, content himself with verbal assurances to the Committee, but will seek to find a form of words to write into the context of the Clause which will ensure that none of the individual territories of the West Indies will have to pay or share in compensation chargeable without first having consultation and the opportunity to make the fullest representations to the interim authority or the British Government.
  Mr. H. Fraser: This, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) says, is much the same type of political variety as we have seen in the previous Clause. There are various reasons why I should say that the Amendment offers to us considerable difficulties. First, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have not yet fully established the number of civil servants who will be surplus to the establishment—that is, surplus to the established interim organisation. We do not know the number who can be absorbed into the services of the individual territories; and one hopes that some will be absorbed. There is a considerable matter of urgency in deciding this issue of compensation.
  The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to show me a telegram from the Federal Civil Service organisation in the West Indies stating that it regarded as a matter of great urgency that before the dissolution came about—and the dissolution we hope will come about shortly, in May—these men should be certain of what their terms of compensation would be.
  As the Committee is aware, there are three main sources from which this

  121
  money will be available: first, assets of the Federation; secondly, contributions which it may be deemed, after negotiation, proper for the individual Government to make: and, thirdly, the consideration, which I have had adumbrated in the House before, that if the assets and the liabilities of the Federation show a great disparity, Her Majesty's Government will consider whether, if the need be truly shown, they should make a contribution. This is slightly different from the other Clause in the sense that there is a great urgency about settling the compensation and the fate of the civil servants.
  I believe that to have these matters referred to the legislative assemblies of the individual islands might cause delay. One must remember that the legislative assemblies of these islands are not in session as often as this House of Commons is in session; they are frequently out of session for several months in the year. This would, apart from anything else, bring upon us difficulties and delay in that it would be almost impossible for us to conclude our negotiations if the new Ministers had to return to their island legislatures to discuss these matters. I believe that they have sufficient powers. If they wish to enter into consultation with their island legislatures it is proper for them to do so, but it is not for this House to demand that this consultation should be carried out by island Ministers. It is for them to decide, if they wish, to carry out that consultation.
  I cannot accept the Amendment for two main reasons. First, there is the great urgency to carry through the negotiations which are at the moment being conducted between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the various islands. Secondly, it would be wrong for us to impose on the Ministers responsible for the conduct of affairs in these islands the need to have consultations with the legislative assemblies which they may or may not think it necessary to carry out. I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Dingle Foot: It seems to me that the hon. Member has entirely failed to address himself to the purpose of the Amendment. Everyone appreciates that it is necessary to settle as
  122
  soon as possible the terms of compensation to be offered to displaced civil servants, but this problem is constantly arising not only in the West Indies but in East Africa, too. We are not here concerned with the terms of compensation to be offered to them. We are concerned with how the amount will be paid, whatever it is. The hon. Member told us, in effect, that the amount will be provided from three sources—expropriation of the assets of the Government of the Federation; contributions by each or any of the individual Governments and Colonies concerned; and Her Majesty's Government in this country—that is, out of funds voted by this Parliament.
  The terms of compensation are quite separate from this distribution of the burden. The hon. Member dealt in no way with the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) that the Government are doing something which I believe is without precedent—taking power to levy a contribution from people who will have no voice in the matter. After all, the money does not have to be found in the Colonies by the Ministers alone. There has to fee the authority of the legislative council to raise the money in one way or another.
  In each case, they will be faced with this requisition. They may have the most powerful reasons that urge against it. They may say that it is quite excessive and that it will be an intolerable burden on their budgets. We do not know, because we do not know the proportion in which the burden will be divided between the three sources from which the money is to come. They are to be left with no voice in the matter at all. I do not recollect any other occasion on which a Government have brought such a proposal to the House, and I hope that my hon. Friends will take the Amendment to a Division.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: In the absence of a reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot), may I again take up this matter with the Minister? We appreciate that there is an urgency about deciding the terms of compensation for the civil servants, but we are growing a little tired of being told constantly during the proceedings on the Bill that it is impossible to have

  123
  adequate consultation on anything because of this timetable to which the Government have tied themselves. This is a timetable of their own making to which they ought never to have agreed in the first instance, and there ought to have been more time for the kind of consultations Which are necessary if there is to be general agreement in the West Indies as well as in the House on what are the best arrangements which we can reach out of a disaster of the dissolution of the Federation. I make that comment in passing.
  I intended to talk about the need for the proper treatment of the federal civil servants on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, and on the Amendment to concentrate on the question of consultation with the legislatures of the individual islands which may have a levy made on them. The Minister has not answered my point of the Parliamentary principle which is involved here and which my hon. and learned Friend has underlined. Surely it is possible for the present discussions on compensation to these civil servants to reach agreement on the sums of money which are to be paid to them and for there still to be provision for consultation by the individual Governments with their own legislative councils on the amounts which they are to be asked to pay.
  If we cannot have that, we shall do a grave injury, on the one hand, to the civil servants or, on the other hand, to the normal basic democratic processes in those islands. We shall have a difficult enough task building up harmonious democratic Governments in this area, and if it is to be done in a mood of resentment about an imposition laid without any opportunity to discuss these things among the island legislators, the Governments will get off to the very worst start. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will at least take this back and offer to consider it further.
  Mr. H. Fraser: The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) repeated the three sources of compensation—the assets of the Federation, the levy on the islands concerned and the contribution by Her Majesty's Government. When we are clear about what the liabilities are, largely for compensation, and when we have worked out the assets of the federation, it is not inconceivable that the liabilities will be met by the assets. The Bill makes only an enabling arrangement should this not prove to be the case.
  The Governments of the three larger islands have full powers to negotiate. I refer to Dr. Eric Williams, Mr. Manley or whoever his successor is at the next election, and Mr. Barrow. It will remain with them to make up their minds whether they will consult their legislatures. The same comment applies to the smaller islands, which are grant-aided. If a need can be shown, the Government will be in a position, as they are grant-aided, to be of some assistance to the islands concerned.
  I give the House the fullest assurance that even now consultation and negotiation are going on with the people concerned, but we should be going beyond the bounds of reason if we compelled Dr. Eric Williams, for example, to consult his legislature if he had no wish to consult it. I have given assurances that we shall fully consult the Governments concerned. I believe that in this way we can obtain the greatest success with the greatest speed. To go beyond that with three almost independent, and shortly to be independent, territories would be to compel them to do things which they might not necessarily feel the need to do. If they feel the need to do it, they are entitled to consult their legislatures.
  Question put, That those words be there added:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 109, Noes 152.

  Division No. 140.]

  AYES

  [8.9 p.m.

  Beaney, Alan

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Darling, George

  Blackburn, F.

  Callaghan, James

  Deer, George

  Bottomley, A.

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Delargy, Hugh

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)

  Chapman, Donald

  Dempsey, James

  Bowles, Frank

  Cliffe, Michael

  Diamond, John

  Boyden, James

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Dodds, Norman

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Cronin, John

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Beiper)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Edelman, Maurice

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Ledger, Ron

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Evans, Albert

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

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

  Fletcher, Eric

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Ross, William

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Short, Edward

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  MacColl, James

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Small, William

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Manuel, Archie

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Mapp, Charles

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Mason, Roy

  Strachey, Rt. Hon, John

  Harper, J.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Taverne, Dick

  Hayman, F. H.

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Healey, Denis

  Millan, Bruce

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

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wade, Donald

  Hilton, A. V.

  Monslow, Walter

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Holman, Percy

  Moyle, Arthur

  Weitzman, David

  Holt, Arthur

  Mulley, Frederick

  Whitlock, William

  Houghton, Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilkins, W. A,

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Owen, Will

  Willey, Frederick

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Pargiter, C. A.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartforrt)

  Pavitt, Laurence

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

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Pentland, Norman

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

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

  Prentice, R. E.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kelley, Richard

  Randall, Harry

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Rankin, John

  Mr. Grey.

  Lawson, George

  Redhead, E. C.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Gurden, Harold

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Aitken, W. T.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Peel, John

  Allason, James

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Percival, Ian

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Peyton, John

  Barber Anthony

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Barlow, Sir John

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Batsford, Brian

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pitman, Sir James

  Bell, Ronald

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Berkeley, Humphry

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

  Pott, Percivall

  Biffen, John

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Bossom, Clive

  Holland, Philip

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hopkins, Alan

  Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Braine, Bernard

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Brewis, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  James, David

  Renton, David

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Bullard, Denys

  Jennings, J. C.

  Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Roots, William

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Seymour, Leslie

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Shaw, M.

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Shepherd, William

  Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Collard, Richard

  Kimball, Marcus

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

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Smithers, Peter

  Costain, A. P.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Coulson, Michael

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stodart, J. A.

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Critchley, Julian

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Dance, James

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

  Doughty Charles

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Drayson, G. B.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  du Cann, Edward

  Maddan, Martin

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Fell, Anthony

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Walder, David

  Fisher, Nigel

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

  Walker, Peter

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mills, Stratton

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Foster, John

  Miscampbell, N.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Morgan, William

  Whitelaw, William

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Wills, Sir Cerald (Bridgwater)

  Freeth, Denzil

  Neave, Airey

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Noble, Michael

  Woollam, John

  Gower, Raymond

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Worsley, Marcus

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Green, Alan

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Gordon Campbell and

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Mr. McLaren.

  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

  Mr. Chapman: I wish to ask one or two questions and to request a fairly clear answer. First, I am a little puzzled to know why this power is needed in the Bill. To establish my point, I want briefly to refer to what has been going on in the West Indies during the last two weeks. I understand that on 14th March, in Port of Spain, an Order in Council was published giving the Governor-General a free hand to act in his individual judgment if he considers it necessary and expedient so to do in the public interest without consulting the Federal Cabinet and also empowering him with responsibility for finance in certain provisions dealing with the authorisation and the meeting of expenditure.
  This had already been published on 14th March. As I understand it, the position in the West Indies at the moment is that Her Majesty's Government, by the Order in Council of 14th March, are already in full possession of all the powers they need to control the rump of the Federation's financial assets, and to pay them out in any form they wish. If that is so, I am puzzled to know why the Clause is needed.
  The second question that I want to raise in connection with this Order in Council, following on the events of mid-March, concerns the way action is being taken. On 18th March, the Federal Finance Minister, Mr. Robert Bradshaw, made a statement containing the most damning allegations against Her Majesty's Government concerning the way in which the Governor-General of the West Indies is acting in the use of his financial powers. Mr. Bradshaw is a man of the highest integrity among West Indian leaders. He is a man of restraint, and not one who is likely to make wild statements or unnecessary allegations.
  But what goes to the heart of the question whether we shall ever get the sympathy of the Ministers and Federal members in carrying out the provisions of the Clause is the way in which the powers to issue Orders in Council are being used. Mr. Bradshaw has made a considered statement to the newspapers that this Order was printed behind his back on the instructions of the Governor-General, Lord Hailes, in the Federal printery, on the ground floor of Federal
  128
  House. He said that it was printed without the knowledge of the Federal Cabinet.
  Is it a fact that sweeping powers to control the finance of the Federation, such as are contained in the Clause, were first taken by a summary Order in Council, and that all this was done behind the backs of the Federal Cabinet? That would be nothing but a sheer insult to a man of high integrity like Mr. Bradshaw, who says, further, that he fetched the Assistant Attorney-General, who confessed that he knew about it and that it had all been done behind the backs of the Federal Government.
  The third question that arises is that further allegations were made by Mr. Bradshaw, and which are relevant to the Clause. He said:
  "We are aware that the British Government are not anxious to pay out compensation money to West Indian civil servants, and that one particular West Indian territorial Government is not enthusiastic about the question at all."
  The crucial part of that statement is the first part.
  Will the Under-Secretary of State deny immediately Mr. Bradshaw's statement about all this action being taken behind his back because the Government are unwilling to meet the sort of compensation which the Federal Government would have given if they had been left in control of their own finances? That is the direct allegation contained in Mr. Bradshaw's statement. Can the Minister confirm or deny it?
  8.15 p.m.
  The fourth point concerns not only the treatment of Mr. Bradshaw, which was scandalous in the extreme, but also the treatment of Sir Grantley Adams. We have had two apologies to Sir Grantley from the Dispatch Box recently. The first one concerned the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and the second the failure to meet him at London Airport. Sir Grantley has said that he had never seen the Order in Council, and had never been informed of it. The first he heard about it was when a newspaper man woke him up and told him of its contents. Is it really the case that not only Mr. Bradshaw but also Sir Grantley Adams never knew about it?
  As the Under-Secretary must know, this has led to a very difficult situation

  129
  in Port of Spain, where Sir Grantley Adams and his Cabinet threatened to resign and walk out, leaving the rump for us to sort out. It leaves a bad impression on everybody. Have human and personal relationships between Her Majesty's Government and West Indian leaders so far broken down that really important actions, concerned with pensions and the use of the remnants of the Federation's funds, are being carried out without the Federal Cabinet being told in advance that an Order in Council is being made and the purposes for which it is being made?
  The news reaching us from the West Indies during the last fortnight has been distressing in the extreme. This unwillingness to consult the Federal Government has embittered personal relationships, especially in the case of a man of great restraint, like Mr. Bradshaw. The Committee will note that I pass no judgment as to the purpose which the Federal Government may have had in mind for their own finance. That is not a matter for me. But if it be true that whatever proposals the Federal Government may have had in mind for the use of their funds were not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, they should have come out into the open and told the Federal Finance Minister, in advance, "It is for this reason that we shall give the Governor-General sweeping powers to control the whole of your financial affairs for the remaining days of the Federation."
  I pass no judgment on the matters involved in the use of finance, whether for pensions, the compensation of Ministers, or journeys abroad. The question I ask is this: are we having another sorry chapter written now by the failure of Her Majesty's Government to take these gentlemen into consultation on matters which vitally concern them?
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who follows Caribbean affairs very closely, has made some very serious charges about the way in which the Federal Government have been treated on the question of the Order in Council taking over responsibility for the Federal finances. I hope that we shall have an adequate answer from the Minister on this point.
  Whatever the reasons, we have had growing up around the whole problem
  130
  of the West Indies a most unsatisfactory, sad and, in some ways, rather unsavoury situation. We have had apologies from the Government—which we welcome—about the way in which Sir Grantley Adams was treated. My hon. Friend was right in saying that, however much the Government may have disagreed with the Federal Parliament's proposals to pay itself compensation for loss of office, the right way to have gone about this was by discussions with the Federal Government, and by informing them fully in advance of what we intended to do.
  8.30 p.m.
  So far as I understand the timing, such discussions would have been singularly easy to achieve because Sir Grantley Adams and his Federal colleagues were in London at the time when this Order in Council was published; certainly at the time when the Government must have been taking the decision to publish it. That would have been the right way to go about the matter. To put it frankly, Sir Grantley Adams and his Federal colleagues have been put in a most invidious position, not only with regard to the Government, but in relation to their own political colleagues in the West Indies. This is an unfortunate phase through which West Indian politics are passing. In due course the West Indies, to say nothing of Her Majesty's Government, will have great need of men of the character and calibre of Sir Grantley Adams and of Mr. Robert Bradshaw, who is a young man as politcians go and a man of immense integrity and ability.
  Whatever may be the political developments in the West Indies, it is beyond doubt that a man like Mr. Bradshaw has a notable rô1e to play. The existence of a degree of good will between him and the Government is very important. If what my hon. Friend says is true, it seems astonishing that Mr. Bradshaw, as Finance Minister of the Federation, should have found that this was done behind his back; that he should have found the actual printing process carried out in a somewhat shabby and hole-in-the-corner manner without his being informed. It is a humiliating position, and we await the explanation of the Government of how it arose.

  131
  I wish to raise the question of the payment of compensation to the Federal civil servants. One of the very unfortunate aspects of the situation in the West Indies—we have already heard one aspect on the political side—is that on the side of the public service there is great uncertainty and apparent complete lack of knowledge about what is going on regarding the decision as to their future. Earlier this evening we discussed a Bill concerned with overseas aid to be provided by this country, and there was general agreement that one of the vital aspects of the relationship of the wealthier countries to the poorer countries was the need to maintain an adequate public service, with high standards of integrity, of skill and of expertise. We discussed some territories where there was great poverty in the civil service. The West Indies has been singularly fortunate in the public servants it has commanded. Many gave up careers in the island services in order to commit themselves to a Federation which at that time they had every reason to believe would survive and offer them careers for the rest of their lives. That it has not turned out to be so is a tragedy.
  Even more sad is the evidence which we get that these civil servants have not been taken into the confidence of those who are negotiating their future. The Minister referred to the fact that earlier this evening I passed on to him information contained in a telegram which I received from the Federal Public Service Association only this afternoon. I should like to read the telegram to get it on the record, because I think that it reveals the mood of the Federal civil servants and a situation where misunderstanding is rife which it is the duty of the Government to clear up. The telegram reads:
  "Federal Public Service Association most anxious that you seek an assurance that there will be no dissolution and retrenchment of staff before territories agree with Her Majesty's Government a just scheme for compensation and the Secretary of State is satisfied that complete provision is made for payment of pensions and compensation to all officers who become entitled under the scheme. Stress that if dissolution takes place before agreement is reached on the financing of the scheme the staff will fall between two stools: its employing Government will have gone and if territories and Her Majesty's Government
  132
  disown responsibility for meeting the inevitable deficit after federal assets are exhausted officers will not be paid."
  These are the kind of fears being expressed. I have no doubt that if these Federal civil servants fear that Her Majesty's Government may disown responsibility, they are quite wrong. But that does not make the fear less deeply felt. If there is not to be a demoralisation of this body of people, who may be of service in the future somewhere in the West Indies, it is vitally necessary that the Government tell us what is the position, and take the opportunity to tell people in the West Indies.
  I understand from the figures which I have that there are about 350 Federal civil servants involved. They have put forward a scheme for compensation which, if accepted by every one of the 350, would cost under £1½ million. But nothing like all of them will seek compensation. Already many are taking other jobs in public service in the individual territories or outside public service altogether. Certainly the cost of compensation will be a great deal less than £1½ million.
  There are a number of people involved who will find difficulty in getting suitable alternative employment. Sixty-four of the 350 are over forty. One hundred and eighty-two of them come from Trinidad and, with the best will in the world, it is unlikely that the Trinidad Government can absorb anything like this number. One hundred and sixty-nine of these civil servants gave up careers in their own island Civil Service to commit themselves to the Federation. It will be very difficult for all these to be reabsorbed, and there will be many problems of restored status for people who have removed themselves from the normal processes of promotion in their own islands.
  There is a very real human problem to be solved here. The Federal civil servants are asking not only that there should be a fair scheme of compensation, but that because of the difficulties of alternative jobs they should have a reasonably free choice between being offered an alternative job and being offered compensation. I do not wish to espouse the details of any plan. I do not have the knowledge or the competence to do so. However, I underline to the Government the need to let the civil

  133
  servants know exactly what the position is and reassure them that their future will be properly safeguarded by Her Majesty's Government.
  I should like the Government to take the opportunity at the Dispatch Box tonight to make a statement which will clear the air on this. In particular, I should like them to give an assurance that there will be no dissolution of the West Indies Federation until the terms of compensation have been agreed with the Federal Civil Service. This is only sensible. We have been rushing along into this at a headlong pace because of the timetable to which the Government unwisely committed themselves at an earlier stage in the negotiations.
  Although I have earlier emphasised the need for consultations with the local legislatures, I hope that at the same time the Government will ensure justice to the Federal civil servants. I do not believe that the two things are inconsistent, but we argued that on an earlier Clause. It is vitally important that the Government should reassure these civil servants that their future will be properly and fairly looked after. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of giving them that assurance.
  Mr. H. Fraser: As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) says, he is in some difficulty in demanding that these complex details should be discussed by legislative assemblies and also demanding that negotiations should continue at the same time. I do not want to raise a debating point, because the committee has divided—I think rashly—on this point. I want to meet hon. Members as much as I can on this complicated issue.
  In answer to the hon. Member from Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), we advised the Federal Government through the Governor-General that we could not regard it as in the best interests of the West Indies that Ministers should pay themselves a year's salary in advance and Members of Parliament so many months in advance. In view of the effect this would have had on Federal assets, we were perfectly correct, this notice having been served, to disallow certain legislation. I know that the hon. Member for Northfield is extremely well-informed about the West Indies. I do not want to contradict him, except to
  134
  say that I was there at the time and I know that the welcome the Press gave this action was extraordinary. The action was welcomed most warmly by the mass of people in the West Indies, certainly in the Press. There was full agreement with the peculiar act having been stopped by the action of Her Majesty's Government.
  The serious point made by the hon. Member for Northfield was why Clause 3 is necessary in view of the powers which have been taken by the Governor-General to disallow. Clause 3 is necessary because it is not a question of the Federal Government acting now. It is a question of the island Governments, acting in conjunction with Her Majesty's Government. This is not a question of the Federation as such but of the component parts of the Federation. I do not think that the point about the powers taken to disallow federal legislation by the Governor-General has any special application to Clause 3.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: The main point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) was not so much the point that the Under-Secretary has dealt with but the lack of consultation with the Federal Government. Allowing that the Federal Parliament's action was unwise, why was not the Federal Government properly consulted about it?
  Mr. Fraser: The Governor-General informed Sir Grantley Adams that this was a rash move and that he could not advise it. The constitutional position was that the Act had been passed by the Federal Parliament—or by the rump of the Federal Parliament. This advice was, of course, tendered unofficially by the Governor-General.
  I must advise the House that in the West Indies the Governor-General is in the position of a constitutional monarch, who can only advise on very rare occasions when he feels that he must. That advice having been disregarded, the law had been brought in, but as the hon. Member for Northfield is aware, there was something like a tumult of protest throughout the West Indies against that action. Therefore, the Governor-General's advice having been disregarded, the only thing that Her

  135
  Majesty's Government could do was to bring in an Order in Council disallowing that legislation—
  Mr. Chapman: The point is not quite as simple as that. The Government wished to disallow one item of voted expenditure. I deliberately said that I passed no comment on the purposes for which the money was voted. I am commenting on the way in which this was done. The Federal Finance Minister found that an Order in Council had been secretly printed in the basement of Government House. Is that the way to run Her Majesty's Administration in our Colonial Territories?
  I will go even further. The acting Attorney-General, in reply to a question, admitted knowledge of what had been going on; in other words, he had never told his Cabinet colleagues. He left the office and returned shortly after with two copies of the offending paper and, handing them over to Mr. Bradshaw for the first time, in the presence of Senator Charles, said, "We had these printed here last night." Is that the way to deal with a responsible man like Mr. Bradshaw, or the way to deal with a responsible Minister of the Federal Government?
  Mr. Fraser: My only answer is that the action taken by the persons concerned was regarded in the West Indies, and by the politicians of the smaller islands, as totally irresponsible, and that is why Her Majesty's Government acted. It is as simple as that.
  This question of the disallowing of the action of the Federal Government does not affect the provisions of this Clause. It is a question of consultation with the smaller islands and with the larger islands, and this, as I have promised, we will do in order to make a success of this compensation scheme.
  8.45 p.m.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked whether I could give certain assurances about the officers. We hope to be able to meet them on most of the problems that lie ahead. As I have said, we have these three sources, the first of which is the Federal assets which, I believe, will prove quite considerable as against Federal liabilities. Then, we have the power here, if we get agreement, as I
  136
  think we shall, of the islands, to make contributions. Thirdly, if the total disparity between assets and liabilities is great, and if read need As shown, as could, I think be shown, without any great difficulty by the islands, Her Majesty's Government will come to their assistance. That being so, I hope that the Committee will accept the Clause.
  Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman cannot expect to get away like that from the statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-field (Mr. Chapman). After all, one sees laid out in the Library of the House of Lords the Petition of Right, with a rough edge along the bottom where the King had refused it. He was then advised that it was wrong to refuse it, so from the bottom of the Petition they cut his signature and he put it on again at the top. He said that action should be taken as was asked.
  I gather from what the hon. Gentleman says that a sudden Act was passed by the Federal Parliament Which this Government did not like. I am not quite sure what he said after that. Was the Royal Assent refused by the Governor-General?
  Mr. H. Fraser: That is correct.
  Mr. Ede: It was refused by the Governor-General as the representative of the Monarch on the spot, a thing which has not been done in this country since the reign of Queen Anne, who certainly, so far as the West Indies are concerned, does not appear to be dead, in spite of what is commonly believed in this country.
  I am not questioning the constitutional right of the Governor-General to do that, but what happened after that? When we get on to the further actions taken by the Governor-General, let me say that I have seen the Governor-General in action in the West Indies and I know what a position he occupies, and I am a great admirer of him—
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arbuthnot): I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to come back to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, and compensation schemes for officers in the Federal Public Service.
  Mr. Ede: Of course, the Under-Secretary of State should have been ruled out of order for also alluding to the matter.
  Let us be quite clear on this. This is a very great constitutional issue which has been raised. On what authority were these documents printed to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield alludes? As I understand it, at the moment the Federal Parliament is still in existence and will remain in existence till such time as an Order in Council is made under Clause 1 of the Bill. Here is an Order in Council promoted—by whom? Was it promoted by the Government here, or was it an action of the Governor-General—perhaps thinking he was once again the Patronage Secretary? After all, this is the kind of thing which brought one Monarch in this country to the block. We had no sufficient reply from the hon. Gentleman. Under what authority were these Orders in Council promoted which were printed in the way described by my hon. Friend? Nothing was said by the Under-Secretary of State to indicate Chat what my hon. Friend gave in his recital of the string of circumstances was incorrect. I have to assume, therefore, that what my hon. Friend said was correct. Was the instruction given by this Government?
  Mr. H. Fraser: Of course it was.
  Hon. Members: He says, "Of course it was".
  Mr. Ede: I heard. He said it in a very low tone of voice, but I am not quite as deaf as that yet.
  The Federation is still in existence so far as the law is concerned. What right has anyone, till action is taken under Clause 1, to carry out such a highhanded proceeding as has been indicated?
  I hope we shall get some further explanation from the Government. They can rest assured that, for the sake of every Government in the Commonwealth, it is essential that it should be made quite clear that while Acts granting self-government remain on the Statute Book, the Governments to whom powers have been granted under such Acts must be recognised, and that, certainly, high-handed action like this cannot be taken without some consultation
  138
  between Her Majesty's Government here and Her Majesty's Government in the Federation. They are both Her Majesty's Governments, and Her Majesty cannot carry on contradictory policies.
  Mr. Chapman: I was very dissatisfied with what the Under-Secretary said. I personally agree with him in disliking the voting of money in these quantities for compensation to Federal Members of Parliament and Federal Ministers. I agree with him, and I am sure that the protests throughout the West Indies are quite justified, but what is the point of taking such a dislike to the point of never even having the courage to summon Sir Grantley Adams and the Federal Minister of Finance and saying to them, "We dislike it so much that we are about to issue an Order in Council"?
  Why is it that the Government have to insult them, so far as one is concerned, by letting him have to find it out from the newspapers, and, in the case of the other one, finding it out when he was presented with it as Federal Finance Minister the next morning? This is an abominable way of treating Her Majesty's Ministers in the Federation, and that is what I have been complaining about.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Reginald Maudling): If it is a question of the Order in Council, the Order was made on the Wednesday. On the Friday, I invited Sir Grantley to come to see me, but he could not do so at the last minute, because he was indisposed. I invited him twice more on Monday and Tuesday, and I finally saw him on Wednesday before the Order in Council was made. I told him what was being done. He was not dissatisfied. He quite understood. I could not show him the text, and it would have been quite unconstitutional to do so. I gave every possible warning I could to Sir Grantley, and he made no complaint about the procedure which was adopted.
  Mr. Chapman: I am grateful for that. That is some help. Now, it is a contest of words, and I am not entering into it. Sir Grantley says he was not consulted and did not know, and the Minister says he was. We can leave the matter there with that explanation by the right hon. Gentleman, but it still does not answer my point about

