Sitting of 19 December 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

  SPECIAL PROCEDURE
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Provisions of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 be applied to Orders hereafter to be made under any of the enactments which you specify, in substitution for the Provisions of any such enactment providing that such Orders shall be Provisional only and shall not have effect until confirmed by Parliament.
  I will give directions accordingly.

INCOME TAX
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South West Africa) Order 1962, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
I will comply with your request.

INCOME TAX
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
I have received your Address praying that, on the ratification by the Government of Israel of the convention set out in the schedule to the draft of an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Israel) Order 1962, a copy of which was laid before your House, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.
I will comply with your request.

INCOME TAX
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
I have received your Address praying that, on the ratification by the Government of Japan of the convention set out in the schedule to an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Japan) Order 1962, a draft of which was laid before your House, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.
I will comply with your request.

IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
I have received your Address praying that the International Coffee Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1962, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
I will comply with your request.

SUMMER TIME
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order 1963 be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of the Summer Time Act, 1947.
I will comply with your request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOUTH AFRICA

    Economic Sanctions
    Mrs. Castleasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will appoint an interdepartmental committee representing the Board of Trade, the Treasury and the Ministry of Labour to examine and report on the effects on the economy of Great Britain's participation in economic sanctions against South Africa with a view to implementing the resolution passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 6th November.
    The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): No, Sir.
    Mrs. Castle: Do Her Majesty's Government intend to do nothing whatsoever about this resolution which was passed by a two-thirds majority at the General Assembly? Is it not bad enough that the Government should be sabotaging U Thant's efforts to settle the Congo question by imposing sanctions against Katanga, without the Government also refusing to do anything about this resolution on South Africa? Are they determined to wreck the United Nations?
    Mr. Godber: No, Sir. As to the extraneous matter that the hon. Lady has brought in, I shall defer any comments to a later Question. As regards South Africa, Her Majesty's Government voted against this resolution, as the hon. Lady is well aware. We did not and do not think that sanctions are right in this case. We do not believe that sanctions will help the people about whom the hon. Lady appears to be concerned. We believe that it is a wrong method of approach and we voted against the resolution.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Did our representative suggest any other possibility of helping the oppressed people of South Africa? Secondly, will not the hon. Gentleman say at least that Her Majesty's Government will enforce an arms embargo in relation to South Africa?
    Mr. Godber: There is on the Order Paper a Question about the second point. As to the first point, Her Majesty's Government have made quite clear that we believe that it does not help these people to act in the way proposed, through sanctions. What we have to do is to try to win over South Africa to a more realistic appreciation of the position. We have wholeheartily condemned their policies of apartheid at the present United Nations Assembly. They are quite clear about our views in this matter. We believe that this is the best way in which we can help.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no efficacy under the Charter of the United Nations in a resolution passed by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly?
    Mr. Godber: Yes, that is perfectly true.
    Mrs. Castle: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this demand for sanctions against South Africa is backed by the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa? The African and Asian organisations—
    Mr. Fell: No.
    Mrs. Castle: I am in much better touch with the situation than the hon. Member is. Is the Minister of State not aware that an absolute heartcry has gone out from Chief Luthuli asking the Western nations to apply this economic pressure against South Africa as the only way of avoiding terrible bloodshed and the continued imposition of a police State?
    Mr. Godber: I do not accept that this would be the way in which to avoid further difficulties there. I have expressed quite clearly Her Majesty's Government's view on this matter.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has received from the European Economic Community about its decision to enter into negotiations with South Africa; and whether he will make a statement as to the effects of this decision on the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): The South African Minister for Economic Affairs, Dr. Diederichs, made a statement in Brussels on 20th November. Her Majesty's Government's policy remains unchanged.
    Mr. Wilson: What is it? Since both the hon. Gentleman and the Lord Privy Seal, in the debate on the South Africa Bill, said that they were taking no responsibility for South Africa in relation to the Common Market, are we to take it that this is being done entirely on South Africa's initiative without backing from Her Majesty's Government? Further, since, in the British negotiations with the E.E.C., it has apparently been agreed that the tailing off of preferences will apply to South Africa and that South Africa will continue to keep preferences for a period of years, will the hon. Gentleman say whether it was the policy of the British Government to get this concession?
    Mr. Thomas: The statement which was made by the South African Minister was done entirely on the South African Government's initiative. The right hon. Gentleman asks what our policy is. It remains the same as it was when we spoke on the South Africa Bill. The special arrangements which we are seeking in Brussels are for members of the Commonwealth.

    Supply of Arms
    Mrs. Castleasked the Lord Privy Seal what conditions are imposed on the sale of arms to the South African Government.
    Mr. Godber: Her Majesty's Government's policy about supplying arms to South Africa was explained to the House by my hon. Friend in his winding-up speech in the debate on the Address.
    Mrs. Castle: Is not the hon. Gentleman fully aware that that speech does not answer this Question? Will he say what conditions the Government lay down for the sale of these arms? If there are no conditions, how can the Government continue to say that these arms are for joint Western defence and not for the intimidation of the local people? Is it not outrageous that we should be helping South Africa to build up the most powerful air force of any small nation in the world? Is not this bound to poison the attitude of the whole African Continent to the British Government at a most crucial time?
    Mr. Godber: No, Sir. The position on the supply of these arms is that any order is looked at very carefully from the political point of view and from the point of view to which the hon. Lady referred, namely, whether there is any question of their being used for local intimidation. Only such arms as would obviously be required for external defence are supplied.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Minister of State aware that his hon. Friend did not answer this question in his speech on the Address but commented on particular remarks of mine about Buccaneer aircraft? All our Questions have been met with a statement that it is not in the public interest to give this information about What is being supplied or what is allowed to be supplied. Will the hon.
    1242
    Gentleman, therefore, put a ban on all arms shipments, including tear gas and tear gas making equipment?
    Mr. Godber: The answer to the last part of that supplementary question is that I will not agree to put an embargo on all arms. I have the quotation from my hon. Friend's speech on 31st October. This is what he said:
    "We scrutinise all requests from the political as well as the strategic and economic aspects before they are authorised. This is the case with South Africa, and the possibility that a particular supply of arms may be used for measures of internal repression is taken into account."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 286.]
    My hon. Friend spoke at some length. It is not true to say that he did not deal with the question.

  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (NUCLEAR FORCE)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the proposed creation of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or European nuclear force.
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Lord Privy Seal if, at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministerial meeting, Her Majesty's Government will oppose both the proposals for a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear force and for a further extension of national nuclear forces.
  Mr. Godber: No such proposals were made at the North Atlantic Council Ministerial meeting. The United States Government have indicated that they will be prepared to consider helping to create a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation multilateral force if their European allies wish. If such a proposal were made a decision would have to be taken in the light of all the circumstances at the time.
  Mr. Warbey: Although we know that the Government's policy is in a complete state of chaos, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will at least give us an assurance that the Government will not contemplate any plan or arrangement which would have the result that Western Germany would share in either the production or control of nuclear weapons?
  Mr. Godber: As to the question of Her Majesty's Government's plans being in disarray, they would be much more disarrayed if the party opposite were in charge. As regards the position of Western Germany, this will be considered if the matter arises in relation to a N.A.T.O. meeting. There is nothing before N.A.T.O. at the moment, as I have made clear, and I cannot consider hypothetical questions of this kind.
  Mr. Allaun: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that any spread of nuclear weapons increases the risk of an accident and also world tension? Would it not be particularly dangerous for the West German generals to control directly or indirectly the bomb, particularly since they have not renounced their claim to the lost provinces?
  Mr. Godber: I do not think that there is any question here of relinquishing control to any individual nation. That is not the intention of the suggestion at all, and certainly Her Majesty's Government would not be in favour of relinquishing control to any nation. We made that clear and we voted in that sense in the United Nations at the last Assembly.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Would the hon. Gentleman make clear whether the suggestion that he has been outlining is for a N.A.T.O. deterrent of the United States and N.A.T.O. nations or is the proposal, which is much canvassed in Europe now, for what one might call a Common Market deterrent, that is, Western European nations only? Will not the hon. Gentleman state categorically that Her Majesty's Government will oppose any such proposal for a West European deterrent as dividing the effectiveness of N.A.T.O. and diverting efforts from the N.A.T.O. activities, and, secondly, as being highly provocative to the Soviet Union if it is felt that Germany is having any part whatsoever in having a finger on the nuclear bomb?
  Mr. Godber: On this point the position is quite clear. The Question relates specifically to N.A.T.O. The Question is on N.A.T.O. forces and there has been no other one considered. I have nothing to add to what I have said, which is the precise position of Her Majesty's Government in relation to N.A.T.O. in this regard.

  GERMANY

    Association of Victims of Nazism
    Mr. S. Silvermanasked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been drawn to the forthcoming trial, on 29th November in the Special High Court for Administrative Affairs in West Berlin, on the application of the Government of the German Federal Republic, in which the Government seeks a declaration of that Court that the Association of Victims of Nazism is an illegal association; if he is aware that these proceedings are a violation of the Bonn Conventions, and that the Federal Republic has no legal right under those Conventions to set up courts involving criminal jurisdiction, or any other courts, in West Berlin; by what authority this Court has been set up; what jurisdiction it has claimed to exercise; what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government as party to the Conventions; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Silverman: May I draw attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the date on the second line, 29th November, was relevant when I put the Question in first as the procedures referred to began on that date and are still continuing?
    Mr. P. Thomas: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) on 28th November. The Federal Administrative Court was established by a Federal law of 23rd September, 1952, with its seat in Berlin. The allies raised no objection to this. The court has no criminal jurisdiction. It functions in a dual capacity, for Federal matters and West Berlin matters. It is empowered to hear appeals from the Administrative Courts and to serve as a court of first and last instance in certain administrative disputes and administrative matters of importance. Any ruling by the court in the case referred to in the Question would apply solely to the Federal Republic and not to West Berlin.
    Mr. Silverman: I am grateful to the Minister for a much fuller reply than the one that he gave to my hon. Friend on a previous occasion. Will not he reconsider this matter? When he says

    1245
    that the court has no criminal jurisdiction, does he not realise that if the Federal Government were to get the declaration they ask for, continued membership in this association would be a criminal offence? Would he explain in what way, and by what right, the German Federal Government have jurisdiction in West Berlin which is not part of the Federal Republic at all? On general grounds, would he not consider whether it would not be worth while for Her Majesty's Government to make representations to our Federal German allies about the undesirability of treating the membership in an association of this kind as though it were a criminal or penal affair? Does he not realise that it would be very difficult in Germany to form an association of Nazi victims which did not include any Communists?
    Mr. Thomas: As to the last matter, I would suggest that the West German Government by bringing an application before the Administrative Court are showing a respect for legal process. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that certain States would be able to proscribe an organisation. In fact, the East German régime has specifically dissolved the V.V.N. The West Berlin Senate could, in fact—it has the powers—dissolve the organisation. The Federal Republic are bringing the matter before the Administrative Court. This court is in West Berlin for the reasons I gave in my Answer. Berlin and the Federal Republic follow common practice on a broad range of administrative, commercial and financial matters and it is convenient that organs such as the Federal Administrative Court, the Federal Cartel Office, the Federal Insurance Control Office and the Federal Banking Control Office should sit in Berlin.
    Mr. Silverman: Owing to the wholly unsatisfactory nature of the reply and its lack of responsibility, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

  Armed Forces
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in order to enable hon. Members to estimate the extent to which the present and planned strengths of the West German Army and Air Force exceed the limits originally laid down
  1246
  in the revised Brussels Treaty, he will propose to the other members of the Western European Union that the Special Agreement annexed to the European Defence Community Treaty shall now be made public.
  Mr. Godber: No, Sir.
  Mr. Warbey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer is as disgraceful as the one given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State to me in a Written Answer on Monday, when he said that the Government were not prepared to state even when the Council of Western European Union took decisions to increase the limits on the size of the German Armed Forces? Is it the case not only that the Government are conniving at the breach of the Paris agreements and the rearmament of Germany beyond the limits then laid down, and doing it secretly, but that the House is to have no information about the matter whatsoever?
  Will the hon. Gentleman answer this specific question: do the present strength of the present German Army and Air Force and the planned strength of the German Army and Air Force next year exceed or not the limits laid down at the time the Paris agreements were signed?
  Mr. Godber: I am happy to know that I am in accord with my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State in incurring the displeasure of the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to have it reinforced. It has been made clear to the hon. Gentleman many times that the discussions to which he has referred are confidential. He asked me if I would publish them, and I am not prepared to do so. The important thing about the level of German forces is that it is unanimously approved by all W.E.U. countries. That is the important consideration in this case.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Some years ago, Ministers got the approval of this House, after a pretty acrimonious debate, about the level of forces which Western Germany would be allowed to hold. When we ask whether the present and projected forces go beyond what this House then approved, is it good enough to be told that these discussions are confidential and that we can be given no information on this matter? Will the Minister of

  1247
  State look at this again and undertake to tell the House categorically, not whether it has been agreed in Brussels unanimously or anything else, but Whether the limits then imposed by agreement in a treaty and approved by this House have been exceeded or whether it is intended to exceed them? Can we have that information? We have the right to ask for it.
  Mr. Godber: The original level of forces referred to in the Brussels Treaty has never been published. There is no obligation to publish this information, as I have made clear. My hon. Friend said on 10th December that the present strength is in accord with W.E.U. and N.A.T.O. approved levels.
  Mr. Warbey: In view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister of State's reply, I give nice that I propose to take the opportunity to raise this matter on another occasion.

  JAPAN (BONDS)
  Dr. Alan Glynasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that a number of British holders of Japanese Government internal yen bands were unable to collect interest accruing during hostilities until signature of the Peace Treaty and thereby compelled to accept payment in post-war inflated currency; and if he will make representations to the Japanese Government about this matter.
  Mr. Godber0: Her Majesty's Government are aware of this, but it is 10 years since the Peace Treaty was signed. The holding of foreign bands is always subject to certain risks, and there is no legal basis on which Her Majesty's Government could usefully raise this with the Japanese Government.
  Dr. Glyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that a large number of people think that no country should profit out of a war with this country and, secondly, that at this time when the Anglo-Japanese commercial treaty is being negotiated this is the sort of treatment of a minority of British holders which should not be neglected and the Japanese Government should be made to realise that their obligations should be met in full to all British holders?
  Mr. Godber: I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's point of view on this matter, but I would say to him that the commercial treaty is solely concerned with commerce and navigation and really has no bearing on this matter. I have explained the difficulties in regard to this particular matter, and I do not think there is any further useful action which Her Majesty's Government can take.

  CONGO
  Mr. F. M. Bennettasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the new policy towards Katanga now proposed at the United Nations for more stringent measures for integration, including sanctions, Her Majesty's Government will now propose at the United Nations the settling of the Congolese problem on the same basis of self-determination of the constituent parts as that adopted in the case of the Central African Federation.
  Mr. Godber: No, Sir, Her Majesty's Government have consistently supported the United Nations Plan for National Reconciliation in the Congo, which was accepted by both M. Adoula and M. Tshombe. This Plan provides for a federal system of government for the Congo. The Congo attained independence as one country, and Her Majesty's Government in common with other Governments recognise the Central Government as that of the country as a whole. The principle of the unity of the Congo has been upheld in a number of United Nations resolutions.
  Mr. Bennett: That is a very interesting historical analysis, but is my hon. Friend aware that, while it may be perfectly arguable that economic considerations applying to a whole area outweigh the political aspirations of one section of the people living there, it is not very difficult for my hon. Friend or anyone else to justify precisely the opposite when considering conditions in two separate but adjoining territories?
  Mr. Godber: No, Sir; I think that the conditions are very different. I understand my hon. Friend's point of view in this matter, but the Congo has been under one Government for a very long period of years. The situation

  1249
  as regards the Federation, to which he refers, is entirely different, and there has been only a very short time during which a federal association has been considered there. There is really nothing comparable in the two cases.
  Mr. Wade: Is it not most important that the policy of Her Majesty's Government should be clear and unequivocal? If Britain does not support the United Nations, would it not be wise to say so, but if Britain does, is not the proper course to give the Secretary-General wholehearted backing in this operation?
  Mr. Godber: As was made clear by my hon. Friend in the House only the other day, we have supported and do support the Plan for National Reconciliation in the Congo. That has been made abundantly clear.
  Mr. H. Wilson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acceptance of the unity of the Congo, but is it not a fact that the Secretary-General's plan, which has the support of most of our allies and most members of the Commonwealth, is being frustrated, if not actually sabotaged, by the attitude of Her Majesty's Government? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is felt in many parts of the world and by many of us in the House that the motives behind the Government's attitude in this matter come from pressures both from Sir Roy Welensky and from some other undesirable financial interests in the Congo?
  Mr. Godber: I do not accept that for a moment. As I have said, Her Majesty's Government have accepted the plan and we support it. That is the basis of our position in relation to the Congo. The other questions in relation to the courses of action proposed are quite another matter. Her Majesty's Government have made their position perfectly clear.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend realise how interested we, or at least some of us, on this side of the House are to hear all this vindictive talk against the right of self-determination from the Liberal Panty and the Labour Party which are very fond of preaching it everywhere else in the world except, apparently, where it appears that any defence of British interests may be at stake?

  UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL (SPEECH)
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Lord Privy Seal what study he has made of the declaration of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 2nd December calling on the Western Powers to recognise that the Russian Government does not want war and asking them to show greater readiness for a give-and-take settlement; and whether he will make the corresponding changes in the Government's policy.
  Mr. Godber: Her Majesty's Government have looked carefully at the text of the Secretary-General's thoughtful speech. We are well aware of certain Changes in Soviet policies, including their declared attitude towards war, since the death of Stalin and the assumption of leadership of Mr. Khrushchev. We have taken account of these changes in relation to our own policies towards the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, if the Government would show half as much energy, ingenuity and stubbornness in pressing our allies, for instance, to negotiate on the Rapacki Plan, as often proposed by the Opposition, as they have displayed in trying to crawl into the Common Market or cadge Skybolt from the Americans, this country would make a real contribution to peace and have more respect in the world than it has today?
  Mr. Godber: No, Sir; I do not accept that for one moment. The fact that the Opposition push something does not necessarily mean that it is a good policy to push. Her Majesty's Government have tried genuinely and sincerely to come to an accommodation with the Soviet Union on many issues and they are continuing to do so.