  139
  the treatment which Lord Hailes—I am not complaining about it—accorded to Mr. Bradshaw. Surely, after this position was put to them, it was up to the Governor-General or Her Majesty's Government to tell them, or at least to summon the Finance Minister and to tell him the extent to which his powers had been taken away from him.
  Mr. Fraser: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is weighing so heavily on this. I happened to be in Port of Spain on the day in question, and I asked if Mr. Bradshaw would meet me twenty-four hours before the Order was published so that I could explain why we had to do this. If I could explain to the House now what I explained then to Mr. Bradshaw, it was simply this. The Government had been advised by the Governor-General that this was an Act which could not find favour. In view of the impending dissolution of the Federation, there could not be any further dissipation of the Federal assets, and, because of this, Her Majesty's Government felt that they had to act. Therefore, I explained to him—and I have great respect for Mr. Bradshaw—that Her Majesty's Government were bound to act in this fashion. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have dragged this further into the open, because it does not enhance the good sense of the Ministers concerned nor the fame of that Government.
  Mr. Chapman: I am grateful for that intervention by the Under-Secretary. It has cleared up the matter. The impression should not be left in the West Indies that Mr. Bradshaw's statement is not countermanded. He said that he knew nothing about this in advance, but the hon. Gentleman now says that he told him in advance. Now the matter is cleared up. I felt bound to raise it in order that we could get an answer, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not tell us this in the first place. I raised this matter half-an-hour ago and he could have told us that this was the case. I regret that we have reached a stage when there is a real breakdown in personal relations in the West Indies, which augurs badly for the future. I hope that the Government will make every possible gesture to try to prevent this happening again, so that the new Federation will get off to a good start.
  140
  Mr. Bradshaw made another point in his statement and the hon. Gentleman forgot to reply to it, though I have raised it. Mr. Bradshaw said that the Government's reason for this Order in Council was that they wanted to countermand the proposals of the Federation for compensation to the Civil Service. I take it that this is totally denied, but it would be as well to have that stated.
  Mr. Fraser: That statement is perfectly untrue.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: Coming back to the question of the Federal Civil Service, against the unhappy background which we have just been discussing, may I have the information and an assurance as to when the Federal Civil Service will be able to meet round the table with those with whom they are negotiating for the final terms of settlement? It would be helpful to know this and it might remove a great deal of dissatisfaction.
  Mr. Fraser: I am sure that the hon. Member is right. I will look at that. We are still negotiating with the Governments concerned. As soon as we have settled the terms which we shall propose, it will be time to discuss them with the representatives of the Federal Government.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 4.—(POWER OF HER MAJESTY TO ESTABLISH COMMON COURTS FOR WEST INDIAN COLONIES.)
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, after "appellate", to insert:
  "including the jurisdiction to determine the amount of compensation payable for any compulsory acquisition of property in any of the relevant colonies."
  The intention of the Amendment is to bring within the jurisdiction of the courts which may be set up under the Clause the right to determine compensation on the compulsory acquisition of land. I propose the Amendment because the law of compulsory acquisition and the law of compensation, particularly, in the units of the little Eight is in a somewhat disastrous condition. We are dealing there with territories of a very small

  141
  area and they are starved of land. If it is necessary, as, indeed, it must be necessary in developing these areas, to take land into public ownership for administration buildings, hospitals, schools, and the rest, we should be quite certain that we are being fair to the individual from whom the land is being taken.
  In the past, our colonial administration has had a reputation for being fair in these cases. When we were developing British India it was a direction to the judges there that when they had found the value of the land to be taken for the benefit of the community as a whole they would then add 25 per cent. for the fact that it was being taken away compulsorily—a really fair deal. It is not enough, in these cases, to leave the question of compensation entirely to the discretion of the Government concerned. It is right to leave to the discretion of the Governments concerned the choice of what land should be taken for public purposes. In this country we make that the subject of public inquiry. There is no such law in the units of the little Eight. But when it comes to compensation, I suggest that that should be subject to the rule of law, as it is in this country where we have the Lands Tribunal with an appeal to the ordinary courts. Unless there is justice over this matter, any Government there will be building up trouble for themselves and possibly violence.
  I should have thought that one of the most important acts of a Government when developing these small countries was to ensure there should be fair compensation for the property taken away for the good of the community. I am not raising this as a purely theoretical point. I ask the Committee to bear with me while I give an example which will show how chaotic the state of the law is in at least one of the Colonies of the little Eight in connection with compensation. The case that I shall cite shows Crichel Down paling into insignificance.
  9.0 p.m.
  The case started no less than six years ago, when in June, 1956, the Executive Council of Antigua resolved to acquire some land compulsorily. No notice whatever was given to the owner at that stage. In September, 1956, the Government entered on his land. The owner wrote a letter of protest which remained unanswered. He had, of course, no
  142
  opportunity under the law there of having any public inquiry. The only answer he got to his protest was that the Executive Council by order in October, 1956, vested the land in the Crown.
  That was all done under an Act of the Leeward Islands Federal Government—the Land Acquisition Act, 1944—and since the dispersal of the federal powers, action under that Act by one of the unit Governments was entirely invalid. It was ultra vires for the Antigua Government to take this land from a private individual under that Act. In October, 1958, two years after the deed had been done, the Land Acquisition Ordinance, 1958, validated all that had been done illegally over the past years under the 1944 Act.
  The Government having white-washed themselves in that way, what happened to the owner whose land was taken? He had no land, no compensation and no communication from the Government until April, 1959, two and a half years after the property had been taken, when he was approached to enter into a voluntary agreement for the sale of the land although the land had already been vested in the Crown by an order of the Executive Council.
  At that stage I took the matter up with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and I received a reply which apparently roused the Antiguan Government to negotiate a little with the owner. The 1958 Ordinance, however, although validating the past illegal acts, had failed entirely to provide any system for assessing compensation, so that the unfortunate owner had no authority to which he could refer to assess the compensation for the land.
  Eventually, in April, 1961, when nothing more had been done about it, I raised the matter in an Adjournment debate. I was told then that the Antiguan Government had offered the owner £3,000 for the land. I was informed that a letter to that effect had been written about six weeks before that debate. My inquiries since then lead me to make the allegation now that that letter was backdated. It was not received by the owner until after the Adjournment debate. I think that my hon. Friend was grossly misled by some authorities in Antigua

  143
  to believe that that letter had already been delivered to the owner.
  The owner was asking £10,000 for the land and the offer was £3,000. I do not know who was right—and I do not think that that matters. The point is that when the Government, having taken land, offers a price so grossly different from that which the owner thinks is the value, there should be a body to which appeal can be made for the assessment of compensation.
  The Adjournment debate which I initiated was many months ago, and nothing has yet been done about settling the compensation for this owner—six and a half years after the land was taken over. The original owner from whom it was taken has died since, and now it is his daughter who is involved. There is no legal procedure whereby she can force a decision on this, and the Government of Antigua seem to be taking no steps to compensate her.
  I quote this case as an example of the condition of the law of compensation in the unit Colonies of the little Eight. It is for that reason that I move my Amendment, to try to provide some authority within the law who could assess compensation in such cases. This case shows disgraceful conduct on the part of the Antiguan Government, and I cannot exonerate the Colonial Office from blame, because it seems to have sat by and allowed this to happen. I am trying to provide a proper process through the courts for compensation, thereby putting this situation right.
  There must, of course, be compulsory acquisition in the development of Colonies of this sort, particularly in the little Eight, where development in social welfare, such as schools and hospitals, is so necessary, at the surest way to trouble and violence is a form of confiscation with no legal remedy. That is the position, certainly in Antigua and maybe in the others of the little Eight.
  Mr. H. Fraser: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) raised this case in an Adjournment debate some months ago. I have great sympathy for the person involved, but this is a private case, so to speak, for Antigua. I must make one point clear. The 1958 Act to which my hon. Friend
  144
  referred brought in a method of assessing the value of land to be compulsorily acquired, but through a drafting error, it did not cover land which had been acquired, as it proved, illegally before 1958.
  There is only the one case—that of the Golden Grove Estate. This is not, therefore, a general condition applying to the West Indies, or even to Antigua. It is a peculiar mistake in drafting which applies to one case. The 1958 Act, whilst making arrangements for the valuation of compulsorily acquired land, did not go back to 1958, to this case, in which acquisition had proved to be invalid under previous legislation. This matter is, therefore, better handled by negotiation between the Government of Antigua and my hon. Friend's client, so to speak, Mrs. Fernandez. In February, I was informed that negotiations were proceeding.
  I am informed by my legal advisers that this Amendment would not be appropriate at this stage. The point of Clause 4 is to retain two courts of appeal, in the Windwards and Leewards, and also to set up a new Supreme Court for the West Indies with a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Therefore, at this stage I ask my hon. Friend to rely on me to try to sort out this difficulty in Antigua and to withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. Graham Page: If my hon. Friend really will sort it out, but we have been waiting six-and-a-half years for it to be sorted out and that is a long time for an owner of land to be kept out of compensation for his property. My hon. Friend said that it was a drafting error in 1958 which caused the trouble. That is long enough ago for the matter to be corrected, and I urge that it should be corrected.
  May I correct one thing he said? No doubt using the phrase in inverted commas, he referred to what he called my client. I assure him that this is not a client of mine professionally. If I had to give examples from professional experience, I could give many more which are just as serious. This is a case which I have pursued for many years in this House and it is about time that my hon. Friend dealt with it. Having said that,

  145
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 5.—(POWER OF HER MAJESTY TO PROVIDE FOR GOVERNMENT OF CERTAIN WEST INDIAN COLONIES.)
  Mr. Healey: I beg to move, in page 4, line 44, at the end to insert:
  Provided that no Order in Council under this section shall be made or shall have effect so as to impair, limit or otherwise diminish any element of representation or self-government in the constitution of a colony to which the Order relates.
  The right hon. Gentleman will remember that when the Bill was first published a wave of anger and indignation swept the West Indies. That is not too strong a way of describing the reaction. No doubt a good deal of it was based on what the Government intended. In particular, it was felt in all the islands concerned, even in those on the verge of total independence, like Trinidad, that Her Majesty's Government envisaged some sort of return to direct Colonial Office rule, or Crown Colony status. That feeling was expressed in many angry editorials and speeches.
  This apprehension and misunderstanding were reduced, first, by the statement in another place by the Minister of State and, secondly, by the undertaking given by the Colonial Secretary himself a week ago, when he said:
  "… it is not our intention in any way to derogate or reduce the powers of the territories already enjoying full internal self-government …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1962: Vol. 656, c. 855.]
  We have put down the Amendment simply to clear up precisely what is intended for the territories which are not now enjoying full internal self-government and to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us precisely which territories are not covered by his assurance and precisely what the Government intend for them.
  On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman made a good deal of the intention to use the Clause to ensure that grant aid to the Colonies, which is at present controlled through powers in
  146
  relation to the Federal Government, should still be effectively controlled. I do not think that anybody would want to prevent effective control from being carried out, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us precisely which territories in the Federation are not covered by this assurance. Secondly, can he assure us that any financial powers which are exercised under the Clause will not go beyond those which were exercised under the Federal constitution? In other words, can it be taken that no country will lose any degree of self-government which it is now enjoying through the operation of the Clause?
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Maudling: There are, as I think I explained earlier, one or two points which we have in mind in this Clause, such as the written Constitution for Barbados and paving the way for the Jamaica Bill, but the point which the Committee has no doubt in mind is the question of stricter financial control over certain territories. I confirm that we do not intend in any way to derogate from the powers of those territories which already have self-government. They are Jamaica, Trinidad and Barbados, the fact is that there have been in some other territories—whose names I will not mention, if I may be excused—in one or two instances, examples of lax financial control. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) laughs—
  Mr. Chapman: I merely laughed because I found the incidental arrangement of words amusing.
  Mr. Maudling: I used the words deliberately.
  I think it most important that when moneys are voted by this House for development, or for the support of the administration of these territories, those moneys should be properly applied. Until recently, and it will be so until the Federation is dissolved, there has been a degree of control by the Federal financial system. Frankly, I am not satisfied that this has been completely adequate. If it had been adequate these difficulties would not have arisen, but, even if it were adequate, it would disappear. All we want in the islands, apart from the three I have mentioned,

  147
  is power to ensure that moneys voted by this Houses and provided by this country are properly applied.
  I am afraid that in doing that it may be necessary in some cases to take back from some islands part of the degree of financial autonomy they now have. We shall do it only in cases where it is clear that the freedom they have had in financial matters has led them into financial difficulty. This is bound to lead—I do not disguise it—to a diminution of the financial freedom they have at the moment, but it is absolutely necessary to see that the moneys are properly used. If it is found that there is administrative difficulty in the eight islands it will be all subsumed in that, but in the interim period I think that we must have these powers to prevent difficulties arising.
  Mr. Healey: Can the right hon. Gentleman go a little further and assure the Committee that any derogation of the existing degree of self-government involved in the application of this Clause will concern only the use of the moneys granted by Parliament here?
  Mr. Maudling: That is all that I have in mind. I must say quite frankly that I have no other purpose in asking for
  these powers than to ensure that the moneys granted by Parliament ace properly used.
  Mr. Healey: In view of the assurance given by the Colonial Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 6.—(POWER OF HER MAJESTY TO ESTABLISH NEW FORMS OF GOVERNMENT IN PLACE OF THE WEST INDIES.)
  The Chairman: The next Amendment is to Clause 6, in page 6, line 1, in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), which was discussed with the hon. Member's first Amendment on the Notice Paper. An undertaking has been given that it would be put to the vote. If so desired, I will now put the Question.
  Amendment proposed: In page 6, line 1, after "Council", insert:
  "and after consultation with the legislative councils of the colonies concerned".—[Mr. Chapman.]
  Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 105, Noes 159.

  Division No. 141.]

  AYES

  [9.19 p.m.

  Beaney, Alan

  Harper, J.

  Owen, Will

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Blackburn, F.

  Healey, Denis

  Pentland, Norman

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Prentice, R. E.

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hilton, A. V.

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Broughton, Dr A. D. D.

  Holman, Percy

  Randall, Harry

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Holt, Arthur

  Rankin, John

  Callaghan, James

  Houghton, Douglas

  Redhead, E. C.

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Chapman, Donald

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

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

  Cliffe, Michael

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Ross, William

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

  Short, Edward

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Cronin, John

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Kelley, Richard

  Small, William

  Darling, George

  Lawson, George

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Delargy, Hugh

  Ledger, Ron

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dempsey, James

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Diamond, John

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Stones, William

  Dodds, Norman

  Loughlin, Charles

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  MacColl, James

  Taverne, D.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

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

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Wade, Donald

  Evans, Albert

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Fletcher, Eric

  Manuel, Archie

  Weitzman, David

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Mapp, Charles

  Whitlock, William

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mason, Roy

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Willey, Frederick

  Gourlay, Harry

  Millan, Bruce

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Mitchison, G. R.

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

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Monslow, Walter

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Moyle, Arthur

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Mulley, Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Mr. Grey.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Gurden, Harold

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Aitken, W. T.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Allason, James

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Peel, John

  Barlow, Sir John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Percival, Ian

  Batsford, Brian

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Peyton, John

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Biffen, John

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Bingham, R. M.

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

  Pitman, Sir James

  Bossom, Clive

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Bourne-Arton, A,

  Holland, Philip

  Pott, Percivall

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

  Hopkins, Alan

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Braine, Bernard

  Hornby, R. P.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Brewis, John

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Bryan, Paul

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Bullard, Denys

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Renton, David

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Jackson, John

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  James, David

  Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Roots, William

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Jennings, J. C.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Shaw, M.

  Collard, Richard

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Shepherd, William

  Cooke, Robert

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

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

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Smithers, Peter

  Costain, A. P.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Coulson, Michael

  Kitson, Timothy

  Stodart, J. A.

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Critchley, Julian

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Dance, James

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Tapsell, Peter

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Doughty, Charles

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  du Cann, Edward

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Maddan, Martin

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Foster, John

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Walder, David

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

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

  Walker, Peter

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Mills, Stratton

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Freeth, Denzil

  Miscampbell, N.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Morgan, William

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Neave, Airey

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Gower, Raymond

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Woollam, John

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  Noble, Michael

  Worsley, Marcus

  Green, Alan

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. McLaren.

  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 7.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS IN COUNCIL.)
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 6, line 35, to leave out from "Act" to "shall" in line 36.
  The Chairman (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): It would be convenient also to take the second Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), in page 6, line 37, to leave out from "Parliament" to the end of line 40.
  Mr. Graham Page: Perhaps the Committee will bear with me while I read
  150
  out the subsection as it would read if these two Amendments were accepted:
  "Subject to the following subsection, a statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
  9.30 p.m.
  As the subsection stands, it provides for two different types of Order in Council. One type, which is to be subject to annulment, is an Order in Council which adapts or modifies any Act. The other type, which is merely to be laid before the House, is that which does not adapt or modify any Act. I suggest that this distinction raises suspicion as to the intentions of subsection (3).

  151
  As I understand the procedural position—and my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—
  "a statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under this Act "
  would be a Statutory Instrument under the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946. If it is directed that it shall be laid after being made, all that the House of Commons can do is to pray against it; but that Prayer would not delay its operation. If a Statutory Instrument is subject to the annulment procedure and the House were to pass a Resolution annulling it, that would stop it coming into operation. That, I understand, is the only distinction between the two types of Order which are provided for in the subsection. In one case, the House can by annulment stop the Order operating. In the other case, although the House can pray against the Order and may pass a Resolution asking Her Majesty to withdraw it, that does not stop the operation of the Order. That second type, which we cannot stop operating, may apply to almost every Clause in the Bill.
  As I read the Bill, once one has altered the Federation Act and taken any unit out of the Federation, any Order in Council may be made without adapting or modifying any Statute. For example, under Clause (2, a), an Order in Council might provide the whole of the laws for a territory—wholly new laws for a territory—without necessarily adapting or modifying any particular Act. Under subsection (2, b), it could even delegate to some authority the power to make all those laws. This could be done by Order in Council which would come before the House of Commons only after it had been made and the operation of which we in the House of Commons could do nothing to stop.
  Under Clause 2 the interim authority, or the permanent authority under Clause 5, could provide complete government for a unit colony—the legislative, executive and all the judicial functions—by Order in Council. It would be a heyday for the back-room boys in my right hon. Friend's Department if they could produce all these Orders in Council and merely lay them before the House after they had been made. Furthermore, I draw attention to the fact that they can
  152
  be brought into operation even before they are laid before the House.
  There is a proviso to Section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, which allows an Order in Council to be made and to come into operation before it is laid in the House if the Government Department concerned certifies to the Lord Chancellor and to Mr. Speaker that it is urgent and essential that it should come into operation. The type of Order with which we are concerned, and which I want deleted from the subsection, could operate before it was laid before us and before we had any opportunity commenting of upon it.
  All the compensation schemes under Clause 3 could be brought into operation by that type of Order—even to the extent of creating taxation, under subsection (2). Under Clause 4, courts might be established for the West Indies, with provision for the raising of the expenses of those courts—all by means of that type of Order, upon which the House could not comment until it had come into operation. This raises what are perhaps unnecessary suspicions as to the intentions of the Government under subsection (3) of this Clause. It is to press my right hon. Friend to give us reasons for the distinction made between the two types of Order that I move the Amendment.
  Mr. Chapman: I support what the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has said. Until he recited the very wide powers that are so clearly placed in the hands of the Colonial Secretary—which he did very ably, after much homework—I had not realised how far-reaching they were. They are quite revolutionary as they affect the Caribbean.
  I realise that for constitutional reasons—reasons of precedents—the Government are unlikely to accept the Amendment, but I hope that the Colonial Secretary will be able to give an alternative assurance that from stage to stage, as events begin to unfold themselves in the coming months in the Caribbean, he will make considered statements in the House as to the main landmarks in the regrouping of territories, the alteration of constitutions, and the setting up of authorities.
  If we could have these clearly mapped out by the right hon. Gentleman as he

  153
  makes his important decisions, and if he will announce his decisions as he makes them, a great deal of the concern that is rightly felt at the vesting of sweeping powers in one Minister would be abated.
  Mr. Maudling: I will certainly keep the House fully informed of developments in the situation. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) is right in saying that it would be out of line with precedents on procedure and legislation in these matters to do otherwise than we are doing. In the Clause we are making the normal provision for negative Resolutions where Acts are involved and, exceptionally, making provision for the affirmative Resolution procedure when questions concerning the setting up of a new Federation or association are concerned. Otherwise, the general Orders for carrying into effect the policy which we hope the House will approve will be in accordance with normal precedents and not subject to these procedures. They will be carrying out in detail the general policies which we hope the House will approve.
  They are threefold. First, as has been explained already, we intend to dissolve the Federation, and we are asking for authority to do that by the Bill. The orders will carry out the details. Secondly, we are setting up an interim authority, which is purely a holding operation, to act as the trustee until the Governments of the various territories concerned can meet us in conference and decide the long-term future of these common services and assets.
  Thirdly, we shall be providing, in some way or another, for the long-term future of the islands, apart from Jamaica and Trinidad. It may be that we shall propose a Federation of the eight islands, and if we do so we shall be bound by the Bill to bring such a proposal before the House by means of an affirmative Resolution. The proposals which we have put into the Bill are in line with precedent and the procedure clearly followed when there is delegated legislation in these matters.
  I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and the hon. Member for Northfield that what we have in mind has been explained on a number of occasions, the dissolving of the existing Federation and
  154
  the creation of a holding organisation to keep the thing in being until something else can be found, and, if we have approval by affirmative Resolution, to put something in its place. We have no other intention, and we are following precedent by providing for an affirmative Resolution to set up something new and for a negative Resolution if we are amending any Act. Otherwise, we are taking the normal powers to legislate by Order in Council within the general framework set before us. I hope that on that basis we may be accorded the powers for which we asked.
  Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. Friend has not explained the reason for the distinction between the negative Resolution Orders in Council and those merely to be laid. He said that it is the normal procedure; that I would not deny. But there are many abnormal things which will be done by the Bill and I think that we might have gone outside precedent in this instance. There is no reason why the wide powers for Orders in Council, throughout the Bill, should not all be subject to the negative Resolution procedure.
  What is the basic distinction in principle between Orders in Council changing an Act and Orders in Council which do not change an Act? It seems to me that the latter can be just as devastating and far-reaching, if not more so, than the former. I do not think that my right hon. Friend has explained why it is necessary to have this procedure for laying one type of Order.
  Mr. Maudling: This has been the practice which has been followed. Where an Order affects an Act of Parliament there should be a negative Resolution—we are following precedent to that extent—and, equally, that there should be an affirmative Resolution for creating something new.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. D. Foot: I beg to move, in page 7, line 4, after "approved", to insert "or amended".
  This Amendment raises a point somewhat different from most of those which have been discussed. It is a little similar to the point raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in connection with the last Amendment. I

  155
  think it of some importance to the Colonies concerned and also to the House of Commons. It brings up the vexed question of control by Parliament over delegated legislation. That is something which has been discussed in many contexts on a number of occasions.
  We know that there are hundreds of Acts empowering Ministers acting in pursuance of the Statute to make Orders and Regulations. That must be so, otherwise the House of Commons would be overwhelmed with detail. Nobody suggests that the drafts of all the Regulations and Orders should be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. Generally, it is sufficient if we adopt one or other of the procedures referred to when we discussed the last Amendment, the affirmative or the negative Resolution. But when, as in this case, we have very sweeping powers entrusted to the Executive to make laws, and we make Orders in Council not as a supplement to but as a substitute for Acts of Parliament, it represents a real derogation from the power and authority of this House of Commons.
  9.45 p.m.
  This is not the first time that it has been attempted and, indeed, achieved. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who is sitting beside me, and I are the only two Members present in the Chamber this evening who were here in the 1930s. We can both remember the days When we discussed the household means test. In those days Regulations were introduced affecting great numbers of persons and affecting intimately the lives of many thousands of families. Although we debated them by day and by night for many hours at a time, Parliament was powerless to alter a single word or a single syllable. That is one example to which my mind goes back.
  Here, we are dealing with just such a case. We are dealing with powers which are very sweeping indeed, particularly the powers set out in Clause 2. Under Clause 2, authorities may be established to discharge functions in place of the existing Federal authorities—that is to say, we are creating new constitutions. Clause 2 (2) provides that
  "An Order in Council under this section may—
  (a) empower an authority established by the Order to make, for such purposes as may
  156
  be specified in the Order, laws for the colonies for whose benefit it is to perform functions …"
  This is a complete law-making power.
  We may be able to pray against that Order. It may be laid on the Table. However important it may be, possibly however startling it may be, we shall not be able to alter a single line. Therefore, my hon. Friends and I suggest that on this occasion we take the exceptional course of enabling Parliament to amend the Orders in Council. This is an exceptional course, but it is not unprecedented. There is a precedent in the Government of India Act, 1935, Section 309 of which provides as follows:
  "Any power conferred by this Act on His Majesty in Council shall be exercisable only by Order in Council, and subject as hereinafter provided, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of any Order which it is proposed to recommend His Majesty to make in Council under any provision of this Act, and no further proceedings shall be taken in relation thereto except in pursuance of an address presented to His Majesty by both Houses of Parliament praying that the Order may be made either in the form of the draft, or with such amendments as may have been agreed to by Resolutions of both Houses …"
  That is a perfectly good precedent, for which the party opposite was responsible. There is no reason why, when dealing with a very different subject matter, we should not follow the precedent in this case. This concerns the territories which we are debating, but it also concerns the House of Commons.
  Mr. Maudling: The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) has raised a very important point. My advisers were wise enough to forewarn me about the Government of India Act, 1935. I am advised that that provision, which is exceptional, gave rise to difficulties owing to the need to ensure that the same amendments emerged from both Houses, which is probably quite a point. Although it is a precedent, it is a very unusual one, and I am advised that it has not proved entirely satisfactory.
  Mr. D. Foot: It was an unusual Bill.
  Mr. Maudling: I hope that it will remain an unusual Bill, but it was a practical Bill.
  The proposals in the subsection do not go as wide as the hon. and learned