  YEMEN
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied that the good offices of the United States have succeeded sufficiently in securing the ending of Egyptian military intervention in Yemen to render it unnecessary for the matter to be raised by Her Majesty's Government as a threat to peace; and if,

  1251
  having regard to the threat to British interests, and to the integrity of Aden, he will make a statement.
  Mr. P. Thomas: The Yemeni republican authorities have made an announcement about their discussions with the United States Government. I should prefer not to comment in advance of any statement by the United States Government on this subject, and until we have studied the Yemeni republican authorities' announcement.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: May we be assured that Her Majesty's Government will not recognise the republican régime in the Yemen, and may we be assured also that they will continue to recognise the legitimate Government of the Yemen? Further, will the Government bring to the notice of the United Nations the indiscriminate bombing of civilians and villages in the Yemen by Russian aircraft of the Egyptian Air Force?
  Mr. Thomas: There is a later Question on the Order Paper about recognition. I should prefer not to comment on the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question until we have studied the statement which has just been issued.
  Mr. Oramasked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will now give diplomatic recognition to the republican régime in the Yemen.
  Mr. Dugdaleasked the Lord Privy Seal if he can yet state whether Her Majesty's Government intend to recognise the Government of Brigadier Salaal in the Yemen.
  Mr. P. Thomas: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's statement during the debate on the Address on 31st October.
  Mr. Oram: Is it not clear that the new régime in the Yemen has come to stay and that the Imam's régime which it replaced was of an extremely reactionary and repressive character? Would not British recognition, added to American recognition, which appears to be imminent, do much towards settling affairs in Southern Arabia generally?
  Mr. Thomas: My right hon. Friend told the House what were, broadly, the criteria for recognition, and Her Majesty's Government at the moment do
  1252
  not think that those criteria have been fulfilled.
  Mr. Dugdale: May I ask the hon. Gentleman two supplementary questions. First, what is the position of our representative in the Yemen? Why did the Foreign Secretary give instructions that he was not on any account to see the six Members of Parliament who visited the Yemen recently in contradistinction to the extreme courtesy shown by the American representative to us? Secondly, has the hon. Gentleman seen the article in The Times today making it clear that recognition of the Yemen on the part of the United States is imminent? Does he want to wait once again until America has taken the lead? Cannot he take the lead in this case instead of waiting for the Americans?
  Mr. Thomas: As to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, our representative in the Yemen is the Minister in Taiz, Mr. Gandy. It is entirely wrong to say that my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary gave instructions to Mr. Gandy that he should not afford the usual courtesies to the visiting delegation of Members of Parliament. We expect to hear from Mr. Gandy on this subject, and I will let the right hon. Gentleman know as soon as we hear from him why he was not able to meet the delegation.
  On the second part, I have seen Press reports that recognition by the United States Government is imminent. Her Majesty's Government are entirely at one with the United States Government in their objective of limiting the conflict and ending outside intervention. The decision to afford recognition is, however, one which every Government must take for themselves in the light of their own criteria for recognition. We are keeping the matter under constant review.
  Mr. W. Yates: In view of the confirmed reports that the United States Government are going to recognise the Yemen Republic in the course of today, and in view of the close, friendly and cordial relationships between President Kennedy and the Prime Minister now, would it not be more becoming for Her Majesty's Government to recognise the Yemen Republic today? If this cannot

  1253
  be done today, may we expect a statement tomorrow?
  Mr. Thomas: I do not think I can add anything to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), who asked a similar question.
  Mr. Oramasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will now conduct an inquiry into the allegations that British arms are being smuggled into the Yemen.
  Mr. P. Thomas: No, Sir.
  Mr. Oram: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the statement by the Government of the United Arab Republic that they would be willing to withdraw their forces from the Yemen given a cessation of hostile activity by Saudi Arabia and Jordan? In view of the accusations made about British arms being involved in these matters, if we have nothing to hide would it not be better to have the matter thoroughly investigated?
  Mr. Thomas: The Question is about British arms which were smuggled into the Yemen. I have heard that allegations have been made about this, and we have said that we would consider any evidence that was produced. So far, no evidence has been produced.
  Sir P. Agnew: Will my hon. Friend direct British influence towards removing the foreign intervention by the United Arab Republic in the affairs of the Yemen so that the Imam may put down the rebellion and restore law and order? Is my hon. Friend aware that the group of individuals who visited the Yemen recently were not delegated by anybody except themselves to go there?
  Mr. Thomas: I certainly accept the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.
  Mr. Dugdaleasked the Lord Privy Seal what was his reply to the letter he had from Brigadier Salaal's Government in the Yemen asking Her Majesty's Government for assistance in the supply of 50,000 blankets.
  Mr. P. Thomas: In response to their inquiry, the Yemeni republican authorities were informed that we were ready
  1254
  to ship 50,000 blankets immediately to any private buyer whom they cared to nominate.
  Mr. Dugdale: Is it the case that only if a private buyer comes forward may these blankets be sent and that, even if the Government need them and even if the people are suffering intense hardship from cold, they are not allowed to have them unless a private buyer can step in and make his profit? Is that the only reason for the Answer?
  Mr. Thomas: I think that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that these are War Office surplus blankets. We could not sell them to the Yemeni republican authorities without recognising the republican Government.
  Mr. Dugdale: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the letter has been—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was about to give notice. That was why I hesitated.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the latest progress of the discussions on the proposed nuclear test ban.
  Mr. Godber: Since my hon. Friend answered a similar Question on 12th December, there have been further meetings of the Disarmament Committee and the Nuclear Tests Sub-Committee, but, while there has been further discussion on the use of unmanned seismic stations, no further progress has been made.
  Mr. Allaun: Would it not have a great effect both on America and on Russia if Britain now declared that from 1st January we would end nuclear tests, as recommended by the General Assembly? Secondly, even if there is a risk, which I concede, of some small underground test escaping detection and identification, is not that risk far less than the danger of the alternative which means continuing and intensifying the nuclear arms race?
  Mr. Godber: As to the first point, there is another Question on the Order Paper, and I think that I had better wait

  1255
  until that comes. On the second point, the risk is still real and I think that it would be wrong to minimise it too much. I have been into this with very considerable care, and I could not advise that it would be safe to ignore this risk.
  Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that, while its position on the test ban is really quite indefensible, the Soviet Union has now accepted that three black boxes can go on to Soviet territory, being taken there and taken away by international representatives? Is he aware, also, that Sir John Cockroft has stated that only a few earthquakes cannot be identified outside the country concerned? If the Russians would agree to more of these black boxes going in, would it not then be possible for the Government to accept the principle of the proposals made by the neutral countries for a test ban?
  Mr. Godber: There are various aspects to this matter. It is a step forward that the Russians have accepted at least three of these black boxes. I have myself tried to ascertain from them precisely what their proposals are. For instance, if it is individual black boxes, that is one thing, but if it is arrays of black boxes in three places, that is quite another matter, and it would be a big step forward. These are all aspects of the subject. The question of siting also is extremely important.
  However, with the best siting and with the best interpretation of their proposals, I am advised that there would still be a considerable number of unidentified events, and it would be wrong to believe that the introduction of black boxes would eliminate altogether the need for on-site inspection.
  Sir T. Beamish: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) is planning to make the same sort of protests againsts the two Soviet tests in the atmosphere yesterday as he made against the smaller British test a few weeks ago?
  Mr. Speaker: Whatever the Minister's duties may be, they are not to explain the intentions of the hon. Member for Salford, East.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Wiseasked the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the recent statement on behalf of the European Economic Community regarding the postponement of the entry of European Free Trade Area countries into the Community, if it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to ask the agreement of Parliament to the signature of the Treaty of Rome until the successful conclusion of negotiations with those European Free Trade Area countries who have applied for admission.
  Mr. Fletcherasked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent the announcement by the Foreign Ministers of the six European Economic Community countries, that they cannot make any arrangement with Sweden, Austria and Switzerland before the end of 1963, affects his current negotiations for this country to join the European Economic Community.
  Mr. P. Thomas: I have nothing to add to the statement my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal made to the House on 13th December.
  Mr. Wise: If my hon. Friend read my Question again, he would see that it is susceptible to two very simple answers, either "Yes" or "No". Could he not bring himself to use one of these useful monosyllables?
  Mr. Thomas: As my hon. Friend knows, there are many questions which are not easily susceptible to the simple answer "Yes" or "No". The point in this case is that arrangements which will meet satisfactorily the legitimate concerns of our fellow members of E.F.T.A. must be among the conditions for our entry into the European Economic Community.
  Mr. Fletcher: While I realise that this is not an easy question, will not the Minister agree that this is really the acid test of the Government's sincerity? Will he recognise that unless there is an assurance that the E.F.T.A. countries will be admitted into the European Economic Community, this is a matter which, because of its political as well as its economic implications, must affect the final decision of this House? Will the

  1257
  hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will extract from the European Economic Community a recognition that the E.F.T.A. countries will be admitted on terms acceptable to them?
  Mr. Thomas: As the hon. Member knows, the London communiqué set out what were the obligations, not simply of Britain towards the other partners of E.F.T.A., but of all the partners in E.F.T.A. We stand by the terms of the London communiqué.
  Mr. P. Browneasked the Lord Privy Seal what stage he has reached in agreeing with the European Economic Community upon the structure of the Agricultural Common Market Fund should the United Kingdom join the Community.
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Lord Privy Seal if, in the negotiations on Great Britain's entry into the Common Market, he will resist the proposal that Great Britain should contribute to a European Economic Community agriculture fund in view of the burden that this would put on the consumer in terms of higher prices.
  Mr. Godber: We accept the provisions of Regulation No. 25, by which a European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund was set up in accordance with Article 40 (4) of the Rome Treaty. Accordingly, if we join the European Economic Community, we shall both contribute to this fund and benefit from it. The level of consumer prices in the United Kingdom would not be dependent on the level of British contributions to the fund.
  Mr. Browne: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the word "agricultural" here is slightly misleading yin that both reasonable price policies and the Agricultural Common Market Fund affect everyone in this country, both consumer and taxpayer, and the country's efficiency generally? Will he, therefore, ensure that we do not pay a contribution to this fund in proportion to our food imports, which would be far and away the largest in the Community?
  Mr. Godber: I am aware of this problem and obviously this is a matter which will call for serious discussion in the Brussels negotiations. Indeed, it has
  1258
  already been the subject of such. The point which I was making in relation to the level of consumer prices was that it is clear that there is no direct relationship between the two.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Can my hon. Friend say when it is expected to reach this point in the Brussels negotiations? I understand that it has not yet been reached. Secondly, is it not the case that although prices in the United Kingdom will not depend upon our contribution to the fund, our contribution to the fund may well depend upon prices in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Godber: In reply to the second point, it will depend more upon world prices. The prices in the United Kingdom will be related to the Community prices. As to the question of whether this matter has been reached, I think that there has been discussion on it but I should require notice before giving a detailed answer.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Percy Browne.
  Mr. Browne: May I ask a supplementary on the last Question, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker: No. I hope that the hon. Member will please move on.
  Mr. P. Browneasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is asking for the right to re-negotiate any agreements reached over agriculture by the European Economic Community between the signing of the heads of agreement and the ratification of the Treaty of Rome by the United Kingdom if negotiations are completed to the satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Godber: This is an important problem which arises not only in respect of agriculture but over the whole field of Community action. We shall be raising it at an appropriate stage in the negotiations.
  Mr. Browne: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the position may arise when this country has initialled the heads of agreement and there will then be a hiatus until the Treaty of Rome is ratified, during which the agricultural policy of the Common Market countries involved may result in their agreeing upon terms for certain commodities amongst

  1259
  themselves? Will my hon. Friend, therefore, not accept that we must have the right to negotiate what they agree in this interim period?
  Mr. Godber: I am sure that it would be right for us to be kept very closely informed and in touch with any such negotiations which arrive at a conclusion before our entry. It is, however, impossible at this stage to give any clear indication in relation to it. I have indicated that we are very much aware of the problem, but I do not think that we can seek a suspension of action within the Community during the period to which my hon. Friend has referred.
  Mr. Browne: While I accept that we cannot ask for suspension, would not my hon, Friend agree that we must get this right? It is no good our initialling heads of agreement on matters about which we know nothing, which is what it would amount to.
  Mr. Godber: I accept that. Obviously we should have to be fully informed on any of these matters when the time comes.
  Mr. J. Wellsasked the Lord Privy Seal what estimate he has made of the effect on the British cider and perry industry and of the consequent effects on British horticulture of Great Britain's entry into the Common Market; and what proposals he has made on this matter in the course of the negotiations.
  Mr. Godber: These matters are still under discussion in the negotiations and I cannot make a statement on them at present.
  Mr. Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that British cider is made by a completely different process from cider made in France and Germany and that if we in this country have to conform to that very inferior product it will have a disastrous effect on the cider-drinking and cider-making communities and that this in turn will have a very adverse effect on the horticultural industry?
  Mr. Godber: I understand those difficulties. The Commission is considering proposals for the harmonisation of food standards, and certainly, at the appropriate stage, we shall make our representations on this matter and make the
  1260
  views of the British trade, to which my hon. Friend has rightly referred, known to the Community.
  Mr. Jayasked the Lord Privy Seal what increases in the price of wheat, fat cattle, fat sheep, wool, eggs and milk he now estimates as likely to result from the adherence of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community on the terms now proposed by the Government.
  Mr. Godber: It is not possible to estimate the likely price changes because no decisions have yet been taken on the levels at which prices are to be harmonised in the existing Community, far less in an enlarged Community.
  Mr. Jay: Does that mean that the Government are conducting these very important negotiations without any idea of the effects on food prices in this country?
  Mr. Godber: No. It does not mean that any more than it means that we accept the estimates that the right hon. Gentleman himself has put forward.
  Mr. Jay: Then may we know what the Government's ideas are?
  Mr. Godber: I have already indicated that in fact we cannot give precise estimations. I think it is wrong to do so at this time.
  Mr. Jay: Roughly?
  Mr. Godber: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have rough ones, I would say, in relation to the products mentioned, that both our market prices and our guaranteed producer prices for wheat are below the corresponding prices now obtaining in the Community; our producer prices for fat cattle and milk are within the Community's price range; and our price for eggs is above that range. Production of fat sheep and wool in the existing Community is small; therefore, no valid price comparisons are possible.
  Mr. Turton: Would my right hon. Friend publish the Krohn report of the economic research group of the E.E.C. so that we can see what they say on the matter?
  Mr. Godber: I should like to consider that.
  Mr. Jayasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government are consulting the United States Government with a view to making joint representations to the European Economic Community concerning those aspects of the Community's agricultural policy which are contrary to the principles of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Smithers): The Community's agricultural regulations have recently been examined by a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Committee on which we, the Americans and many other countries, including Commonwealth countries, are represented. The Committee concluded that it was not possible as yet to make a final analysis of the effects of the regulations. It will examine further regulations as they come into force.
  Mr. Jay: As two United States Ministers have now criticised the agricultural policy of the Community, and as our interests here coincide with those of the United States and the Commonwealth, would it not be a good idea if we made joint representations to the Community?
  Mr. Smithers: Our interests do not coincide precisely with those of the United States. We are, however, sitting in the Committee with the United States and with Commonwealth countries, which are separately represented.
  Mr. A. Royleasked the Lord Privy Seal if the United Kingdom joins the Common Market, what time he would expect to elapse before arrangements could be completed for Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Smithers: As my right hon. Friend informed the House on 12th November, the Community has agreed to work out, before Britain's entry into the Community, appropriate measures in the field of trade relations with Hong Kong.
  Mr. Royle: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is great concern in the Colony regarding these negotiations and that if reasonable terms are not obtained for it, there could be serious unemployment? Will he keep in close consultation with the Government of the Colony during the coming months?
  Mr. Smithers: Yes, I am aware of the seriousness of the matter. The Colony
  1262
  has been represented by the attendance of an official at the negotiations and we are in close touch with the Governor throughout.
  Mr. Healey: In view of the great importance of not introducing any further measure of discrimination as between the various members of the Commonwealth, could the hon. Gentleman assure the House that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will not accept any arrangements for Hong Kong which are inferior to those negotiated for Singapore?
  Mr. Smithers: As we are at the present time in negotiation, I do not think that I should add anything to what I have already said.
  Mr. Dance: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, when he is giving his consideration to these matters, that Hong Kong is beautifully administered—that the administration is first-class, and that it does not cost this country one penny?
  Mr. Smithers: We are well aware of the excellence of the administration of Hong Kong.
  Mr. Bullardasked the Lord Privy Seal how many of the regulations of the Commission of the European Economic Community are concerned solely with the production and sale of foodstuffs; and how many are concerned with the production and sale of manufactured goods.
  Mr. Smithers: A total of 143 regulations were issued by the institutions of the European Economic Community up to the end of November, 1962. 116 of them relate to the production and sale of foodstuffs land 8 to the production and sale of manufactured goods.
  Mr. Bullard: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this is a very high proportion indeed of the regulations which are concerned with agriculture as opposed to industry, and does not this explain the misgivings of the farming community in this matter—that whereas for industry there is a pretty clear picture of what its future will be under the various arrangements, the future of agriculture is dictated very much by these very complicated regulations, over which this House, if we were to join the Community, would have no control? Therefore, will he see that, before we join, we

  1263
  do have more control over the drafting and formulation of these regulations?
  Mr. Smithers: My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a much larger proportion of regulations for agriculture for the reason that the Common Market in industry was largely defined in the Treaty of Rome, whereas the Common Market in matters concerning agriculture was left to be established very largely by regulations.
  Mr. Matthewsasked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has obtained in the course of his Brussels negotiations regarding the extent to which harmonisation of social security services has been achieved by the European Economic Community.
  Mr. Smithers: The Treaty of Rome does not specifically require the harmonisation of social security services but the Commission is considering what might be done in this field by co-operation between member Governments.
  Mr. Matthews: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are complaints in certain quarters of limited information on this subject? If Britain were to enter the Common Market there would inevitably be harmonisation of our social services and this might lead to tighter Government control over details of insurance rights and policy conditions as are practised on the Continent? Is my hon. Friend aware that this in turn might lead to British pensions gradually moving towards the higher levels which prevail in Germany?
  Mr. Smithers: My hon. Friend will find that a good deal of information on this subject is published in the Commission's "Plan of Action" which has just appeared, but the fact is that the Comission is still working on this subject. There are no proposals for either compulsory harmonisation or uniformity. There is, however, to be a conference shortly to discuss this matter. Thereafter, no doubt, there will be further information about the Commission's intentions.

  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will insist on an agreement with our allies on proposals for
  1264
  negotiating a settlement with the Soviet Union as a condition which must be fulfilled before this country's collective defence obligations in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation become operative.
  Mr. Godber: No, Sir. The United Kingdom's obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty are clearly stated in Article 5 of the Treaty. I see no reason to qualify them in any way.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Does not the North Atlantic Treaty say that the collective defence obligations may be invoked only in cases of unprovoked aggression? Are not the Government, therefore, entitled to warn their allies that if they fail to agree with us on reasonable proposals for making peace and continue to pursue policies which we regard as dangerous and provocative, they cannot count upon British help? Would not that give us precisely the bargaining position, power and influence that the Government vainly seek by pretending to be a nuclear Power?
  Mr. Godber: No, I do not for one moment acknowledge that that is the position in relation to our allies. Her Majesty's Government are very concerned to make progress with the Soviet Union and this year I have been constantly engaged with them. I should like to see a move from them to accommodate us and make it easier for us to make progress.

  INDIA (FRONTIER WITH CHINA)
  Mr. Greenwoodasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make available in the Library of the House copies of the text and maps defining the frontier between China and India, which was negotiated and authorised by His Majesty's Government of the time.
  Mr. Godber: The Agreement defining the McMahon Line, dated 24th March, 1914, and the accompanying map are available in the Library.
  Mr. Greenwood: While thanking the Minister for his capitulation, may I ask whether he is aware that when I first sought to obtain access to these documents and the map, I was told that they were documents of State and that the 50-year rule applied to them? Is it not

  1265
  absurd to apply this rule to documents which are in the possession of both the Chinese and the Indian Government?
  Mr. Godber: I am happy at least to be able to assure the hon. Member that the documents are in the Library and available to him.
  Mr. Bottomley: Will the Minister consider showing on the map the relative positions of the Chinese and Indian troops in 1954 and today?
  Mr. Godber: That is another question.
  Mr. Greenwood: Does the Minister's answer mean that The Times was right?

  UNITED STATES (SALE OF ARMS)
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will instruct Her Majesty's Ambassador to the United States of America to inquire from the United States State Department whether any financial inducements are offered to European and other Governments to purchase arms from the United States of America in preference to weapons produced in the United Kingdom with similar capabilities.
  Mr. Godber: I do not think any general inquiry as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would necessarily be helpful.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does the Minister decline to accept the implications contained in this Question? If he is not prepared to instruct the Ambassador in the United States to ask for information on this subject, will he inquire into the existence of American trade organisations, in Bonn, in Rome, and in other European capitals, of a private character which are responsible for the sale of arms, various weapons, and aircraft, and have managed to succeed in selling these arms in preference to British arms of similar capabilities, quite obviously because of some financial inducements of a private character?
  Mr. Godber: No. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that an inquiry should be made about purchases which are wholly financed from military aid funds. The stipulation that in any such cases the equip-
  1266
  ment should be acquired from the country providing the funds is well-established practice. I do not think there can be any difficulty about that. It should also be remembered that many countries, including the United Kingdom, have benefited from the offshore purchase system.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am not referring to the military aid programme of the United States at all? I am referring to private sales of arms produced in the United States and sold in European capitals and various other countries—in preference to the purchase of British arms. Can the Minister explain why it is that British arms of similar capabilities, and sometimes superior to the American arms, are unable to be sold?
  Mr. Godber: No. I think that without more specific indication of what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind it is difficult for me to help him. If he would like to write to me to put particular points, I should be happy to have a look at them.

CENTRAL AFRICA
The First Secretary of State (Mr. R. A. Butler): I will, with permission, make a statement.
In the course of the debates on Central Africa on 8th May and 3rd December I emphasised two points: first, that it was the desire of Her Majesty's Government to find an acceptable solution of the situation in Central Africa which would maintain the very real advantages of continued association between the territories; and, secondly, that Her Majesty's Government acknowledged the position of the Malawi Congress Party, namely, that they are not prepared for Nyasaland to remain within the present Federation.
Her Majesty's Government are aware of a widespread desire for early decisions which will remove uncertainty and give new impetus to progress and development. Her Majesty's Government therefore propose, now that new Administrations are in office in Northern and Southern Rhodesia, to engage in early consultations with the Federal and Territorial Governments.

1267
I propose to visit Central Africa to initiate those consultations and to seek, in co-operation with the Governments concerned, ways and means of achieving a practical and durable solution. Full account will have to be taken of the close links which have developed between the territories and particularly between Northern and Southern Rhodesia whose economies are so closely interwoven. The form which future association of the territories may take will be covered by the consultations to which I have referred.
Her Majesty's Government accept in principle that Nyasaland shall be allowed to withdraw from the Federation. I should explain that such a withdrawal does not mean that the present constitutional relationship between Northern and Southern Rhodesia is thereby broken.
The financial and economic consequences for Nyasaland will be serious and substantial. The Nyasaland Government are fully aware of them and are ready to adopt policies to minimise them.
Detailed negotiations between Her Majesty's Government, the Federal Government and the Nyasaland Government will be required before effect can be given to the decision that Nyasaland should secede. Her Majesty's Government will expect the Nyasaland Govern- mentto shoulder their just commitments and liabilities arising from their membership of and withdrawal from the Federation. Many matters will need to be examined and negotiated, including, in particular, those arising from the Nyasaland Government's obligation to bear their due proportion of the Federal debt, and to assume their proper responsibilities, financial and otherwise, in respect of the problems which may arise over the transfer of present Federal functions and its effect on individual officers, and also over the future of Federal statutory bodies and their staffs operating in Nyasaland.
Arrangements will have to be reached regarding loan expenditure by the Federal Government in Nyasaland between now and the actual date of withdrawal. Other problems requiring examination will include the Nyasaland Railways.
1268
There is no reason why the decision regarding Nyasaland need impair the basic economic strength of the rest of the area, which rests on its agricultural, mineral and other resources. These resources will continue to provide a good foundation for a stable and expanding economy. It is, of course, very important that credit should be maintained, and that private enterprise should continue to invest in the area. In seeking a solution to the political problems of Central Africa, it will be Her Majesty's Government's aim to co-operate with the Governments concerned in maintaining confidence, especially over the period of transition.
Her Majesty's Government reaffirm their constructive purpose, taking account of the benefits that have been derived from the past as well as the aspirations for the future, to secure in Central Africa conditions in which a stable and expanding economy can be maintained and people of all races can live in harmony.
Mr. Healey: First, I welcome on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends the right hon. Gentleman's decision to permit Nyasaland to secede from the Central African Federation and his recognition that the Nyasaland Government are both able and willing to meet the economic consequences of secession.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions arising out of his statement? First, is it really necessary to take two bites at the cherry of the Federation? Is it not the case that all three Territorial Governments now oppose the continuance of the Federation and that the majority of the European as well as the African communities in the area as a whole have voted recently against federation? Would he not acknowledge, also, the fact that the present governing parties in Northern Rhodesia have expressed their desire—the desire of 80 per cent, of the population at the last election—to secede from the Federation?
Finally, would he agree that secession from the Federation does not of itself imply independence from British control, and, in particular, as the new Southern Rhodesian Government reject in principle the idea of African majority

1269
rule, could he assure the House and the world that Her Majesty's Government will not agree to independence for any of the territories until they enjoy Governments which represent the majority of the population?
Mr. Butler: In reply to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate a short time ago, namely, that there are no plans on foot for granting independence as suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I agree that secession does not of itself lead to independence.
With regard to making bites at the cherry of federation. I think it vital that these important matters should, first, be considered by the new Governments in the territories concerned, who have only just been formed, and, secondly, that they should be the subject of consultation with Her Majesty's Government, which I have suggested.
Mr. Turton: Was not a clear assurance given by Her Majesty's Government on 19th January, 1953, that no change in Vhe federal structure would be allowed until the consent of the other Governments had been obtained? Can my right hon. Friend say whether the consent of the four other Governments has been obtained in this case before marking this announcement, and if not, why he is disregarding the promise?
Mr. Butler: I am aware of the exchanges which took place at the conference in 1953, which have hitherto been confidential and unpublished, and I have the following observations to make.
First, then and now it was and has been clearly established that Her Majesty's Government have the inalienable right to take action on these matters.
Secondly, I would sympathise with my right hon. Friend in his obvious desire that we should have worked with agreement. We attempted to gain agreement with the Federal Government. I have been in touch with them ever since May last, and had conversations during the whole of the last week with Federal Ministers, and I am sorry to say that we were unable to reach agreement on the terms on which this statement should be made.
1270
In the circumstances, in this difficult situation, Her Majesty's Government have decided that we cannot allow a refusal to agree to put off our duty to Nyasaland and that the future consultations—I stress this—which I shall have in Africa with the Federal Government and the other Governments will do better if they take place on the basis that we have decided for Nyasaland.
Mr. Grimond: Since we have suffered already from trying to obscure the facts of life in Africa and perhaps from trying to be too many things to too many people, can the Government be a little clearer about what they mean about reaffirming their constructive purpose? What is now the Government's present purpose in Africa? Do the Government still accept their responsibility for the political development of Southern Rhodesia?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; I think that I can say, in general, that our objectives in Central Africa are to find the most happy, durable and acceptable form of association for the territories concerned. I should like to say that, although the decision about Nyasaland will be, and is, controversial, which I very much regret, I believe that once that decision is out of the way there will be all the more chance for an association with Nyasaland as well as with the other territories, because before that decision was taken no constructive thought was being given to the future in the way it should have been given. Therefore, I hope that we can take a constructive view about the future despite the present controversy.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since there are new Governments now in Northern Rhodesia and in Southern Rhodesia, and Southern Rhodesia's new Prime Minister has made a constructive statement with regard to the Federation, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that his decision to visit the Federation is very welcome? May I ask him, also, whether he would not agree that Nyasaland is a very special case, and will he assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will make no unilateral decision with regard to the secession of any other member of the Federation or with regard to the ending of the Federation?
Mr. Butler: The precise object of the consultations in which I propose to engage—I think that they will be very difficult, and I hope that I shall have the support of the House—will be, as I say, to find a durable and acceptable solution for the future, and I would not like to prejudge them. I do not think—I tell the House this—that I shall be able to achieve success in a short time. I shall have to go out and explore the situation and then come back and consult and find the best method.
Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Nyasaland has been receiving substantial subsidies from the Federation in order to keep its affairs going during the last few years? Although it may be welcome to hear that Nyasaland has accepted its responsibilities in relation to the Federal loan and other financial matters, how is it to be done? Is it to be done by asking the British taxpayer to pay?
Mr. Butler: As I pointed out in my concluding speech in the recent debate, my discussions with Malawi Ministers who visited London for the Constitutional Conference revealed that they were ready to assume their share of future liabilities. They have made plans accordingly. This does not mean that Britain will be absolved of all responsibility. Indeed, I hope that we shall not be so absolved. At the same time, I think that we can feel that the responsibility will be shared.
Sir G. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me, as one with many friends in Nyasaland, that the vast majority of the population there will
1272
rejoice in what he has said today? Will he also take it from me that everyone, whether agreeing with what he does in Central Africa or not, will pay full tribute to his courage, his industry and his intellectual honesty?
Mr. Butler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Some of the comments made in Salisbury are not quite so complimentary.
Mr. Healey: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's decision to visit the three territories concerned, and also the spirit in which he will carry out his consultations, may I ask him whether he does not agree that the possibility of future economic association between Northern and Southern Rhodesia and, indeed, Nyasaland, will depend on the African Governments in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland being satisfied that their fellows in Southern Rhodesia are working towards majority rule? This being the case, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, during his visit to Southern Rhodesia, he will try to restore some contact between the leaders of the European minority and the leaders of the African majority?
Mr. Butler: That is a consideration which I will have to bear in mind. I have only once met the new Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and I think that it must be left to me now to have consultations with him.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can go on with this any further today.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1957 (AMENDMENT)
3.43 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 4 of the National Insurance Act 1957 in its application to sick or disabled persons, and for purposes in connection therewith.
My proposed Bill is a simple, one-Clause Measure. It has been designed to appeal to all sections of the House and it concerns one genuine grievance. Perhaps I could be permitted to explain it in terms which will be audible to someone more than two yards from me.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is perfectly right. I hope that hon. Members will extend the courtesy to him they would wish to receive if they were doing the same operation themselves.
Mr. Hale: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.
Section 4 of the 1957 Act was introduced by the former Minister of Pensions and National Insurance largely on the ground that a six-day week had been replaced by a five-day week and that, therefore, it was undesirable that people should draw unemployment benefit for Saturdays when they were not working on Saturdays at all and were not intended to.
That in itself was at least an argument of reason. It is, however, far from being reasonable in practice, as the House will understand when I point out the whole series of complicated regulations which have been amended from time to time. I am not sure that the 1957 Act introduced much in the way of a new principle. Some of the cases to which I shall refer arise under old Orders made in 1948 by the Labour Government as Statutory Instruments, under special provisions which precluded debate.
This general provision that a man's unemployment benefit should depend on what was his normal week has received some extraordinary interpretations. I had intended to refer fairly fully to the case of Mr. Joseph Blakeman, which was heard by the National Insurance Commissioner two weeks ago, on terms that no evidence was called on either
1274
side, that the facts were agreed, and that it was purely a question of arguing whether there was any law in the matter.
I had to admit to the Commissioner that there was no decision of any kind in my favour which I could quote. Indeed, there are not many decisions in favour of workmen by this Tribunal as compared with those in favour of the National Insurance officials. It is the practice of the Commissioner to give his decision in writing, and I have not yet received it. It would, therefore, be proper to say in these circumstances that it is still sub judice, but I suggest that there can be no possible objection to my stating, without visible emotion and without adjectives, the facts which were agreed.
Mr. Blakeman, admitted by everyone to be gravely suffering from schizophrenia, had been disallowed a disability pension. The then Mayor of Oldham took an interest in the case and tried to find him alternative employment, for work is essential for any sort of treatment for mental health. The mayor approached the manager of the corporation market and asked him to find Mr. Blakeman a job. The market manager did his best.
The market opens for only three days a week and it has been the custom for most of the employees to carry out maintenance and other work in the market on the other three days. Thus, they made up the six days. It was found that Mr. Blakeman could not be left alone. Although he worked six days for a time, the market manager eventually got him work for three days on market days, and he drew unemployment benefit for the rest of the week.
That went on for some time, and then a National Insurance officer called attention to the 1957 Act and said that Mr. Blakeman's normal working week was three days, and, therefore, he could not get unemployment benefit for the fourth or fifth day because the ambit of his employment was now so restricted that he could not qualify for it. That is one decision.
I am sure that the House never intended that. I do not believe that hon. Members on either side ever dreamed that the interpretation would go in this way. I have obtained chapter and verse

1275
to show how these things occur. This all began with a decision in 1951 in respect of a man who was registered as disabled and who was working for only two days a week, on Saturday and Sunday. His unemployment benefit was disallowed. I think that that was a hard decision, but the trouble was that it was also used as a precedent for Case No. 13 of 1955.
This case was that of a totally blind worker who was employed as a bed-maker in one of the institutions provided by the National Institute for the Blind. He had worked five days a week, but for a time, with other blind workers, had been restricted to a four-day week because of the difficulty of finding employment. He was disallowed benefit on a five-day week basis on the ground that his ambit of work had been restricted to four days a week.
In all these three cases it was conceded that the men concerned were definitely anxious to get work and that their ambits were restricted by disablement. Those are the facts. I hope that, if representatives of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance go wandering round the House on future Fridays, asking hon. Members to say "Object" when my Bill—if I have leave to introduce it—is called, they will remember those facts. Objections raise problems. Objections from one side of the House can be contagious. They are apt to find repetition from hon. Members on the other side of the House in relation to other Bills.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Member is saying, but I do not think that it is in order while explaining the principles on which he is asking leave to bring in his Bill.
Mr. Hale: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.
I did not observe that the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance was present, presumably on behalf of her right hon. Friend. I apologise to her, but, nevertheless, with some regret, for her presence thus robs me of my peroration.
I recall that the immortal Abraham Hummel, when he had a bad case, used to put in the presence of the jury a
1276
charming young lady, to whom he referred from time to time, with a halting voice and bleeding heart, either as a bereaved widow, or a distressed wife, or an orphan girl, or a seduced virgin, as the occasion made proper. While I receive the hon. Lady with welcome, I do so with a considerable amount of reserve.
Some important observations on unemployment as it stands were made in the House on Monday and there was a letter from the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), in a Sunday newspaper, saying that things might be much worse, Which, indeed, they might, though they might also be better. No doubt, we might have the Duke of Beaufort explaining that if he were a workman, he would like to die of unemployment. Nevertheless, I believe that some of the relevant figures for the Act, which was produced in an era of economic mysticism, would surprise the House today.
I put down a Question on 10th December, for Written Answer, which disclosed that the unemployment benefit paid to a single main, in proportion to the adult wages for a single man, was about 32 per cent. in the wicked days of 1924 and is about 18·5 per cent. today, while the Observer reports that German workers get about 90 per cent. of their wages far unemployment pay.
This is a serious matter. It is almost a tragedy if the Ministry is engaged in chiselling off little bits of benefit, and I hope that the House will take the view that this is essentially undesirable. I have spoken, and I think that everyone will be pleased about this, for a much Shorter time than I had intended, partly because that portion of my argument which you, Mr. Speaker, properly ruled out of order was not nearly so much crud of order as that portion which was to follow, partly because the hon. Lady is present, and partly because, as housebreakers broke into my house last night, and I have not yet had time to go home and find out what was taken, I am rather anxious to terminate this discourse.
This is a simple and honourable Measure, which I commend to the House. I was credibly assured same weeks ago by two of the younger members of the acquisitive society that Good King

1277
Wenceslas was looking out. If he had been in John Adam Street, he had every cause to look out, and if he had looked out last Friday, he would have been disappointed. It is in the spirit of the time and in accordance with the general desire at this time of the year to do justice to the sick, the maimed and the disabled, that I humbly ask the House to grant me leave to introduce this Measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Leslie Hale, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Fenner Brockway, Mr. Fernyhough, Mr. Dingle Foot, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Charles Loughlin, Mr. Charles Mapp, Mr. Walter Monslow, and Mr. Sydney Silverman.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1957 (AMENDMENT)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1957 (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to amend Section 4 of the National Insurance Act 1957 in its application to sick or disabled persons, and for purposes in connection therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 1st February, and to be printed. [Bill 53.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GENERAL GRANT)
3.55 p.m.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move,
That the General Grant Order 1962, dated 27th November 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.
It may be convenient to the House, Mr. Speaker, if, with this Motion, we also discussed the next two Motions on the Order Paper:
That the General Grant (Increase) (No. 3) Order 1962, dated 27th November 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.
That the Grants and Rates (Transitional Adjustments) Regulations 1962, dated 27th November 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: If that is the wish of the House, it is convenient from my point of view.
Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, also, the second Order and the Regulations.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I misled the Minister. He cannot move more than one Order at once, but the three can be discussed together.
Sir K. Joseph: I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker.
This is the third General Grant Order to be made under the Local Government Act, 1958. The Order, I fear, looks very technical, and this can scarcely be avoided. It has two main purposes: first, to prescribe the aggregate amount to be distributed by way of general grants in England and Wales for the years 1963–64 and 1964–65; and, secondly, to determine how this total amount shall be distributed among the county councils and the county borough councils.
Accompanying the Order is a Report, House of Commons Paper 21, in which hon. Members will find the background figures and explanation. Appendix A to the Report, on page 9, gives details of the expenditure that is expected to be incurred in the general grant services in the next two years.
To arrive at these estimates, the same procedure is being followed on this occasion as in the preparations for the previous two general grant periods. First, the Departments responsible for the various services invited the local authorities to submit detailed estimates of their expenditure for the two years in question. The authorities responded with the care and thoroughness to which the Departments have by now become accustomed, and I should like, on behalf of all my colleagues, to pay tribute to the precision and responsible approach which all the local authorities concerned have shown in what is by no means an easy task.
The estimates prepared by the local authorities were then examined by the Departments concerned. There were very few items submitted by the local authorities Which any Department thought fit to question, but in some cases the aggregate of the individual estimates submitted by the local authorities appeared to be a little beyond the likelihood of their ability to spend that money in the time. The examination of these estimates was followed by informal discussions between the Department and the representatives

1279
of the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, and the L.C.C.
Where the total estimates appeared to the Department to be perhaps over-optimistic, the Department concerned made a proposal. These proposals were discussed and in some cases were modified. At the same time, adjustments were made for increases in the cost of services, either due to wage increases or materials increases, which had taken place, or were about to take place, since the date on which the estimates had been prepared—30th June, 1962.
The outcome of these discussions was general agreement on the estimates of expenditure as shown in Appendix A to the Report, and I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members to these figures. namely, an expenditure of £1,034–34 million for the next year, 1963–64, and of £1,083·45 million for the succeeding financial year. Hon. Members will be able to see from the tables in Appendix A the striking increases in expenditure by local authorities on general grant services from 1961–;62 and 1962–63, and from next year to the year afterwards
Hon. Members will notice that expenditure in respect of accommodation for the aged and infirm under the National Assistance Act, 1948, appears here for the first time. There are blanks against the current year and previous years, and a large figure of £27–71 million for next year and an even larger one for the year after. This service has been within the ambit of the general grant from the outset, but because the old specific grant was a unit grant per place, the general grant had been fixed rather with an eye on the replacement of the specific grant than by reference to expenditure on the services.
The inclusion of this expenditure as relevant expenditure, that is, expenditure taken into account when arriving at the total of general grant, represents the first step towards integrating it fully with expenditure on other general grant services for the purpose of calculating the aggregate of general grant.
The aggregate amounts prescribed in the Order—and here I lead the attention of the House back to the Order itself where, in paragraph 3, the total of
1280
general grant is set out—represent the sums necessary to maintain the Exchequer contribution towards the estimated relevant expenditure for the two years concerned at the level already established.
I should now like to read the figures which are before hon. Members, namely, that general grants in the year 1963–64 should be at the level of £562 million and for the year 1964–65, £589 million. These represent respectively £43 million and £27 million increases on the previous years.
Mr. John M. Temple: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the exact relativities as between rates and grants have been maintained in these new proposals?
Sir K. Joseph: I can confirm that the proportion of total estimated relevant expenditure found by way of general grant by the taxpayer is precisely the same, at 56·5 per cent.
I turn to the question of the total assistance made available to local authorities by the taxpayer through grants of all types. As hon. Members will be aware, it has been expected that the revaluation now pending will increase the aggregate of rate deficiency grants by about 20 per cent., or about £25 million. This increase will be automatic. It will be a windfall, the result simply of changes in the relation between the resources of different authorities.
The Government have here two responsibilities to reconcile. On the one hand, they have their responsibilities, very clearly established and accepted, to the ratepayer, to help the ratepayer bear the cost of rate-borne services, and, on the other, they have their responsibility to the taxpayer. Bearing in mind their responsibilities to the taxpayer, the Government can see nothing in present circumstances to warrant an increase of this order, that is, about £25 million, in total Exchequer assistance to local authorities. Their preliminary view was that it would be reasonable to offset at any rate part of this increase in rate deficiency grants by reduction in general grants.
The local authority associations directly concerned, however, and the