  157
  Gentleman suggested, as we are dealing in subsection (4), which he seeks to amend, solely with the question of setting up a new Federation or new grouping of Colonies within the area. We are not, as I understand it, dealing with some of the other purposes of the Bill to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. We have provided that when we set up a new Federation or a new grouping it shall be done by an affirmative Resolution. That would be in accordance with precedent but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, there are some precedents the other way.
  I would urge on the Committee that in this we are, on the whole, following the practical and sensible course. Either we delegate or we do not delegate. If we are not to delegate, then, of course, a new Federation must be set up by a separate Act of Parliament. If we are to delegate, I think that it would be unwise to provide for amendment of an affirmative Resolution because, frankly, we would be up against exactly the same thing as we would if we had to deal with the legislation itself.
  What we clearly have in mind here is the possibility of the setting up either of a Federation of the Eight, or of some of them, or of some other grouping. I do not want to commit myself at all at this stage to what we would think would be the best solution of the problem. Both sides are aware that there are conflicting considerations. There are obvious advantages in a number of these islands working together; and, on the other hand, obvious disadvantages in trying to establish a new grouping if it is not to be a permanent grouping. That is why we wish to keep ourselves uncommitted in this matter.
  As the Committee is aware, I have received from the Chief Ministers of the Seven and the Prime Minister of Barbados a scheme that we are very carefully examining. As I have said, it seems to us to be a very promising scheme. If we should be convinced that it is the right way to handle the future constitutional arrangements for these islands, we would try—in consultation with them, of course—to produce a new scheme which we would lay before Parliament in the form of an affirmative Order. That would be subject to debate,
  158
  but I think that if we made that affirmative Order subject to amendment it would be tantamount to saying that we could only produce a new Federation by a Bill, subject to the normal procedures and the normal amendments.
  I feel that, in the circumstances of the West Indies and in the circumstances of Parliamentary business, that is probably unwise. I believe that this is the practical way to do as we all want. What we all want, of course, is to try, in consultation with those islands, to find the right solution, to work it out with them, and then to produce to Parliament what we believe to be the right solution, in which circumstances we would have to ask for the approval of the House—
  Mr. David Weitzman: The right hon. Gentleman says that he will leave it to Parliament, but does he not appreciate that if there is no possibility of amendment, he is not leaving it to Parliament; that Parliament is not having the opportunity to express its views?
  Mr. Maudling: As the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) has said, that is a problem that ranges pretty wide. Once we delegate by way of Order we automatically remove from Parliament the power to amend; otherwise, what is the purpose of delegation? Otherwise, we have to do the whole thing in detail by Act of Parliament. In all the circumstances, we feel that the right thing is to provide for this to be done by Order subject to what I think is the rather unusual procedure of affirmative Resolution, whereby opportunity has to be provided by the Government for full debate.
  I would urge on the Committee that that is the better way to do it, rather than rely on the procedure of amendment of the affirmative Resolution proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich which, as far as I am advised, has few precedents, and the precedent to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred has not, in practice, been found to be satisfactory. I therefore hope that the Committee will be prepared to let us carry on on the lines we have proposed.
  Mr. Weitzman: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I have been listening very carefully to the argument put forward and I cannot understand the Government's objection to this Amendment. In answer to the case made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot), the Minister used exactly the same argument as he advanced in answer to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). He simply said, "Don't let us interfere with precedents." He gives no grounds at all for any real objection to the purpose of the Amendment.
  We all know that we must have delegated legislation, but we all know, too, the dangers of delegated legislation. One of the dangers that we all recognise is that we do not get a discussion by Parliament, or do not, in the discussion, get the chance of putting forward an Amendment. Surely, in a matter so crucial and so important as this. Parliament should have the opportunity of expressing its view by way of Amendment.
  Mr. Maudling: The purpose of the affirmative Resolution procedure, somewhat exceptionally provided, is to give Parliament the opportunity to express views in full, but if we were to have to go further and argue it in detail there would have to be a Bill, and, therefore, it would not be delegated legislation.
  Mr. Healey: The Colonial Secretary has not, if he has a case, done it justice by what he has said on this. All he is really saying is that some anonymous advisers told him there were difficulties about the Government of India Act. Then he suggested that there was some possibility that the Lords and Commons might put in different Amendments. I do not know whether this happened at that time; he gave no examples of this. One thing I am fairly sure of is that it would not happen in the very different circumstances of 1962 or 1963. I find it almost impossible to conceive of the other place introducing Amendments to an Order in Council of this importance to which it did not know that this House would assent.
  160
  I really feel that I cannot commend my right hon. and hon. Friends to withdraw this Amendment when the Colonial Secretary has given us no reason whatever for rejecting it.
  Mr. Graham Page: I think that there is one point that has not been put as yet in this discussion on this Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) put forward his Amendment in a rather wide frame. Of course, we should all like to be able to snipe at Statutory Instruments and Orders in Council which come before us and amend them if we could, but this Amendment is not quite as wide as that. If a Bill comes before us to provide by Order in Council a new form of government for a certain place and then it is an affirmative Resolution merely putting a complete Order, which the Committee is asked to approve, that would not be objectionable.
  However, I do call my right hon. Friend's attention in this case to the fact that Clause 6 gives a power to establish a new form of government—for where? For what? We do not know. It may be for the whole of the little Eight. It may be for two or three of them. We do not know in respect of what territory or country power is being given by Order in Council. In that case, I do not think an Amendment to that draft Order could be very great. The draft Order would merely provide a form of government for a particular area—we do not know what area—under this Clause.
  It is not, as I understand it, an Order setting up all the laws for that area. It would be merely stating the area to which it applied. Therefore, an amendment to it would not be a very elaborate business. That is why I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment is sound in this case. We are not given in Clause 6 any real clue as to what the Order in Council may be or what area or territory it may affect.
  Normally, in a Measure of this sort, we give power to the Executive, by Order, to create a new form of government for a certain fixed area stated in the Bill. We are not given that in this case. I do ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 101, Noes 157.

  Division No. 142.]

  AYES

  [9.59 p.m.

  Beaney, Alan

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Pentland, Norman

  Blackburn, F.

  Hilton, A. V.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Bottomley, A.

  Harper, Joseph

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)

  Holman, Percy

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Holt, Arthur

  Rankin, John

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Redhead, E. C.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Callaghan, James

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

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

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Ross, William

  Chapman, Donald

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Short, Edward

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Cronin, John

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Small, William

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Kelley, Richard

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lawson, George

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dempsey, James

  Ledger, Ron

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Diamond, John

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Stones, William

  Dodds, Norman

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Loughlin, Charles

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  MacColl, James

  Taverne, Dick

  Edelman, Maurice

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

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

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Wade, Donald

  Evans, Albert

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Weitzman, David

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Manuel, Archie

  Whitlock, William

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mapp, Charles

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Mason, Roy

  Willey, Frederick

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Millan, Bruce

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

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Mulley, Frederick

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Oram, A. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hayman, F. H.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Healey, Denis

  Owen, Will

  Mr. Grey.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Aitken, W. T.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Allason, James

  Foster, John

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Barlow, Sir John

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Batsford, Brian

  Freeth, Denzil

  McLaren, Martin

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Gammans, Lady

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Biffen, John

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Macoherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Maddan, Martin

  Bingham, R. M.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Gower, Raymond

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Bossom, Clive

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Green, Alan

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

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Mills, Stratton

  Braine, Bernard

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Miscambell, N.

  Brewis, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Morgan, William

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Neave, Airey

  Bryan, Paul

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Bullard, Denys

  Hastings, Stephen

  Noble, Michael

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Cary, Sir Robert

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

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Holland, Philip

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Hopkins, Alan

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Collard, Richard

  Hornsby Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Peel, John

  Cooke, Robert

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Percival, Ian

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Peyton, John

  Costain, A. P.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Coulson, Michael

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pitman, Sir James

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  James, David

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Critchley, Julian

  Jennings, J. C.

  Pott, Percivall

  Dance, James

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Doughty, Charles

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  du Cann, Edward

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Kitson, Timothy

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Fell, Anthony

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Renton, David

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Walker, Peter

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Roots, William

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Teeling, Sir William

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Shaw, M.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Woollam, John

  Shepherd, William

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Worsley, Marcus

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

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Smithers, Peter

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Mr. Whitelaw and

  Stodart, J. A.

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Mr. Michael Hamilton

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Walder, David

  It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the West Indies Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Maudling.]

WEST INDIES BILL [Lords]
Again considered in Committee.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

WEST INDIES BILL [Lords]

  New Clause.—(GRANTS FOR BENEFIT OF CERTAIN WEST INDIAN COLONIES.)
  The Secretary of State may—

  (a) from time to time make, to the government of any colony to which section five of this Act applies, being a government whose resources are, in his opinion, insufficient to enable it to defray its administrative expenses, grants of such amounts as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine;

  (b) from time to time make, to any federal government established by virtue of section six of this Act for any colonies, grants of such amounts as he may, with the like approval, determine, for the purpose of enabling that government to make grants to the governments of any of the colonies for which it is established whose resources are, in its opinion, insufficient to enable them to defray their administrative expenses;

  (c) from time to time make, to a government of any other form established as aforesaid for any colonies, being one whose resources are, in his opinion, insufficient to enable it to defray its administrative expenses, grants of such amounts as he may, with the like approval, determine.—[Mr. Maudling.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  The new Clause, which is shown in brackets as Clause 8 of the Bill, will, I am sure, commend itself to the Committee. Its purpose is a simple one. Before the Federation was sot up, we had the power to make grants in aid to the various territories, but under the British Caribbean Federation Act, 1956, provision was made for annual grants to the Federal Government, which distributed those grants to the unit territories. If the Federation is to be dissolved, as is proposed, we must have the power to resume the making of grants to the individual unit territories, and that is provided by the first subsection of the Clause.
  The second subsection provides the power for us to make grants in aid to any federation that may be set up. Obviously, a federation of the Eight is one possibility. The third subsection gives us power to make grants to any association of the territories concerned.
  I am sure that this proposal will be in accordance with the will of the Committee. It is really a matter of machinery to give us the powers for making grants in aid which we should not otherwise have because, as I explained, they were subsumed by the Federation while the Federation was in being.
  Mr. Chapman: I am delighted to support the proposed Clause, but there are two questions that I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman.
  As to the background, I think it is not realised just how varied the living standards in the West Indies are. I made some inquiries just before coming into the Chamber and found that in 1957, the last year for which I have figures, annual income per head in Trinidad was 822 West Indian dollars per annum, in Jamaica 572, St. Kitts 280 and Montserrat 203. Thus, the national income per head per annum in Trinidad

  165
  is four times that in Montserrat. With these figures in mind, no one can doubt how imperative it is for Britain to contribute to the administrative expenses particularly of the Leeward and Windward Islands.
  The annual recurrent expenditure of the Windwards is 22 million West Indies dollars, of which 5½ million is provided by Her Majesty's Government. Thus, we provide 25 per cent. of the annual expenditure there. That is an index of the poverty there and of the need for us to help. It is particularly pleasing to be able to support a Clause which is a continuation of existing policies.
  The first question that I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether in the interests of the West Indies he will reply to the rumour which is current in the West Indies and is being reported in the newspapers there, that the British Government are likely to be lukewarm about a federation of the Eight. Honestly, I do not see the reasoning behind this, but it needs denying. It is said that the British Government are afraid about financial support for the Eastern Caribbean. It is said that as part of the British Government's general economy drive there is to be a lopping of expenditure in the Eastern Caribbean, and this makes the Government lukewarm about the founding of a federation of the Eight for which they would have considerable financial responsibility.
  We are busy trying to heal as many breaches in the West Indies and to create as much good will as we can. Therefore, it would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman would deny that rumour, which is being put about by high-level people in the West Indies and reported in the Press out there.
  10.15 p.m.
  The second assurance I seek concerns certain expenditures which we would not normally think of as being administrative but which will be covered by the Clause. The sort of thing I am thinking of is the Agriculture Advisory Service, which is so badly needed. For development in the Leewards and Windwards, additional agriculture officers and more advisory work and information services will be needed in addition to the pure administration of the moment.
  166
  Another example is the need to develop the medical services in the Windwards and Leewards. That might entail the development of medical centres, which means capital expenditure which might be described as administrative. This is badly needed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that this kind of expenditure will be covered by the Clause. If it is, it will cover the points I had in mind when I put down three Amendments which were ruled out of order.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has said. We are particularly concerned that the Government should say that they will look sympathetically on the question of giving financial aid to a little Eight federation, if it can be brought about and if that is what the peoples want. There is a grant in aid under the old agreement which is, in a sense, outstanding, and I understand that Professor Lewis, in his survey, indicated that, with the sum of perhaps £10 million, it would be possible to make a little Eight federation viable.
  I do not know how reliable that figure is, but it is tremendously important that, in this very difficult situation, the Government should be able to say, as early as possible, that they will be generous and will give economic help on as adequate a scale as possible to make a little Eight federation, if that is the wish of these islands, a success.
  The word "administration" covers all forms of social expenditure. I have in mind, as my hon. Friend had, some of the small islands of the Leewards and Windwards. Dominica, for instance, is very beautiful but it is under-developed and lacks even a road round the island. I saw the most overcrowded school I have ever seen on that island. I hope that this new Clause will cover that kind of expenditure.
  Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) for raising these two points and for giving me the chance to make the Government's position clear on them. This Clause does not prescribe that we shall provide certain moneys, but it gives us powers to do so. Obviously the normal controls will operate.

  167
  Clearly, this country has obligations to these islands, whether or not they federate. Our concern—and I think that the Committee will agree—is that proposals for a federation of the little Eight should be examined, particularly when thinking in terms ultimately of an independent federation, to see whether such a grouping is likely to be viable in its own right economically, and to see how it can be done.
  Professor Lewis's activities have been extremely helpful and we are examining in the Colonial Office what is proposed. We in this country have an obligation towards these territories, whether or not they federate. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point. We are right to examine very carefully the economics and finances as well as the politics of any proposed federation.
  I am glad to confirm that the word "administration" in this context is a little different from the normal use we give it in this Committee. It means current expenditure and the continuation of the normal grant in aid towards the general budgets of these islands, including purely administrative matters such as salaries but also including general current expenditure which the Governments there incur.
  Mr. Chapman: Not precluding some development aid which can be regarded as aid for developing administrative services?
  Mr. Maudling: That is rather a different point. We give grants in aid of the budgets as well as development aid, and this Bill is concerned with current expenditure. Development lies outside this Bill. Nothing that we do now will upset that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(EXPENSES.)
  The expenses incurred under the last foregoing section by the Secretary of State shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, and any increase attributable to an Order in Council under this Act in sums payable under any other enactment out of moneys so provided or out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom shall be paid out of moneys so provided or out of that Fund, as the case may be.—[Mr. Maudling.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move. That the Clause be read a Second time.
  In a sense, this Clause is consequential on the other new Clause in that it provides that should I use the powers given to me by the preceding Clause to make grants the money shall be found by the normal methods. I hope that the Committee will approve that proposal.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments: as amended, considered.
  10.21 p.m.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I do not think that there is anything substantial which I can add to what I said on Second Reading. In a sense, this is a sad Bill, because it is the end of an experiment in government which we all wished well. But I think, and observations have shown, that this is the only practical course which we can now take. Upon this foundation I hope that we can build substantial progress for the peoples of the West Indies.
  10.22 p.m.
  Mr. Healey: As the Colonial Secretary has said, the Bill has always been unwelcome on both sides of the House, but we recognise it as inevitable and we recognise the necessity for its rapid passage, although many of us have felt that it was drafted a good deal more hastily than it should have been.
  I must confess that now that we have considered it carefully in Committee for half a day, I have found that the drafting has been sometimes clumsy, often obscure, and always more harsh and negative than it need have been. I regret that the Government have not found it possible to accept any of our Amendments, although I welcome the many assurances which have been given in lieu of acceptance of Amendments by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend.
  I regret that the Government have not at any stage given us any clear idea of their own ideas about the future. I recognise, as everybody must, that the prime consideration in this respect must

  169
  be the wishes of the people living in the territories concerned. I cannot help feeling that a slightly more positive lead from this country would have been accepted and desirable in the smaller islands.
  I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), that whether or not it is decided that the small islands should form a federation, the Government and the House as a whole should recognise this country's historic obligations to the Caribbean. We accept the Bill as a regrettable necessity and for that reason we shall not oppose it.
  10.24 p.m.
  Mr. Chapman: Like all other hon. Members, I have accepted the Bill with sorrow. The need now is to look to the future. The one lesson that we have to send to the West Indies is that no matter how much we may try here to get agreement on future forms of government in the Caribbean, what really matters must be done out there. That is to get a feeling that everyone in the West Indies, or at least most people, has a stake in whatever new kind of Government is created.
  This is the failure we have uncovered in our experiences of the last few years. We have tried there a federation in which
  170
  no one was vitally interested. We never got them to that point. The main lesson we have to send out to the Eight is that if they want a federation to be arranged under the Clauses of this Bill let them by all means put it up in the first place to Her Majesty's Government, but let them also try to get popular interest and enthusiasm for it in their own islands. That would be the surest way of seeing ahead and ensuring that it would not founder as the present Federation is now doing.
  Here there was an area ripe for a big federation. We have lost that opportunity for the time being and we have to go back to something smaller. This time let us have it on the firm foundations of consent and enthusiasm among the actual participants. That is the big message we should send which will avoid failure when we try again, as I hope we shall in the very near future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, in Amendments.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe discharged from the Estimates Committee; Mr. Cyril Bence added.—[Mr. Hughes Young.]

EDUCATION (MINOR WORKS PROGRAMMES)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hamilton.]
10.26 p.m.
Mr. Edward Short: I wish to raise tonight very briefly the question of the cuts made by the Minister of Education in the minor works programmes of local education authorities. On this occasion, I speak not only for my own local education authority but for those in the whole of the north of England, the five northern counties. I have taken the trouble to do some research into this matter and to get figures for all the local authorities in the five northern counties.
Minor works programmes are the capital items of expenditure by local education authorities up to about £20,000 in value. The main headings under which work is done in the minor works programmes include, first, the provision of additional accommodation. In these days of rising birth rate, this first priority for minor works is extremely important. It is largely under two sub-headings that this is done. First, there is the provision of portable, or I think the technical term is "demountable," classrooms. I do not know what we are doing to the English language in these days, but that is the terminology. It means classrooms which can be assembled and, when the need for them is no longer there, taken to pieces. Secondly, the provision of additional accommodation concerns permanent extensions to existing buildings in accordance with the development programmes. Then there are sanitation schemes, especially in the deep rural areas, and the provision of heating and lighting in the rural areas and the adaptation and replacement of old village schools.
Among the miscellaneous items come the provision of playing fields, improvements to clinics, school meals, further education projects, class-room accommodation, new electric wiring, the provision of larger windows in dark schools and, in one school, the removal of four
172
old chimney breasts in classrooms in order to make more accommodation. Items such as these are of considerable importance in the five northern counties for two reasons. The first is that the five counties have a very large number of old, insanitary substandard schools in the rural areas. Secondly, old industrial cities such as Newcastle, Sunder land, Middlesbrough. Darlington and South Shields have a terrible legacy of schools dating almost from the days of the school board, when the conception was to put about 500 children on to an acre of ground in the middle of a city. In my constituency, there is a whole string of these schools stretching from one end to the other. They are completely building-locked sites. They are old and extremely dark, and the windows are high so that the children cannot look out of them. They are extremely inconvenient for modern educational practice.
Bearing in mind that educationists nowadays regard the environment of education as probably just as important as the content, and some say more important than the content, it is surely equally important to modernise old schools as it is to erect wonderful new schools on the peripheries of our cities or in the suburbs. But the old insanitary buildings which many villages are still using, by providing a depressing atmosphere for education, in my view do positive harm to the child's attitude towards education. I am certain that this has an effect on the attitude later towards further education. I think that environment is extremely important.
The timetable of what happened in respect of this educational provision started on 28th January, 1960. The Minister of Education answered a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving) about minor works, in which he said,
"… there may be ways of improving our procedures in this fiel"
—he was referring to approving minor works—
"and I shall have an opportunity to discuss this with the representatives of the Local Authority Associations next week."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1960; Vol. 616, c. 60.]
Presumably as a result of those discussions with the local authority

173
associations, in May, 1960, the Minister of Education asked the local authorities to submit a programme of minor works for two years, 1961·62 and 1962·3. They did so, and in December of that year, 1960, the Minister announced the allocations. Broadly speaking, though it is difficult to generalise, each local authority was allocated about two-thirds of the programme for which it had asked. For example, South Shields asked for a programme of £91,000 and was allocated £60,000. It varied, but over the whole of the five counties it was about two-thirds.
But in July, 1961, the Minister suddenly announced—and it came as a bombshell to local authorities—a moratorium on minor works. He said that the approval was revoked except for the minor works in the two-year programme for which contracts had been let. He said that he would approve a further allocation in October, 1961, so that there was a standstill from July to October except for the jobs for which contracts had been given out.
Most local authorities, as far as I can see—this is the average in the North—had let contracts for roughly 10 per cent. of their allocation. This, too, varied. Sunderland—my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is present in the Chamber—had done rather well in letting contracts, but the average was about 10 per cent. For example, the North Riding of Yorkshire had let contracts for about £8,000 of work out of the £90,000 which it had been allocated for the year.
The revised allocations in the North were as follows—and I do not want to bore the House with many figures, but I must give some: in the North Riding the old allocation was £210,000, for the two years, and this was reduced to £75,000 for the eighteen months; Sunderland, from £110,000 reduced to £30,000—but Sunderland had done rather well in letting contracts; South Shields, reduced from £60,000 to £20,000; Cumberland, reduced from £220,000 to £80,000; Darlington, reduced from £40,000 to £20,000; Northumberland, reduced from £450,000 to £150,000; Durham, reduced from £785,000 to £220,000—they had a severe crack in Durham; Middlesbrough, reduced from £45,000 to £25,000; and
174
Newcastle, reduced from £170,000 to £60,000. This represents a cut of over 50 per cent. in almost every case. In all fairness, I must make it clear that there were two alleviations. First, work put out to contract could be continued; and secondly, works costing less than £2,000 were not to count against the allocation.
I have gone into the position carefully. It is difficult to assess the effect of those two factors in the whole of the North, but, as far as I can see, they possibly reduce the Minister's cut from just over 50 per cent. to just over 30 per cent. I think that in saying that I am being quite fair. What it all amounts to, therefore, is that the Minister has made a cut of just over 30 per cent. in the sort of items that I enumerated at the beginning of my speech—for example, new sanitary arrangements, portable classrooms, bigger windows, and so on. There is so much ground to be made up in education in Northern England that a cut of 30 per cent. is extremely serious.
On 17th October, last year, the Director of Education for Durham—which, as I have said, was hit probably harder than anybody else—wrote to the Minister:
"I am directed to register a strong protest against the amount allocated, which represents a very serious curtailment in the authority's expenditure on the large improvement projects and complete adaptations of the smaller, substandard schools, thereby upsetting the authority's planning in connection with minor building programmes and necessitating a reversion to the policy of piecemeal improvements."
The Director of Education for Middlesbrough is on record as saying that
"The main effect of the reduced size of the programme is that the authority have been obliged to defer remodelling of older school premises."
the sort of premises of which there are many in my constituency.
The Director of Education for Northumberland, which has a great deal of work to do, said this:
"Prior to the cut, the authority had programmed 66 minor capital works. Under the revised allocation, it will only be possible to carry out ten projects in the period to 31st March, 1963."
That is, ten projects as against the 66 which the authority wanted to carry out.