1281
L.C.C., represented very strongly during the statutory consultations that it would be quite wrong of the Government to reduce general grant on account of an increase in rate deficiency grants. Those local authority associations which were concerned, and the L.C.C., did not accept that there was a case for any reduction, but said that if the Government felt it necessary to control the total of Exchequer assistance, the only proper course was to take steps to amend the rate deficiency grant system. This is what the Government have now decided to do. The aggregate of the general grants has been fixed on the same basis as last time, and legislation will be introduced as soon as possible to set some limit to Exchequer liability for rate deficiency grants.
Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the meaning of the words "as soon as possible", as that will obviously be considerably important to local authorities?
Sir K. Joseph: I can go only so far as to say that details will be worked out in full consultation with the local authorities concerned, and that the grants for 1963–64, that is, for next year, will not be affected in any way, that is to say, the rate deficiency grants for the coming financial year will reflect the windfall increase arising from the revaluation.
Lord Balniel: My right hon. Friend's statement has come as quite a surprise, of course. Can he say why it is being made only now, when the effect of revaluation must have been known for some considerable time? Why was it not announced in the Queen's Speech? My right hon. Friend said that the local authority associations directly concerned had been consulted, but the local authority association most directly concerned by the rate deficiency grant is the Rural District Councils Association, and that has certainly not been consulted. Which local authority associations have been consulted?
Sir K. Joseph: My noble Friend has asked two very cogent questions. The arrival of the statutory consultations to define general grant comes at the end of a long process, and it is only at the end of that process that the Government are able to foresee what sort of
1282
expenditure they are called upon to undertake. It was not possible in the nature of things, organised financially as this country is to meet certain payments in the financial year, to have had consultations earlier. Thus, we were not faced with the apparent conflict between the interests of the taxpayer and the ratepayer before these statutory consultations were upon us.
My noble Friend asked why I was making the announcement now. I think that the House would prefer me to make the announcement now, in all frankness and candour, rather than wait and suddenly say that the Government are just about to embark on consultations and shortly to introduce legislation. I am telling the House of the Government's intention at the first possible opportunity, and I think that the House prefers it that way.
My noble Friend went on to ask why the Rural District Councils Association —and, indeed, the Urban District Councils Association—had not been consulted. The local authorities primarily concerned in general grants are the county councils and the county borough councils and the L.C.C. Therefore, it is their associations which are consulted, and statutorily consulted, for general grant purposes. The intention to look at the rate deficiency grant system arose, as it were, as a by-product of those consultations with the authorities primarily concerned with general grant.
It would not be practical politics to invite the authorities which receive rate deficiency grants, those represented by the R.D.C.A. and the U.D.C.A., to sit in at all general grant consultations, since they are not involved; but they will be involved in the consultations when we discuss rate deficiency grant amendments.
Before I come to what is logically the next part of my speech, the House may like to know that in all these calculations for general grant the Department has been using a computer for the first time. There are certain teething troubles in all organisations making use of a computer for the first time, and I gather that during one of the trial runs the Scilly Isles were discovered to be within the Metropolitan Police district, all by faulty punching of a particular hole. However, I am assured by experts that

1283
checks and counter-checks have been introduced and that the system is now working as infallibly as humanly-devised systems can be made to work.
I come now to the formula for the distribution of the grant moneys. As the House is aware, the 1958 Act prescribes the general framework within which the aggregate amount of the general grant for any year is to be distributed, and it is left to the General Grant Orders themselves to prescribe the weight which is to be given to each of the various factors in the grant framework. The weighting has been reviewed in the light of representations by local authorities, but, as embodied in this Order, it is accepted by all local authority associations.
In any matter of this sort it is impossible to satisfy every local authority. We are dealing with the sharing out of a fixed sum and, naturally, any move to satisfy one local authority, in the nature of things, can only be at the expense of the views and needs of other local authorities with conflicting interests. I assure the House that the weightings in this Order have met with the approval of the local authority associations.
Only two changes in substance have been made. One is the reduction in the rate product deduction factor. I am sorry to have to use these technical terms, but this rate product deduction factor was a feature of the former main education grant. It was carried over on a lower level into the general grant system so that the impact of the change from the main education grant to general grant should be cushioned to some extent. The factor at that stage was 9d. for the first grant period. It was reduced to 8d. for the second grant period. The deduction is in effect an equalising factor Whereby authorities with a rate product above the national average make a contribution to those authorities with a rate product below the national average.
A number of authorities have argued that a resources grant of this sort is really out of place in a needs grant such as the general grant. These local authorities say that it duplicates the part played by rate deficiency grants. The Department sympathises with this view. We feel that, the cushioning effect of the rate product deduction factor having
1284
achieved its main purpose, we should work towards its elimination.
Taking into account the effects of revaluation and rerating that lie before us, it is estimated that the 1963–64 equivalent of the current 8d. rate product deduction factor would be 2½., but instead of writing 2½d. into the General Grant Order, and thus continuing at the same level of rate product deduction factor as now, the House will see that on the last page of the Order we are introducing a rate product deduction factor not of 2½d., but of 2d. for each of the next two years, thus making a further small reduction in this factor.
The second change which has been made is to reduce from 20 years to 10 years the period for measuring decline in population, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) was urging this on my right hon. Friend as much as two or three years ago. The justification for this change is that short-term decine in population gives a local authority less chance to adjust its services than a decline spread over a greater number of years. There have been consequential changes in the percentage decline taken as the qualifying factor, and of the multiplier to be applied to the excess percentage to secure that roughly the same proportion of the general grant is distributed through this factor. For the rest, the weightings have been adjusted only to the extent necessary to secure the distribution of the larger amounts available for general grant over the next few years.
The House will wish to know that many of the changes suggested by local authorities in the factors to be taken into account in arriving at the distribution of general grant would not have been practicable to introduce without a change in legislation. After studying the results of a review of these suggestions by a working party of officials in consultation with the local authority associations and the L.C.C., I thought that the right thing was to say that there should be no further substantial changes in these factors in the general grant as now introduced for the next two years, but that next year there should be a full-scale inquiry by the Department and the local authority associations into the whole framework of the formula covering general grant.

1285
This will give the opportunity for considering what changes experience so far shows to be desirable. In general, however, the Government believe that local authorities share their view that the system of general grant is working well. Certainly, we regard it as a permanent feature of the financial relationship between the central Government and local government.
I come to the General Grant (Increase) (No. 3) Order 1962. This is accompanied by House of Commons Paper No. 22, which is a Report on this Order for this year. This Order was also laid three weeks ago together with its accompanying Report. The first Increase Order for the current grant period affected the grant for 1961–62 only. The second Increase Order, approved by the House last June, applied to both years of the grant period, that is, the last financial year, and this year, and it made provision for increases in the aggregate amount of the general grant, partly on account of increases in costs, prices and remuneration, but mainly, under provisions made in the Education Act 1962, on account of the changes made by that Act in the arrangements for awards for students.
Certain increases could not at that time be taken into account. These further increases relate only to 1962–63, and details are shown in the Report. The estimates of these additional costs have been agreed with the County Councils Association, the A.M.C., and the L.C.C., and they are for the most part these bodies' own estimates. Agreement has also been reached on the amount of the increased aggregrate of the grants for the year. The net effect is that the estimated additional costs in 1962–63, amounting to £7·88 million have produced an increase of £5 million in grant. The Order consequentially adjusts some of the weightings fixed by the General Grant (Increase) (No. 2) Order, 1962, so as to distribute the additional grant moneys.
Finally, I come to the Grants and Rates (Transitional Adjustments) Regulations 1962. The sole purpose of the Regulations is to continue the scheme made under Section 15 of the Local Government Act, 1958 for another two years, and to make further reductions in the contribution receivable by local
1286
authorities which are estimated to lose from the financial changes made when the specific grant system was changed to the general grant system.
This transitional scheme was again designed to cushion the process of change, and local authorities who lost as a result of the change were to have their losses made good in full in 1959–60, and as to 90 per cent. in 1960–61, by contributions from the gaining authorities in proportion to their respective gains.
Regulations made under this section in 1960 extended the scheme to last year and this year with 80 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the losses to be made good by gaining authorities. These gains and losses are steadily becoming less realistic as the base year grows further away. Changes that have been made, or are about to be made, like rerating of industry and commerce, and revaluation, make the calculations even more remote from the purpose from which they originally date.
Some authorities have suggested that the scheme should not be extended beyond the end of the present year, but after consulting the local authority associations I came to the view that this would make too sudden, too abrupt, a change in the resources of some local authorities, and I propose, therefore, as in these Regulations, to continue the scheme for a further two years, but at a rate of contribution fairly sharply reduced, namely, to 50 per cent. for next year, and 25 per cent. for 1964–65.
I can understand that the authorities who originally lost by the change should regret this tapering off, but I am sure that they will understand that the authorities which stood to gain by the change are, naturally, anxious to enjoy the full fruits of the changeover of the system. I hope that the House will agree that the arrangements described in the Regulations are a fair and reasonable compromise between both points of view.
I hope that I have explained the general purposes of these two Orders and these Regulations adequately for the House to be able to debate them.
4.20 p.m.
Mr. James MacColl: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the clarity and care with which

1287
he has endeavoured to explain to us the great complexities of the two Orders and the Regulations—the transitional arrangements, the additions to the current grant, proposals for the future grant—and will greet with somewhat less enthusiasm his glancing blow at the rate deficiency grant, which I shall say something about later.
It staggered me to hear that the Government, who always held out the rate deficiency grant as being the great coping stone of their grant system—the most flexible and sensitive of all their system of grants—should decide that this should be the one that has to take the rap, in this rather complicated situation, which I do not pretend to understand, concerning the relationship of valuation to general grant, and so on.
I want to make one OT two points about the information that we have been given. Each year we have some criticisms to make about the lack of information in the memorandum on the grants. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that this is the only opportunity that the House has to make a comprehensive examination of the whole grant system in relation to local authorities. It is a very complicated system. The right hon. Gentleman confessed that he had a calculating machine. All I have is a slide rule, and I so lack confidence in using it that I have to work out everything by long division and then, so lacking in confidence am I still, that I have to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) also to work out the sum by long division. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that creates considerable difficulties. He ought to help us by giving us rather more information.
I will give him one or two illustrations. In the first of the General Grant Orders —the one for 1958—we were given a table of the percentages which grant bore to expenditure. We have never had that table since. In answer to the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) the right hon. Gentleman waved a long sheet of paper, presumably the product of his calculating machine, and said that the percentage had not changed. Why could not we have been given that table in the detailed document, so that we could compare the
1288
figures? I would be very happy to hand my long division sums to the Minister for checking, because I do not agree with what he has said. I am not suggesting that he has misled us—it may be that somebody has calculated upon different figures, or has made a mistake —but my impression is that in the first year the proportion was 56·5; in the second year it was 55·4—that is, this year—and for the years 1963–64 and 1964–65 I make the proportions 54·4 and 54·5 respectively.
Sir K. Joseph: I am very much in sympathy with the hon. Member's request for further information, and I will try to see that it is satisfied in future. What I should have explained is that we have to take into account various costs transferred from local authorities to the Central Government before being able to compare the accrued figures of grant with the relevant expenditure. There are also such things as the fall-in from the rerating of industry from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent. I shall listen with interest to further suggestions which the hon. Member makes with regard to information.
Mr. MacColl: The right hon. Gentleman gives me rather more confidence in my long division sums and my slide rule than he does in the merits of his case. I do not think that he is entitled to say that the accrued figures are misleading, and that he will, therefore, "cook" the percentage to make it look better. The House should judge, and it should be given the necessary information upon which it can judge whether or not the right adjustments have been made. We want to know the proportions of local expenditure being borne by the Government and by local authorities respectively.
The calculating machine also seems to have gone a little wrong in connection with another aspect of the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the detailed analysis he will see that the County of Norfolk has a basic grant of £3 million, and has varied loadings, none of which is over £1 million. Yet, it ends up with £50 million as the provisional amount of its general grant. That must be very provisional. I suspect that at that moment the calculating machinery got rather hysterical.
Sir K. Joseph: It is the one misprint. We have been in touch with the Norfolk

1289
authority and have told it not to count on the figures in this table. I apologise for the misprint.
Mr. MacColl: I am glad, once again, that I was right. It might have been helpful if the right hon. Gentleman had told us about that misprint.
The other point in respect of which he could have given more information was the adjustment made in the Id. rate deduction factor. As I understand the principle, only two things are involved. First, there is an automatic adjustment of the ld. rate deduction to account for the new valuation. The 1d. rate will be much larger next year than this year. Therefore, to obtain art equivalent amount we must alter the deduction factor. Secondly, a policy decision has been taken that absolute and not relative adjustments should be made. That is something that we should think about, because the effect is to give a preference in general grant to the authorities with the higher rateable values.
In other words, the authorities with the higher ld. rate product will benefit most by the adjustment. We were given details of the amount which each authority is to get by way of grant, but it is very difficult to compare the figures for next year with those for last year, given in the previous general grant information, because we do not know individual local authority expenditures.
It would be helpful if, in respect of each local authority receiving grants, we knew on what expenditure the grant was based. It is difficult to know which authorities are benefiting and which are losing after the adjustments have been made. It is, therefore, difficult for us to make up our minds whether or not this is a wise procedure.
I do not need to tell the Minister that it is not enough for him to tell us that he is consulting the local authority associations, because, respected as they are, they cannot abrogate the responsibility of this House in connection with financial matters. We also know that the local authority associations are not monolithic bodies; they embrace many conflicting interests, and there are sometimes disagreements and even tensions among them. It does not follow that all authorities are looked after with
1290
comparable adequacy by the machinery of consultation. It would, therefore, be helpful to know what is happening in respect of each authority.
The right hon. Gentleman might care to check my calculations, which show that according to the recent Ministry of Housing statement on rateable values, published only recently, the product of 1d. rate is £3 million at the moment. The product of ld. rate next year will be about £7½ million. I have worked backwards from the figures given in this document to reach that figure. Therefore, an 8d. deduction, which is what we have been having, would come to £24 million. To get a £24 million deduction on the new ld. rate product under the new valuation would come to 3·2d. But the actual reduction is 2d. The difference between 2d. and 3·2d. gives the figure for the policy deduction.
Sir K. Joseph: The equivalent of 8d. after revaluation and rerating will be 2½d. What the hon. Member has laboriously and very diligently arrived at as 3·2d. should be 2·5d., and it is the change from 2·5d. to 2d. which is the policy change.
Mr. MacColl: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is right this time. I am not prepared to argue his figures. I have done the best I can with the information which we have, but it is a pity that we are not given rather more information.
I want to look at the changes which are being made in the estimates of expenditure. Again, one comes across the extraordinary ambiguities of the right hon. Gentleman's moods. At times he appears to be economy mad and at times he is glorying in the increases which are taking place in local government expenditure. It is difficult to assess what the position will be. In his famous Circular 65/62 on the new valuation lists he says, in paragraph 3:
"Expenditure which would have been regarded as excessive but for revaluation cannot be justified by the fact that revaluation has taken place."
If all the right hon. Gentleman was doing When he made that remark was to tell local authorities that what mattered was the total burden on the ratepayer and not changes in the rate poundage, I do not think that he need have gone to all that trouble to tell them. I think that it reveals the remoteness

1291
of the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers from what goes on in local authorities. I am coming into my twenty-ninth year as a member of a finance committee, and I can say that we know that. Every local authority which I have ever had anything to do with knows only too well the awful question of how they have to face their ratepayers and the country with enormous increases in the amount which they must collect from rates in the face of demands for standards of expenditure and of services which they have very little discretion to vary. The last thing that local authorities are likely to do is to be extravagant because they suddenly find that rateable values in their areas have gone up as a result of the new assessment.
That is the right hon. Gentleman in his Scrooge-like mood. But last week, at Question Time, the right hon. Gentleman was in his more ebullient and extravagant mood. He said:
"My colleagues on the Front Bench are continually explaining to the House, and are impressing upon local authorities, the expansion which the country desires in its educational and social services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1962; Vol. 669, c. 563.]
If the local authorities are to be put under such pressure to extend the social services, they hardly need, at the same time, to be told that they have to conduct their affairs with due economy, because they will get extremely confused about the advice which they are given. My complaint is that although the right hon. Gentleman makes these statements about increases in expenditure, I wonder how far the has taken adequately into account the results of his own policy and of what ought to be happening in local government expenditure. In paragraph 12 of the Report he says:
"The provision made in the general grant takes full account of the likelihood of further development of the services."
But take, for example, the question, which has been raised year after year, of lack of an adequate planning grant. If local authorities are to be encouraged to develop comprehensive replanning of their towns, the formula has very little to do with it. The question whether an authority launches a planning development scheme is not affected by the number of people there are aged 65 or the number
1292
of children of school age, or the total population. It is very much a question of chance whether one's plans mature at the right time and one's opportunities arise. The incidence of the general grant, therefore, will in no sense provide an adequate cushion for that kind of expenditure. What will be the position of local authorities who want to go in for development schemes of that sort? How will they be helped?
In paragraph 20 of his Report, dealing with the children's services, the right hon. Gentleman says:
"Provision has been made for expansion of the staff training programme and for an increase in the number of children expected to come into care."
But in another place the Government have presented a Bill, the Children and Young Persons Bill which—I must not anticipate it, as it has not reached us, but it is common knowledge from what has been said in the Press about it—imposes in Clause 1 a duty on local authorities to make available advice, guidance and assistance to diminish the need of children to be received into care.
In other words, the efforts of local authorities are to be concentrated on developing a new service designed to provide a comprehensive provision for families and to keep people out of care, not to put them into care. What allowance is made in the general grant for work in that field? The Government have some idea what it will cost, but there is no evidence in the Report that they are taking that into consideration. They are talking only in terms of those children who come into care.
Another factor which needs always to be borne in mind is that we are dealing only with relevant expenditure. People talk in a rather light-hearted way about the sufficiency of the general grant in coping with relevant expenditure, but local authorities, particularly district authorities, have a great deal of irrelevant—if that is the right word—expenditure with which they have to deal. They are the main authorities which are concerned with expenditure which does not rank for grant.
I take one illustration—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can help me here—the salaries of public health inspectors. How far are they liable for grant? I am not talking about the

1293
personal health services, which are relevant expenditure, but about environmental health service expenditure which, as far as I know, is not.
New legislation has recently been introduced to deal with houses under multiple occupation. These houses are not spread evenly over the country, nor is the problem linked particularly with any level of population. The local authorities which have to deal with the problem are involved in a campaign, if they can, to employ more public health inspectors, to have inspections of streets and to have enforcement procedure, which will be a complicated and expensive job to do. This is something they are doing as a result of legislation which we have passed on the advice of the Government.
Mrs. Harriet Slater: Is my hon. Friend not aware that local authorities are unable to embark on this work in respect of multi-occupied property? That is because they have not enough inspectors and because of the cost which would result if they did so. Local authorities are desperate about this problem. How far will that be affected?
Mr. MacColl: One thing they might do to get more public health inspectors would be to increase the salaries offered to public health inspectors, either by up-grading them for this type of work or, in some other way, enable more to be paid than the general level of public health inspectors. If they did that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) rightly suggested, they would not be able to shoulder the financial burden because, I understand, they would not get any grant for doing so. To get a comprehensive view of the position, one needs to look at these outside demands on local authorities' resources and not to be too satisfied with the treatment given to relevant expenditure.
Looking at the relevant expenditure, as I make it out the increase next year will be about £98 million and the increase in the grant is to be about £43 million, leaving a net burden to fall upon the rate fund of about £55 million. At current rateable values that is about 1s. 6d. on the rates. Therefore, it seems, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's circular, that it is deceiving the rate-
1294
payers to suggest to them that unless local authorities are imprudent and extravagant they will not be faced with increased demands next year when the new valuation comes into force. That is a little disingenuous, because everyone knows that as a result of expenditure which has already been approved there will be an increase of about is. 6d. on current rateable values in the demand, on average, on local authorities.
If I remember rightly, when we last considered the general grant the right hon. Gentleman was Parliamentary Secretary. He made a remark then which he did not repeat this time. That was understandable. He said:
"We are privileged to live in a fully employed economy."—[OFFICIAL REPOWER, 8th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 1503.]
He was suggesting that there is a limit to be placed on local authority expenditure because of the demands for the material resources of the community. Now, unhappily, we are not in that position any longer. We are not living in a fully employed economy.
This is the time when local authority expenditure ought to be encouraged to expand. If we are to make up some of the leeway caused because we have had to put off doing things as a result of full employment and the difficulty of getting available resources, now is the time to be increasing local government activities. It is always the irony of local government work that in times of prosperity we are always told we must not do the work because it would cause inflation by increasing the demand for resources, but in times of deflation, or in times of—what is the opposite of prosperity?
Mr. Michael Stewart: Adversity.
Mr. MacColl: That is not the word I want—in times of slump we have to economise to save the ratepayers.
The wretched local authority never gets an opportunity of doing the things which need to be done. Things like building a new library or making road improvements are held up through lack of financial facilities. The right hon. Gentleman ought now to be giving a big lead, particularly in areas of heavy