175
The modernising and revitalising of older schools which still have a useful life can make an enormous contribution to the mounting educational programme which faces the country. It is not only niggardly and mean to make these cuts, because the total saving is relatively small, but, in my view, it is much against the national interest to do so. It is, however, in keeping with the central theme of Conservative policy to permit unlimited expenditure in the private sector of the economy and, at the same time, to starve the public services.
If any hon. Member wants a visual illustration of that, the best way of getting it is to stand on the Terrace of this House and to look out at the new multiple-storey office buildings going up all over the place and then to look immediately in front at the hospital, which was bombed during the war and still has not been rebuilt. That is an example of over-provision in the private sector, and under-provision in the public sector.
What is happening, therefore, is in line with Conservative Party policy. This policy and many other aspects of Government policy represent a return to the 1930s, a return to pre-war Toryism. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) said earlier, the Prime Minister's visit to Stockton today is psychologically interesting, because it is a symptom of what is happening to the policy of his Government.
10.39 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I wish, briefly, to say that I am sure all the local education authorities in the North-East will be greatly obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) for taking his opportunity to raise this matter this evening. I have every sympathy for the Parliamentary Secretary. As he knows, he ought not to be replying to the debate; it should be a Treasury Minister. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman realises that the only merit about these economies is that, from a Treasury point of view, they are easy to impose. From an education point of view, they are quite disastrous. They cause the maximum irritation and
176
frustration amongst local authorities, who do not know where they are.
The Minister has, at any rate, to be congratulated on introducing the new procedures before the Treasury decided to impose these cuts. They cause an enormous waste of time to the scarce manpower employed by the local authorities, and they are scandalously unfair. I am sure that all hon. Members, when-even they enjoy a visit to a new school, are more acutely conscious of the contrast between the new and the old, and this is equally true in rural areas as it is in constituencies like my own in urban areas. One thing that I always feel when visiting a new school is that we must do all we can to improve the older schools—and this has been done dramatically by many authorities. This is just the sort of work that is now held up.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will be aggrieved to hear me say this, but it is not a question of materials and building labour not being available. The materials and labour are there, but they are being employed on other jobs. It is regrettable that this should happen. It is quite difficult to get the work going at full speed again, and I hope that the Minister will feel encouraged by the fact that my hon. Friend has vigorously raised this matter tonight, and will exercise, in turn, all the pressure he can against this automatic economy exercised by the Treasury to the great disadvantage of everyone interested in education.
Dame Irene Ward Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Thompson.
Dame Irene Ward: I am sorry that I cannot "have a go."
10.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): Had my hon. Friend intimated that that was her pleasure, I have no doubt that she would have managed to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Until we came to the few closing minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), I was minded to congratulate him on the content of his remarks and to thank him for providing the

177
House with an opportunity, however brief, for considering what is undoubtedly one of the most important aspects, of education.
I share his views almost completely, and also those expressed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), as to the importance of this part of the school building programme, if that is how one should describe it. I share his views of the need to do all we can to improve the conditions in some of our older schools. I am a north countryman myself, and although this is not the occasion to challenge the hon. Member's claim to speak for the whole of the north of England, I have shared his experience in visiting many old towns and cities in the North and seeing some of the problems which they still have to solve in providing the standards of education we all now seek to achieve.
The minor works programme has been very high in the catalogue of important enterprises to which my right hon. Friend has set his hand. I assure the House that it was not lightly that he accepted these restrictions on expenditure for minor capital projects, but the story would be incomplete if we did not consider the circumstances in which it became necessary to take the steps which have been described. In July last year, the Government decided that because of the state of the economy at the time it was necessary to take some steps—some important and far-reaching—to restrain public expenditure. We can have debates, as we have had, upon the wisdom of that decision, but the Government's decision was that that was essential in the national interest.
Education, one might reasonably have supposed—as being one of the biggest spending Departments within the whole public service—would be called upon to make some contribution to that reduction in public expenditure. My right hon. Friend carried out very lengthy negotiations on this matter and at the end of the day the educational building programme was called upon to make a contribution limited in size, by way of a reduction where it would do least lasting damage to the programme.
The House knows that the building programme in education is in two parts—the major building programme, for providing us with our new schools and
178
colleges all over the country, and the minor works programme. To have touched the major works programme would have seriously damaged the education system and the progress which we have been making in the last ten or twelve years, and my right hon. Friend decided that it would be wrong to interfere with that part of the work. There we have slow moving long-range jobs which require a lot of planning and take a lot of time to bring to completion. In the minor works programme, which has been growing very rapidly over the years, as I shall show, there is a quick moving programme capable of adjustment up and down as the economic circumstances of the country dictate, and so it was in this sphere that my right hon. Friend thought it right that the cut should be imposed.
It is wrong to imagine that today everything is as black as it was many years ago and that nothing has been done to improve these old schools. I know that there are still a great many jobs to be done to benefit the schools and improve the climate in which children receive their early education. A great deal has been accomplished in the last eight years. As near as I can get accurate figures, because there is a great deal of difference in the interpretation, about £110 million has been spent on minor works in the schools of the country. This must have effected a considerable improvement. In addition, there is a separate minor works programme for the aided schools within the system.
Meanwhile we have had, and continue to have, the largest building programme ever in the history of the country. Even today, after we have gone through the process of examining and rearranging public expenditure, the major schools building programme, taking all its parts, is larger than at any time before, including the period immediately prior to the recent cuts. So it is wrong to take the view that educational building is going into some sort of decline and that this is a symptom of something else that is seriously wrong. The truth is that many local education authorities have been finding that the burden on their resources for both major and minor works programmes has been so great that they have been unable to keep pace,

179
and some of the authorities to which the hon. Gentleman referred have found it impossible in the past to undertake all the work within the allocation allowed to them by my Department.
Mr. Short: All the authorities except one have protested about the cuts.
Mr. Thompson: My right hon. Friend is glad that there has been this demand for more work of this kind. I stated a simple fact, that in recent years many of the authorities referred to by the hon. Gentleman have not found it possible—I make no complaint or criticism, I merely state the fact—to carry out work within the allocation alloted to them by my Department. This is symptomatic of the troubles which we were trying to put right during the operations of last summer. Local authorities which are heavily overloaded with public work find that if they carry out many of the minor works they draw heavily on their skilled and scarce professional staffs to the detriment of other work of one kind or another. Unless we get the programmes in some sort of balance within the capacity of the local authorities and the building industry to execute, a great deal will go wrong.
Mr. Willey: I am not sure on what ground the hon. Gentleman is making his case. Is he now saying that the Minister made representations to the Treasury that this programme should be cut? I thought that it was the other way round.
Mr. Thompson: I do not see how that comment could arise out of anything that I have said. It would be the same either for the Treasury or my right hon. Friend. I do not think that I am revealing any Cabinet secret when I say that my right hon. Friend would not be the most enthusiastic cutter of the educational building programme.
If we add all these programmes together, it would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman—or for the House in general —to close his eyes to the fact that the local authority departments themselves and the building industry as a whole are today carrying as heavy a load as they can possibly bear. Certainly, it is true that some local authorities have not been able to keep pace with that side of their building work—
Mr. Short: How can that be one of the reasons, when the Minister approved these works only six months before they were cut?
Mr. Thompson: That remark, again, cannot possibly conflict with what I have said. It was when the economy showed signs of the strain that compelled the Government to take action that this programme, among others, had to submit to some adjustment—
Dame Irene Ward: Are we to understand from what my hon. Friend says that the actual proposals put in by the local authorities were in excess of what they themselves were able to carry out? Honestly, this is quite puzzling, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite; we do not know on What basis my hon. Friend is really arguing.
Mr. Thompson: It cannot be any secret from my hon. Friend that local authorities do sometimes fall into the trap of putting forward programmes that are larger than they expect to get. That is a phenomenon familiar not only to the minor but to the major works programme, too. The Minister must judge What the available resources will allow him to authorise—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend, in her enthusiasm to support the hon. Member opposite, must allow me to make my case—
Dame Irene Ward: It is the North I am supporting.
Mr. Thompson: My right hon. Friend authorised the larger programme at the beginning of the period. It became necessary to make a change. The House may have many views on whether the necessity was quite as great as we said it was, or whether it was someone else's fault, but the Government made this judgment of the situation. My right hon. Friend judged that the minor works programme was the one that was most capable of variation from time to time, and it was in that programme that he made his adjustment, not just leaving the major programme going on under the impetus that had been established but seeing that it went even faster.
I therefore claim that the educational building programme as a whole has come extremely well out of the difficulty in which the country found itself during

181
last year, and whilst we share the views that have been expressed about the need to press on, when we can, with all these minor projects, we must keep our enterprise within the limits of our resources, otherwise the whole of the jobs on which we are embarked, which are very great and very important, will suffer.
I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman, and the whole of the north of England—if he will take back a message to his "empire"—will be assured that
182
as soon as it is possible for us to do better in this part of the work we will endeavour to do so, recognising, as we do, how important it is for the children who will be educated in schools less good than some of the new ones we are now putting up.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fatstock Guarantee Scheme (Doncaster Firm)
  Fatstock Guarantee Scheme (Doncaster Firm)
  Farming Net Income
  Farming Net Income
  Home-Grown Sugar
  Home-Grown Sugar
  Pig Industry Development Authority (Levy)
  Pig Industry Development Authority (Levy)
  Fowl Pest, Herefordshire
  Fowl Pest, Herefordshire
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  West Indian Immigrants (National Assistance)
  West Indian Immigrants (National Assistance)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  National Assistance
  National Assistance
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Steel Industry (Future)
  Steel Industry (Future)
  Fuel Consumption
  Fuel Consumption
  Pipe-Lines
  Pipe-Lines
  Gas and Electricity Boards (Net Surpluses)
  Gas and Electricity Boards (Net Surpluses)
COAL
  Opencast Mining, Dearne Valley
  Opencast Mining, Dearne Valley
  National Coal Board (Finance)
  National Coal Board (Finance)
  Production Costs and Pithead Prices
  Production Costs and Pithead Prices
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Gatwick Airport (Hotel Accommodation)
  Gatwick Airport (Hotel Accommodation)
  Abbotsinch (Runways)
  Abbotsinch (Runways)
  Airways Corporations (Finance)
  Airways Corporations (Finance)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Midwives (Recruitment)
  Midwives (Recruitment)
  Lung Cancer
  Lung Cancer
  Smallpox Suspect
  Smallpox Suspect
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Nurses and Midwives (Deputation)
  Nurses and Midwives (Deputation)
  Pay Claims (Arbitration)
  Pay Claims (Arbitration)
  General Practitioners (Central Pool)
  General Practitioners (Central Pool)
  Mental After-Care (Residential Homes)
  Mental After-Care (Residential Homes)
HOSPITALS
  Mentally Subnormal Children, Sheffield
  Mentally Subnormal Children, Sheffield
  Middlesex Hospitals (Obstetric Cases)
  Middlesex Hospitals (Obstetric Cases)
  Bridgwater General Hospital
  Bridgwater General Hospital
  FISHERY LIMITS (MOSCOW DISCUSSIONS)
  FISHERY LIMITS (MOSCOW DISCUSSIONS)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Rent Control
  Rent Control
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Civil Service (Pensions)
  Civil Service (Pensions)
  Local Authorities (Repayments of Capital)
  Local Authorities (Repayments of Capital)
  Rate Burden
  Rate Burden
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
  Children, Woolwich (Secondary Education)
  Children, Woolwich (Secondary Education)
CENTRAL AFRICA
  Loans and Grants
  Loans and Grants
ELECTRICITY
  Charges and Costs of Production
  Charges and Costs of Production
GAS
  Charges and Costs of Production
  Charges and Costs of Production

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

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, and printed (pursuant to Standing Order 44A): Bill read a
SOUTH AFRICA BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last, and printed (pursuant to Standing Order 44A): Bill read a.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL
2.36 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, in rising to move that this Report be now received, I hope that your Lordships will not think that I am trespassing unduly on your Lordships' time, but although a number of points raised an Committee stage are dealt with by the Amendments now before your Lordships, there are
2
one or two other important points on which I promised your Lordships that I would consult my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I think that it would be convenient if I told the House the result of this consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me to make sure that full information about the controls we propose to operate would be available overseas well before the date on which Part I of the Bill was brought into force. I can give satisfactory assurances to the noble Lord on this point. We certainly do not want any immigrants to arrive at our ports with a justifiable sense of grievance because they have not learned of the controls and have had no opportunity, if they are coming for employment, to obtain the necessary vouchers. The Government have various plans in hand for publicity both at home and overseas. A leaflet is being prepared which will make quite clear when the controls come into force and give a good deal of information about them. This leaflet will be freely available overseas and I hope that it will be widely read and help to remove any misunderstandings that still linger on.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Viscount for that information and ask him whether he can give us more indication of the sort of notice that will be available? I understand that many immigrants come over on "package deals" by paying deposits and I should not like them to lose their deposits.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as to the dates proposed for bringing into operation that Part of the Bill, I think after my inquiries, so far as they go, that the time will be ample, but if I can give the noble Lord any further information, I will write to him about it. In the same connection, I have drawn my right honourable friend's attention to the wish expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that the final version of the Instructions to immigration officers should be made public, so that again everyone might know the policy which we propose to follow. Your Lordships will be glad to know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary proposes that the final version of these Instructions shall be published as a White Paper shortly after the Bill becomes law.
May I take this opportunity of saying that I have also drawn my right honourable friend's attention to the legitimate worry of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about unnecessary delay at the ports and airports as a result of the operation of the Bill? Obviously, I cannot promise that no delay will occur and that no one will ever be kept waiting longer than the delay at present, but I can assure the House that we are studying how to reduce delays to the minimum, especially where genuine visitors are concerned, and I do not believe that the position will be anything like so bad as the noble Lord feared.
LORD REA: My Lords, does that mean that the immigration authorities will take the responsibility for looking after these people during any interval which may unavoidably occur, or must they make their own arrangements about accommodation and so forth?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that will depend on the circumstances. I hope that there will not be any delays which will necessitate their having to find lodgings for the night before they see an immigration officer. I also hope that I am not being too optimistic about that. Of course, if any difficulty arises, that will have to be dealt with on its own merits.
So far as deportation is concerned, there is only one point, though a very important one, which I undertook to consider. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin,
4
suggested that there ought to be some restriction on the type of offence for which a court could recommend deportation. I should like to tell the noble Lord that we had considered this point before the last debate and we have considered it again. May I put it this way? We should all agree, as an abstract proposition that the court should not recommend deportation for minor offences; but when we try to set out what we mean by "minor offences", we run into great difficulties.
I have considered whether it should be offences which are punishable only by a certain period of imprisonment—for example, three months—but that would prevent us from dealing in this way with repeated offences of soliciting and with first offences of brothel-keeping, for which a court might well feel that deportation was the correct procedure. Alternatively, we considered excluding cases of a certain class. But if we were to exclude, for example, road traffic offences, it might well create the impression that we were failing to take them seriously; and there are certain road traffic offences the seriousness of which might be so great that the courts might well feel that this was the correct procedure. After careful consideration, we feel that what the Bill suggests—namely, offences punishable by imprisonment is the best criterion.
I should like to assure the noble Lord that we have considered his point, and I am sorry that it has not brought any further result. I hope that this is a useful method of telling the House because, although I have written to all the noble Lords explaining the point, the House does not know that. I thought it would be convenient that your Lordships should know that the points have been considered and that in regard to most of them I have been able to meet some of the fears expressed.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am glad that the Government have decided to publish the final version of the Instructions that the Home Secretary will give to immigration officers. I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor—and in this I am sure I speak for other

5
noble Lords—for his courtesy in informing me before the Report stage that he had consulted the Home Secretary and that the Home Secretary had agreed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Refusal of admission and conditional admission]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (4), to leave out:
" or to a medical inspector "
and to substitute:
" on the advice of a medical inspector or, if no such inspector is available, of any other duly qualified medical practitioner ".
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down as a result of the debate during the Committee stage on an Opposition Amendment which would have removed the power of the immigration officer to refuse admission on medical grounds except on the advice of a medical inspector. I made clear that the power to do so would have been used only in exceptional circumstances. There was general acceptance during the Committee stage debate that there might be circumstances in which an immigration officer might reasonably act on the advice of a doctor, particularly a ship's doctor, who had not been appointed a medical inspector, though I think the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, had some doubts about this point. I undertook to discuss the point with the Home Secretary and, as a result, this Amendment has been tabled.
The effect of the Amendment is that the immigration officer may refuse admission on medical grounds only on the advice of a medical inspector or, if such inspector is not available, of a duly qualified medical practitioner. The wording emphasises that the normal course will be to consult the medical inspector, and an assurance can be given that it would be only in unusual circumstances that the opinion of another doctor—for example, a ship's doctor—would be obtained. This could happen, as I think I mentioned, on an Atlantic crossing or if the immigration authorities were informed of the medical condition of a seaman. I want to make it clear that the Amendment does not mean that the Ministry of Health will not make every effort to see that medical inspectors are available at all
6
ports where a number of immigrants may arrive. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, leave out (" or to a medical inspector ") and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his kindness in thinking over this point and for putting down this Amendment, which completely meets the points I had in mind.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.48 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new Clause:
Appeals to immigration boards
" .—(1) Where admission to enter the United Kingdom is refused the immigrant may appeal to the immigration board and that board shall, if they are satisfied that the immigrant should be admitted, give leave for the immigrant to be so admitted and leave so given shall operate as the leave of the immigration officer.
(2) An immigration board shall be set up at suitable ports of entry and shall consist of three persons summoned in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State under this Act out of a list approved by him for the port comprising fit persons having magisterial, business or administrative experience."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I would first say that I do not feel I need apologise to the House for raising once more what I regard as perhaps the most important Amendment to this Bill. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and many others have expressed their great reluctance at having to introduce this Bill, and it has created a good deal of feeling in the Commonwealth. In my view, perhaps the most important Amendment of the Bill which could have the effect of reconciling the members of the Commonwealth to its provisions would be a provision enabling an immigrant who is refused immigration to this country to appeal to some tribunal. Various Amendments on this point were moved in another place, and I moved one on the Committee stage in this House, but none was accepted by the Government. Nevertheless, I feel it is just worth while trying once more, in the hope that wiser counsels will prevail and that the Government may be induced to reconsider the matter.
On the Committe stage, the noble and learned Viscount, who was the main spokesman against the Amendment, gave two reasons why it was not acceptable to have an appeal. The first, as he described it, was one of principle; and the principle, as I understand it, was that the question of admission into this country is one of policy for which the Home Secretary is responsible; that the policy of the Home Secretary is laid down quite clearly in the Bill and is elaborated in the Instructions to the immigration officers; that the immigration officers are the agents of the Home Secretary in carrying out the policy; that he accepts responsibility for that, and that any appeal provided in this Bill would in effect be an appeal against the policy of the Home Secretary. I hope I have correctly interpreted this statement of policy.
I understand the point of view of the noble and learned Viscount, and it may well be that in a world entirely governed by logical considerations this would be true. But in fact there are many instances in other Departments where a decision is given on behalf of the Minister, a decision on policy laid down, and where an appeal has been provided. I think I quoted on the Committee stage the cases of National Insurance, National Assistance, pensions, and so on. In all these cases scales are laid down, and conditions of payment or entitlement are provided by Statute or Regulations. Exactly the same thing happens as in the case of the immigration officers. The interpretation of the Statute and the Regulations is by an officer of the Department, who is deemed the agent of the Minister, but against whose decision nevertheless there is an appeal. But none of these analogies appears to convince the noble and learned Viscount or the Government, and I want therefore to bring forward an analogy which I think is much closer to the subject we are discussing. I will return to that in a moment.
The second point which the noble and learned Viscount put forward was one of administration and the difficulties that would arise if large numbers of immigrants who were refused admission decided to appeal—the question of appeal and the provision of accommoda-
8
tion. The noble and learned Viscount explained that there was no room in the prisons, and I presume there is no room in what we used to call the workhouses—we now call them institutions—and there is probably no room in any other public buildings of that kind. In fact, it would not be workable. I reply to that, if it is right that there should be an appeal—if immigrants ought to have an appeal against the decision of an immigration officer—then, somehow, we ought to provide the means, and we should not allow pure administration to defeat what is a right and proper thing to do. I hope the Government will still recognise that if it can possibly be done, consistent wtih the question of principle, then this appeal ought to be granted. I want to emphasise—and I cannot emphasise it too strongly—that in all the correspondence I have received, and in all the representations on the part of the Commonwealth that have been made to me and, I have no doubt, to many other noble Lords about this Bill, the thing to which the greatest importance is attached is the right of appeal.
I want now to come to the question of principle. I gave certain analogies, but I admit quite freely that the noble and learned Viscount, if he wished to do so, would easily find some way of distinguishing between the cases that I put forward as analogous and the present case. But I think I have an exact case in point, and that is under the provisions of the Aliens Act, 1905. It is analogous in one sense in that it is one of the last Acts of the Conservative Government of 1895 to 1905, and I imagine that this must be one of the last Acts that this Government will be passing. It is curious that in both cases it is an Act to exclude people from this country. But I think it is an exact parallel from another point of view. Under the Aliens Act, 1905, there was actually provided a tribunal of appeal or, rather, a series of tribunals. Under Section 1 of the 1905 Act there was provision that tribunals should be set up at each of the ports of entry. These tribunals were to consist of three people, and they were to deal with all appeals against refusal to permit aliens to enter.
In my Amendment I have tried to follow the language of the Act of 1905, so that the same kind of tribunals of appeal might be set up in this country.
I provide that they shall be appointed, as in the case of the 1905 Act, at each of the ports of entry. In my view, if you have a sufficient number of these tribunals it should not be difficult to find people to serve on them, and there need be no real delay in the appeals being heard. It should be possible to have the appeals heard within a day or two of admission being refused.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Could he say, while dealing with this board that he wants to set up, whether or not the people who comprise it are to be paid for their services?
LORD SILKIN: In the case of the 1905 Act they were not paid.
LORD DERWENT: What about these tribunals, with more people coming in? Are they to be paid?
LORD SILKIN: I should have thought that there would be no difficulty in appointing a number of tribunals of three people who would be prepared to serve. I want to say a word about the number of people who would be coming in in a moment. If I forget, I hope the noble Lord will remind me, because I do want to deal with that point.
The value of having these tribunals at the ports of entry would be, as I say, that there need be no serious delay in dealing with the appeals. The Aliens Act was in operation until the outbreak of war in 1914, when it was discontinued, and a new Act was passed in 1916. But while it was in operation for eight or nine years there were a number of appeals. I think the House may be interested in knowing the number. There were altogether, between 1906 and 1910—that is, the first four years—5,000-odd exclusions, of whom just over half appealed, and of those who appealed a little less than one in three were allowed admission. Of the total number, that is, as compared with the exclusions, about a quarter were allowed in. I have not the figures from 1910 to 1914 readily available, but I have seen them and I understand that they are not very different from those to which I refer. Between the years 1906 and 1913 there were 9,421 exclusions, of whom about half appealed. Of those who appealed the appeals of just over one-third were allowed; and the final rejections were
10
7,600. At any rate this machinery appeared to work until the outbreak of war in 1914, and it worked to the complete satisfaction of the country and of the people who were concerned. So far as I know, there were no serious complaints at all about the administration.
Some fears have been expressed that there would be vast numbers of cases to be heard, which would be quite unmanageable. The noble and learned Viscount has himself, to some extent, provided the answer, because by publishing the final Instructions to immigration officers, immigrants will be made fully aware of the circumstances in which admission will be permitted and of the extent of the immigration officers' discretion. As I mentioned before, fares from the Commonwealth are very high and immigrants are not likely to come to this country if they believe that the probability is that they will be excluded. Therefore this publication of the Instructions will be of great help. I think, also, that the arrangements which the noble and learned Viscount announced of information which will be provided in the various Commonwealth countries—that is, advice for prospective immigrants—will deter anybody who is unlikely to be admitted to this country under the Instructions that will be issued by the Home Secretary.
The probabilities are that only those who feel they have a reasonable chance of being admitted under the discretion that will be given to the immigration officers will actually come, and that appeals will be only of those who feel that the discretion has been wrongly exercised within the instructions of the Home Secretary. I cannot imagine that there will be so many as to make this unmanageable, but I want to repeat that even if the numbers are larger than I think, and even if it involves some form of daily payment to those who serve on these committees, that that should not constitute a reason for refusing this right of appeal if we regard the right of appeal as a proper thing to give.
I come back to the point of principle, which, in fact, the noble and learned Viscount put forward, which was really a point on administration: that, having given the Home Secretary powers, is it right that there should be an appeal against them.? Curiously enough, only

11
last Thursday when we were discussing the Pipe-lines Bill the noble and learned Viscount, in answer to an Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, actually put forward a proposal which will, in effect, provide an appeal against the decision of a Minister. I was rather surprised, and I would be against it in that particular case because there had already been an appeal on the part of an objector to an order, but I do not want to make too much of it. This is not an absolute principle; it is something into which we have made an inroad from time to time; but if the noble and learned Viscount will tell me that he does not regard this as an inroad into this principle I will accept it from him, because I do not want to make a false point and spoil the effect of my argument. I rest really on the fact that this is something which has been done, which operated under our laws for ten years and which, so far as I know, might still have been operating if the War of 1914–18 had not come along and the Act been amended. It is on that basis that I should like to put my case.
I hope that the Government, even at this late hour, will feel that in a serious matter of this sort which is troubling all of us, this is the method to adopt. We all want to feel that if we must take the painful course laid down by this Bill we should, so far as it is at all possible, carry the Commonwealth with us. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not stand on their pride in this matter but will be prepared to look at this matter once more. If they can possibly see their way to agree to a form of appeal against exclusion, I am sure they will have done a great deal towards making the Bill palatable to the Commonwealth and to helping to cement our ties with them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this is one of the most important aspects of the Bill, and although your Lordships will remember that we had a full and lively discussion on the point in the Committee stage I do not for one moment resent the matter's being put
12
down again. I only hope that your Lordships will go this part of the way with me: that I did, as the noble Lord has said, endeavour to deal with the question of principle, and I hope your Lordships will not take it as discourtesy if to-day I do not repeat all the arguments I put before your Lordships on the last occasion.
I want to say only one or two introductory remarks. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that life is not going to be so easy for him as he imagines when he thinks that this is one of the last measures of this Conservative Government, and I would remind him that if we go on increasing our majority, as I think we shall, either by three times as we did in 1955, or by twice as in 1959, or, say, by the mean of two-and-a-half times, we shall be coming near that great Liberal majority in 1906 which he had in mind.
To return to our discussion, as I say, the points that I made on the last occasion have not lost their validity. I will just put one point to the noble Lord, because he was a distinguished member of the Franks Committee. He will remember that one of the points which his colleagues certainly took very seriously—I do not think the noble Lord felt so strongly as his colleagues did—was when the Minister of Town and Country Planning disagreed with his inspector, a point on which we have had many interesting debates. Nobody whom I know, the Franks Committee or anyone else, has ever suggested that the Minister should not be allowed to disagree with his inspector on a point on which policy is involved.
However, the new point which the noble Lord has put before us to-day is the provision in the Aliens Act, 1905. He says that that was in operation from 1905 to 1914 and that it worked well. I venture to disagree with him, but in view of the argument which he has advanced, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a word about it. The historical background is rather interesting. After the barriers that existed during the Napoleonic wars, after Waterloo, we moved into that position of Victorian quietude when there were practically no provisions against entry into this country except some vestigial registration provisions which were allowed to fall into complete desuetude.