1295
unemployment, to see that local authorities are given adequate assistance by grant to do this kind of work.
When I quoted the 1s. 6d. in the £ I thought that would be the point at which the right hon. Gentleman would pop up and say "rate deficiency grant" because in a great many cases that would act as a softener for the poor authorities. Little did I know that, so far from doing that he would announce that he is making a cut in rate deficiency grants.
Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member invites me to intervene. I stress that nothing that is proposed will make any difference to rate deficiency grants during the coming financial year. It will rise by about £25 million.
Mr. MacColl: We are dealing with two years. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the current year?
Sir K. Joseph: 1963–64.
Mr. MacColl: Everything I say applies to 1964–65 and the effect is precisely the same. What the right hon. Gentleman said staggered me. If one thinks of what he said, one sees that it was that rate deficiency has the unique character that it is paid to district councils. General grant is paid to county boroughs and counties. The right hon. Gentleman said that he consulted the local authority associations which represent the county councils and county boroughs and they said, "You should not consider a reduction in general grant. You must do it by decreasing the rate deficiency grant, the grant levels."
Mr. Pargiter: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to be under a misapprehension. The local authority associations have not said anything of the kind. All that the local authority associations have said is that if the Government want to look at the rate deficiency grant they must look at it and that they cannot use the rate deficiency grant for that purpose. In fact, we are on record in precisely the opposite sense of a reduction of any rate deficiency grant.
Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) should know that the grant goes to county and county borough councils as well as to district councils.
Mr. MacColl: Now the right hon. Gentleman is getting me in bad with my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) because I merely summarised what the Minister said. He quite definitely told us—it is on record—that he had consulted with the local autnority associations and that they had said that it would be quite wrong to reduce the general grant and therefore, he should reduce the deficiency grant. We have the good fortune of having a representative of the County Councils' Association in the House. It is wonderful what we can produce when we have a difficult problem. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southall for scuttling the argument of the Minister.
Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member is being unfair. I said—and he will find it in HANSARD—that the local authority associations did not accept that the Government had to do this, but they said, "If you have to, the only thing to look at is the rate deficiency grant and not the general grant". They did not accept our argument wholeheartedly in any way at all.
Mr. MacColl: I am glad to hear that. No doubt it will make our position easier when the legislation comes forward. We are always told that these things are tied up with the associations and that there is little for us to do. At least we know now that this is not agreed and the right hon. Gentleman agrees on the vital importance of consulting the other associations. It is true that the rate deficiency grant Boas against the precept, but the important thing is that it should be said that this is the only grant available for this expenditure which is not subject to general grant. It is the catch-all which meets the difficulty of getting public health inspectors, and so on.
This is an extraordinary decision to take. It has only just been sprung on us and we have not had time to reflect. My immediate reaction is one of surprise and a great deal of alarm at what the right hon. Gentleman has told us.
This is another in a series of debates on local Government finance which has revealed the complete mess into which local authority finance and grants are getting. Everyone seems agreed on that. At the time of the last General Election the Labour Party manifesto included proposals that a Labour Government, if

1297
elected, would carry out an inquiry into the whole system of local government finance. This was ridiculed by some people on the grounds that the Labour Party was unable to make up its mind and was sitting on the fence. But it must be remembered that an opposition party has difficulty in coming to a decision without the help of the evidence and the vast resources which are available to a Government.
We had a debate on the incidence of rates, particularly with reference to old people. The present Minister of Public Building and Works made a speech which chilled everyone who heard it. It was one of the most unhelpful, unsympathetic and rigid speeches which we had heard from the Ministry. That speech was made, not on an Opposition Motion, but in a debate on a Motion moved by an hon. Member on the back benches opposite. There are also two early day Motions on the Order Paper, one in the name of the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) which calls attention to the distribution of rate burden and says that the time has come
"for a full inquiry into possible new methods of raising revenue for local government services."
A number of Conservative back benchers have put their names to that Motion.
I am sorry to note that the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) has lost heart. He has illuminated our debates by having taken part in interesting discussions on methods of improving facilities for raising local authority expenditure. But now the hon. Gentleman appears to have given up all hope and considers that the only thing to do is to hand over, lock, stock and barrel, to the central Government. I sympathise with that view—
Mr. Temple: Read the Motion.
Mr. MacColl: The Motion states:
"That this House, approving the Government's policy of expanding the social, public and educational services, in which programme the local authorities have an important role, but having regard to the fact that the share of the financial burden falling upon all categories of ratepayers is absorbing an ever increasing proportion of the national wealth, urges Her Majesty's Government to assume additional financial responsibility for certain local authority services which are now more national than local in character; and, whilst reaffirming its confidence in the rating system,
1298
urges Her Majesty's Government to set up a Central Advisory Rating Committee through which the technical aspects of this system would be kept under constant review."
I take it that that means that the hon. Gentleman wishes to hand over some of the main social services to the financial control of the central Government.
Mr. Temple: It is financial responsibility, not administrative responsibility.
Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman has been around long enough to know that if the central Government pays the piper they call the tune.
If the hon. Member for the City of Chester really thinks that this is the way to do it, he may be right. I do not want to be dogmatic about it. We who know something about local government are agreed on the vital need for an inquiry and a dispassionate examination of the problems without prejudice. The only people who sit rigidly on the fence and refuse to consider shifting their position are the Government, and they have been deserted by their back bench supporters. The Labour Party took this attitude at the time of the last election. The only people who will not shift at all are the Government.
The more one takes part in the sort of debate we are having this afternoon and the more one wrestles with all these extraordinarily complex decimal points and calculating machines, weights of population and the rest of it, the more one realises that unless care is taken, the real and human problem of how to aid the local councillor to discharge his responsibilities to the electorate will be forgotten. We shall find that we are playing with the machinery of arithmetic rather than attempting to tackle the job.
People who are trying to do the job recognise the vital need for sudh an inquiry as I have referred to. To have another revised rate deficiency grant is another attempt to tackle the problem piecemeal. Let us have a comprehensive review of local government finance, alternative sources of revenue and an examination of the system of grant. That would be a constructive way in which to attempt to tackle the job. But we must get on with it quickly, otherwise the problems will grow.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Balniel: I wish to echo the words of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and thank my right hon. Friend for a most lucid and thorough explanation of what is an extremely complex and difficult Order. I extend a fairly general welcome to the Order. It seems to go some way to disprove the fears of those who originally opposed the introduction of the general grant, but I feel bound to express a sense of concern about several aspects of the proposals of my right hon. Friend.
First, I am concerned about the method which my right hon. Friend is choosing for altering the system of Exchequer assistance to local authorities and about the lack of proper consultation. I wish to go further. I feel bound to express concern about the substance and principle of what my right hon. Friend is doing in amending the system of rate deficiency grant and I wish to express tentative concern about the impact which it will have on various sections of the community.
Regarding the method by which my right hon. Friend has introduced his proposals, he was kind enough to explain, when I asked him, the reason why this proposal is being made now and why such a proposal was not included in the Gracious Speech. The effect of revaluation, at least in general terms, has been known for a long time. From the response to a Question asked many months ago by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), one could gauge the effect of revaluation, namely, that it would increase the burden borne by the rate deficiency grant. As long ago as March of this year, in a White Paper, Cmd. 1663, it was pointed out that the total share of the rate burden borne by the rate deficiency grant would increase by 20·5 per cent.
Today, my right hon. Friend has confirmed that the total aggregate increase of the rate deficiency grant will be in the nature of 20 per cent., amounting in total value to £25 million. I therefore feel obliged to repeat my question, because if this general picture was known as long ago as March of this year, I do not understand why it was decided not to include a reference to prospective legislation in the Gracious Speech. It would be interesting to know what has happened since the time of the Gracious
1300
Speech which has caused my right hon. Friend to request the leave of the House to introduce legislation on this subject.
My right hon. Friend said today that he has been in consultation with the local authority associations which are directly concerned in the operation of this Order and that that included the County Councils Association. He told us that he originally suggested that it would be right in the circumstances to reduce the general grant, that, very naturally, the local authorities protested vigorously, and that—I paraphrase what I understood to be my right hon. Friend's words—the local authority association concerned said that, if the Government felt it necessary to restrict the total of Exchequer assistance, the proper course woud be not to restrict the general grant, but to amend the rate deficiency grant.
The association did not call for a reduction in the rate deficiency grant. It said that, if my right hon. Friend had to reduce Exchequer assistance, it should be done, not through the general grant, but by amendment of the rate deficiency grant.
My right hon. Friend did not then consult the local authority associations which are directly concerned in the level of the rate deficiency grant. He was apparently convinced by the arguments of the local authority association with which he had had consultation. He changed his mind and he abandoned his original idea of reducing the general grant. He has decided to cut the rate deficiency grant.
I am in some difficulty, because it is true that my right hon. Friend's Department wrote to the Rural District Councils Association, of which I have the honour to be President. As the letter is confidential, I cannot disclose its contents, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend will feel that I am breaching his confidence when I say that the date of the letter was 28th November and an answer was requested by not later than 4th December, giving the association three working days, in which to reply.
This is an association which includes every rural district council spread over the length and breadth of the country. I do not consider that this in any way amounts to consultation. I feel bound

1301
to say to my right hon. Friend that I think his failure to do this so far—I feel sure that he will at the earliest opportunity seek the opportunity of consultation—has caused a considerable sense of grievance.
I think that I should, with the permission of the House, quote a part of the letter addressed by the Rural District Councils Association to my right hon. Friend's Department.
Mr. MacColl: I am with the noble Lord in what he is saying. I do not want to embarrass him, but is it fair to quote only part of the letter? I do not want him to start on it and then get into a wrangle about whether the whole letter should he laid on the Table.
Lord Balniel: I had intended to quote only part of the letter. The other parts of the letter, although they are related to this subject, are not directly relevant to the point which I wish to make. If it is the wish of the House I shall have no hesitation in quoting the letter in full, although I do not wish to take up too much time. The section of the letter reads as follows:
"The Association are most concerned at the Government's intention to limit the Exchequer's liability for rate-deficiency grants. It is noted that the proposal has been brought forward in this form because a suggestion that the aggregate of general grants should be reduced was resisted by the Associations representing counties and county boroughs and by the London County Council. The authorities with the greatest interest in rate deficiency grants are the second tier authorities and particularly rural district councils, nine out of ten of which are in receipt of rate deficiency grants, and the Association feels strongly that they should have been consulted on a proposal of such direct concern to them and that the consultations should not have been confined to associations less concerned over rate deficiency grants."
The letter ends with this sentence:
"The Association are strongly opposed to the proposal."
I turn now to the substance, and obviously the more important part, of my right hon. Friend's proposal. I was slightly surprised at his choice of words when he described the increased rateable value as a windfall. Surely this is not the case. This is the rightful value of properties of which local authorities have been deprived for many years because of the failure of Government after Government to bring the valuation up to current day values.
Sir K. Joseph: I used the word "windfall" to describe the increase in rate deficiency grant which flows from the differential between the average ld. rate product per head of population before and after revaluation. This was what I described as a windfall and not the increased rateable value itself.
Lord Balniel: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend and I am glad to learn that our minds are running along similar lines. The rate deficiency grant is intended in principle to strengthen the resources of the poorest local authorities and bring them up to the level of the average. This was the concept, and it certainly has the support of hon. Members on these benches. I believe that it is a concept which is generally agreed on as being desirable on both sides of the House.
The revaluation has resulted in the average having risen. Therefore, more money is required to bring the poorer authorities up to the average. My right hon. Friend is now, to put it bluntly, trying to avoid paying his rates. If the parlance of the racecourse is applicable, my right hon. Friend is welching on his responsibilities. What he is proposing to do is to avoid paying his rate burden by limiting his responsibility by means of legislation.
I quite understand the reasons why my right hon. Friend proposes to do this or, I assume, why the Treasury proposes to do this. However, he is by so doing striking at the very heart, the core and the purpose of the rate deficiency grant. It is ceasing to be a deficiency grant designed to bring the poorest local authorities up to the average, and by limiting his responsibility my right hon. Friend is turning it into a percentage grant.
A percentage grant which has once been changed by the Government can be changed at any time by any future Government to suit their own convenience, instead of being determined by purely objective criteria. Not only does it mean that in this instance local government is losing a certain amount of money to which it can reasonably be considered to be entitled. It means, also, that local government is becoming more dependent upon the whim of Whitehall and less independent than it

1303
was in the past. Local authorities with below average resources will be left to continue with below average resources. By leaving the poorest authorities still below the average we shall depart a very long way indeed from the original concept of a rate deficiency grant.
I want to quote one sentence from the White Paper on Local Government Finance, Cmnd. 209, dated July, 1957. On page 13, this sentence appears:
"The effect will be that in all cases grant assistance will be up to the average for the whole country but no more."
My right hon. Friend's proposal means that all local authorities with less than the average rate product will be left below the average.
I would also like to quote some of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who at the time was Minister of Housing and Local Government, in Standing Committee D, on 20th December, 1960. He said:
"The whole idea of the rate deficiency grant, which is a variation of the Exchequer Equalisation Grant, is that it is something to prop up the rate resources of local authorities which might otherwise be at a disadvantage."
My right hon. Friend is now proposing to leave those local authorities at a disadvantage. The then Home Secretary continued:
"The whole plan of the Exchequer Equalisation Grant and the rate deficiency grant which took its place is that by means of grant we assist those local authorities who otherwise would be left with what I might broadly describe as less than their fair share of rateable value". [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 20th December, 1960; c. 117.]
My right hon. Friend is now proposing to leave some local authorities with less than their fair share of the rateable value.
I urge my right hon. Friend to turn his attention to another aspect of his proposal. One of the results of revaluation has been that the householder in this country is expected to pay a smaller proportion of the total rate burden than he has done in the past. The householder's share of the total rate burden is expected to fall by about 1 per cent. I think that it is possible—and this is no more than speculation on my part—that if the rate deficiency grant is substantially reduced the burden which will fall on house-
1304
holders, far from falling, is liable to be increased. Perhaps, when my right hon. Friend is considering the details of legislation, he will bear this aspect in mind.
Mr. Mark Woodnutt: Would my noble Friend make it clear that although the total share of the rate burden in the domestic sector will drop by 1 per cent., that is an average figure and there will be big variations between one part of the country and another?
Lord Balniel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because it is certainly true. It is worth remembering, also, that the Minister has power to protect the interests of householders should they be too adversely affected.
I conclude by repeating that I have a sense of concern both about the lack of consultation and about the substance and principle of my right hon. Friend's recommendation. I hope that he will be prepared to look carefully at this matter again before introducing legislation on the subject.
5.13 p.m.
Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I listened with considerable interest to the Minister's exposition of the general grant position and, by and large, I agreed with what he had to say. However, I did not agree with his remarks in their entirety. For example, if one looks back over the general grant procedure and studies the matter up to the time of arriving at the relevant expenditure, one finds that there have been certain legislative changes. Indeed, in the first grant period there was generous acceptance of the local authorities' estimates. They had been put in in perfectly good faith, but, due to directives from various Government Departments to dampen down expenditure, the final amount of expenditure did not reach what had been estimated.
Government representatives, when dealing with the next grant period, were inclined to be a little less generous and looked much more closely at the figures to be sure that the local authorities presented figures which would stand up to the test of time. This resulted in the expenditure of local authorities being very much closer to their estimates. It must be remembered that once the grant was fixed—apart from whatever amount any additional grant might bring in—if

1305
the local authorities spent too much they lost, but if they spent too little they might have gained.
The tendency is for local authorities no longer to gain, and were it not for the fact that some of the additional grant orders were available they would certainly have been considerably out of pocket as the result of the calculations which have been made and accepted. I make these remarks to show that the general tendency of the Treasury and other Government Departments has been generous in acceptance of the principles but that that generosity has tightened up afterwards; and this is reflected in the figures.
On the welfare side, especially with regard to the care of the aged, this should be brought into the general grant calculations instead of being left as a specific calculation. It should be made clear that this in itself does not bring more money to the local authorities for the care of the aged. It certainly does not give them the amount of money they should have. It is one of those things which got missed out at the time of fixing the percentage grant, so that local authorities were left to carry a larger share of the burden. I am, of course, referring to a burden which is of a general character so that the Exchequer should carry a substantial part of it.
I hope it is the Government's intention that this sort of thing should not continue to count as relevant expenditure but that some of it will rank for even 100 per cent. grant. And while much of the argument has been about certain services being taken over by the central Government, on the welfare side the largest proportion is being taken over by the local authorities—and the central Government are being relieved of this expenditure. This particularly applies to the semi-chronic sick for whom the local authorities must make expensive provision; and we must not forget that many of these people formerly came within the hospital services. I would like to be told that the future tendency will be for the Exchequer to accept a greater share of what is becoming an increasing national burden, especially because people are now living to a greater age. The burden of caring for the elderly should be carried more by the
1306
Exchequer, and I hope that the Government will accept their fair share of the responsibility in this respect.
On the general question of the relationship of the general grant with the deficiency grant, it should be made perfectly clear that, regarding the negotiations which were concerned with the relevant expenditure on which the general grant was based, the figures had been agreed, the whole case for general grant had been agreed, and it was at that stage that there was no question of introducing anything to do with the deficiency grant. It was at a later stage —as I say, after the figures had been agreed—that the Government said, in effect, "The local authorities will gain to the extent of £25 million. We do not think this is fair and we propose to adjust the general grant to the extent of about £15 million."
Obviously the rate deficiency grant has nothing to do with the general grant and we shall be in a difficult position once we agree that the two can in any way be combined. We must watch this matter carefully because two principles are involved. There is the principle of the contribution which the State makes to the lowly-rated areas, and the general principle of the amount which the Exchequer should properly contribute to the service in general. Those two principles must be kept separate.
When this matter was raised in negotiation, the local authority associations said, "These are two entirely separate factors, and we are not prepared to agree that because something has happened to the rate deficiency grant you can do something with the general grant. Each must stand or fall by itself." That is as far as the local authorities went, and there is no question of our having said that the Exchequer ought to do something about the deficiency grant. We said that the two issues cannot be confused. That view was accepted by the Minister, and it has been generally agreed.
The fact that the Minister now chooses to announce that he means to do something about the deficiency grant should not influence the outlook on general grant. I shall always be concerned to keep these two factors separate and to do all I can to make sure—and this is important—that nothing is done to

1307
whittle down the percentage of Exchequer contribution on relevant expenditure to the services in general. In fact, as the costs increase, and as Acts of Parliament multiply local authority responsibilities, I am not sure that the percentage should not be increased rather than decreased.
The principle of the rate deficiency grant was enshrined in the 1948 Act, and it has been accepted ever since by successive Governments. The amount of money has never been in question, but this is where we come up against certain matters in regard to the Treasury, Governments and so on. If the amount of money which the Government have provided for any particular service conflicts with the principle already established in legislation subsequent to 1948 and accepted by the House in general, an attempt is always made to tinker with the principle.
That is the objection here. We object to any tinkering with the principle that the State has a duty to perform in the working of the rating system. It is because of the way the system works that Governments have regarded themselves as having a particular responsibility to the lowly-rated areas. The fact that revaluation has shown much wider discrepancies between the highly-rated and lowly-rated areas merely shows that the Government have been getting away with it over a large number of years and have not been meeting their proper share of expenditure on rate deficiency in relation to the more lowly-rated authorities.
Rather than the Government talking about a windfall of £25 million, they should recalculate the figures and say, "We have been robbing you over the years and we will pay it back". That, of course, would be too much to expect of any Government once they have got away with the swag, but we certainly feel that they should think very carefully before interfering with this principle of Government responsibility to areas whose resources are such as not to permit them, without an unbearable rate burden, to give the same social services as can be provided in the more prosperous areas.
The rate deficiency grant is more a matter of principle than of money. The principle is that those who live in poorer areas, rateably, are entitled to the same
1308
social services as people who live in the more prosperous areas. That has never been gainsaid. The country is in danger of becoming two nations, with its northern and southern parts showing relative wealth and poverty; but in principle we are one nation, and in principle all our citizens are entitled to receive the same social services. It has been accepted that if the giving of those social services would put an undue burden on the lowly-rated authorities, the Government have a special responsibility towards those authorities.
I must warn the Minister that in this matter there will be no division of opinion between the associations of the rural district councils, the urban district councils and the county councils—and I think that I can here include the A.M.C. also. We shall strongly oppose any alteration in the principle, which must be in the mind of the Government if they intend to make any alteration in the amount payable in rate deficiency grant. I think it fair to give that warning so as to remove any impression that we are prepared to dicker on the question as between rate deficiency grant and general grant. The two grants should be kept separate.
The Government should look rather at some of the new services coming into local government administration, such as the increasing part that local authorities have to play in regard to the mental health services, and their increasing responsibility for the care of the aged. All this certainly means that the poorer areas must receive their fair share and proper support from the Exchequer.
5.27 p.m.
Mr. John M. Temple: I should like to add my thanks to those already expressed to my right hon. Friend for such an excellent explanation of this particularly complex General Grant Order. I am glad that we are discussing it before Christmas rather than on Boxing Day, because one really needs a built-in calculator working to perfection to do any justice at all to this extraordinarily complex subject. I would reinforce the plea made by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for more information, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend was able to confirm that, in general terms, the relativities within the Order have been maintained.