13
In the last years of the nineteenth century the alien problem became acute owing to the large number of aliens from Eastern Europe who settled in East London and other populous areas. The Aliens Act, 1905, was important in our legislative history in that it marked a decisive breach of the tradition that there should be no restriction on any human being to come and settle in this country.
What is important and relative to our consideration is that after that Act, for the first time, there came into being the Immigration Service. It is rather curious to look back at the provisions of this Act. It was, as your Lordships would expect, tentative and experimental, because I think everyone was reluctant to move, including the Government of the day. The control which was set up was far from effective. It applied only to steerage passengers and to ships which brought more than twenty such passengers. The grounds for exclusion were indigence, disease, criminal record or previous expulsion.
The control of foreign labour was no part of the purposes of the Act. An alien who had an offer of employment could be excluded only if he fell within one of the categories other than indigence. As I put it to your Lordships, one ought to bear in mind that the Immigration Service itself was just being born and no one would have cared to prophesy the rightly complimentary remarks that have been made about the present Immigration Service from all parts of both Houses. The Act made a provision for appeal machinery against the decisions of immigration officers to local boards composed of persons of standing and having magisterial business or administrative experience. The presence of a magistrate was desirable but not essential. The board had to be convened within 24 hours of notice of appeal and decision was by a simple majority.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has, of course, given the figures correctly, and I take the first period to which he referred, the five years between 1906 and 1910. During that period 5,156 aliens who arrived as steerage passengers were refused leave to land. Rather more than half, 2,731, exercised the right of appeal.
14
Over one-third of those who appealed, 980, were successful. The noble Lard rather suggested that that was important as showing that the immigration officers had been unreliable; but there is a different explanation. I am told that the practice was that some undesirable sweat shops in the East End used to send emissaries to the hearing of appeals, in particular those held by the London Immigration Board. These persons offered immediate employment to anyone who had been refused admission on the ground of insufficient means: and the Board then allowed the appeal, so that in practice it tended to become a sort of minor employment agency of a not very desirable kind.
The noble Lard suggested that the Act worked well. I am told that it did not, and the evidence that is given to me is that of Sir Edward Troup, a former Permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office; he made the comments in his book about the Home Office, and any of your Lordships who has happened to look at that book will not for a moment, I think, take the view that Sir Edward was a prejudiced bureaucrat. He was a man of great distinction; I think that is generally allowed. Sir Edward said that whatever opinion might be held of the merits or demerits of the policy of the Act, from the administrative point of view it was one of the worst that had ever been passed. The limitation of the control to vessels carrying more than twenty passengers and to those passengers who travelled steerage opened wide doors for the admission of undesirables. And even where the immigration officers found good reason to refuse leave to land, their decisions were constantly overridden in a way that made effective enforcement of the restrictions almost impossible. Sir Edward's considered comment was that for nine years the Home Office struggled to prevent the Act of Parliament from being reduced to a farce; and the best he could slay for it was that in spite of the ease with which individuals could evade its requirements it produced some effect in the direction of stopping the mass immigration of aliens.
The issue which we are considering to-day is very different. As I have explained, the Act of 1905 did not purport to control immigration of foreign

15
labour, whereas the Bill now before us is primarily designed to impose a control based on employment. Then, as I have said twice, the control was implemented by a service which was new and untried. To-day that service is experienced and expert; as is generally agreed, they will act on principles which are humane and which have been made public in the Instructions with which your Lordships have dealt so fully. I do not want to attach any weight to the question of the difficulty of securing persons to deal with the problem of the present scale or to emphasise again the differences which we should have at different ports.
But I come back, as I began, to the basic objection that an appellate machinery of this kind cannot really be reconciled with the responsibility of the Secretary of State to Parliament; and that principle is not vitiated because Parliament did not apply its mind to it in 1905 when the first rather hesitant step was taken in imposing an alien control. In those days the policy was so tenuous and tentative that the problem we have to-day did not really arise, because in turn it was much more difficult to see what was the policy for which the Home Secretary was responsible—it did not stand out with great clarity; but even so, it must have been frustrated by the procedure which is now suggested. That is why, for the reasons which I explained at considerable length, I still do not believe that in the measure we are now considering it is right to attempt to impose, side by side with the Home Secretary's responsibility to Parliament for the policy, some provision for appeal in individual cases. Therefore
I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the new clause.
I have considered how far the matter could be improved consistent with what I think is the principle which I have stated. I should like to mention one modification in the Instructions to immigration officers which we are proposing to make in order to meet a point which was expressed in the last debate, particularly by my right reverend friend the Lord Bishop of Liverpool. When an immigration officer decides that there is a prima facie case for refusal of admission, it is already the practice for him to obtain the authority of his superior officer before the decision to refuse admission is taken; and the senior officer will often himself interview the individual so that he can form an independent judgment on the facts. We are now proposing to formalise this practice, and to give specific instructions to the Immigration Service that no Commonwealth citizen shall be refused admission except on the authority of a chief immigration officer or an immigration inspector. The Instructions to immigration officers contained in the White Paper are being amended to make this clear.
I do not think your Lordships could expect me to go further within the principles which I have stated. I hope that that will go some way to meet the points, and that your Lordships will not accept this variation of the matter which, as I think the noble Lord said, has hitherto been turned down consistently whenever it has been put up.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Henderson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Kenswood, L.

Rea, L.

Amulree, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amwell, L.

Killearn, L.

Silkin, L.

Archibald, L.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Colwyn, L.

Listowel, E.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Faringdon, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williams, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Chesham, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Conesford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Bathurst, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Fortescue, E.

Bethell, L.

Crathorne, L.

Goschen, V.

Bossom, L.

Denham, L.

Grenfell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Derwent, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Carrington, L.

Devonshire, D.

Hampton, L.

Harris, L.

Mills, L.

Saltoun, L.

Hastings, L.

Milverton, L.

Somers, L.

Hawke, L.

Morrison, L.

Soulbury, V.

Howe, E.

Newall, L.

Spens, L.

Ironside, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Strang, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Perth, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Rathcavan, L.

Tenby, V.

MacAndrew, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

Margesson, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Twining, L.

Merrivale, L.

Salisbury, M.

Waleran, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 [Offences in connection with control of immigration]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN had given notice of his intention to move in subsection (2), to leave out "or has reasonable grounds for believing". The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount was good enough to write to me in advance of this Amendment and tell me why he is unable to accept it. Whilst I do not feel entirely convinced about it, I think that it would not be right to take up the time of the House in moving an Amendment which the Government were not prepared to accept. Therefore I do not propose to move it.
Clause 12 [Qualifications for citizenship by registration etc.]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR had given notice of two Amendments, the first of which was, in subsection (2), after "entitled" to insert "or qualified". The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I think it would be for your Lordships' convenience if we took Amendments No. 4 and 5 together because they are drafting Amendments. The first Amendment is designed to resolve a possible doubt as to the interpretation of Clause 12 (1) of the Bill as drafted. The subsection provides that a person shall not be entitled to registration if a deportation order, or a recommendation for deportation, is in force against him, but that he may in such circumstances be registered at the discretion of the Secretary of State if he would otherwise be entitled to be registered. Under Section 3 (2) of the British Nationality Act, 1958, certain classes of persons, in particular those serving in United Kingdom firms, are not entitled to, but only qualified for, registration, and owing to the way that the subsection is worded it is arguable that Clause 12 (1) as drafted would prevent the Secretary of State from exer-
18
cising his discretion in favour of such persons in the circumstances to which Clause 12 (1) refers. Accordingly, to put the matter beyond doubt, the Amendment makes clear that the Secretary of State has power in such circumstances to register a person who would otherwise be "entitled or qualified" for registration. The second Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 24, after (" entitled ") insert (" or qualified ").
Page 10, line 5, leave out from (" 1948 ") to end of line 8.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.37 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 17 to insert the following new clause:
Exemptions
" . The provisions of this Act shall not (unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary) apply to any Commonwealth citizen who has at any time served in any of the military or police forces of the Crown, or of any Commonwealth territory. A discharge or similar certificate in the possession of the applicant shall be taken as sufficient evidence of such service."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would make a special appeal not only to Her Majesty's Government but to the House to support the Amendment that I now move. I move it because I believe that a very great principle is at stake. We in this House, as part of Parliament, have regularly recognised what the Commonwealth has done for this country, not only in time of peace but in time of war. I need only remind the House of the Second World War. There are men in this House who may have fought in Burma, where they saw a Commonwealth Army embracing all races, religions, colour, fighting a common enemy. Others of us fought in the desert, and again there was a Commonwealth Empire Army combining all races, creeds and colours. In recent years there was the war in Korea, in which again

19
Commonwealth forces played their part. And in the Malayan campaign forces from New Zealand, Australia, Fiji and Nepal came to the aid of the British and the Malayan soldiers and policemen in fighting the common Communist enemy. More recently there was the fighting in Kenya.
Many of these Commonwealth regiments, in which we take a great pride, have earned long lists of Victoria Crosses and other decorations. Having myself been in the desert I know that apart from their common service, these men, when they died, were buried in a common grave; and to-day they remain in Commonwealth cemeteries in Egypt and throughout Burma. To-day, there are 33,000 men from our Colonies who are serving the Queen in various areas of the Commonwealth and in Europe—33,000 men who have voluntarily taken up service under the Crown. Apart from those men, there are, of course, the Dominion soldiers who in their Dominion armies still owe allegiance to Her Majesty. I would also remind the House that this country is recruiting men from our Colonies to come over to Europe in order to make up the shortages in manpower which we are unable ourselves to meet. I have said this, for I wish to place the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of every person in this House who fails to support this Amendment, because these people have voluntarily given service to the Crown and the Commonwealth.
I personally do not like this Bill. However, I would admit that there is some case for some control on immigration into this country, although I still do not like the way that Her Majesty's Government have gone about it. But it is their decision, which this House has approved, that this Bill should go through ands that this is the means by which control shall be established. The Government have said that there shall be some exceptions. In their Instructions to the immigration officers the Government have laid down the people who, if they satisfy the immigration authorities, shall be permitted to come in. We are glad to see that, but we must all recognise that these are concessions and not rights. The Irish, however, are to be treated differently. For administrative reasons, irrespective of
20
whether or not they are loyal to this country, they are to be freely admitted. So we have two sets of exceptions: there are the exceptions who, for administrative reasons, are to be freely admitted, and we have the other exceptions whom the Government have recognised. But they cannot argue that these are not concessions.
I come back to what I said earlier. We have had two World Wars and men and women of our Commonwealth and our Colonies have voluntarily given service to the Crown. I feel—and I hope that every Member of this House will equally feel—that these persons, who have voluntarily given service to the Crown, should be exempt by right and not by concession from the provisions of this Bill. As I said at the beginning, I place upon every person in this House the responsibility for saying—and for saying it not merely out of gratitude—to the men and women of our Commonwealth who serve the Crown and who have served the Crown, "In time of war, and equally in time of peace, you are brothers and are free to enter our country."
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has put on our shoulders what I think is a rather dangerous pledge. Let us remember that it is a long time since the war, and if every person in the Commonwealth
" who has at any time served in any of the military or police forces of the Crown "
has a complete right to enter into this land of ours, that surely cannot be right. I agree that those who served this country in action might be looked on in a very especial way, but just because they happen to have joined up a few moments, perhaps, before they applied to come to this country it cannot be right that they should all enter freely. I cannot see that the Amendment, as it is put down to-day, can possibly be accepted.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, omitted to mention some very important words in his own Amendment. He said that these men should be able to enter as of night,

21
but they certainly do not have that under his Amendment, because he has inserted the words—on which he has given no comment to the House nor has he explained them in any way:
"(unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary)".
I do not know what he thought those words would convey, nor do I know who is to judge whether or not the reasons are compelling. But the one thing which the Amendment does not give to the men for whom he spoke is an unqualified right to enter this country.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, everyone feels the sincerity and emotional content that has dictated the putting down of this Amendment, but I really want to make two points which have been made already by my noble friends: that the Amendment is drafted in a form which makes it quite inequable, as my noble friend Lord Conesford said; and, secondly, as my noble friend Lord Grenfell said, it is really far too wide—infinitely wider than the speech of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. When I am answering for Her Majesty's Government, I try not to rest my case on drafting points. I mention them now, because I think they will convince your Lordships of the infinite difficulty of dealing with this point by statutory provision.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford has pointed out, the reference to "compelling reasons to the contrary" gives no indication of who is to be the judge of those reasons, or even if they are to be reasons related to an individual or to a class of persons. On a minor matter, the question of the certificate in the possession of the applicant raises points of great difficulty, which anyone who has had anything to do with security over the last twenty years will realise without my putting them into words. But, as I have said. I do not want to base the argument on drafting, except to illustrate the difficulty.
As regards the policy, the Amendment really goes much too wide. It gives total exemption from the Act, including the deportation provisions, and although, as I indicated, the Government agree that ex-Service men merit special treatment, they do not think that they should have an absolute right of admission whatever
22
their background or record. Even more important, as my noble friend Lord Grenfell pointed out, the Amendment refers to any service at any time. The Government, as I said, recognise that war-time service in the Forces merits special treatment. They do not accept, however, that anyone who, say, served in the Canadian Police in 1930, the Fijian Police in Fiji in 1950, or the New Zealand or Nigerian Army in 1960 should, by reason of that fact, have a right of entry to the United Kingdom. As we have said, we reluctantly feel it is necessary to control immigration, and we believe that any special treatment must bear some relation either to service to the Allied cause in war or to service to the United Kingdom.
Now may I remind your Lordships of what we have done? The debate on the Committee stage was concentrated on paragraph 38 of the White Paper; but the most important privilege of ex-Servicemen is that the Ministry of Labour will give them priority in the issue of Category "C" vouchers. Most immigrants come here for employment, and the Minister of Labour's announcement means that they will automatically have top priority. In addition, as I pointed out on the last occasion—and this covers people not coming in for employment—under paragraph 38 an immigration officer, in dealing with a case falling within his discretion, should resolve any doubt, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary (that is clear in this case, because they are in the immigration officer's mind), in favour of an applicant who can satisfy him that he served in the Armed Forces of the Crown in war. That meets the point of my noble friend, Lord Grenfell. Thirdly, there is the instruction which my noble friend Lord Bathurst announced: that medical inspectors should not refuse such people admission on medical grounds arising from a war injury.
Now in order to help on this matter I want to go rather further. First of all, your Lordships will observe that, so far as concerns the people Lord Shepherd described as coming here and joining our Army as volunteers, so far as they come here on duty they are already exempt from control under Clause 17, subsection (2), and they are regarded as resident here, even if temporarily serving overseas; therefore their wives and

23
families have an assurance of admission under paragraph 24 of the White Paper. But the Government have now decided to go further and to extend the concessions relating to service in war to those who, since the end of the Second World War, have served the Crown as members of the home forces.
If the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would care to follow me on this point—because, irrespective of our differences, I think he will find it is of importance—and if he will look at Clause 17, subsection (5), he will find that it says:
" In this section ' the home forces ' means any of Her Majesty's forces, not being a Commonwealth force or a force raised under the law of any colony, protectorate or protected state; …"
That means, roughly speaking, those Forces which are under United Kingdom pay and command. This amendment will be made in the Instructions in the White Paper, and a corresponding change will be made by the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health in operating the arrangements I have just described. In other words, the three points I have just mentioned will apply to everyone (and, as respects the one in which they are mentioned, to the wives and families) in those Forces which have been under United Kingdom pay and command.
I am sure that that is the right way to deal with that point—namely, by way of instructions—and that we should not try (and that is why I emphasised the difficulties, and I am sure that is why my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford emphasised the difficulties) to put it in statutory form. The amended arrangements to be made by the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health constitute, together with the revised instructions for immigration officers, a sensible and workable means of meeting the anxieties which have been expressed.
There is one other point which, although it has not been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I desire to mention, because I want to be absolutely frank with him on this matter. On the last occasion he mentioned emergencies such as Malaya and Kenya and Cyprus. Again, the difficulty of dealing with that in statutory form is, first of all, that there have been 32 emer-
24
gencies in various parts of the colonial territories since 1945, under both Administrations. It is very difficult to deal with it in that way. Secondly, though I do not want to go into this matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will appreciate at once, local difficulties may be created for people by picking out certain things. I am sure he knows what is in my mind, and I leave it there.
Thirdly, there is the point that there are certain administrative difficulties. I want to assure the noble Lord that, whether we are right or wrong, there is no lack of sympathy; I think he saw my reaction at the time. Therefore, what we suggest is as follows. A number will be brought in under the home forces provision, because they will have been serving under United Kingdom pay and command. For those who are not, if they wish to claim special treatment they can apply for an entry certificate to the British authorities in their own country, and I know that all individual applications will be carefully and sympathetically considered. I felt it was only right that I should mention that point because otherwise I might, by my silence, have misled the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and I think he knows that that is the last thing I should voluntarily do.
I think my noble friend Lord Grenfell conveyed the feelings of all of us in the sympathy which he expressed. My Lords, it is one thing to express sympathy: it is another thing to translate that into an Act of Parliament; and I am sure the administrative measures which I have suggested are the best way of dealing with it. Therefore, I ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
3.59 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sure that the statement that the noble and learned Viscount has just made about the intention to introduce this Amendment will be welcomed by all sides of the House, but it makes it somewhat difficult to understand why the Government cannot Ito a little further. As I understand it, it is now the intention that all those who, since 1945, have served in the home forces as in the manner defined—that is, those who have been under United Kingdom pay and command—whether they have been

25
serving in an actual engagement or not, will not now be affected by the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, that is not it. The three administrative benefits that I mentioned will apply to anyone serving with the home forces. It is not a question of their being excluded from the Bill: it is a question of their having these three benefits, which I think I outlined to the House both at the Committee stage and to-day.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the Lord Chancellor, but I did understand that it was the intention to introduce an Amendment to Clause 17 which would have had the effect I mentioned. In any case, if these benefits are to be extended in this way to the classes of Servicemen and ex-Servicemen mentioned, then obviously that disposes, to a large extent, of the difficulties of certification to which the noble and learned Viscount referred. Because, obviously, at some stage, if these men are to benefit by the Amendment which the Government now propose to introduce they will have to produce a certificate; so the argument that that is an administrative difficulty vanishes.
I do not think there is any doubt that the criticism of this particular Amendment, with its inclusion of the words
" unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary ",
is a valid one, and would invalidate the Amendment in the sense of which we are now thinking. There is, of course, the fact, as the Lord Chancellor pointed out, that the words were taken from the Instructions to the immigration officer; but, of course, one cannot, at least in the form in which they are put here, include them in the Bill. But it certainly does not, as was suggested, invalidate the underlying principle which we desire to see incorporated in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, who, I understand from the Lord Chancellor supported the principle of the Amendment, in my view did nothing of the kind, because he sought to make a very great distinction between those who had served in some active engagement and those who had merely worn a uniform. That difference is, in many cases, quite fortuitous. Whether or not he actually bore arms in an engagement does not depend on the man's willingness to serve
26
his country. He may have been most anxious to serve in that way, but fortune, or misfortune, decided otherwise. It might well be that, under the terms now proposed, we could allow in a great blaggard and exclude one of the finest chaps who ever walked the earth, simply because one had fought in an engagement, and the other, through no fault of his own, had not.
It is idle to pretend that there would be any administrative difficulty in admitting one which would not also affect the other, because the procedure would be the same. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, suggested that if the principle of the Amendment which my noble friend proposes, should be accepted, it would be possible for somebody who had joined up only a few days before to come into this country in that way. I should have thought that he could have come in only as a deserter, if he had joined up a few days before. He could hardly, under any conceivable engagement of which I am aware, join up, and then come to this country and enjoy the benefit of the extension that we propose.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, surely he could have been discharged for ill-health, or purchased out.
LORD STONHAM: I should have thought that that would have been a direct reflection on the doctor who had admitted him only a few days before. It is rather like a revival of the old story, that if the doctor touched an applicant and he was warm, then he was in. I do not think the noble Lord could put forward seriously that he thinks that anyone could join the forces of the Crown in that way, and could a few days later be admitted to this country in civilian clothes.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I tell the noble Lord that it has happened hundreds and hundreds of times?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the provisions which this Bill seeks to implement have not yet got on the Statute Book and come into force, so it is difficult to see how the noble Lord can say that. It may well have happened hundreds of times that a sick man was accepted into the Forces; I

27
am not in a position to deny that. But, even accepting that, I think it is the height of absurdity seriously to put forward the view that such men could, a few days later, take their uniforms off and be in civilian clothes, and then emigrate to this country under the terms that we have proposed. I seriously suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that, although he is obviously right about the precise terms of this Amendment, he is not right about the principle which my noble friend put forward, which was that men who have been accepted into the police and Armed Forces of the Crown from the Commonwealth, having been granted the privilege of wearing The Queen's uniform, ought to be admitted as ordinary citizens into this country without restriction. That is the principle which we desire to see implemented.
The noble and learned Viscount has to a large extent met the point of the discussion which we had at a previous stage of the Bill, when we were discussing whether it should be a question of a man's having fought in an action, or a man's having merely worn a uniform That point has almost been met with regard to a particular class of person; that when they are admitted they can be admitted only on certificate. What we are now arguing is that that should be broadened so as to admit those who have served in the armed forces and the police forces, and that the restrictions of this Bill, which I think, after these men have worn our uniform, are an insult to them, should not be applied to them. I hope that between now and the final stage of the Bill the noble and learned Viscount will look at this question again, and by that time I hope that we shall be able to put forward an Amendment which will embody what we have in mind and which, and at the same time, will prove otherwise unexceptionable.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I can tell your Lordships that this is a mere drafting Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 39, after ("Kingdom ") insert (", and ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

PIPE-LINES BILL [H.L.]
4.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mills.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 20:
Power of the Minister to impose requirements with respect to mode of construction &c., of pipe-lines
20.—(1) The Minister may at any time if he considers it necessary so to do in the interests of safety, by notice served on a person who is executing, or is proposing to execute, works in land for the construction of a pipe-line,

(a) prohibit, as regards works for the construction of the line or of any length thereof specified in the notice, the execution of the works (so far as they fall to be executed after the service of the notice) otherwise than in such a manner as may be so specified;

THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "may at any time if he considers it necessary so to do "and to insert shall". The noble Earl said: This Amendment to Clause 20 is the first Amendment that stands in my name, but it is to the same effect as a number of later Amendments—namely, Nos. 42A and 42B. I would also mention another Amendment, No. 70A, to the First Schedule. I would tell the noble Lord that these Amendments are all designed with one object, and that is to strengthen the safety provisions in this Bill. We think that the Bill is surprisingly weak in provisions that make for safety. Under Clause 20, the Minister has power to serve notice on applicants for a pipe-line authorisation insisting that the works shall be executed as he directs, that the pipe-line shall be made of materials that satisfy him and that it shall be sunk at a sufficient depth below ground level. Under Clause 23, he may also serve notice that the examination, repair, maintenance, adjustment or testing of a pipe-line shall be in accordance with his requirements, and that he may

29
prohibit a line from being operated at more than a given pressure of pounds per square inch. All these requirements are permissive. The Minister may insist that the line is constructed to certain standards.
Remembering that one of the objects of the Bill, as stated in the Long Title, is to "secure the safe operation of pipelines" and that this is a new and, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, an almost untried method of transport, it seems to us that stronger powers ought to be put into the Bill. Pipe-lines used for the supply of oil and chemicals will contain, at times, inflammable and possibly highly explosive substances conveyed under pressure. Yet there is nothing in the Bill to insist that a person proposing to build a pipe-line shall state in advance to what standards he is going to build his line. That is the point of Amendment No. 70 (A). We think that in his initial application, a pipe-line promoter should say to which of the recognised British standards he is proposing to build his line.
Anybody who applies for an authorisation under the Bill hopes to get compulsory power to lay his line wherever it suits him, through any kind of country, along streets in towns, through built-up areas, in fact anywhere within 10 feet of any building. He is going to have considerable powers. And since, by definition, this is thrown open to private enterprise, and the object of an operator is to make a profit, it is obviously to his interests to construct his pipe-line as cheaply as possible. To put it colloquially, he can cut his safety margins as low as he likes and risk serious damage to life and property wherever he is conveying these highly dangerous substances. It is hard to understand why the Bill as drafted makes so little of the question of safety. One would have thought that the most rigid precautions would not have been too much to insert in a Bill like this.
There are various comparable spheres of industrial activity—electricity, for example—where the law provides similar permissive powers to the Minister to insist on provisions to ensure the safety of people and property. The Gas Act and the Coal Mines Act similarly give the Minister permissive power to make regulations for safety. There are other
30
spheres in which we might look for guidance on what safety precautions are necessary. With the help of the Library in your Lordships' House, I find that the Civil Aviation Act, as one would expect, gives the Government far stricter control over the operators of aircraft. The Act of 1949 lays down that, by Order in Council, the Government may prohibit any aircraft from flying without a certificate of airworthiness, and lays down the minimum standards to ensure adequate safety for passengers and others in civil aviation. That is a precaution without which I, for one, should be reluctant to fly at all.
The Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, as your Lordships know, set up the Licensing Board, and laid down that no aircraft shall be used unless the owner has an air operator's certificate under the Order in Council, to which I referred just now, and an air service licence from the Licensing Board, which is a licence authorising the operator to operate an aircraft on such flights as those for which he applies. The air operator's certificate is a certificate of the applicant's competence to secure that aircraft operated by him on such flights are operated safely. Those seem to me to be suitable safety provisions for a highly dangerous activity such as aviation.
I would cite another Act, the Consolidated Petroleum Act, passed as long ago as 1928. That lays down that petrol is not to be kept without a licence, and a licence is issued by local authorities, who may attach such conditions as they think expedient as to the mode of storage and generally as to safe keeping. In respect of all these provisions an appeal lies to the Secretary of State. Moreover, under the Petroleum Act the Secretary of State may make regulations as to the conveyance of petrol by road and for protecting persons or property from damage in connection with this; and he may lay down regulations for vehicles carrying the petrol on the roads, for the quantities, for loading precautions and for the enforcement of these provisions.
What do we see in this Bill? There is merely the permissive power in Clause 20 about execution of works, materials, depth below ground and operating pressure. And this does not empower the Minister to make regulations, but

31
merely to deal with an individual applicant and, presumably by bi-lateral negotiations, to insist on that operator changing the methods or the materials he proposes. The little that we know of pipe-lines that has been published is all about pipe-lines abroad and, in particular, the French pipe-line that has been operating for ten years. We know that that system is operated at different pressure, according to the country that the length of line goes through. In urban areas it is about 430 lb. to the square inch and in other areas it goes up to 1,200 lb. to the square inch.
What is proposed in the United Kingdom as to the standards and operating maxima of pressure? That surely must depend on how robustly the pipe-line and its associated equipment is constructed. If it is done as cheaply as possible, with a small safety margin, obviously the operating pressure must be kept low. If the pipe-line and its pumps and valves are really strong and robust, then higher pressure can be permitted. But where under the Bill is all this going to be laid down? How is the Minister going to decide what standards to insist on? I believe that the British Standards Institution has well-known and recognised British standards for all manner of gear, equipment and materials; and I believe the relevant one to this (the Minister can verify this, because I may be wrong) is known as "Standards for unfired pressure vessels". There are recognised standards based on long engineering experience in this country. But there is no mention of the matter having been given that much thought. I think that before this Bill goes any further through this House we are entitled to have an assurance that these matters have been thought of, and that there is provision in the Bill for the Minister to exercise the control that in the interests of the public should be exercised. Whether the actual form of my Amendment, substituting "shall" for "may", is the correct way of doing it, I am not certain, but it conveys the idea in my mind that the Minister must have greater powers and be willing to exercise them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 26, leave out from (" Minister ") to (" in ") in line 27 and insert (" shall ").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD MERRIVALE: I hope the Minister will not accept this Amendment, though I must say that I agree with the motives which have led the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, to put it down. I say that because I believe the imposition of safety requirements would be better achieved, as I said on Second Reading, if the Minister had power to make regulations rather than to serve notices, whether the notices be mandatory or arbitrary. When I mentioned this on Second Reading my noble friend Lord Mills stated that regulations would depend so much upon the type of pipeline concerned and what it was conveying. While I agree that a single code could not be devised, I think it is true to say that in various ways and for various purposes industrial operations and plants are subject to regulations authorised by enabling Acts. I would particularly stress that this is done by a procedure which allows consultation between the parties concerned. I can see no mention in this Bill that, with regard to notices, there would be any consultation with those who have to receive a notice. I feel that there is no necessity for the arbitrary, let alone the mandatory, imposition of safety requirements in individual cases. I would opt for the adoption of regulations for specified types and classes of pipe-lines.
Safety regulations are already made by the Minister of Power under the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954. In fact, Statutory Instrument No. 854, the Coal Mines (Explosives) Regulations, 1961, was initiated under the power granted to the Minister 'by that Act and under the Factory Act, 1937, and later Factory Acts. The Minister of Labour may make special regulations for safety. Such regulations are enforced by highly competent inspectors. But this Bill makes no provision to use the existing qualified inspectorates, while Clauses 20 to 24 do not provide the inspectors who will be appointed under Clause 39 with the customary regulations for the exercise of the inspectors' powers. It would seem that this is something quite new. There would appear to be numerous precedents for the Minister to make regulations, even when it concerns inflammable or dangerous materials. Although I oppose this Amendment, I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will have another look at this question