1309
The hon. Member for Widnes rather suggested that the Government had not been encouraging increased expenditure by local authorities, but when I spoke on this difficult subject less than a month ago in a discussion on public investment in Britain, I drew attention to the fact that the public investment sector which was increasing most rapidly in Britain was that being taken care of by the local authorities. I therefore think that the Government can fairly claim that they are encouraging local authorities to spend more, particularly in those areas that are at present suffering from a degree of unemployment.
It might be thought from my opening remarks that my speech would be all sweetness and harmony, but I warned my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that I should have something to say about his Department, and I think that my criticisms will be more directed at the Treasury than at my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
I want, first, to speak on the General Grant Order, and then I shall have to refer to Ale rate deficiency grant because, although that grant is not part of this debate, it has been introduced by the Minister which means that it is open for discussion in the House.
It is perfectly true to say that discussions on the General Grant Order have been taking place in the normal manner between the associations mostly concerned with it. Frankly I have thought for a long time that the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president, has been rather too unconcerned about a rate burden that is increasing all the time. I read with interest the policy statement issued by the general purposes committee of that association—which, I would remind the Government, has not yet been adopted by the A.M.C. as its policy statement—but I thought that it was far too complacent about the increases in the rate burden which we have seen in recent years.
I said that I found this debate surprisingly harmonious, and I am going to examine just where the Treasury comes into this matter and also what the effect of the increases in general grant will be upon ratepayers. As in the debate on public investment, we are dealing with
1310
exceptionally large figures. As far as possible, I am not going to deal with percentages in the course of my speech but with actual figures. Percentages certainly have to be brought in, but we are now considering a figure within the General Grant Order of something over £1,000 million for 1963–64.
This is the first time that this General Grant Order in toto has gone over £1,000 million. It is approaching the cost of the whole defence burden of the country, so that it is a very significant figure. But that is not the whole of local authority expenditure by any means. I would remind the House that the General Grant Order forecast for 1962–63 was fixed in 1960 at a figure of £851 million, but it has been revised and revised and has crept up to £930 million, an increase of some 10 per cent., as the years have gone by until we got the final determination.
On top of that final determination, for the year 1963–64 a further increase of just on £100 million is contemplated, a further increase of 10 per cent. Originally, when the 1962–63 estimate was brought before the House it was an increase of 6 per cent. on the preceding year. Now we are talking, for the year which is going to succeed this, of an increase of 10 per cent. Therefore, if an increase of 6 per cent. grew by about 100 per cent., in other words, 6 per cent. became 12 per cent., what is 10 per cent. going to become when finally the revised figures for 1963–64 are agreed?
I am extremely concerned about the rate of growth of local authority expenditure and I shall have a word to say about Treasury responsibility in the matter. Speaking in the debate on public expenditure, it was easy to work out that the forecast of increased expenditure in real terms was 15 per cent. per annum. If we are dealing with cumulative increases of anything like 10 per cent. to 15 per cent., it is clear that public expenditure in this sector is going to double in well under ten years. It is just as well for everyone to be cognisant of just what we are contemplating when we are discussing these extremely vital figures within this General Grant Order.
I now come to where the Treasury stands in all this. As I have said, I warned the Treasury Minister that was going to speak about the Treasury. We hear that the grants are becoming

1311
larger. Of course, at Christmas time we might expect that. The other day I picked up the Liverpool Post for the 30th November, which said:
"Liverpool's share of general grant goes up by more than £1 million."
An innocent reader would think that the Treasury was handing out more money. It is, but what the Liverpool Post did not say was that the ratepayers will have to find approximately the same amount.
I happen each day to walk down Whitehall, and for a long time it puzzled me why the Treasury buildings were being built within the existing walls. Quite suddenly it came to me. There must be something significant about keeping those old existing walls of the Treasury. I believe that enchained within them are the ghosts of all the ex-Permanent Secretaries of the Treasury, and the Treasury could not afford to sweep away those walls because the ghosts might have escaped and the mystique which is within all those ghosts would have been lost to the Treasury. That mystique is to give something away with one hand and to pull it back with the other. Now I am going to explain how this mystique, this sleight of hand, has been operated in respect of the general grant by the Treasury.
The General Grant Order, as I have said, envisages a total increase in expenditure of £100 million, and here I am going to quote from pages 4 and 5 of my right hon. Friend's statement to which he has referred today, namely, the Explanatory Memorandum of the General Grant Order. Paragraph 7, on page 4, is headed:
"The effect of increased remuneration, etc.",
and it says:
"These increases include several salary and wage awards."
Paragraph 12, which is headed "Development of the services", says:
"The following notes draw attention to some of the principal features."
Paragraph 13, headed "Development in education", says:
"In education, expenditure will increase throughout the service. This reflects both the capital cost of providing new schools, etc.",
1312
and goes on:
"The former is included mainly by way of interest and capital repayments on loans raised to meet capital expenditure."
The significant part about these two quotations is that they draw attention to the fact that the bulk of the increase of £100 million is for the provision of additional salaries and additional loan charges. I would point out that the Treasury has a vested interest in those increases, because I think it would be fair to say that, taking an average, the Treasury gets back in Income Tax on the increases in salaries something of the order of 5s. or 6s. in the £. On interest charges, again, the Treasury gets back Income Tax at the standard rate on those increases.
Taking the standard rate of Income Tax at 7s. 9d. in the £, I have made an estimate of what the Treasury will get out of these increases. Of course, I recognise that the whole £100 million will not be in respect of salaries and loan charges. But if my calculations are broadly correct, the Treasury is going to get back 5s. in the £ on £100 million. The Treasury—again I am using a broad division of the figures—is going to supply in the form of grants £50 million out of a total of £100 million but is going to get back £25 million out of that £50 million. Therefore, for the Treasury this is not a bad bargain at all. Superficially, it gives out £50 million and gets back £25 million. I shall return again to this figure of £25 million when I speak about the deficiency grant.
Where do the ratepayers come into this matter? I am afraid that there are no gimmicks to help for them. They cannot get it back as Income Tax. As the hon. Member for Widnes knows, I am not a supporter of a local income tax, but the local ratepayers have to meet in full their share of the expenditure within the General Grant Order.
Mr. MacColl: That is the individual ratepayer. Would not industrial rating be set off against the tax?
Mr. Temple: That is possibly true. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
I would quote here from Circular 65/62 put out by my right hon. Friend's

1313
Department comparatively recently entitled "Rate Poundage". It says:
"Revaluation strengthens the basis of local authority finance … but it does not add to the number of ratepayers."
So here we have the truth. I do not think, on the figures which I have given, namely, the increases which are percentagewise larger than those forecast by the hon. Member for Widnes, that we can do other than expect very significant rises in rate poundage over the coming years.
Only this week, my right hon. Friend's Department published Rates and Rateable Values, which is a most useful publication. I want to point out what the increase in rateable values has been over the last year. It has been 2·3 per cent. That actually is more or less in line with the figures of the last few years. The increase per annum has been of the order of 2 per cent. When one is considering average increases in expenditure of 10 per cent. or more as against an increase in rateable value of 2 per cent., the only result can be that rate pound-ages must rise. I do not know how my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would feel if Income Tax were to go up cumulatively by 10 per cent. per annum, if the standard rate, which is now 7s. 9d., became 8s. 6d., and so on. He would have amazingly large deputations calling at the Treasury more or less immediately. But this is a very similar state of affairs to the state of affairs which we are now contemplating through the operation of this Order on the rate poundages of this country.
In the Motion to which the hon. Member for Widnes referred, which stands in my name, I did not actually call for an adjustment in relativities. But I would now call for an adjustment in relativities as between the share borne by the Treasury and the share borne by the ratepayers. I would also call for that transference of certain parts of the services, or of certain services, from the point of view of financial responsibility, from local government to the central government. I certainly stand by everything that I put in that Motion.
Until a day or so ago I had not thought that I would have had to refer to the subject of rate deficiency grant and I am very glad that my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) has
1314
spoken up on behalf of the Rural District Councils Association. I have the honour to be a vice-president of that association, and my noble Friend and I last week received a deputation from it expressing its great concern and alarm at the proposals of the Government which were at that time known to it. They are now known to the House. What is proposed is, in the view of the Rural District Councils Association—and I agree—nothing less than an attack on the principle of the rate deficiency grant. I shall have to examine the legislation when it is brought forward, but there seems to be a prima facie case for expecting such an attack, on the basis of my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon.
I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, but I feel I must quote from a speech by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, speaking in Standing Committee D on 20th December, 1960 on the Rating and Valuation Bill. My right hon. Friend was present with the Parliamentary Secretary, and I served on that Standing Committee. My noble Friend has already quoted from that debate and I should like to add to that quotation. My right hon. Friend the then Minister of Housing and Local Government defined his concept of the rate deficiency grant and said:
"The whole plan of the Exchequer equalisation grant and the rate deficiency grant which took its place is that by means of grant we assist those local authorities who otherwise would be left with what I might broadly describe as less than their fair share of rateable value."
He then continued:
"We must continue to refund it in that light."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 20th December, 1960; c. 117.]
Those last words were omitted when my noble Friend read the quotation. The Government have clearly defined their concept of the rate deficiency grant. These words
"We must continue to refund it in that light"
I find immensely significant.
As the matter has been brought up by my right hon. Friend, I think it is necessary for me to examine what may be proposed, with regard to this rate deficiency grant. As I see it, the grant

1315
is quite clearly based. It is based on an average which is clearly defined. One cannot mess about with an average. An average is an average. It has an exactitude; 90 per cent. of an average is not an average; 110 per cent. of an average is not an average. An average is a finite figure which we can all understand.
This rate deficiency grant, which succeeded the Exchequer equalisation grant, was brought in for this very special purpose of helping the needy authorities to come up to that average. I think everybody in the House is clear as to exactly what is meant. It is clear to me that my right hon. Friend's proposals may well breach this principle. Certainly, as my noble Friend pointed out, this matter very definitely affects the rural district councils. Nine out of ten rural district councils are in receipt of this grant. Perhaps I need hardly say that I am speaking from a national not a local point of view here as the Chester Rural District Council, whose area I have the honour to represent, is not in receipt of rate deficiency grant. But I think it is very significant that 33 per cent. of the total expenditure of rural district councils in England and Wales is represented by rate deficiency grant. So that to those local authorities it is a very significant figure indeed.
Again, within the general grant there is no allowance for sparsity, and sparsity is allowed for in rate deficiency grant. Sparsity is certainly an important factor to the rural districts of England and Wales. I do not want to cross swords with the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), but I would point out that the upper tier authorities are in receipt of only 18 per cent. of their relative expenditure through rate deficiency grant, whereas the rural district councils are in receipt of almost double that figure.
Here, perhaps, I ought to trace the history of this matter. My noble Friend referred to Cmnd. 1663 entitled "Revaluation for Rates". In that White Paper, rather strangely, an additional column appeared this year—an additional sector of ratepayers. It was described as the rate deficiency grant. I am not exactly a purist in finance, but
1316
I like to be able to compare like with like. Therefore, as soon as that White Paper appeared, I asked a Question of the then Minister of Housing and Local Government on 2nd April. I asked what would be the position assuming rate deficiency grant was not incorporated in that set of figures. Exactly as I expected, if that series of figures had been presented in the normal form the effect on all other sectors of ratepayers would have been adverse because the rate deficiency grant was forecast as going up very significantly.
My point is that in March of this year the quantum of the rate deficiency grant and the effect of the rate deficiency grant were known. Nine months went by, and I think everyone who studies this matter closely was working on the figures in the White Paper. Certainly I was. The working party on rate deficiency grant, which has recently produced its report, had no inkling 'that there was going to be any alteration in the formula. Then something appears to have happened. There was a meeting between the Government and certain local authority associations. My right hon. Friend has made clear that the Government wanted to alter the general grant. But in the course of these negotiations or consultations—call them what you like—a decision was arrived at under which the general grant formula was not altered, but a declaration was made by the Government at that time that they would require to look at the rate deficiency grant.
Looking at the rate deficiency grant means decreasing the rate deficiency grant. As I see it, a package deal was done. Unfortunately, the parties to that package deal were not the parties who were going to be most vitally affected. The Rural District Councils Association and the second tier authorities, which are those authorities mainly interested in the rate deficiency grant, were not invited to these discussions. I know that my right hon. Friend can rightly say that statutorily they need not have been invited to a discussion on general grant, but nevertheless, as at this juncture it became clear that there was an interdependence or interconnection between these grants, I should have thought it would have been fair and reasonable to call in the second tier

1317
authorities and explain what was going to happen at that time, rather than sending them a letter presenting them more or less with a fait accompli albeit inviting them now to some future conference more or less to agree a variation of a principle. I can tell my right hon. Friend that the Rural District Councils Association is extraordinarily upset about this matter.
I wish to give one example of the effect which a possible alteration in the rate deciency grant may have. This is with respect to an agreement reached comparatively recently regarding rural water supplies and sewerage schemes. These constitute a very big factor in the expenditure of rural councils. This new scheme of assistance was agreed to in the full knowledge that the rate deficiency grant was going to continue in the form which we have known it over a long period of years. I happened to get some figures applying to the Chester Rural District Council the other day concerning the cost of these sewerage schemes. I was surprised. I was given figures varying between £280 and £400 per connection to individual dwellings. That was not including the cost of the sewerage works. I would say to my right hon. Friend that these figures are very significant and that these schemes were agreed to on the basis of the existing rate deficiency grant.
To sum up that part of my speech regarding the rate deficiency grant, I say quite honestly that I do not suspect my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in this matter, but I do suspect the hand of the Treasury. When the deputation called to see me and my noble Friend last week, its representatives said, in effect, "There is always the vacant chair at the table when they were taking part in discussions on this type of matter. Nobody occupies that chair, but you can feel the hand of the Treasury on that chair". It is the unseen hand which seems to direct these negotiations. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should tell the Treasury, on the basis of my argument in the earlier part of my speech, that it is already getting back, by this sleight of hand, some £25 million, which is exactly the figure involved in the proposed increase in rate deficiency grant.
I am providing gratuitously a magnificent argument to support my right hon.
1318
Friend when he wages his battle with the Treasury, as I hope he will. I hope that he will not pull his punches. I am sorry that the Treasury Minister whom I invited to hear my speech has not been present, but I sincerely trust that the Government will have second thoughts before introducing legislation which will widen the gap between the wealthier authorities and those less fortunately placed.
5.53 p.m.
Mr. Mark Woodnutt: I wish to add my congratulations to those of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite to my right hon. Friend for the very clear way in which he has explained this most complicated matter to us. I must, however, share the alarm that has been expressed when he announced that he had to legislate to adjust for this extra £25 million rate deficiency grant.
Every hon. Member who has spoken this afternoon has gone into this at great length, and I shall not burden the House by repeating all that has already been said, except to say that I agree in the main with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). However, I do not share the surprise that other hon. Members have expressed at hearing this announcement, because some three weeks ago I wrote to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary when I heard that the rate deficiency grant was to be increased by some £25 million and I asked if he would give me an assurance that the Government would not make any adjustment either on the general grant or on the rate deficiency grant. He wrote back saying that this Order was to be before the House before Christmas and that it would not be proper for him to comment on it at this point, which gave me a clear indication that we were to expect legislation.
It is wrong to describe this as a windfall. It is merely righting an anomaly, and I would, without labouring this too much, like to mention that the average percentage increase in rateable value throughout the country is 243·3 per cent. and in my own constituency of the Isle of Wight, which will now receive a rate deficiency grant, it is only 207·9 per cent., which proves that all those authorities that are now within the range to receive a rate deficiency grant hitherto had been over valued and it is only right to equalise them. They should

1319
now receive in full the rate deficiency grant to which they are entitled.
I should like to refer briefly to the weighting factor as it affects the declining population. My right hon. Friend has already mentioned that I pressed his predecessor about two years ago to change the weighting factor because it was quite unreasonable that the decrease in population should be calculated from the year 1940, which was the beginning of the war and when population bare absolutely no relation to the population of today. It was quite unfair, and I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for changing this factor so that it applies over ten years. In my own constituency, which has this very grave problem of a declining population, it has made the difference of one and two-thirds of a 1d. rate, which is quite considerable. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but having said that I must now say that I do not think that ten years is any more logical a choice than 20 years.
I said when discussing this in December, 1960, in this House that it was just as arbitrary to take ten, twenty or thirty years. What we must do is calculate the decrease from year to year. When we started the general grant, we started a completely new method of assessing the manner in which local authority grant should be calculated and at least we should relate it to the time that period commenced. From year to year there is usually throughout the country an increasing population. These authorities which have either a static population or where it is declining are adversely affected every year because they are getting a smaller proportion of the aggregate. They are getting a smaller proportion of a figure that is predetermined before the formula is applied. I think that my right hon. Friend should look at this again—although I am very grateful for what he has done—and consider giving a weighting factor for not just a declining population from year to year but for a population which remains static or where the increase does not reach the national average.
I am pleased to see that from paragraph 28 and from the statement made by my right hon. Friend today he is to consider changes in the statutory struc-
1320
ture of the general grant in 1963. In this connection, I should like to mention to him in particular the low density factor. I apologise to the House for putting an entirely constituency point, but it is the only opportunity that I have of making it. My county council submitted to his working party on the rate deficiency grant this year a memorandum which proves that because of its insularity and because of the severance of the Isle of Wight from the mainland of England the cost of living there was 4½ per cent higher than in other parts of the country. The Committee has recognised the prima facie case and given a whole chapter to it, Chapter 4, page 10, and brought this point to my right hon. Friend's notice in order that it may be further considered.
I understand that, with regard to the Scilly Islands, when this factor is considered the sea lanes are added to the road mileage in order to calculate the sparsity factor. I would suggest that as the Isle of Wight is separated from the mainland by five miles of sea the same should apply there. Although this will need legislation, I hope that my right hon. Friend will do that. I do not particularly wish to wait for two years, which is how long I shall have to wait if it is to be considered by my right hon. Friend's committee, so I suggest that a very simple amendment of Section 146 of the Local Government Act, 1948, where an exception is made in the case of the Isles of Scilly, could be introduced in a very short Bill to add the words "and the Isle of Wight".
I was speaking of paragraph 28 and the consideration the Minister will give to the general grant formula. Will my right hon. Friend consider also the methods which are used at present to calculate the total population? I am thinking particularly of those authorities which have prisons in their area. There again, I am on what is, in the main, a constituency point, and I apologise once more to the House. In the Isle of Wight we have, unfortunately, two prisons—we are to have a third in a year or so—and an approved school. Per 1,000 of population we have more prisoners than any other local authority. When the population figures are calculated each year, those residents of prisons who have taken

1321
up residence within the past six months are ignored. I maintain that as our prisons are always full, whether the residents have been there for six months or fourteen years does not make one iota of difference because the local services have to be provided for the full prison population.
When we suddenly find that in one year 400 of the prisoners in one area have been there for, perhaps, only six months because there hats been a reshuffle and one reduces by £8 per head the grant, a very big difference is made to a county like mine where the product of a Id. rate is only £6,000. It is obviously quite wrong to calculate the figure in this way. I urge my right hon. Friend either to change the method of assessing population at a given date or to arrange with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that all our "lags" in the Isle of Wight be long-term ones.
My right hon. Friend has said that when he is reconsidering the grant formula and the statutory changes he may wish to make in its structure he will consult the local authority associations. There are many of us in the House who pay a good deal of attention to these matters who also would wish to have an opportunity to discuss the subject with him. I hope that he will give us that opportunity.
6.3 p.m.
Mr. Dudley Smith: One possible answer to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) would be to accord self-government to the Isle of Wight. I believe that some people there would like that.
I join with hon. Members in thanking the Minister for his very lucid explanation of a highly technical and difficult mathematical problem. I am far more enlightened now than I was when I came in earlier this afternoon. I am grateful, too, to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for drawing attention to the Motion on the Order Paper in the names of my hen. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) and myself on the distribution of the rate burden and also the Motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), with whom I largely agree on so many matters in this connection.
1322
My right hon. Friend reminded us that there is a striking increase of expenditure on the general grant services, and he spoke of possible changes in the general grant formula next year. I am sure that he will always bear in mind that local authority spending will go on increasing, for there is constant expansion of local authority services. We are having to cape with various demands; wage increases far all local authority employees, the upgrading of the higher grades of local government officers, and so forth.
In my view, there is a very good case for a revision all the way round of the rating structure, and I believe that the education burden must be considered in this context. I call in aid the House of Commons Paper No. 21, to which my right hon. Friend referred, which says in paragraph 13:
"In education, expenditure will increase throughout the service. This reflects both the capital cost of providing new schools, further education establishments, training colleges for teachers, youth clubs, etc., and also the current cost of running the expanded service."
In my view, the education service takes a disproportionate part of the cost of all local government services. There is a good case for at least some of it being transferred to the national Exchequer. This would relieve both the general grant and the lot of many ratepayers. I shall not go deeply into that matter now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I am sure that you would rule me out of order if I did, but I hope very much that we shall have an opportunity to debate it in the fairly near future because there are many vital points which should be considered. I maintain that local control of education could still be well maintained if the whole of the education service were financed centrally, or if a greater part were financed by the national Exchequer than is at present the position.
With further demands on the general grant and the continual increase in local authority spending, there is a very good case for a full overhaul of the rating system and for a general inquiry into the financing of local government. As the hon. Member for Widnes said in his speech, with which I agreed to a very large extent, we must never forget the human element in rating when we are discussing these very complex mathematical factors. I think that the general grant is, for the most part, fair

1323
in the way it is worked out and apportioned, but the rate cost is not fair, I suggest, from the point of view of the ordinary ratepayer. No account is taken of ability to pay as is done with Income Tax.
In welcoming the Orders and giving them my full support, I conclude by saying, that one day a change in our whole rating system must come about. I believe that it will come, and the sooner it comes the better.
6.7 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) has not quite understood the point of the reference made to his Motion by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). My hon. Friend was drawing attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends who signed that Motion appear now to have reached a point in their thinking about local government finance which was reached by us on this side of the House about three years ago and put before the electorate at the last General Election. However, we are happy that they have now reached that point, although there has been a certain time-lag.
Mr. D. Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been making this point both since I have been a Member of the House for the past three years and before that, while I was a political candidate.
Mr. Woodnutt: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me, too. I was about to make precisely the same point.
Mr. Stewart: I am sure that the two hon. Gentlemen will agree that it is a thousand pities that the Labour Party did not win the last election because, had it done so, we should have had the inquiry which they want. Perhaps, when they stand at the next election, they will do so under different colours.
If there is to be a delay of three years between the time when back benchers on this side reach a certain conclusion and the time when it strikes hon. Members opposite, how much longer must we wait before the idea penetrates the brain of the Government?
Mr. Woodnutt: The difficulty about our fighting an election under different colours is that, if the government of the country were left to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, we should have no money at all to make increases or, if there were a little money, it would be worth far less than it is now.
Mr. Stewart: History does not bear the hon. Gentleman out on that point. The value of money now is by no means what it was when his Government took office. That is why we have General Grant (Increase) Orders in every period of general grant.
I suggest that the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick was not at all in danger of going out of order when he referred to the possibility of shifting the cost of education either partly or wholly from local to central Government finance. That question is closely related to the question whether we finance education by a general grant or by a percentage grant. As the hon. Gentleman realises, the danger if one makes education a service financed wholly by the Exchequer is that one loses local control of it.
I think that that danger is quite serious if we deliberately take one service, education, out of the whole range of services financed partly from local sources and partly from central sources and say of that service that in future it is to be financed wholly from the centre. It would appear that we were clearly discriminating between that service and others, and it would be very difficult for local authorities thereafter to maintain their independence in the knowledge that the central Government were wholly paying the piper.
Mr. D. Smith: Surely it is a special case, because, at the moment, in the case of many local authorities it takes at least half and, in some cases, two-thirds of the local rate revenue.
Mr. Stewart: I agree that it is a considerable burden, but it does not alter my point that, if we treat these services separately and finance them from the centre, it is a clear indication that we accept the idea of the transfer of control as well.
Surely the real problem in education is how to ensure that enough money is provided for it and that there is some

1325
degree of local independence about it, provided that good minimum standards are maintained. We also want to ensure that local authorities which want to use that independence wisely and progressively and go, perhaps, a bit ahead of their neighbours in education can do so without an intolerable burden being placed on the rates. We want enough money for education, a degree of local independence and not too great a burden on the rates. This is why I am sure the hon. Gentleman was in order in raising the matter, as I hope I am.
If we want this result, one of the best ways to achieve it is to have a percentage grant and not a block grant.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. The hon. Gentleman is now getting on to the fringe of order. We cannot discuss the principle of a percentage grant or a general grant on these Orders. We must confine our discussion to the amount being brought into the general grant by the Regulations.
Mr. Stewart: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was merely proposing to take up the point made, without criticism from the Chair, by the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), who said that the fears of those who dislike the general grant have been proved false. I merely wished to point out that our fears in this respect have not been proved false and that it has been found difficult to meet the desiderata for education that I outlined under a general grant system. However, I will not pursue that point further.
There is another aspect of the general grant which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and to which the Minister replied to some extent in an intervention in my hon. Friend's speech, but it was not a full or satisfactory reply. The point at issue was this. As we look at successive General Grant Orders over the years, is it or is it not true that the proportion of the expense of the whole range of services which is borne by the central Government is decreasing? Is the general grant working, through the successive Orders, in a way which causes the Treasury to bear a smaller percentage and the local authorities a greater percentage of the total cost of the services?
1326
My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes, fortified by his long division and mine, irrefutably proved, I think, that, if we take what the Minister called the crude figures, there is no doubt that the percentage met by the central Government this year is less than last year, a conclusion which should alarm the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick and those who have signed the Motion to which he referred.
The Minister's reply to that was that we must not rely simply on the crude figures, but bear in mind that, out of the total amount of expenditure which the crude figures represent, some is met by the central Government in ways other than by the general grant. I think that that was the point.
Sir K. Joseph: What I tried to indicate, admittedly in an abbrievated way because my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will expand on the point, was that between two grant periods it sometimes happens that a service which was paid for by the local authorities is transferred to the central Government and that extra rate resources become available to local authorities, and some share of them is fairly due to the taxpayer through the central Government. These two trends have to be taken into account before measuring the share of rate-borne services borne by the taxpayer.
Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to the Minister for that explanation. I think that it can be put fairly and in general terms by saying that there are factors other than the crude figures which must be taken into account. The Minister referred to one of them as "fall-out". I am not sure which one it was and I will not pursue that at this juncture.
Surely the point is that if the right hon. Gentleman invalidates calculations based on the crude figures in that manner by saying that other factors are to be taken into account, he must demonstrate that between the last general grant and this those factors which could work either way have in fact worked in a way favourable to local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman did not do that in his speech, and the information on which we could have formed an opinion is not made available to us in the Report on the General Grant Order. That was what my hon.

1327
Friend the Member for Widnes particularly made a matter of complaint.
In other words, we are provided with incomplete figures. When we draw reasonable and intelligent deductions from them, the Minister produces from his sleeve other considerations which he had not previously laid before the House. If the right hon. Gentleman were not the character that we all know him to be, some very harsh comments would be made on that procedure. Seriously, it is something that the Government should consider before we next debate this matter.
That has been one source of disquiet throughout this rather sober debate. Another source of disquiet has been that local authorities are being increasingly required to perform a widening range of services, and from time to time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes said, the Ministry, in its more expansive moments, urges local authorities to go ahead on this, that and the other. I think particularly of schemes of comprehensive development. If they do that, there is at present no specific grant for town planning purposes which could help them.
Without raising the general question of whether a general grant or a specific grant is best, I think that I shall be in order if I suggest to the Government that if they are really keen on local authorities getting on with comprehensive development they should again ask the question: is it desirable to keep planning as one of the items of relevant expenditure within the general grant, or should we go back to the idea of having a specific grant at any rate for that service?
I realise that the Government would be reluctant to do that, partly because of their characteristic obstinacy and partly because if they did it and found that there was a very powerful case for a specific planning grant they would find that by the same logic there was a very good case for a specific grant far nearly all the other services covered in the relevant expenditure, and the whole case for the general grant would break down. I hope that they will not be deterred by that and will consider what case there is for a specific grant for planning purposes.
1328
The third cause of disquiet, developed most impressively by a number of hon. Members opposite, as well as by my hon. Friends, concerned the Government's intentions towards rate deficiency grants. I know few subjects on which it is more difficult to collect together the whole truth and to keep it in one's head for more than a quarter of an hour than the exact structure of figures which determines rate deficiency grants, but I think that it is clear from what the Minister said and from the comments that have been made that the Government's mind is moving in a direction which will be hostile to those local authorities which are less fortunate. If that is so, it will be deplorable when it is added to the other fact that local authorities are being asked to carry out a wider range of services.
We expect local authorities to do many more things than they did a generation ago, and rightly so. Moreover, we get impatient today more quickly with glaring local variations between services than we used to do, and we are right to get impatient. The House has already manifested its impatience, for example, about variations in grants for students between one local authority and another. It is significant that that has been put right because students and their parents are a fairly vocal, articulate and influential section of the community. There are other cases where variations in the service rendered from one local authority to another are equally undesirable, but the people affected are not quite as articulate or influential.
If we want good services and if we do not want unjustifiable variations in standard from one local authority to another, we certainly do not want a system of local government finance which makes it difficult for the authorities who have less rateable value and are generally less fortunate. Therefore, any trend of Government thought which is menacing to the less fortunate authorities concerning rate deficiency grant is very much to be deplored.
All through this quite sober debate, we have been able to discern a number of causes of disquiet about the working of local government finance, which support the case which we put forward from these benches some time ago and on which we are now able to welcome support from some of the benches opposite for a far

1329
more thorough-going inquiry into what is needed in local government finance than has so far been held.
6.22 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): The main complaint from the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) was a desire for more information. We will certainly consider this request again to see what can usefully be done. It is, however, my experience that more information on this subject does not necessarily clear the brain. As the hon. Member for Fulham has said, it is one of those matters on which, a quarter of an hour later, one is not certain that figures which earlier seemed clear make sense. I hope that the hon. Member will bear this in mind when I try to explain the rather difficult calculations which give rise to the result that the figures represent a steady percentage of 56·5 borne by the Exchequer in calculating the grant in relation to the relevant expenditure.
The difficulty arises from the fact that one has to make certain deductions before applying the 56·5 per cent. First, it will be remembered that after the last revaluation there was a sudden increase, due to the partial revaluation of industry, of something like £30 million in the rates, of which the Exchequer drew back £20 million, leaving a net increase for the local authorities of £10 million. Against that was set certain losses resulting from the transfer from the Exchequer Equalisation Grant to the present deficiency grant, which amounted to £11¾ million, and there was the abolition of some small grants totalling over £1 million.
The net result of that was that the actual amount withdrawn by the Treasury was £6¾ million. This has to be deducted from all these figures before the sum comes right. What is done the other way round is that the total is added up, the £6¾ million is deducted and it is then multiplied by the agreed percentage figure. This is the first sum which the hon. Member for Widnes must do on his slide rule to get a comparable result.
The second problem arises, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, from the fact that the costs of colleges of advanced
1330
technology were removed from the local authorities in 1962–63, so that in those years a further deduction has to be made on similar lines before the overall percentage figure is applied to give the total of the general grant.
Finally, this year the figure for expenditure on welfare accommodation comes into a smiliar category. It is put down as expenditure, but it has not, up to date, been taken into account in calculating the overall basic grant. That figure, therefore, has to be taken off, the percentage figure is applied and the figure for welfare accommodation is then added back. I assure hon. Members that as a result of these somewhat curious calculations, the percentage figures read as follows: for 1959–60, 56·5 1960–61, 56·6, and thereafter in succeeding years, 56·5. I hope that I have at least assured the hon. Member for Widnes that the percentage is not falling, even if I have not made it any clearer how the sum is arrived at.
Mr. Temple: My hon. Friend has made great play with the fact that the percentage has kept extraordinarily close to 56·5. Would he like to justify the sanctity of this relativity as between the grants and rates?
Mr. Corfield: I should hate to try to justify the sanctity of any of these figures—I find them most confusing—but I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the result arises from the proportions which existed under the specific grants. It alters from time to time because of the sort of factors that I have mentioned which must be added in or taken out, as the case may be, but the proportions go back to the specific grants before the 1958 Act.
The hon. Member for Widnes questioned the rate product deduction factor and the alterations that have been made. The authority for this factor is contained in the Act. The simplest way of looking at it is to regard it as a levy of 8d. in the £ in the present year, which after revaluation will be 2d. The actual figure should be 2½.-plus—it is a little more than 2·5d.—to make it equivalent to 8d. in the present situation.
The proceeds of this rate levy are, in effect, added to the aggregate amount provided by the Exchequer and then the whole is distributed according to the ordinary general grant distribution

1331
formula. In broad terms, the practical effect is that it is an equalising factor, but it dates back to the old specific education grant. As time goes on, it becomes less and less allied to any reality and, as my right hon. Friend said, it was with the mutual agreement of the local authority associations that it was reduced this year in the way that it has been.
Mr. MacColl: My hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) said—and it was not denied—that this agreement was reached before any indication was given of intended alteration in the rate deficiency grant which has a resources factor in it. Therefore, is it not a little unfair to say that the local authority associations accepted the removal of the resources weighting in the general grant, because they did not at that time know that the rate deficiency grant on which they were to some extent relying would be altered at a subsequent date?
Mr. Corfield: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but, as I understand it, I do not think that the County Councils Association has attempted to link these two together. This is a factor which is under some criticism purely in its own right, so to speak, and I do not think there is any question of the association wishing to alter its opinion, whatever may happen on the rate deficiency grant.
Mr. MacColl: There is no evidence about that. I do not think the hon. Gentleman ought to say that. Already I have got into trouble by accepting what the right hon. Gentleman said about the County Councils Association and my hon. Friend rebuked me for doing it. The hon. Gentleman should not, if he is going into discussions with the local authority associations, say that they are going to agree to something when they have not been consulted.
Mr. Corfield: It was the specific wish of the County Councils Association, at any rate, particularly as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) interpreted it, that these two grants should be kept specifically separate. This is, of course, a matter which relates solely to general grant, and I think this is really the way in which we must regard it.
1332
The next matter to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes referred was the changes made in the estimates by local authorities and submitted to various Government Departments before arriving at the actual figures accepted for grant. I hope I have got him right on that. These negotiations go on very largely on the basis of what appears to be the likely expenditure. We have found in the past that many of the local authority expenditure estimates have been inflated, and in the first two periods it was found, by and large, that these amounts, even the estimated amounts as reduced in consultation with the Government, were not in fact reached. It may well happen that the reverse occurs in the future, and if that is the case, then, of course, there will be evidence for saying that we have been unduly pessimistic, but it has not happened up to date.
Then the hon. Gentleman raised a question which might arise under the Children's Bill which is in another place. I understand that in that Bill the provision is made for any of the expenditure to which he referred to qualify for the general grant. My right hon. Friend will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's remarks when the OFFICIAL REPORT is available and when we come to debate that Bill in this House, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would be quite impossible now for local authorities to estimate the sort of expenditure to which they may be liable as a result of the provisions of that Bill. It would be unfair to ask them, but it is quite clearly the Government's intention that if this expenditure is in any way substantial the opportunity will be given to make the necessary adjustment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have, during both the previous grant periods, had one or more increase orders, and, with increases in salaries and other costs, this is quite likely to happen again, and that would be the vehicle by which any adjustments necessary under the new Bill could be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), as well as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes, referred to the question of the rate deficiency grant, as indeed did most other Members, and I would readily

1333
accept the interpretation of what went on in regard to the local authority associations put forward by the hon. Member for Southall. The only thing I want to say about this at this stage is, to remind the House that there is no question of inflicting a loss on local authorities. What is likely to happen as a result of the revaluation is that the average, so to speak, will move up the table of local authorities so that certain local authorities which are average or just above average in the product of a penny rate per head will go below the average and therefore will qualify for deficiency grant, but there is no question of any money to which they are now entitled being denied them. It is merely a question that the arithmetical result of the revaluation will put more local authorities in the qualifying bracket.
I would explain to my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) that this matter only arose when it did because this £25 million extra came under discussion in relation to general grant, as has been explained, and consequently the district councils associations were not present. The whole problem of this extra £25 million which is likely to become due arose solely under the mechanism of the deficiency grant, and does not in any way arise under the general grant, although it was proposed at one time, as my right hon. Friend explained, to adjust the figure between ratepayer and taxpayer, using general grant as the vehicle instead of proposing legislation to alter the basis of the deficiency grant.
My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester addressed a good deal of his remarks to the Treasury, but although he criticised, I think, the use of the A.M.C. report on the ground that it had not been adopted, nevertheless I believe that the facts are still relevant. At present the figures show that rates are still a lower proportion of national personal expenditure than before the war and that the rates paid per household in real terms are also lower than before the war.
These are figures which, I think, are important. I am not going to suggest that this will carry on for ever and that the time will not come when the ratepayer's share of the burden of local authority services may well become intolerable,
1334
and it is, no doubt, right to look ahead, as my right hon. Friend did. But if we take the facts as they are at the moment I would suggest that the average rate at which local authority expenditure has been growing is nearer to 6 to 7 per cent. than to the 10 per cent. per annum that he quoted.
I do not want to argue with him over the figures, but even accepting the 7 per cent., my right hon. Friend of course did not intend that as a result of his circular the local authorities would not have to allow for natural annual growth. What he was anxious to avoid was the temptation, which was, I am afraid, not entirely resisted at the last revaluation, to take the opportunity to build up reserves out of proportion to the actual growth in local authority expenditure.
I think my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester said he thought that the rate deficiency grant is something in the neighbourhood of one-third of expenditure which would otherwise fall on the rates. The figure I took down was 33·3 per cent. but the figure overall is 12½ per cent. No doubt, my hon. Friend made a slip of the tongue.
Mr. Temple: If my hon. Friend wants the exact figure it is 32·5 per cent., but I used 33 per cent. to get a round figure. That is the total expenditure. That figure was given to me by the Rural District Councils Association in respect of rural districts in England and Wales—
Mr. Corfield: Only rural districts?
Mr. Temple: Only.
Mr. Corfield: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. The overall figure, as I say, is 12½ per cent.
I hope I have explained to my noble Friend the Member for Hertford that there was no question of initiating discussions on the deficiency grant in the absence of the representatives of the Urban and Rural District Councils Associations. It was at one time thought that it would be appropriate to tackle this through the general grant when it came up in this particular form.
The hon. Member for Widnes and the hon. Member for Fulham referred on more than one occasion to the suggestion for a review of local authority finance. I put it to them that in so far as that