33
of the imposition of safety regulations to see whether it would not be possible to incorporate at a later stage powers for the Minister to make regulations, rather than serve safety notices.
4.32 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): I am grateful to the noble Earl opposite for speaking to Amendments Nos. 40A, 42A and 42B at the same time, because, as he said, they cover the same point, except that the first Amendment is in respect of construction, while the others are in respect of repair and maintenance and of working pressure per square inch. Although I do not address myself specifically to Amendment No. 70A, which the noble Lord included (I think that may be discussed in due course), I agree that certain of the objections I propose to put forward will apply to that Amendment. But I hope that at this stage they will not be taken as necessarily in direct reference to it.
The noble Earl drew an analogy between the safety regulations for pipelines and those of aircraft and petrol, in particular. He drew other analogies, but those are the two I marked out. I think there must be a definite line of demarcation drawn here. They cannot be loosely bracketed in that way, because there is an inherent risk with aircraft, as there is with petrol, all the time. Petrol is potentially dangerous, and any aircraft which is flying may cease to be airborne. So there is a potential danger all the time. One cannot say the same for pipelines. There may be pipe-lines conveying high explosives under pressure, and there may be others conveying perfectly innocuous substances rather sluggishly along.
Although the noble Earl was critical (as I thought, a little unfairly) of what one might call the accent on safety in this Bill he went some way rather to destroy his own argument by referring to the various unknowns with which we are faced in the world of pipe-lines. He was to a certain extent, as was my noble friend Lord Merrivale, critical of the lack of regulations, or lack of power to make regulations, to govern these matters. I do not believe that at this stage, in this way, it is possible to lay down standards, to make a standard set of regulations under which they can operate, because each pipe-line must be
34
considered individually. It is a question of the Minister addressing himself on the safety angle to each individual case as it is put to him.
We had some discussion earlier on in the Committee on public interest, and we shall hear more at a later stage. I thought the noble Earl was a little unnecessarily critical of the way that Ministers addressed themselves to their responsibilities. They must act in the public interest; that is their job. In this case the whole emphasis of the Bill is on two things: to ensure, first, that there shall not be unnecessary multiplicity of pipelines; and, second, that they shall be developed in a controlled fashion and be safe. Those are the Minister's duties, and I think there is ample provision for him to carry them out. The noble Earl criticised the question of the original specification. I would draw his attention to paragraph 1 (e) of the First Schedule, where he will find that, in addition to what the pipe-line constructor must supply in his application, that application must
" contain such other (if any) particulars as may be prescribed ".
There is no difficulty in the Minister's finding out what is to be the specification and working conditions of the pipeline, and informing himself fully of the necessary technicalities which he would need to know in the interests of safety.
The object of Clause 20 is to empower the Minister at any time, if he considers it necessary to do so in the interests of safety, to impose requirements. Later on in Clause 23 there is the same responsibility in respect of repairs and working pressure. So far as construction is concerned, he can lay down the materials, the depth, the method, and so on. That is a pretty full power which the Minister has at his disposal. The difference is that the Amendment seeks to oblige the Minister to impose these requirements whether he considers it necessary or not. There may well be occasions when the situation of the pipeline, and the nature of the things that are to be conveyed in it, will be such that it is not necessary on safety grounds to impose all, or even possibly any, of the requirements which the Minister is able to impose. Where that is so, I cannot see the point of obliging the Minister to impose the requirements

35
just the same. If, on the other hand, he thinks it is necessary to impose the requirements, then he should be empowered by the Bill to do it. And that is exactly what happens. I should not have thought there was need to impose upon the Minister the duty of taking action which he himself considers necessary in the discharge of his responsibilities as a Minister. I think I am right in saying that the permissive aspect of this legislation, to which the noble Earl drew our attention, is in the usual form for enactments of this kind.
But there is one final point, and it is, I think, the most important point: that if the noble Earl's Amendments were to be accepted they would have the effect of taking the words "at any time" out of the Bill—that the Minister may make these requirements "at any time". That is most important. Those words are needed to make it quite clear that the Minister is not restricted as to the time at which he can, in the interests of safety, serve notice on the pipe-line constructor, and that he may do so even when the work of construction is well-advanced. I think it is a most important provision which must be preserved. I hope that the noble Earl will think over carefully what I have said and, in particular, the point that to remove those words from the Bill would be very detrimental to the interests of safety. I hope that when he has thought about what I have said he will not wish to press his Amendments.
LORD STONHAM: I do not know what my noble friend's intentions are with regard to his Amendments, but before he comes to a decision there are two points I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, arising out of what he has just said. His case for refusing the Amendments really rests on two things: that we know very little about pipe-lines at the moment, and that we do not know what kind of powers the Minister will really want; and for those reasons we ought not to make regulations which might be wrong regulations or, presumably, might be unduly harsh in some circumstances or restrictive in ways which will not prove necessary. As I see it, both those arguments are not arguments against my noble friend's Amendments, because if each pipe-line
36
application muse be considered on its merits there is still no need for refusing to say that the Minister shall apply requirements in the construction of that pipe-line. That is the whole point. The noble Lord rather took it as a reflection on Ministers in discharging their responsibilities. Of course, Ministers are not of one particular Party, and I have no doubt that before very long Ministers in another political Party will have the job of carrying out this Bill; therefore, if we on this side of the House are not a bit shy about having conditions imposed on Ministers in this Bill, I do not see why the noble Lord should shy away from having these responsibilities imposed. Therefore, I do not see that there is much in his reply about these "shall" or "may" arguments.
The other point arises from what the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, said, about the desirability, if possible, of making regulations. I can see the force of what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said, in that we know so little about this particular business that it would perhaps be wrong at this stage to attempt to impose regulations of general application which would not be suitable in many cases; but that is no reason why a Minister should not take power to make regulations in the Bill. He is not thereby compelled immediately to start setting up a list of regulations. But surely the noble Lord can see that when it is possible to make regulations they can be of great value to the applicant. A great deal of time and expense can be saved if someone who was going to apply for the right to construct a pipe-line knows of certain rules that will have to be observed in its construction, even in the actual construction of the pipe itself. I should have thought that at a reasonably early stage sufficient experience would have been gained to enable regulations to be drawn up of sufficient general application to be of great value to those who want to construct pipe-lines. Therefore I would submit that the Minister should consider taking powers in this Bill to make regulations. I submit to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that he has not answered my noble friend's point, and I hope he will consider the secondary points I have put to him.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I am surprised that the Minister still takes the safety

37
question so lightly. He says that aircraft are dangerous all the time, and I say, so are pipe-lines, if they are carrying petrol.
LORD CHESHAM: But not if carrying milk.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The Minister told us on Second Reading that he reckons that the immediate need for pipe-lines is mostly for the oil companies to carry oil products. We know the sort of oil products that will be carried: aviation spirit, premium petrol, ordinary petrol, kerosene, diesel fuel, gas oil, domestic fuel oil and light fuels. If when under pressure, those are not dangerous substances, I do not know what are. For the Minister to say that he will serve notice only when he thinks it is expedient to do so means, no doubt, that he will examine every application on its merits. But how will he examine it? With what in mind? What standards will he have to measure the safety or otherwise? How will he decide what is a safe operating pressure in built-up areas, in open country, in hard soil, or in soft soil? For how much of that will he expect to make provision in these notices?
After all, what harm does it do to insist on certain minimum standards of safety? Are we not all accustomed to that? No ship goes to sea without a Plimsoll line. You cannot tell me that that is not a mandatory power to ensure the safety of ships at sea. If the noble Lord wanted to install electrical fittings in his house they would have to comply with certain minimum safety standards which are laid down by local authority by-laws. Why should not applicants for pipe-line authorisation know, by turning up the regulations, of the British Standards which will have to be observed if they want to carry one substance or another? It is not impossible for regulations to specify one standard for milk and another for aviation fuel. There is nothing new about the issue by Government Departments of regulations varying with different conditions and substances. The Government are showing no appreciation of the need for controlling pipe-line development in the interests of safety. So far as we have seen and beard from the Ministers, the Government have not got that sufficiently in mind.
LORD CHESHAM: In view of what the noble Earl has said, I do not want to spend all day arguing with him, but I must have just another word about this matter because I think it is important. I still think that he goes some way to destroying his own case. I agree that my noble friend said that the early use of pipe-lines is likely to be more by oil companies for their products, which are liable to be dangerous, than for other commodities. But we are trying, to a certain extent, at any rate, to legislate a little more generally than that, and I ask him to consider the fact that the safety powers the Minister has are pretty far-reaching and very adequate.
I do not want to interrupt the serious discussion on a slightly lighter note, but the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, took up my point about Ministerial responsibility and said that there might be a change. I knew noble Lords opposite thought that. I surmised that it was perhaps with that very thought in mind that they wished to impose some further shackles; but I was too polite to say it the first time. With the multiplicity not of pipelines but of commodities which may be sent up them in varying circumstances, in varying quantity, over varying distances, there will prove to be, I should think, a good many variables, and I should have thought that to have laid down regulations per commodity would have been almost impossible—impossible, at any rate, at the present stage of development—and to lay down generalisations might well work as much against the interest of safety as in favour of it. I think that in this matter of safety it is most important that we preserve the element of flexibility. I would have thought that, from the paragraph I quoted in the First Schedule, there was room for a code to grow up of requirements for pipe-lines for varying commodities. I should have thought it is better to leave the matter in the way the Bill has it at present—that is, with the necessary flexibility to make certain that each pipe-line is safe.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.53 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: Before we part with this clause I should like to say a word

39
or two about the machinery of it. This is a clause which, on the noble Lord's own admission, deals to a considerable extent with the question of safety. Perhaps whoever is going to reply could say whether the Bill in another Part gives the Minister power to make regulations. If it does, obviously it is not necessary to have it here. But at some time it might well be necessary to make regulations, even though at this stage the Government may find it difficult, in the light of their lack of knowledge and experience of the working of the Bill, to define exactly what the regulations may be. I thought my noble friend's suggestion, that power be taken, if it does not already exist in the Bill, to make regulations, was a very prudent one and ought to have been accepted.
I want to say a word about subsection (2). If we are dealing with safety we seem to be dealing with it in an extraordinarily leisurely way. Once the Minister has made up his mind that certain pipes need to be dealt with, removed or prohibited, the person interested has twelve weeks in which to object. Why on earth should he need twelve weeks in which to state an objection, in a case where danger is involved? Surely he could serve a counter notice in less than twelve weeks. However, he is given twelve weeks, and then the Minister, if there is a counter notice, holds an inquiry. How long that inquiry is going to take, how long it will be before the inquiry is held, goodness only knows!, but, judging by my own personal experience, I would say it might be three months before the inquiry was held. That makes six months.
Then the Minister has twelve weeks from the time of the holding of the inquiry. The wording is a little vague, and it may be he has more, but I am giving the Government the benefit of my doubt; I am assuming he has twelve weeks in which to give a decision. So we now have 36 weeks, roughly, in a matter where there is, or there may be, considerable danger. Really, the Government ought to be able to move more rapidly than that. I know the Government find it difficult to move; we all recognise that. But even this Government ought to be able to move more rapidly than this, especially where there is danger. So I would suggest to Her
40
Majesty's Government that they have another look at this matter and see whether they cannot speed up the machinery and make it really more effective.
LORD MILLS: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, there is no power to make regulations. The noble Lord referred to subsection (2) and the time required to deal with objections, counter notices and so on. But the noble Lord, I think, should have in mind what this refers to: it refers to the Minister's requirements for the construction of a pipe-line. It is not simply twelve weeks but "before the expiration of twelve weeks". The Minister has complete control here because work cannot go on unless the Minister's requirements are complied with: so there is no danger in this at all. I think if the noble Lord reads the clause he will see that this is the case.
LORD SILKIN: There is one more point. This is a direction to the Minister to give a decision within twelve weeks. What happens to the Minister if he does not? Subsection (3) provides sanctions against the person who acts in contravention of the provision in the Minister's direction, so it does contemplate that people might act in contravention. The work is not necessarily at a standstill. The person who acts in contravention may get three months. What happens to the Minister if he acts in contravention?
LORD HAWKE: May there not be impeachment in that case?
LORD SILKIN: I am asking the Minister, not the noble Lord, Lord Hawke.
LORD HAWKE: He may not like to make such a hazardous prediction.
LORD SILKIN: What happens if the Minister does not give his decision within twelve weeks? There are parallel cases under the Town and Country Planning Act. In the days when we did give serious thought to these matters, if the local authority did not give a decision within two months that was deemed to be a refusal. At any rate something happened. What would happen here? It says that the Minister shall give a decision within twelve weeks. What is the position if he does not do so? I really think that this clause requires looking at again.
LORD MILLS: The Minister would have certain duties imposed upon him under this Bill us he has under other Acts. The answer must be that the same would happen to the Minister in this case as would happen if he did not carry out his duties in any other case.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Enforcement of requirements imposed under Section 20]:
LORD CHESHAM: Both Amendment No. 41 and Amendment No. 42 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 41.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 16, leave out (" contravention ") and insert (" failure ").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 42.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 19, leave out (" contravention ") and insert (" failure ").—(Lord Chesham.)
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Power of the Minister to cause steps to be taken for rendering pipe-line, or length thereof, safe on abandonment or cesser of use]:
5.3 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to add to subsection (2):
" Notwithstanding the provisions of the two foregoing sections it shall be the duty of the owner of any pipe-line at all times to maintain it in a safe condition until such time as it shall be removed from the land."
The noble Lord said: This is quite a straightforward Amendment. It seeks to impose on the owners of a pipe-line a statutory responsibility to keep that pipeline in a safe condition at all times so long as it remains in the land. Under the Bill as it now stands that is not done. It is true that under Clauses 23 and 24 the Minister has power by notice served on the pipe-line owners, to impose certain requirements, but there is no actual statutory obligation ion the owners.
Section 33 of the Esso Act, 1961 says:
"The Company shall at all times after the construction of the works maintain the same
42
in substantial repair and good order and condition and, when necessary, renew the same."
So there is there a complete obligation there on the company to maintain the pipe-line. But what is more important, I think, is that the Government, under regulations made under the Land Powers (Defence) Act, 1958, have imposed on Departments much more stringent powers. Perhaps I may read a short extract from Statutory Instrument No. 724 of 1959. Paragraph 4 (1) says:
" Where a pipe-line or works has been laid, installed or constructed under a wayleave order, the Minister by whom the wayleave order is made shall, so long as such wayleave order has effect

(a) keep such pipe-line and works in good repair and shall indemnify all persons interested in the land to which the wayleave order applies … or affected by the maintenance"

and so on. There the Government have imposed a strict liability on themselves, as owners of the pipe-line. I do not see why they should impose a lesser obligation on private companies who are the owners of pipe-lines. Here a private company brings a pipe-line on to the land. I think that it should be under a liability to see that it is maintained so long as it is on the land and until it is removed, even if it is not used. I understand that at times when the pipe is not used, the practice is to fill it with water. There have been instances where the water has caused flooding because the line has not been maintained. All that I am seeking to do here is to make certain that private owners of a pipe-line are placed in no better position than the Government as the owner of a pipe-line. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 46, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MILLS: I think the chief objection to my noble friend's Amendment is that a statutory requirement to maintain the line in a safe condition is not sufficiently precise to be capable of enforcement. In fact it would not be known whether the line was in a safe condition or not until something had happened, and perhaps damage had been caused. In any event, the owner's liability is covered by his Common Law liability. I am advised that this Amendment is unnecessary, seeking as it does

43
to put an absolute obligation on the owner, because under Clause 11 (2) the pipe-line owner is already absolutely liable, arising from the exercise of his rights under a compulsory rights order, in regard to damage to land or chattels. He may be liable in cases of personal injury also under the Common Law rules as to negligence. As a subsequent Amendment makes clear, the owner would not be absolved by any of the provisions of the Act from liability for nuisance. This means that if an abandoned pipe-line causes damage he can be sued and made to pay. But my main objection to this Amendment, as I have said, is that it requires something without making it possible to carry it out. I hope that if the noble Lord considers that point, he will find it possible to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I must say that we have just had rather a peculiar answer. I listened with considerable sympathy to the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney; and for the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to refer to the compensation that may arise in the event of an accident hardly meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, who wishes to ensure that these pipe-lines are kept in first-class condition so that compensation is not likely to arise. As I understand it, under this Bill the Minister will have no powers of regulation in regard to safety. If the noble Lord cannot accept the words as set out in the Amendment, would he consider whether there should not be some provision for making regulations? As I understand it, it is not only a pipe-line that is involved here: there will be the pumping stations and other services involved. Where you are pumping high-grade petroleum, I should think that there would be considerable danger of an explosion at the pumping station.
LORD MILLS: May I interrupt the noble Lord? This Amendment deals with pipe-lines out of use or abandoned.
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, but there still remain the pumping stations, where no doubt, gas might accumulate. I would ask the Minister whether he would not consider the whole question of regulations for all the pipe-lines,
44
whether disused or still in use. I should have thought that that was the least the Committee could ask of the Minister.
LORD MILLS: The question of regulations is another matter, where I think it is still a question of feeling one's way. It would be quite wrong, I think, for my right honourable friend the Minister to attempt to make regulations until we have gone further along this road. But we are dealing at the moment with abandoned pipe-lines or pipe-lines which have not been in use for some time. When I studied this point I had a good deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, and I saw what he was getting at. I had to come to the conclusion, however, that the Amendment would add nothing to the position as it stands in the Bill at present. It would not he right to clutter the Bill with Amendments which do not improve it.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am disappointed with the noble Lord's reply. I could not quite follow the first point. If it is too vague a requirement, I cannot see why the Government have sought to impose it in regulations under the Statutory Instrument and also in the Esso Act—where there is imposed upon the Company a definite liability to maintain the line in a safe condition. I cannot see why in those cases it has been sufficiently precise, yet we are told here that it is not precise. Perhaps I have misunderstood the noble Lord. However, I do not intend to press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMHERST or HACKNEY: This Amendment is on rather a different point and I am a little more hopeful about it because the noble Lord was kind enough to accept an almost exactly similar Amendment which I moved on Clause 4. The point of this Amendment is that various orders can be given to pipe-line owners to remove the pipe-line, but there does not seem to be any provision for compensating the owner of the land for any damage done during the course of removal of that pipe-line. It is the same point which I made on Clause 5, which involved the removal by order of a pipe-line that had been put in the wrong place. This relates to

45
the removal of a disused pipe-line. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 46, at end insert—
(" ( ) Full compensation shall be made by the person in default to any person who suffers any loss or damage by reason of entry upon land or any works done pursuant to the provisions of this section and any dispute as to a right to compensation under this subsection or as to the amount thereof shall be determined by the Lands Tribunal.").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MILLS: As the noble Lord has said, this Amendment is comparable to a similar Amendment which the noble Lord moved on Clause 4 and which was accepted in principle. This one also the Government are prepared to accept in principle. I think the wording of the Amendment will require further consideration, and if the noble Lord agrees to withdrawing it, I will see that a Government Amendment to deal with this point is brought forward at a later stage.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: I wonder whether the word "abandonment" is quite the right word to use in line 29? I cannot find any definition of it in the Definition Clause. Is it abandonment of the use of the pipe-line or the abandonment of ownership? For example, if I own a mine and I abandon it I presumably still own the mine and am responsible if people break their necks falling down the shaft; but if I abandon some possession of mine, like an old hat or something like that, and somebody picks it up and comes to some damage through using it, presumably I have no responsibility. If abandonment of a pipe-line means that the owner has not only abandoned its use but has also abandoned its ownership, how can he be held responsible in any way for any damage that may result from its use? I feel that some word other than "abandonment" should be used to make certain whether it is the abandonment of use or the abandonment of ownership which is concerned.
LORD MILLS: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, the word "abandon-
46
ment" here is used, I think, in a well-understood sense and means abandonment of use.
LORD DERWENT: The heading to the clause refers to "abandonment or cesser of use". It would look from that as if abandonment does not mean cesser of use.
LORD MILLS: Perhaps noble Lords will permit me to give further consideration to that matter.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Is it possible for a person to abandon a pipe-line or anything else just like that, as expressed in subsection (1) of Clause 24?
LORD MILLS: So far as I know, it is not. But I was in India at the time of the partition from Pakistan, and I can assure the noble Lord that there was a lot of plant and things abandoned at that time not that I am expecting anything of the sort to happen here.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: This is England.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Who measures the three years from the date on which the pipe-line is last used? It seems to me that that may be open to a great deal of doubt, particularly as I am led to understand that it is the normal practice to keep water in a pipeline when it is not in use.
LORD MILLS: Under another clause, notice has to be given to the Minister of the abandonment or the cessation of use.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25:
Avoidance of Damage to Pipe-lines by Buildings, &c.
Power of the Minister, where pipe-line imperilled by building or structure, to order demolition thereof or execution of remedial works
25.
— (6) Subsections (2) to (5) of this section shall not have effect in the case of a building or structure forming part of a pipe-line or erected or constructed for the lodging therein of part of a pipe-line, being a building or structure no part of which is situate less than ten feet from a point on the surface of land whose position is vertically above a part of another pipe-line below the surface or in the case of a building or structure in which a pipe-line or any part of a pipe-line is terminated.
LORD LINDGREN: Clause 25 is concerned generally to prevent the construction of a building or a structure within 10 feet of a pipe-line. It is uncertain to me how this might affect the apparatus or works of a statutory undertaker in the highway—electricity, gas or water—where a pipe-line is laid in the highway. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the provisions of Clause 25 would not apply in the case of a structure for a water undertaking, a gas undertaking, an electricity undertaking, et cetera constructed in the highway, because if they were to apply they would almost prevent the laying of water mains in the highway where a pipe-line was also sited. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 1, at end insert (" in the case of undertakers' works as defined in the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950, or").—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD CHESHAM: I think the point made by the noble Lord is a reasonable one. Such buildings as would come within the definition of "building or structure" in Clause 25, and which are likely to be employed by statutory undertakers in the course of their carrying out works within the control of the Public Utilities Street Works Act, are likely to be only small and, in particular, only temporary. Consequently, I think the risk they are likely to cause to the pipeline is very small. For my part, I should like to accept in principle what the noble Lord has put forward. I should also like to examine it again, to make sure that the point requires covering, and to put down a suitable Government Amendment at a later stage, if he will agree to that.
LORD LINDGREN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his accommodation in regard to this matter. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on the basis of his undertaking.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Execution of remedial works by the Minister in default of compliance with order to execute them, and
48
recovery of expenses incurred in executing such works]:
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is a drafting one, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 25, after first (" be") insert (" in executing the works").—(Lord Chesham.)
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Power of the Minister to remove deposits imperilling pipe-line]:
LORD LINDGREN: Here, again, the Minister is given power to remove earth, refuse, spoil or any deposit that is placed within 10 feet of a pipe-line. Again, it is not clear to me if this would apply to statutory undertakings such as gas, electricity or water. If they were repairing part of their structure in a highway in which a pipe-line was also sited, would the Minister have power to come along and fill up the hole halfway through? We get a lot of unnecessary opening of highways, for one purpose or another. I should not think it was intended, but if in fact the Minister were to have power under this clause to interfere with works of other statutory undertakings as they were in progress, it ought to be rectified. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 23, after (" of ") insert (" undertakers' works as defined in the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950, or").—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD CHESHAM: Since the noble Lord has raised this point, I would tell him that the Bill as it stands would, indeed, give the Minister that power. Again, I would say that, where there are statutory undertakers covered by the Public Utilities Street Works Act, who are carrying out their works under the umbrella of that Act, it would once more seem reasonable to suppose that such deposits of earth, soil and so on, which might be thrown up in the course of their operations, would not be likely to be detrimental—again, largely because they are likely to be of only a very temporary nature. Once more, if the noble Lord would allow me to accept the principle of his Amendment,

49
I would give him a similar undertaking to that which I gave on his Amendment No. 44A.
LORD LINDGREN: I am getting quite excited with two successes. I am grateful again to the noble Lord, and with the leave of the House I would withdraw the Amendment, on the basis of his undertaking.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "(not being operations for the storage of crops, grass or silage)". The noble Lord said: The Bill as it stands allows ordinary agricultural operations to go on in the strip of land ten feet on either side of the pipe-line, but prevents the storage of crops, grass or silage. It is true that provisions for preventing this storage are included in the Land Powers (Defence) Act, 1958, but in subsequent Acts promoted by the oil companies they have not found it necessary to insist on these provisions. On Second Reading it was suggested that possibly the pipe-line might be damaged by acids seeping down from the silage heaps stored over the top. In practice, however, pipes are protected, and it is almost inconceivable that any moisture seeping down to a properly buried pipe would cause any harm. If the pipes are as easily damaged as that, they should not be in the land at all. The main point of this clause is too allow access to the pipe; and, after all, there is no difficulty, with a bulldozer or something like that, in clearing away a silage heap. The point of this Amendment is to void having in the Bill an unnecessary inconvenience to agriculture. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 24, leave out from first (" operations ") to first ("the") in line 25.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD HAWKE: This Amendment, when one studies it, does point to one or two peculiarities in this clause. Presumably we are legislating for many years ahead, and yet in the future—ten, fifteen, twenty years' time—somebody is supposed to know precisely where this pipe-line runs to a foot, so that he knows where a zone of ten feet is to be. Then, lest somebody should hazard the pipe-
50
line in some way or another, no earth, refuse, spoil or other materials may be deposited there. It is quite right, possibly, to protect the pipe-line. On the other hand, if those very same materials happen to be deposited in the course of agricultural operations, it does not matter. So what really is the purpose of the clause protecting the pipe-line? Must an action taken as part of an agricultural operation be quite safe and precisely the same operation be unsafe when it is not agricultural? I feel that this clause needs to be looked at again.
LORD CHESHAM: My noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney has correctly summed up the situation here, and has told us that the clause empowers the Minister to require the removal of deposits of earth or other materials. The exception, of course, as he already knows, is in favour of agricultural operations other than the storage of crops, grass or silage. Now generally speaking, but not within the narrower bracket of agriculture, there are two objects in the clause. The first is to avoid damage through seepage of any kind. I cannot give your Lordships details, but I imagine that certain things might be deposited there which could give rise to risk. As my noble friend said, that hardly applies in the case of silage and other agricultural materials.
The second point, ensuring access to the pipe-line, is the more important one, because it is in the interests of safety. If there were half-a-dozen corn ricks and a silage clamp on top of the pipe-line, and there should happen to be a leakage of highly volatile avaition fuel under pressure, that would be no moment to start sending twenty miles away for a bulldozer on its conveyor to come and move the silage clamp to get at the leak. It is an important form of protection, and these three agricultural operations—the storage of crops, grass or silage—were rather deliberately included to avoid blocking the access to the pipe-lines. I do not know what they move about in large quantities on farms down in Sussex, but I do not think that many people move about such vast quantities of earth as would block access.
As to what happens as the years go on, I understand that markers will be

51
put in from time to time—and, of course, maps will be available. I know that when you are seeking somewhere to deposit some dung, perhaps, to make a dung clamp, or something like that, you may have forgotten exactly where it is and you may not have a map handily available, but in such a case the markers should help. On the whole, I do not think there is much difficulty in siting a haystack or silage clamp ten feet one way or the other. If the farmer thinks it so very necessary that it should be sited absolutely bang on the pipe-line, he can obtain the Minister's consent. To do that would, of course, be a bore, but I think that the access point is extremely valuable in the interests of safety, and I do not think it should give rise to very much nuisance to the farming community.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I entirely appreciate what my noble friend Lord Chesham has just said, and I should not dream of disputing in any way his very good reasons for resisting my noble friend's Amendment on the grounds of access. However, I was looking at the marginal note to this clause, and before he gave his reasons it seemed to me a somewhat bizarre idea that the innocent haystack or potato clamp should be a peril to a pipe-line. However, if these particular words in brackets have been inserted in order to provide reasonable access to the pipe-line then, perhaps, in order to avoid misleading those who read the Bill, it might be as well to say so in the marginal note.
LORD HAWKE: I have listened with great interest to my noble friend but, quite frankly, I do not think he has provided any solid reason for suggesting that an action which is perfectly safe from an agricultural point of view might be hazardous from any other point of view. If he is going to allow agriculturists to deposit these things, I do not see any reason why he should not allow everybody to do so, and why he should not therefore revise the clause to the effect that only dangerous materials, or something like that, should be allowed to be moved by the Minister.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not think my noble friend has quite appreciated the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I did not make it properly. It was that. I
52
compared with other forms of industry, other than the storage of crops, grass and silage anything else which is liable to be deposited anywhere in the course of agricultural operations is normally only there very temporarily. That is as much the reason as anything else: that the obstruction is there on a very temporary basis. I do not know what it is that they pile up in Sussex for such long times; I must go down and find out.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Would this clause stop one from erecting a fence for forestry purposes over the path of a pipeline? It would be almost impossible to put up a row of stocks if they were over 25 feet apart, or whatever it is, and I think it would lead to great difficulties if this were the case.
LORD HAWKE: I have heard my noble friend explain this matter, but I think the whole clause is nonsense and that it is quite unnecessary to have these restrictions.
LORD SILKIN: One point which has occurred to me is this. How would the noble Lord deal with the question of the deposit of manure? That is quite a common agricultural activity. It is not very certain whether the manure is to be there temporarily or permanently. It may be there for a whole season and it may accumulate. Would that be regarded as an agricultural activity, and how would it be affected? I do not think the position is quite clear and maybe the noble Lord will look at it again.
LORD CHESHAM: If it is not clear, may I say that the intention is that it should be included? Although I agree that sometimes a dung clamp stays around rather too long, normally by its very nature it is a pretty short-term thing.
LORD STONHAM: I have agreed with the noble Lord all the way on this so far, but I would not agree with him there. These dung clamps can be in a place for a couple of years. On most farms trey are put out in a manner convenient; that is, convenient immediately to the source of the dung, or convenient to the place where it will be spread and it stays there sometimes for to two years. Therefore, it might be of much greater difficulty if there were a dung clamp there which could

53
not be moved, than if there were a silage bin. That is almost certain to be used during a period of twelve months.
LORD CHESHAM: I have no wish to be unnecessarily argumentative about this. We thought that the three items we mentioned, which we felt were most likely to be concerned in the agricultural world, were pretty temporary; but in view of what the noble Lord has said I should like to think about this again and consider whether or not it is reasonable to do something about it I do not want to make any promise one way or the other, but in view of what has been said I should like to think about it.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I see the noble Lord's point, particularly on the question of access. I agree with him that it would be very inconvenient to wait for a bulldozer to come from miles away if you had a highly volatile petroleum spirit coming up; nor would it be much fun working the bulldozer when it arrived. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Inquiries into accidents]:
LORD CHESHAM: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 16, leave out (" this Act ") and insert (" the last foregoing section ").—(Lord Chesham.)
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
5.47 p.m.
Clause 32:
Deposit of maps of pipe-lines with local authorities
32.—(1) A person to whom a pipe-line construction or diversion authorisation is granted shall, forthwith after the grant, deposit with each local authority within whose area lies any part of the route to be taken by the proposed pipe-line or, as the case may be, portion of pipe-line to be diverted, a copy (on the same scale) of so much of the map annexed to the authorisation as shows the part of that route that lies within that area, and a person who sends to the Minister a notice for the purposes of section two of this Act or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section three thereof shall, at the same time, deposit with each local authority within whose area lies any part of the route to be taken by the
54
proposed pipe-line or, as the case may be, the portion of line to be diverted, a copy (on the same scale) of so much of the map that accompanies the notice as shows the part of that route that lies within that area.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1), after "local authority" to insert "or river board". The noble Lord said: This Amendment and Amendment 47C are designed to secure that all river boards as well as local authorities will receive a copy of the map of the route of any cross-country pipe-line which it is proposed to lay in their area, so that they may not, in respect of these major pipe-lines, have to trust merely to normal liaison with the local planning authority. The River Boards Association consider that these proposals for major pipe-lines are of such importance to river boards that the river boards should be placed in a similar position to local authorities. It might be argued that, in effect, a river board is a local authority. It is responsible for a certain area. It is true it is not directly elected, but is a nominated board. It is also to be noted that, since Clause 5 of the Bill would enable the Minister to grant planning permission, the normal liaison arrangements between river boards and planning authorities could easily break down, and river boards would have no opportunity to make known their legitimate views.
I would submit that river boards and statutory authorities, with important duties and responsibilities placed upon them, ought not to be left, so to speak, in the air, that they should not be ignored, but that, right at the outset, in view of the importance of this development, they should be able, like local authorities, to know what is proposed, in order to see how it will fit in, as it were, with the duties and responsibilities which Parliament has placed upon them. In those circumstances, bearing in mind the responsibilities which river boards have, I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept this Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 28, after (" authority ") insert (" or river board ").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: I should like to support my noble friend in his plea to the Minister. After all, river boards are not local

55
authorities but they are very large authorities and it so happens that they function in almost every part of the country. Since the passing of the last Drainage Bill through your Lordships' House, the activities of river boards have been extended, until I believe that now they have the right, and almost the obligation, where necessary, to carry out works to improve drainage in areas over which they had little or no authority prior to the passing of the recent Bill. Therefore, I hope, since drainage is of very great importance to agriculture and to food production, and since the size of the authority is so large—and it is now maintained almost wholly by the ratepayers, so it has functions to undertake for ratepayers—that the Minister in charge will feel that it is going to be no excessive burden upon the would-be pipe-line owner to allow one of the largest kind of authorities in the country to know just what is happening in any part of the country over which it has jurisdiction.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: The Central River Boards Association, of which I have the honour to be a member, feel this Amendment to be indispensable. With a little foresight one has to think of what will happen within the next year, when we have been promised a Conservation Bill. That Bill is going to apply to the whole of a river basin, which may comprise six, seven or eight local authorities. Therefore we have to take a wide view of how a pipeline may affect our future area. There is another point. We are to be given powers, which we do not now have, to grant licences for extracting water from underground. This is a subject which really requires geological experience to understand, but water underground is always on the move, and past experience has brought home to us that in cases like this a pipe-line might disturb the soil and let out spring water on another place on a hillside and cause a flooding of land. All this sort of thing means that we must be given parity with other undertakers, and I feel that it is essential that river boards should be put into Clause 32. I trust that the Government will accede to the very strong feeling on our part that we should be included.
LORD CHESHAM: Before I reply to the Amendment that has been proposed,
56
I wonder Whether The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would permit me to address my argument also to Amendments Nos. 47B and 47D, because there is a considerable overlapping of argument and it may conceivably save time.
LORD SILKIN: I am not so sure that it will save time, because these Amendments have been put down separately and independently and I do not necessarily accept that the argument for the river boards is identical with the argument which I should put forward on behalf of the fire authorities. However, if the noble Lord is going to accept my Amendment, I will gladly make way and allow him to say what he wants to say. But if he wants to treat them all on a par. I do not think that that should be done.
LORD CHESHAM: I did not intend that the noble Lord should not move his Amendments, but merely hoped to be able to shorten the proceedings. I wanted to draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that there was a great deal of overlapping argument. The noble Lord must judge for himself when I have stated my argument. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, put forward this Amendment in his usual convincing way. He feared that river boards would not be able to obtain information because the usual liaison arrangements with planning authorities would break down. I do not see why they should. The local planning authorities will be as aware of this as ever they have been; and as the liaison arrangements work now, they should work equally well after this Bill begins to operate. I do not think that that is a very strong point.
The purpose of this clause is to require that maps should be deposited with local authorities to ensure that anyone who has need to know, or may be interested to know, exactly where a pipeline is to run, has a convenient means of finding out. No doubt it will be useful for solicitors conducting searches on behalf of prospective purchasers. Of course, that information is available to everybody. I do not suppose for a moment that that would be accepted by the noble Lord.
It seems to me that the interests of fire brigades and river boards are specifically taken care of by Clause 34, which

57
we have not yet reached. If your Lordships think that more stringent requirements should be imposed for ensuring that the authorities concerned, including river boards and fire authorities, have all the information necessary to enable them to carry out their tasks, in my view, the proper place for dealing with it is on Clause 34. I suppose I am letting the cat out of the bag in saying that we are willing to strengthen Clause 34 somewhat to carry this out and that my noble friend Lord Mills is likely to accept Amendment No. 47G, which would make the clause much more stringent upon the owner of a pipe-line. The words
" It shall be the duty of the owner of a pipe-line, … to make, and to ensure the efficient carrying out …"
et cetera, mean that the owner must not wait until something goes wrong, but must make arrangements beforehand. This means that the river hoard or fire authority concerned must be approached and consequently must be given warning of what their duties cover.
If the acceptance of this Amendment is not enough, I would be prepared to look at the matter again, to see whether there is any other way in which it would be desirable to strengthen the clause by requiring the pipe-line owner to consult with the authorities concerned or to supply them with further information which they may need. I should not have thought that this would he necessary; but if the noble Lords, Lord Burden and Lord Silkin, feel that they should press their Amendments, I am very willing to do it in this way.
LORD BURDEN: I have not quite grasped what the Minister has been good enough to submit to the Committee, but I should imagine that there are two aspects of this matter. The first is knowledge by the river board—and, for that matter, the fire authority, although I can leave that to my noble friend Lord Silkin—to know what is proposed in regard to a pipe-line before it is constructed. As the noble Earl pointed out, the pipe-line may quite unwittingly cause trouble with spring water and other underground sources of water. It may be in their own interests for the pipe-line company to give a map to the river boards over whose area they propose to traverse, because river boards will have
58
detailed information, accumulated over a number of years, of the conditions obtaining.
We are now looking ahead to development in the direction of building pipelines, and I think it is proper for us to get off at the beginning along lines which will enable these pipe-lines to be constructed properly and without causing damage or trouble to other statutory authorities. The responsibilities of local authorities, river boards and fire authorities are defined by Statute. Surely it is not asking too much that these authorities should know of work that is likely to impinge seriously on their responsibilities and cause them trouble.
The second aspect is of the authorities I have mentioned being made aware of the position after the pipe-line is constructed. That is not what we want in this matter. I think they should be in at the beginning, before the pipe-lines are built, in order that the best practical use should be made of their knowledge. If the noble Lord says that he can strengthen any one of the clauses along these lines, to ensure that right at the beginning, before any damage is done, these authorities will be made aware of what is proposed and can make reasonable representations in regard to it, I shall be satisfied not to press the Amendment; but I should like an assurance as to along what lines the Minister's mind is moving.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: I agree with my noble friend. I suspect, if I read the two clauses aright, that Clause 32 sets out to do one thing—that is, provide a map for the local authority, to which we should like to add "and the river board"—while Clause 34 deals practically with something that has just happened, as to which the pipe-line owner must at once notify certain authorities. As my noble friend said, what the river boards ought to have, because of the size of the authority and the fact that they cover almost every square yard in England and Wales, is a copy of a map at the earliest possible moment, so that they may know exactly where the pipe-lines are going to be provided, how they are likely to disturb their watercourses and just what steps they ought to take before an accident, such as the one referred to in Clause 34, occurs. I am sure the noble Lord wants

59
to do the right thing and that we are no more anxious to serve the river boards than he is. I think my noble friend would perhaps be best advised (if I may tender some advice) to appeal to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to have another look at Clauses 32 and 34, to see whether between now and a later stage what we are seeking cannon be provided.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Before my noble friend replies, may I say that if I understand rightly what noble Lords opposite want, it is that the river boards should know at the earliest possible moment where it is proposed to lay a pipe? However, so far as I can see, an Amendment to Clause 32 would not have that effect in the least: it would provide them with the information only after the authorisation is granted. Surely, noble Lords opposite are seeking that the river boards should have notice of the pipe-line owner's proposals before the Minister grants the authorisation and before he decides the line the pipe is to take. Therefore, it seems to me that, when my noble friend comes to examine it, it is not Clause 32 or Clause 34 that is in point here, and that he should look at the First Schedule.
LORD CHESHAM: There is something in what my noble friend has just said, particularly in regard to the points made by my noble friend Lord Albemarle, which would surely require to be taken into consideration before the authorisation is made. That is the stage at which to object to proposals. This could be done at an inquiry, which there often may be, or by river boards, if they are consulted, or the local planning authority in the case of a local pipe-line. But I do not want to make too much of that. I do not know whether acceptance of the Amendment would be sufficient to meet what the noble Lord wants. I would remind your Lordships of what I said—namely, that if your Lordships feel that Clause 34 needs strengthening by requiring pipeline owners to consult with the authorities in advance and supply them with such information as they may require for the purpose of discharging their duties, I should like to look at the matter again. It seems to me that your Lordships wish that to be considered and do not con-
60
sider that what I said about Amendment No. 47G will go far enough. Therefore, I should like to do what your Lordships wish and take it away and have another think about it.
LORD BURDEN: Speaking for the Amendment for which I am responsible (I cannot speak for my noble friend Lord Silkin), I am happy to accept that assurance, because I feel that members of the Committee are seized of the point and would like a clause strengthened in order that, in the public interest, the river boards (again I am speaking only for my own Amendment) should be brought in. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.10 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), after "authority," (where that word first occurs) to insert: "and fire authority ". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name and in the name of my noble friends. The purpose of this Amendment is to acquaint the fire authority of any pipe-lines which have been authorised, either new lines or diversions. I want to say at once that the fire authority is a different authority from the local authority. The noble Lord shakes his head.
LORD CHESHAM: I nodded.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord shakes his head in agreement. I want to make the point quite briefly that the fire authority, which is a different authority from the local authority, will have certain duties in connection with these pipes. There is a possible danger of the outbreak of fire or of other damage in respect of which the fire authority may be called in, and it seems to me that it should have at its disposal the exact information in relation to the whereabouts of the pipe as is given to the local authority. This is not asking a great deal. It is largely a matter of convenience. The noble Lord made the point that the sole purpose of depositing with the local authority these plans of the pipe-lines was that solicitors and people interested in the whereabouts of the pipe-line should be able to make searches and secure information.
LORD CHESHAM: Or anyone else.
LORD SILKIN: Or anybody else. I suppose the noble Lord would include in that the fire authority. But is it really convenient for the fire authority, which is an independent authority, to have to go to the local authority to find out? I suggest that, if the noble Lord is not able to accept this Amendment now, at least he should go away and think about it. I should have thought it was one of those things he could take it upon himself to agree to without any further ado. The fire authority will get the information by applying to the local authority, but it will not do much harm to anybody if the pipe-line owner has to deposit a further plan with the fire authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 28, after (" authority ") insert (" and fire authority ").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD CHESHAM: I realised from the beginning that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would have a different argument to advance in this case. I do not find myself in opposition to him on the force of the argument that he has put forward, because the fire authority must be able to do its job. I will not go again through the argument I have been through already (I do not think the noble Lord would wish me to do so), but perhaps I may remind him of what I said about requiring owners of pipelines to consult with the authorities in advance and to supply them with such information as the authorities may require for the discharge of their duties. If I were to offer the same umbrella as I offered in the case of river boards, would that be acceptable to the noble Lord? I should like to offer that, because I do not accept exactly what he has said. Being attracted by the principle, I should like to have another look at the matter and see whether a strengthening of that kind can be carried out.
LORD STONHAM: Do I understand the noble Lord is referring to a strengthening of Clause 32?—because a strengthening of Clause 34 would not meet the same point. Clause 32 deals with fire before it starts, and Clause 34 with fire after it has happened.
LORD CHESHAM: That is not quite right, because I do not see how you can make arrangements with authorities to do something if something happens unless you do it in advance. I do not see how you can do it in advance unless you approach them before it happens. That, I think it will be found on consideration, is what I have promised liberally more than once to do. I referred to Clause 34 because it covers the interest of the local authorities and seems to me to be the obvious one to strengthen. It may be that, when it has been looked at again, there will appear to be a need, as your Lordships wish, for owners to consult with the authorities in advance and to supply them with information such as they may require. Perhaps it should be done under Clause 32; or it may be under Clause 34. I should not like to be tied here as to how it should be done, but I repeat my assurance to your Lordships that I should like to have another chance to do it.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Before we leave this subject, my noble friend has indicated that he wishes to take all aspects of this matter into consideration. I would invite him to consider not only the aspects which have been put before him, but also the cost which these aspects are going to lay upon the authorities concerned. We are rather inclined, in the course of legislation of this sort, to make proposals for increasing the burden on the authorities involved, all of which have to be paid for out of public moneys. It seems to me that if, in accordance with the suggestions that have been made, maps are to be supplied by the pipe-line authority, not only to the local authority but to the river boards and the fire authorities, it is not simply a question of the cost of supplying the additional maps, but also a question of the people who are going to read and use those maps. Each of those authorities will have to set up some small department in order to receive the maps, consider them, keep them up to date, and ensure that, if and when an event does occur, the information contained in those maps will be available. We all know that once you have started to set up the smallest sub-department it never diminishes but simply continues to grow. My appeal

63
to my noble friend is that, when he is considering these matters, he will also take into account the cost which will be involved.
LORD BURDEN: I am sure we are all interested to have from the noble Viscount this exposition upon Parkinson's Law. No doubt he had that in mind. So far as river boards are concerned, they feel that, while it will entail some work in the initial stages, it may prevent untold damage and loss in the future. Therefore it is an element of insurance. I dare say that applies to fire insurance, too.
LORD SILKIN: I wish to dissociate myself from the argument about river boards, good as it may be. This is a separate Amendment and argument on fire authorities. I feel that Clauses 32 and 34 are quite different, and are directed to different matters. Clause 32 provides that the authority shall have a permanent record of what has been authorised. It seems such a simple point: that the fire authority, which may be called upon at any time to take action, should have a record of what has been authorised so that it can take action speedily.
I do not know whether the noble Viscount has ever been on a local authority. Local authorities do not, in fact, spend their time setting up committees to look into all documents that have been filed for permanent record, but they can be very useful indeed when the occasion arises. I feel that this is an important question. I did not understand whether Lord Chesham was offering to look at the point again, in the light of what he is going to do about Clause 34, and that possibly he may come to the conclusion that my Amendment may be accepted. If that is his offer I will gladly withdraw the Amendment, to give him an opportunity to look into the whole thing in that comprehensive way. If not, I feel that this Amendment ought to be pressed.
LORD CHESHAM: I am extremely sorry that I should have expressed myself so unbelievably badly that the noble Lord should have found it necessary to feel like that about it. In fact, I used certain words deliberately, and I have now read them out to your Lordships deliberately three times. If there should
64
be any misapprehension on it, the fault must entirely be my own and I can only apologise to your Lordships for it. What I did say was that I should like to look at the point again, in view of what has been said. After all, the noble Lord will agree that a fire authority does not necessarily require for the efficient discharge of its duty long notice of the pipe-line before it comes into existence. In advance, yes. But it does not need it at the moment a pipe-line is conceived. I should have thought that the first authorisation was the question it needs to know, preferably in advance of when the pipe-line is actually constructed. But the real work for a fire authority begins when the pipe-line is constructed. That is the point. As I say, I should like to look at it. Your Lordships have said quite clearly that you would like more done about this matter on behalf of certain authorities. I have undertaken to look at that and see how the Bill can be improved, if your Lordships so wish, which obviously means that an Amendment will have to be set down at a later stage—although I cannot guarantee at what later stage—to carry out what your Lordships think should be done. I hope that that is clear, and that the noble Lord will be able to accept it.
LORD SILKIN: I now understand. It often takes three times before an idea penetrates people. I have often found that they do not understand the first or the second time. I follow what the noble Lord is now saying, and I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN: This Amendment is on a slightly different point. Subsection (4) defines what is meant here by "local authority." It sets out the various authorities included, but I see it does not include a county council. I was wondering whether that is deliberate, whether it is thought that for this purpose county councils should not be regarded as local authorities—which may well be so—or if it is deliberate, what is the reason. Or is it merely an oversight? If we leave out "county council" in this we are leaving out the London County Council, which is one of the largest authorities in the world. I should be glad of an explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 7, after (" a ") insert (" county, ").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD CHESHAM: In reply to the noble Lord, the omission was deliberate, for this reason. It was thought that it would hardly be necessary to include "county council", because, surely, any part of the area of a county council also falls within the area of a county district—an urban or rural district council. Therefore there are available, as I said, for people who need to know them, maps which indicate the scheme in the area, and normally the offices of those councils will probably be more convenient than offices of the county council.
Furthermore, the county council will already have the information in its capacity as a planning authority, because, I think I am right in saying that even where the Minister deems a planning permission to have been granted (that, I think, is under Part III of the Planning Act), the information is conveyed on to the planning authority who would have granted permission had the Minister not deemed it. So they do know and already have the information in the office. They would therefore get it in twice. I suppose there might be some people who would obtain their information more readily from the county council than from the local council office, but on the whole it was thought that the local office would he the more convenient. There is nothing more subtle underlying it than that.
LORD SILKIN: I never thought there was anything subtle about it. I was wondering whether, in the light of that explanation, which I fully understand, it would be convenient that the county council should have this information, or were supplied with it, in the case where a number of district councils are involved. In answer to an earlier Amendment the noble Lord explained that it was for the purpose of enabling people who were interested to know the whereabouts of a pipe-line that the information had to be given to the local authority. That might include a number of authorities, and this would mean going to each authority and finding out how much of the pipe-line was incorporated within the area of their authority. Would it not be convenient if one could go to the county office and find out how much of it was included in the county? That is all there is to it. It may comfort the noble Lord to know that I am willing
66
that he should think about it, and that I will not press the Amendment. I think it is worth considering, however.
LORD CHESHAM: On this particular matter, I have listened to what the noble Lord has said, I do not feel that the objections I put forward are particularly ones for which I wish to die in the last ditch, so to speak. If the noble Lord feels that the Amendment adds something, I am prepared to accept it. I am bound to say that I do not myself think it is going to do very much good to the Bill. On the other hand, it is equally true that it is not likely to do any harm at all. Therefore, in view of what the noble Lord has said, if he and your Lordships so wish. I will accept his Amend ment.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [Notification of abandonment, cesser of use and resumption of use of pipe-lines or lengths thereof]:
6.29 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "Minister" to insert:
" and to each local authority and fire authority within whose area the said pipe-line or length thereof is situate".
The noble Lord said: Clause 33 says that the owner of a pipe-line shall notify the Minister when he begins its use, when he abandons it, the expiration of three years from the date on which a pipeline ceases to be used, and on the resumption of its use. While it is important that he should so inform the Minister, it seems to us almost of equally urgent importance that he should inform the local authorities and the fire authorities through whose area the pipeline moves. I would point out that in other clauses of the Bill it is regarded as of importance that local authorities should be informed, and if at the next stage of the Bill we find that the Government agree that it is important that fire authorities should be given information, then it is of equal importance that they should be informed (and it does not involve a map; it means only a letter) of these changes in the use or disuse of a pipe-line. I should therefore hope that the Government would agree that this Amendment is reasonable and necessary.
While they are looking at that—and I hope I am not too much of a purist in

67
these things—would they just have a look at the wording of subsection (1)? It seems to me that there is an extraordinary use of language: the Minister shall be given "notice of the happening of the event". When I first read it through it seemed to me that the Minister was going to be told about a happy event. Surely we can find other ways of indicating that the Minister should be informed when things are done or are not done to a pipe-line than by using the term "happening of the event". Perhaps that might be thought of at some time. I think the purpose of the Amendment is clear, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 22, after (" Minister ") insert the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD MILLS: The purpose of the Clause is to ensure that the Minister is aware of the events specified in it, so that he can take any action that might be needed to ensure safety. In practice I assume the Minister would send his inspector to discuss with the pipe-line owner what should be done. There is no such duty falling on either the local authorities or the fire authorities, and that was why it was felt that there was no purpose in requiring notification to be given to them. I have, however, carefully listened to the arguments on the proposed Amendments 47A, 47B, 47C and 47D, and I think that this case is analogous to those. If the noble Lord agrees to withdraw his Amendment I will see it is given consideration along with those other Amendments.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful for that assurance, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Duty of pipe-line owners to make arrangements for notifying fire-brigades, police, &c., of pipe-line accidents]:
LORD LINDGREN: When the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, was speaking earlier to former Amendments I understood him to say that he was inclined, at least, to accept Amendment 47G. As the clause at present reads, the pipe-line owner should, if so required by the Minister, make and ensure the efficient carrying out of certain arrangements. In
68
so far as the bodies connected with this clause are concerned, we feel it ought not to be a question of the Minister's having to require this to be done. We are not suggesting that the Minister would not require them to do so in most appropriate cases. But this is an Act of Parliament and we are creating legislation, and as there are circumstances in which detrimental events are likely to arise the requirement should be directly on the pipe-line owner to carry out the work or to take a line of action as suggested in the rest of the clause. In view of what the Minister indicated earlier, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 32, leave out from (" pipeline ") to the second (" to ") in line 33.—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD MILLS: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, that there is no need to keep in this qualification and I am therefore prepared to accept the Amendment.
LORD CHESHAM: Amendment No. 48 is one of a group which hang together; they are 48, 49, 49A and 49B. They do something quite simple: 48 is merely drafting; 49 does the work; 49A and 49B are consequential. Whatever happens, as we have just been discussing Clause 34, which is the one which is intended to cover the interests of various statutory authorities, fire brigades, police, river boards and so on, we still need this Amendment. Inadvertently the sewerage authorities have been left out. It is necessary that they should he brought in, because if there should be an accident or a leak or something like that, they are just as liable to have duties to perform, possibly through there being inflammable liquids running about in the sewers forming gas and so on. What these Amendments do is to bring in the sewerage authorities. It is actually Amendment 49 which does so, 49A and 49B being concerned with definitions. I beg to move.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 42, at end insert (" and to all sewerage authorities who will or may have, in

69
consequence of the happening of the event, to take steps to prevent injury to their sewers or sewage disposal works, interference with the free flow of the contents of any of their sewers or the prejudicial affection of the treatment and disposal of such contents or to combat the effects of any such injury, interference or affection ".—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
(" ( ) In any case where as a result of the accidental escape from a pipe-line:—

(a) any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter enters or is likely to enter a stream (as defined in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951);

(b) matter enters a stream and it is of such a volume or quantity as to cause flooding or an obstruction to the flow of the stream;

the owner of the pipe-line shall forthwith take such steps as are available to him to prevent or minimise (as the case may be) the effect of the escape.")
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which we have just accepted strengthens this particular clause, but I would ask the Minister on looking at it again to consider whether the Amendment just carried goes far enough, because that Amendment calls upon the owners of the pipe-line to take steps to prevent injury to sewers or sewage disposal works. It is not only sewerage works or works of that kind that might be damaged by an accidental leakage or defect in a pipe-line, but also streams coming under the jurisdiction of a river board.
The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved and which your Lordships have accepted imposes a responsibility on the pipe-line authorities to take steps in regard to any possible trouble arising from a leakage so far as sewage works are concerned; but it leaves open the question as to what the pipe-line authorities are to do in the event, say, of a stream being affected. Will they be justified in simply folding their arms and waiting until some other authority comes along to tackle the problem? The Amendment which has been carried puts certain responsibilities on the pipe-line people. I would ask the Committee to strengthen that Amendment a little more and to put the responsibilities on to them in regard to any damage which might arise, to ensure that within their power they should take stops to prevent arising more damage than is absolutely necessary.
In view of the Amendment which has been carried, I quite agree that my form of words may now not fit the circumstances. If the noble Lord feels that what I have said is of substance, I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment on the assurance that the Minister will have another look at it to see whether his Amendment can also be strengthened to give effect to what I have in mind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 42, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD MILLS: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, for his suggestion, because the Amendment which we are now considering is, I think, quite impracticable. Amendment No. 49, which we have just passed, requires consultation on these things, whereas the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord requires action—it requires the owner of the pipe-line to take active steps to minimise the effect of an accident. Of course it is in his own interests to minimise the effects so far as he can, because in the end he will have to pay. But that is not what the clause says. The clause compels him to take such steps as he can to minimise the effect. Therefore, I feel I have to say to the noble Lord that while one has a good deal of sympathy and understanding with what he was trying to do, it would not be practicable to accept his Amendment. But when we look at Amendment No. 49 we will certainly have regard to what he has in mind.
LORD BURDEN: In view of that assurance and the overall consideration that this Amendment will also be taken into account, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 14, at end insert (" and any reference in this section to a sewer shall be construed as including a reference to any manholes, ventilating shafts, pumps or other accessories belonging to that sewer, and any reference in this section to sewage disposal works shall be construed as including a reference to the machinery and equipment of those works and any necessary pumping stations and outfall pipes ").—(Lord Chesham.)
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Notification of change of ownership or use of pipe-line]:
6.45 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: This Amendment raises a simple point. Under the Bill as it stands, when there is a change of ownership of the pipe-line there is naturally an obligation on the owner of the pipe-line to inform the Minister. This Amendment seeks to make it obligatory on the owner of the pipe-line to inform also the owners of the land through which the pipe runs. It seems to me that the least one can expect, if there is a pipe-line running through one's land, is that, should there be a burst or an explosion or something like that, one should know who is the owner, and whom one should ring up so that it can be rectified. A number of people have rights to be on the land—inspectors and such people—and I think it only right that the owners of the land should know to what company those people belong. Whether this Amendment is the right way of doing it I am not certain, but I feel that there is a point of substance here and that the owners should be informed. I hope the noble Lord will find it possible to accept this Amendment, at least in principle. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 18, after (" Minister") insert (" and owners of the land in which the pipeline is situate ").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MILLS: The purpose of providing for notification to the Minister is to enable him to ensure that adequate safety measures are taken. When a new owner takes over a pipe-line it will normally be desirable for an inspector to call upon him to discuss the question with him and to see that all the neces-
72
sary precautions are being taken. It may even be necessary for the Minister to impose new safety requirements, if the line is being put to a different use. But there would be no purpose in requiring the owner to notify landowners of any change in the use of the line, since the landowners have no duties to perform in relation to it. At the same time, it would, I think, be proper and reasonable that the landowners should know when there is a change of ownership. We can therefore accept that part of the Amendment. If the noble Lord cares to withdraw his Amendment now, I will see that a suitable Government Amendment is introduced at a later stage.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LINDGREN: In view of the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to the previous Amendment, I would only point out that although the landowner has no duties to perform, the local authority and the fire authority have. We think that, because of this, the notification of change of ownership should be given to the local authority and also to the fire authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 18, after (" Minister ") insert (" and to each local authority and fire authority within whose area the said pipe-line is situate ").—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD MILLS: The local authority and the fire authority do not really need to know about this change. But we have had considerable argument on this class of Amendment and perhaps the noble Lord would permit me to look at this one in conjunction with the others.
LORD LINDGREN: In view of the statement by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Avoidance of interference with telegraphic, etc., lines]
6.50 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or used for the purposes". The noble Lord said: It always seems to fall to me to offer your

73
Lordships large blocks of Amendments, and this is no exception: Amendment No. 51 goes with Nos. 63, 78 and 79. The effect of this group is this. They add to the ancillary works and apparatus, which under Clause 54 (2) are treated as being part of the pipe-line itself, signalling wires for use in connection with the pipe-line. Thus they are brought within the scope of planning permission for a cross-country pipe-line under Clause 5 and are likewise made subject to the Public Utilities Street Works Act when placed in or over a road. It is quite a simple point, and in a moment I will ask your Lordships to accept Amendment. No. 51.
Before I do that, there is just one outstanding point that I think I must mention. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, inquired on Second Reading whether the right specified in the first paragraph of the Fourth Schedule to lay electric cables for the purpose of signalling entailed the right to lay electric cables above the ground. My noble friend Lord Mills said that he would look into the matter. Under these Amendments the first paragraph of the Fourth Schedule will disappear, and, instead, apparatus for the transmission of information for the operation of the pipe or system will be treated as part of the pipe-line itself. The answer to the noble Lord's question, therefore, is that the Bill as amended would permit the Minister in the case of a cross-country pipe-line, or the local planning authority in the case of a local pipe-line, to authorise the laying of signalling lines above the ground.
On the other hand, both have adequate powers under the Planning Acts to ensure that such lines are placed underground where this is desirable. We had considerable discussion the other day as to whether the pipe-line itself should be put underground, and I said at the time that that would normally be desirable. I think that we should say the same of this signalling apparatus: that that would normally be desirable, and it would not make a great deal of sense to treat it on a different basis from the pipe-line itself—certainly not to insist that the signalling wires were buried when the pipe-line was not. Therefore, I think we should have the same discretion and flexibility. It only remains for me to remind your Lordships that we visualise that signal lines
74
will normally be underground. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 44, leave out (" or used for the purposes ")—(Lord Chesham.)
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 37 to insert the following new clause
Provisions for avoidance of pollution
".—(1) Before commencing to execute works for the construction or diversion of a pipe-line, or for the maintenance, replacement, relaying or altering temporarily or permanently of a pipe-line, the owner of the pipe-line or proposed pipe-line (as the case may be) shall give notice to the statutory water undertakers within whose limits of supply any works are to be carried out specifying the proposed works; and if in the opinion of any such undertakers, or of any other statutory water undertakers, the said works will render necessary the execution of protective works (whether temporary or permanent) for the purpose of protecting against pollution any water which they supply for human consumption or domestic purposes, the statutory water undertakers so affected may within twenty-eight days from the date when the said notice is given to them by counter-notice require the owner to execute the necessary protective works.
(2) The owner of a pipe-line or proposed pipe-line (as the case may be) shall carry out such protective works specified in a counter-notice given tinder subsection (1) of this section as may be agreed between the owner and the statutory water undertakers concerned or in default of agreement as may be determined by the Minister of Housing and Local Government."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is to assist in the avoidance of pollution of water supplies. Water undertakers can be particularly susceptible to pollution, particularly those who draw their water supplies from porous materials such as chalk or limestone. There is, in addition, the danger of water becoming contaminated by oil or petrol, in which case there would be great difficulty in getting rid of the taste. Therefore I feel that the pipe-line itself should be protected in case of a break or a leak, in order to prevent the fluid in the pipe-line from being able to reach the water supplies. I think there has been some such provision as this in private legislation for the construction of pipe-lines.
The purpose of the Amendment is to enable the people who propose to construct the pipe-line to consult with the statutory water undertaker before the pipe-line is built, when it is going to be

75
constructed within the limits of supply of a particular water undertaker. The water undertaker can then insist that the pipe-line operator should undertake proper protective works if it is felt that there is some danger of contamination of the water supply. If there is a difference of opinion between the pipe-line constructor and the water undertaker, then possibly there could be an appeal to the Minister to adjudicate on the point. I hope it will be possible for the Government to adopt this Amendment, or something akin to it, because it would go a long way to allay the fears of the statutory water undertakers.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 37 insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Amulree.)
LORD MILLS: As the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has said, the proposed new clause is intended to provide that before beginning work on a pipe-line the owner should give notice to any statutory water undertaker concerned, who may then require protective works to be carried out to avoid pollution of water. Provision is made for reference to the Minister of Housing and Local Government in the event of a dispute.
I have already said that the Government consider the avoidance of water pollution a matter of the greatest importance. The Bill, however, has been drafted on the basis that ensuring safety in all its aspects, including the avoidance of pollution, is a matter for the Minister of Power. It would be totally at variance with this basic conception to require separate notice to be given to statutory water undertakers and to enable them separately to require protective works to be carried out. The Government are, however, very conscious of the need to avoid pollution and recognise that it is a risk of a very special character. While we could not agree to impose upon a pipe-line owner a separate duty to give notice to water undertakers and to carry out works that may be specified, I think it might be possible in the Bill to provide some special recognition of the duty placed on the Minister to safeguard against pollution of water supplies. If the noble Lord would be content with that undertaking and will withdraw his Amendment. I will give consideration to that point.
LORD AMULREE: In view of what the noble Lord has said, which goes a considerable way to meeting my case, I shall be pleased to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Certain pipe-lines to be plant or machinery for rating purposes in England and Wales]:
7.0 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved to leave out Clause 38. The noble Lord said: As the law stands at present, pipes are not plant "in the nature of" a building, machinery or a structure, and therefore do not come within the ambit of the Third Schedule of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. Four classes of plant and machinery are rateable, but the only way by which pipes can be brought within this Third Schedule is by the creation of another class. But is this Bill, which refers purely to pipe-lines, an appropriate Bill for the introduction of an additional class of rateable plant and machinery? Surely, such an amendment to the substantive law on rating should find its place in a Bill related to rating and not to pipe-lines. It could then be considered in its proper context, and the pros and cons could be discussed in relation to the whole background of the rating of plant and machinery, in general.
I would stress that this Bill creates a new class in complete isolation. This Bill has nothing to do with rating, yet it creates a completely new class of rateable article. At a time when so much legislation is reaching the Statute Book it seems to me that this is a somewhat untidy method, which consists of a stray clause such as this being inserted into what I feel may be an inappropriate Bill. Surely this is a trend which must eventually lead, for clarification purposes, to more frequent Consolidation Acts. That is why I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 38.—(Lord Merrivale.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I support what has just been said by my noble friend. It seems to me that, however right the Inland Revenue may be in wishing to overcome the reverses they have suffered in the tribunals of this country, it is very strange that we should find in the middle of a Bill on pipe-lines

77
a clause which is suitable only to be found in rating and valuation legislation. If, as I said, the reverses the Inland Revenue have suffered must be put right as quickly as this, I wonder whether this is altogether the most suitable way of doing it. Is there no more simple way of phrasing the particular requirements which are felt to be needed? For instance, would it not be possible merely to say that, "For the purposes of the Third Schedule of the 1925 Act, a pipeline within the meaning of this Bill shall be deemed to be a conduit "? I believe that that might, perhaps, provide at any rate an interim solution to the problem, until such time as we have another Rating and Valuation Bill before Parliament—and I do not suppose that will be long.
In any case, I foresee a certain amount of difficulty in the clause as it now stands in the Bill. So far as I can see, there is no provision that it should be read together with the rating and valuation legislation, and I know of no method in the Bill of interpreting the various expressions used in this clause; which, of course, are not in the context of pipelines at all, but are pure rating and valuation matters. If it transpires that this clause has got to stand as it is now drafted, I wonder whether it would not be better to add at the end a subsection to say that, "This clause shall be construed together with the Rating and Valuation Act ", in order that there shall he no difficulty in its interpretation. I certainly feel that it is incongruous where it is, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Mills will be able to give some reassurance on this matter.
LORD MILLS: I can well understand the view of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, but I think it is necessary that I should explain to your Lordships in a little more detail the reason for inserting this clause in the Bill. There was a recent case in which the Lands Tribunal upheld an appeal by Unilever Limited, against the valuation officer's decision that certain high-pressure steam pipes serving various factories near Port Sunlight were rateable. These pipelines had always been regarded as rateable under Section 24 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, and the Plant and Machinery (Rating) Orders, 1927 and 1960. Since it was held that pipe-lines were not rateable,
78
we are faced with the necessity of altering the law; otherwise, very large sums of rateable income would be lost.
The noble Lord says that this is not the right place to deal with rating matters, but the provision in the Bill is intended to do no more than to restore the status quo before the Lands Tribunal's decision. Since it is only the rating of pipe-lines that is in question, the Pipe-Lines Bill appears to be a reasonable place to deal with it. The matter is urgent and cannot wait for general rating legislation.
The point of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, about construing this clause with the Rating and Valuation Act is unnecessary, because the effect of the clause is to amend that Act. I really think that this is the simplest way of dealing with the matter. The noble Viscount suggested that it might be dealt with by classifying pipes as conduits, but it has already been held that they are not conduits. We cannot, therefore, rely upon that suggestion. I should like to put it to your Lordships that this is a simple and convenient procedure, and that we must take these steps to keep as rateable these pipes which have always been considered in the past as rateable.
LORD MERRIVALE: I must say that, listening to my noble friend, I am not entirely convinced by his argument. What I felt was that the main reason why the Government are putting this clause in this Bill is because it is a handy measure in which to insert a clause introducing legislation for the rating of pipe-lines, because they could not await the introduction of a new Rating and Valuation Bill, which may not be for some time. But I cannot see that there is such an urgency for pipelines to be a rateable commodity that they cannot await a Rating and Valuation Bill in the future. I do not feel that these pipe-lines will develop to such an extent that income will become available to Her Majesty's Government large enough to warrant the inclusion of a clause such as this in the Bill.
LORD MILLS: If I might interrupt my noble friend, I should just like to point out to him that there are pipe-lines in existence which have been subject to rating and which were upset by this decision.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am grateful to my noble friend for that clarification. As I say, I do not propose to press this Amendment now, but I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross for his support. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Inspectors]:
7.12 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: All that my Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that inspectors appointed by the Minister should not enter upon land without reasonable means of identification and without due notice. There are many precedents for this in the Public Health Acts and in the Town and Country Planning Acts. In particular, in the Land Powers (Defence) Act, 1958, which deals with Government pipe-lines, there is a clause in terms almost identical with those of my Amendment, except that it ensures that seven days' notice is given by inspectors, whereas I am seeking only 48 hours' notice. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept the principle of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 4, at end insert—
(" A person authorised under this section to enter upon any land shall, if so required, produce evidence of his authority before so entering, and shall not demand admission as of right to any land which is occupied unless forty-eight hours notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier.")—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD CHESHAM: I wish I could help my noble friend a little more than I find myself able to do, but, as he will not be in the least surprised to hear, I must resist his Amendment. The first half of his Amendment does exactly the same as is already provided for in the Bill; that is, provides that the inspector, on request, must produce evidence of his identity. To require him to give 48 hours' notice before he can demand admission as of right seems to me to impose an unreasonable restriction on his movements, such as might very seriously hamper him in carrying out his duties.
Let us just think for a moment what his duties are. We are not granting free
80
admission as of night at any time to some official of the pipe-line operating firm: we are granting it to the Minister's inspector, who is principally charged with certain duties—and this is most important—in connection with ensuring the safety of the pipe-line. I think it is important he should be able to inspect the pipe-line without delay—and, after all, it might very well be just as much in the interests of the owner or occupier, or both, as of anyone else if he could do so. I do not really see any other way round that. It seems to me a reasonable point, particularly if there are to be the dangerous substances that some of your Lordships tell us about. I do not think that in a case of a suspected leak, or something like that, the inspector should have to give 48 hours' notice before he does to look for it. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend can accept that and will not press his Amendment.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I accept my noble friend's first point about the identification; I think that matter is covered. I understood that here we were covering the periodic inspections. My Amendment is not to prevent an inspector coming on should there be a suspected leak, or something like that; this is a periodic inspection. What I cannot quite understand is why, if an inspector must give seven days' notice under the Land Powers (Defence) Act before going on land to look at a pipe-line, he need not give any notice at all under this Act. I should like an explanation of that point.
LORD CHESHAM: As a matter of fact, I cannot understand it either, and therefore I say to my noble friend that perhaps I had better think that one over and get in touch with him about it. But, at any rate, as the Amendment is drafted, the 48 hours' notice required before he could go in applies alike to emergency inspections and to periodic ones. I have not thought very much about differentiating the two, and I do not know, indeed, if the two can be differentiated in any way; but I am prepared to think about that one to see whether they can, although perhaps not with much hope. At all events, I will look into this other point and get in touch with my noble friend about it.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am grateful to my noble friend, and, on the understanding that he will look into the point, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, after Clause 39 to insert the following new clause:
Preservation of amenity
". Where—

(a) a person is formulating proposals for the execution of pipe-line works, or

(b) the Minister is considering any such proposals, whether in relation to the grant of a pipe-line construction or diversion authorisation or the imposition of conditions under section five of this Act,

that person or the Minister, as the case may be, having regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographic features of special interest, and of protecting buildings and other objects of architectural or historic interest, shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings or objects."
The noble Lord said: This new clause deals with the preservation of amenity, and is in accordance with an undertaking I gave to your Lordships' House on Second Reading. I have had much pleasure in seeing this Amendment, because I remember we owe the terms of it to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Hurcomb, made when we were considering the Electricity Act, 1957. I thought at that time, and I still think now, that it is a masterpiece, covering a problem with which all your Lordships are concerned. Under this clause, when anyone is formulating proposals for the execution of pipe-line works he must take into account any effect the proposals would have on such amenities. Likewise, the Minister must take the question of amenity into account when authorising the construction of cross-country pipelines under Clause 1, their diversion under Clause 3 and in according planning permission under Clause 5. I think it is a very full clause, and I hope your Lordships will think it acceptable in meeting the point we had in mind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 39 insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Mills.)
LORD HURCOMB: I should like to say one word of thanks to the noble
82
Lord, not so much for what he has said as for what he has done. Various organisations, with many of which I am connected and which are concerned with the preservation of our wild life and the amenity of our landscape, attach great importance to the promoting authorities, and also to the Minister concerned, having their attention directed by Parliament to the importance of the considerations which are set out in this new clause. They had noted its omission from the original Bill, and, as I say, are grateful to the noble Lord and to the Minister for having now inserted it. Its terms are wide, and provided it is applied and administered in the spirit in which it is intended, I think it can in some cases prove effective. As I said to your Lordships on a previous occasion, what we really want are not merely pious expressions of goodwill in this matter, but a few decisions in the right sense; and, of course, you cannot bind the Minister to that in a Bill. I hope your Lordships will agree that the statutory directions are important and will carry more and more weight when it is clear that, in the opinion of Parliament, these considerations stand rather higher in the scale of values than they have sometimes in the past.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am a little surprised that the Government had to wait to put this clause in at all and that it did not find itself in the Bill as one of the first matters which had to be regulated for; but, none the less, we are grateful for having it. I should like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who has done so much, and no doubt has played a very useful part in ensuring that this matter is taken care of. But I wish that there were a few more teeth in this clause. I do not know whether something rather stronger is possible. I know that this is following an existing formula, but it is a painful fact that particularly sites of special scientific interest are from time to time being destroyed. I am wondering whether this clause takes into account that fact, and whether the Minister (perhaps he has dealt with it already in another way) is in a position to ensure that, in any access to works that may be going on or may be contemplated quite apart from the actual line of the works themselves, he will be able to

83
influence the action of the particular person who is building the pipe-line. It takes so little to destroy in the countryside, and I am wondering whether, on that particular point, we can have some assurance. I suppose this clause is strong enough. The Minister is only to "have regard" to the matter; he is not obliged in any way to preserve these features; and clearly, in certain circumstances, it might be impossible. But like the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, I wish that these matters were sometimes more generally regarded and had a higher status in our judgment of things which ought to be done or ought not to be done.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I, too, should like to thank the Minister for this clause, which will especially please my noble friend Lord Chorley, who is not here now but who put down an Amendment earlier in the Bill. I hope that the optimism and the gratitude of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, are fully justified; but I feel rather like my noble friend Lord Shackleton, that just to take into account the effect of any action on the natural beauty of the countryside, the flora, fauna, and the rest, may perhaps not in all cases bring about the results for which we hope. We have to remember that pipe-lines are not all the way underground. There may be a large number within a distance of not many miles. They require quite considerable installations above ground—pumping stations, and the like.
I wondered whether it would not be as well to have something in the Bill like Section 11 of the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928. That section says that, for the purpose of preserving amenities, councils — that is, local authorities—who have the power to grant licences for petrol stations may make by-laws—

"(a) regulating the appearance of petroleum filling stations; or

(b) prohibiting the establishment of petroleum filling stations,"

in any areas which they designate. It seems to me that if we are going to have areas of natural beauty with a pipe-line traversing them, that is all very well till you come to the installation, and then the installation might completely ruin the neighbourhood, or,
84
indeed, do permanent damage to sites of special scientific interest.
LORD MILLS: I think it is a good thing that we should discuss the problem, because I know how deeply your Lordships feel about it and I know how deeply Ministers feel about it. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, gave me the opportunity of apologising—because I like apologising—for the fact that this was not in the Bill in the first instance but we are proposing to put the clause in the Bill now. If the noble Lord will look at the clause for a moment, he will see that it enjoins not only the Minister but the person formulating proposals to take care of the amenities. I can assure the noble Lord that the utmost attention is paid to this problem, because we are all seized with the smallness of our island, the beauty of our island, and the need for conserving it.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I ask the noble Lord whether he would answer my question as to how far the Minister himself can intervene in regard to this question of access for equipment, and so on, and possible damage to the countryside when equipment is conveyed to the pipe-line? I do not doubt that the persons concerned will have due regard to that and will be anxious to avoid trouble, but they may say that they have to do it in a certain way for economy. That is the point which I think we ought to be concerned about—whether the Minister can exercise that power. It may be that it is covered somewhere else in the Bill and I have missed it.
LORD MILLS: There is provision in this Bill for the Minister to be assisted by inspectors, and it is usually through his inspectors that he would have regard to these problems on the spot.
7.29 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, after Clause 39 to insert the following new clause
Disclosure of information
—(1) If any person discloses any information which has been furnished to him under

85
this Act he shall be guilty of an offence, unless the disclosure is made—

(a) with the consent of the person by whom the information was furnished; or

(b) in connection with the execution of this Act; or

(c) for the purpose of any proceedings arising out of this Act, or of any criminal proceedings whether so arising or not, or for the purpose of any such report of any such proceedings.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under the foregoing subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both.
The noble Lord said: Under Clause 39 an inspector is empowered to carry out inspections and tests of pipe-lines and pipe-line works; that is, at all reasonable times. He is also empowered to require the production of any documents which are in the possession, or under the control, of the owner of the pipe-line. An inspector could thereby have access to manufacturing processes or trade secrets, and I feel it is only right that there should be in the Bill some restriction on the disclosure of information. Therefore, I trust that this Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships and to Her Majesty's Government, for it follows very closely a precedent in Section 68 of the 1961 Public Health Act. In that case it is in the context of the discharge of trade effluents. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 39, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Merrivale.)
7.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Before my noble friend replies, may I say that I hope very much that the Government will not accept this Amendment, which seems to me to go much too wide, notwithstanding the precedent which my noble friend Lord Merrivale has quoted. It seems to open the possibility of many entirely innocent people becoming guilty, technically at any rate, of offences under subsection (2) of the proposed new clause. Any information which was furnished, for instance, to a public inquiry held under this Bill either into an authorisation or into a compulsory purchase order would come within information furnished under the Act, and innocent persons would immediately attract the penalty provided here. I do not suppose that, in practice, anybody
86
would be fined or go to prison, but I think it is wrong that your Lordships should approve an Amendment which is drafted in such a wide way as this one is, and which would be open to entirely wrong results, if it were taken literally. I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister will not accept it.
LORD MILLS: I am glad of the support of the noble Viscount in suggesting that this new clause should be resisted. As drafted, it goes far wider than is necessary for the purpose and could lead to all kinds of people being prosecuted for the disclosure of information which there could be no harm in making public. However, it is probable that it is designed more particularly to provide a sanction against the disclosure by one of the Minister's inspectors of information which he might have acquired in carrying out his duties. These inspectors are civil servants, and the proper action against civil servants who disclose information which they ought not to disclose is to dismiss them. Clauses restricting the disclosure of information are right, but only for Bills where the information is obtained by people who are not civil servants—for example, public health inspectors. A provision of this kind is included in Section 154 of the Factories Act, 1961, but I think that it is quite inappropriate in this place, and I suggest to your Lordships that we should not accept it.
LORD MERRIVALE: I do not propose to press this Amendment, but perhaps my noble friend will look again at what I am trying to achieve. The Amendment may be drafted too widely, but would he please ask his Parliamentary draftsmen to look at the precedent which I mentioned, to see whether there are not grounds for incorporating some supplementary clause in this Bill, so that there would be some form of restriction on the disclosure of information. I feel that it is not enough to say that if a civil servant discloses information which may be of secret nature, he will be dismissed. That is a penalty in one way, but it is not a criminal penalty. Possibly my noble friend would give an assurance that he will look at this point again, to see whether or not there are grounds for incorporating in the Bill some clause which would reduce the possibility of inspectors and other persons disclosing

87
secret information and information of manufacturing processes which could be detrimental to the firms concerned.
LORD MILLS: I have continually been giving assurances to look again at this or that point. I am not sure that this proposal comes under that category, because I am advised that it is misconceived and would be a wrong thing to do. But the matter need not end there. I will certainly discuss it with my right honourable friend the Minister to see whether his advice differs in any way from that which I have received.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before eight o'clock.