1335
review would be directed at the sources of local government finance within the actual control of local government it seems to me to be clear, and I have been a critic of the rating system in the past, that a very great number of people—eminent people—have given a very great deal of time to looking at the problem and have not been able to produce a really suitable alternative. On this sector of the problem, we must face up to the fact that promises of further inquiries are likely to hold out wholly false hopes of producing anything either new or more satisfactory than the system that we have at the moment.
Both the hon. Member for Fulham and the hon. Member for Widnes referred to planning. It is perfectly true that in trying to estimate the expenditure in future years under the general head of planning we meet very substantial difficulties. The differences between the estimates of local authorities and the actual figures are substantial. In many cases we found that individual local authorities were clearly being overoptimistic and were expecting to spend under schemes which we knew were still on the drawing board or in other cases in a fairly early stage. The real answer to the hon. Gentlemen is that under this head we simply have not yet the experience to know whether the system is going to be satisfactory or not. The indications so far are that our estimates have been sufficiently accurate for this to work out as we obtain more experience.
I would certainly disagree with hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to the general desirability of substituting a specific grant. Hon. Members have accused the Treasury of a certain lack of lavishness. I think the one certain thing about a specific grant is that it would make it in the Treasury's interest for the minimum amount of work to be done. The general grant does, at least, avoid that with regard to any particular function. I suggest that in so far as the criticisms of the Treasury by hon. Members opposite have been valid, hon. Members would be providing it with a weapon which they hardly believe it requires.
Lord Balniel: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but the argument
1336
applies completely to a turning of the rate deficiency grant into a percentage grant, because local authorities are much more subject to the control of the Government once the grant depends upon a percentage instead of upon the objective criteria as at the moment.
Mr. Corfield: There is no question of my being in a position to say what method is contemplated in the legislation to which reference has been made, but what is quite clear is that it always has been so far a matter for legislation, which requires other legislation to alter it. Therefore, even if one adopted what I think is in my noble Friend's mind—90 per cent. of existing average, or something of that sort—in order to alter that it would be necessary to have further legislation. That is the safeguard. As has been admitted, this is a very complex subject. A great many questions have been addressed to me, and I hope I have clarified the minds of hon. Members on some of them.
I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) that most of the proposals that he put forward would require legislation, but they certainly will be looked at by the working party. With regard to the actual period for population weighting, whether it is ten years or twenty years I would remind him that we have to rely on figures from the Registrar-General, and it is, therefore, essential to have a period for which it is possible to make a reasonable estimate about the actual change. But that does not make ten years itself sacrosanct, and we will certainly look at the point.
Mr. Temple: Before my hon. Friend sits down, will he give an undertaking to convey to the Treasury Ministers, who regrettably have not been present, my criticisms of the Treasury?
Mr. Corfield: Yes, Sir. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will read the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester with as much interest as I shall remind myself of it tomorrow.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the General Grant Order 1962, dated 27th November, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.
General Grant (Increase) (No. 3) Order 1962 dated 27th November, 1962, [copy laid before the House 29th November] approved.—[Sir K. Joseph.]
Grants and Rates (Transitional Adjustments) Regulations 1962, dated 27th November, 1962, [copy laid before the House 29th November], approved.—[Sir K. Joseph.]
6.47 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): I beg to move,
That the General Grant (Scotland) Order 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.
It may be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, to discuss at the same time the next Motion:
That the General Grant (Increase) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, if that is the general wish.
Mr. Noble: Perhaps I could deal with the increase Order for 1962–63 first and subsequently with the Order for 1963–64 and 1964–65—the third grant period. The increase Order for the year 1962–63 is the second such Order to augment the level of grant for that year which was initially determined in the General Grant (Scotland) Order, 1960. Hon. Members will recall that the first increase Order, debated on 16th April this year, was in two parts: it both added to the amount of general grant because of rises in costs, etc., and, at the same time, subtracted from it because of the transfer of responsibility to the central Government for the administration of students' bursaries. The net result of this two-way adjustment was an increase in grant, which was fully debated at the time.
This second increase Order, which deals with a comparatively modest sum, takes account of the increases in the level of costs, prices and remuneration which were not foreseen when the first increase Order was presented to the House. The effects of these increases on the level of expenditure to be incurred by local authorities on the services within the ambit of general grant have been discussed with the Scottish local authority associations, and there was, I am glad to say, no difficulty in arriving
1338
at agreement over both the addition which should be made to local relevant expenditure for 1962–63 and the additional amount of grant itself.
The main items justifying an increase will be seen from paragraph 4 of the Report on the second increase Order. These are pay awards for nursing and allied staff in the employ of local authorities, mental health workers, administrative, professional, technical and clerical staffs, and part-time further education teachers. The total of additional relevant expenditure, as agreed with the local authority associations, amounted to £705,000, which I have rounded up to £710,000. In consequence of this rise in relevant expenditure it is proposed, in the second increase Order, to bring up the amount of general grant from the present total of £61·50 million to £61·94 million.
As there was no dispute with the local authority associations over any aspect of this increase Order, perhaps I need not say any more about it at this stage. I turn, accordingly, to the General Grant (Scotland) Order, 1962, which is rather more complex. I must begin by apologising to hon. Members for the omission from the Report on this Order of two columns of figures in the Appendix, which were not made available to Members in printed form until today. I very much regret this omission, which I did my best to repair by circulating the relevant figures to all Scottish Members yesterday as soon as I discovered that the corrigendum slip had still to be issued.
In the last General Grant Order debate, there were two main criticisms of the Report: first, that it was much too brief; and, secondly, that it was presented too late to allow adequate time for study and consultation. I have tried to meet these criticisms. Hon. Members will observe that the Report on the General Grant Order for the period 1963–65 has been expanded and provides a fair amount of detail.
The Order and Report were also laid in the House on 6th December, and I hope that hon. Members will feel that on this occasion there has been enough time between the date of laying and the debate. I am only sorry that our good intentions in this respect have been

1339
marred to some degree by the omission of the figures I have mentioned.
The early paragraphs of the Report set out the statutory requirements and procedure imposed on the Secretary of State by the 1958 Act. As explained in paragraph 4, I obtained detailed estimates from the local authorities of their estimated relevant expenditure for the period 1963–65, together with details of the actual or near-actual expenditure in 1961–62 and the revised estimates of expenditure in 1962–63. This information, submitted by the local authorities, covered all the services comprised in the general grant arrangements and set out in the Appendix to the Report, except for physical training and recreation, for which, as usual, estimates were made by my Department and later agreed with the local authorities.
As hon. Members know, the established procedure is that the local authorities' estimates of expenditure are examined by the Scottish Departments, who make adjustments, taking account of any items wrongly included or over or underestimated, increases in costs, and other factors which have arisen since the estimates were compiled, of likely fluctuations in the needs for individual services, and of the rate of development of services, having regard, for example, to levels of capital expenditure.
The adjusted estimates were sent to the local authority associations with a view to formal consultation with them, which is a requirement of Section 1 of the Act. The initial discussions took place between officers of my Department and local authority officials, and, finally, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State had a formal meeting with the local authority elected representatives.
Following the preliminary discussions at official level, there was not a great deal of disagreement over the amount of local relevant expenditure left to be settled at the formal meeting, and after an exchange of views my hon. Friend was able to reach a settlement with the local authority elected representatives over the whole field of local relevant expenditure for the period 1963–65.
This, as hon. Members will see from paragraph 10 of the Report, amounts to £110·28 million for 1963–64 and £114·55 million for 1964–65. I should however,
1340
draw attention to the inclusion for the first time in the estimates of local relevant expenditure of accommodation for the aged and infirm, particularly as this occasioned the only substantial difference which we have had with the local authorities on this particular general Grant exercise.
Hon. Members may recall that the Report accompanying the General Grant (Scotland) Order, 1960, stated, in respect of expenditure on old people's homes, that
"in later grant periods, however, it is proposed to collate and include all expenditure on this service in relevant expenditure."
There was no difficulty with the local authority associations over the amount of local relevant expenditure which should be included in respect of the provision of accommodation for the aged and infirm. The disagreement arose out of the method I proposed for the determination of the general grant in respect of the aggregated relevant local expenditure, that is, the expenditure including old people's homes.
Perhaps I can describe the difference with the local authorities shortly by saying that they for their part wanted the ratio of grant to expenditure ruling in 1962–63 applied to the agreed levels of expenditure for 1963–64 and 1964–65. This means, of course, applying the ratio for the current year, for which expenditure on old people's homes is not included, to the new levels of local relevant expenditure for the third grant period which do include expenditure on old people's homes.
My proposal was to apply the ratio which would have resulted in 1962–63 if expenditure on old people's homes had been included in relevant expenditure. The difference between the two methods is that the basis initially favoured by the local authorities—not surprisingly, perhaps—gives more general grant, whereas my method would bring out the same amount of grant as under the old system. Their initial approach would, in fact, have benefited them to the extent of about £1·2 million each year. This would, in effect, have amounted to a substantial extension of Exchequer grant into a new field.
The local authorities did not press their initial proposal, and, indeed, went

1341
so far as to say that they would rather forgo grant on old people's homes than see the overall percentage reduced because of the inclusion of old people's homes in relevant expenditure. On the other hand, my proposals have the same effect as if such expenditure had been included from the beginning of general grant.
However, I recognise that the local authorities do not like to see any reduction in the ratio of grant to expenditure. While I make it clear that the amounts of grant that I propose for the next period are the same as they would have been if we had proceeded on the basis used two years ago, when expenditure on old people's homes was excluded from the total of relevant expenditure, I agree that the question of ratio of grant to expenditure should be examined again before any further Order or increase Order is made.
I should now like to deal briefly with the developments that are envisaged in the relevant servioes and which are reflected in the increased grants for the period 1963–65. On education, the estimate provides for the further development of the service, new schools, maintenance and improvement of existing schools, additional teachers and the expansion of the school health service. They also provide for aid to pupils still at school and the development of all forms of primary, secondary, technical and further education.
A substantial increase in the provision of youth service and social and physical recreation has been made—and I might add that it is in the education service and not under the heading of physical training and recreation, mentioned in the Appendix to the Report, that the great bulk of expenditure for these services is shown.
With the exception of the cost of school teachers' salaries, and loan charges arising out of capital expenditure on educational building, the local authority associations accepted the adjustments made by the Scottish Education Department to the education authorities' estimates. With estimates approaching the £100 million mark it would, of course, be surprising if there were no difference between the local authorities and ourselves as to the
1342
expansion that might reasonably and realistically be achieved. In fact, the difference between us was relatively small—only about 1 per cent.—and the local authority associations, as I mentioned earlier, after discussion with my hon. Friend, were willing to accept a compromise settlement.
The finally agreed level of estimated expenditure for 1963–65 will enable steady progress to be made in the provision of new schools which are required to meet movements of population and the modernisation or replacement of out-of-date school buildings. Capital investment in this direction must, of course, keep in step with the amount of investment authorised by the Government for education. Provision has also been made for a substantial increase in the number of teachers to be employed, particularly in the secondary schools and for the introduction of new courses for pupils staying at school beyond the minimum leaving age to take the new O-grade examination of the Scottish Certificate of Education.
Further education in local technical colleges run by education authorities, is proceeding, and new colleges and centres of further education are being brought into use. As a result, the numbers of students in full-time and part-time courses are growing and there will be a consequent increase in the number of full-time and part-time teachers.
Youth work has been stimulated by the activities of the Scottish Consultative Council for Youth Service. The expansion of the service is expected to continue. This involves increased expenditure on additional youth organisers and leaders, to maintain youth clubs and to assist youth and other voluntary organisations.
As regards the local health and welfare services, hon. Members will observe that further expenditure is envisaged. The rise in the birth-rate and the increasing number of old people require more of such services as domestic help and health visiting. Local authorities generally are anxious to develop these services.
As the Report mentions, local authorities now have a statutory duty to make arrangements for the care and welfare of persons who are or have been suffering from mental disorder of any

1343
kind. During the last year, local health authorities have been submitting for my approval the detailed administrative schemes under which they propose to provide these services. It is clear they have taken careful note of the guidance given in the Report on Mental Health Services of Local Health Authorities, which was published in 1961.
Over the next few years, there is expected to be a marked increase in the number of places provided in junior and senior occupational centres, and centres already in use will be opened to larger numbers and for longer periods each week. The aim will be to provide residential accommodation where the need exists for those who no longer require hospital care but cannot, for one reason or another, return right away to their former homes.
Most important of all, more workers will be employed by local authorities to help and befriend those mentally disordered people who are still at home, and to advise the relatives and friends who are caring for them. Provision has been made for increased expenditure by local authorities on these services. Jordanhill College of Education is doing excellent work in training instructors for occupation centres. The taxpayer and the ratepayer have, it is true, to find more money for this. But no one—and certainly not the local authorities or myself, who have seen some of the great advances in this field—would wish to curtail these services.
Paragraphs 19–21 of the Report describe quite fully the developments of the welfare services which are contemplated in the period immediately ahead. There is not much that I need add, except to say that, here again, local authorities have a tremendously important part to play in making the lives of the physically handicapped and the aged and infirm happier, and my Department wants to do what it can to help the local authorities to expand and improve their services.
Because I have already spoken at some length, I do not propose to say more at this stage about the other smaller services, details of which are given in paragraphs 22–26 of the Report. If any hon. Member would like to have further information on any specific service, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will try to give it when winding up the debate.
1344
In the belief that hon. Members will view favourably the considerable expansion of local authority services in the third grant period, which is recognised by the increased amounts of general grants set out in the General Grant (Scotland) Order, 1962, I commend this Order to the House, along with the General Grant (Increase) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order, 1962, to which I referred in the early part of my speech.
7.6 p.m.
Mr. James H. Hoy: May I say, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we are grateful to the Secretary of State for having given us information a little earlier this year than on previous occasions, that we also accept his apology for the slip which was made in the figures which he gave us some time ago, and that we are grateful for them.
While we are considering this Order, which is very important, because it affects every ratepayer in Scotland, I do not want to widen the discussion beyond the general grant, but I am bound to say that if I do not do so the right hon. Gentleman must not take it from that that we do not still have some objection to the changes that were made from the specific grant to the general grant. I do not accept for a moment the argument which was put in our earlier debate, that because of the way it has worked out so far it has been successful. In view of the considerable part—rather more than half the total expenditure—taken up on education, there is still a case for re-examining the whole of local government expenditure, and, perhaps, the whole of the rating system.
Over the years, rate poundages have continued to rise, and I was amused to hear earlier the Minister try to explain that they are, proportionately, still less than some time ago. This argument carries no weight at all, and all that the local taxpayer knows is that the rates continue to go up and up. We on this side of the House believe that it has been deliberate Government policy to shift a considerable part of what should be central Government expenditure on to the local taxpayers.
It is true, as the Secretary of State has said, that some agreement was reached between his Department and the Scottish local authorities, but let us get

1345
the matter into perspective right at the very beginning. There was a difference m the estimates of expenditure on which these grants are to be paid. The Scottish local authorities, so far as I am aware, estimated that their expenditure for 1963–64 and for 1964–65 would be no less than £111·7 million and £116·8 million respectively. These were the sums with which the local authorities thought they would be faced, but the Government has fixed the sums, given by the Secretary of State, at £110 million and £114 million, so that, in the first place, there was this difference in the estimates between the central Government and the local authorities.
This is one of the objections which the Scottish local authority associations have to the system. They have always objected to the practice of Departments basing estimates of expenditure on a projection of expenditure in the previous year rather than on the local authorities' estimates of their relevant expenditure. The local authorities have always argued that a very much better basis for assessing their expenditure was the basis of relevant expenditure when the estimates came to be considerd.
It is true that in 1959–60 actual expenditure fell short of approved expenditure and that the grant received exceeded expenditure by about £990 million, but it is also true that in subsequent years it worked out the other way round, and the Secretary of State did not emphasise that. It is because of this that local authorities would much rather take actual relevant expenditure as a basis of grant.
Commander C. E. M. Donaldson (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles): There may have been a mistake, but I think that the hon. Member said £990 million. Did he mean to say so?
Mr. Hoy: I hope that I did not say "million". If I did, I meant "thousand" We have not got into those figures yet, not even with the present Government. I hope that I said £990,000.
Scottish local authority associations are especially worried about the inadequate consideration which is given to their estimates record. They think that approved estimates are more inadequate in the second and subsequent years for the simple reason that in the initial
1346
stages of any expenditure the budget level is frequently not reached, although expenditure tends to rise in subsequent years. Scottish local authorities feel that to fix the grant as now is not to pay sufficient attention to expenditure in future years, and I think that they have a very good case.
In 1959–60 the general grant represented 62·4 per cent. of the relevant expenditure, but in 1962–63 it was only 61·14 per cent. It is true that a number of things had happened. For instance, responsibility for students had been transferred from local authorities from the Scottish Education Department. There is to be a similar transfer in 1963–64 and 1964–65 in respect of old folk's homes, but the transfer of expenditure of this kind brings dawn the proportion from the height of 62·4 per cent. to 59·85 per cent. and 60·23 per cent. respectively for the two years concerned.
What worries local authorities is that if this trend continues, their share of the remaining expenditure will be that much greater. This is made all the more important because expenditure on education will tend to rise in future years as teachers' salaries, and so on, increase, and it is, therefore, important to local authorities that the proportion Should not be decreased in this way. While it may not be so important in the immediate years, it will become increasingly important in later years.
The Secretary of State said that he would offer to reconsider the proportion of grant. I did not understand what he meant by that. Is he saying to local authorities that although the grant has been fixed for these two years, at the end of that time he wii11 be prepared to consider the proportion of grant to local authorities, in other words, to return to the 62·4 per cent. figure, or some other sum?
Mr. Noble: The point I was making was that, although I could not promise that the amounts would be changed, I would keep an open mind about whether we should keep the proportions in the form which they have had in the past. That meets the point which the hon. Member has made about the concern of local authorities which feel that the main expenditure may be on education and might, therefore, lead to an erosion

1347
of the percentage, which might be a serious difficulty. I have promised to look at that.
Mr. Hoy: I find this a little difficult to understand, because it is obvious that if the proportion is changed the amount must be changed. That is bound to follow. That is what is worrying local authorities. They are now getting about 62·4 per cent., which will fall in the present proposals, not considerably but substantially when taken overall. If the Secretary of State says that he is prepared to change that, when does he propose to do so? He says that he will keep an open mind, but after we have passed these Orders, the grants will be fixed for the next two years, apart from transitional grants. His offer to reconsider is very important, but when will he reconsider? Surely he did not make that offer without thinking about it.
Mr. Noble: The point I made was that I would do it when there was an increase Order, or a new Order for these grants.
Mr. Hoy: That is even more difficult to understand, because the general grant is fixed by this Order and not by an increase Order. I hope that the Under-Secretary will clear up this point, which is important. As far as I know, the general grant is not altered by an increase Order, for a change would alter the proportions, which are fixed by a General Grant Order and not by an increase Order. I hope that we will have some clarification later tonight.
There was some slight disagreement when the Secretary of State spoke about the inclusion of expenditure on old folk's homes. The local authorities made it perfectly clear that they disliked this proposal entirely and felt that it reacted against local authority grants.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): To the extent that it brought down the ratio, which is what we have been discussing.
Mr. Hoy: Exactly. If that is done, the ratio is brought down, and that is what local authorities object to. They are prepared for it to be taken out altogether and treated as a separate item, and that would be fair to local authorities, who can raise taxation only through local rates. If the burden is
1348
passed more and more from central to local government, local rates must go up.
Local authorities frequently differ in their treatment of services. In his long peroration, the Secretary of State explained the social services and paid tribute to the work of local authorities. However, much of the work which local authorities undertake is absolutely dependent on their resources, and when we altered the specific grant system the effect on certain local authorities was that they either had to restrict the services which they could offer, or attempt to increase them and put the burden on the local ratepayer.
Local authorities take no tremendous objection to the Order except on the matter of principle, but in view of the right hon. Gentleman's offer, about which, if I may say so quite gently, he did not appear to be very clear, I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to clear up this very important matter before the debate ends.
7.19 p.m.
Mr. Forbes Hendry: I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) should have made such a point about the loss being sustained by local authorities. I am always surprised when an hon. Member takes such a personalised view of local authorities, because grants come not from some mysterious purse but from the taxpayer. The consequence of his argument would be the transfer from the local ratepayer to the general taxpayer of the cost of local services. That is important to individual local authorities, because it saves them having to raise their rates and incur unpopularity, but it must be remembered that the expenditure has to be met either by the taxpayer or the ratepayer and not from some mysterious source in the sky. We must take a wider view of this in the House, because our job is to look after the interests of the taxpayer rather than those of the ratepayer. Local authorities, through their associations, are capable of speaking for themselves.
The law on this subject was clearly laid down by the 1958 Act. It is evident from the White Papers that the Scottish Departments have carefully considered the position. They have tackled the job honestly. They have applied the law

1349
fairly. They have achieved a very satisfactory Order. It has been suggested that the Scottish Departments may not have taken into account future increases in expenditure, possibly because of inflation. The word "inflation" was not used, but I think that that is what the hon. Member for Leith meant. If expenditure rises, it can easily be dealt with by increase Orders. In fact there is an increase Order before the House tonight for the purpose of dealing with increased expenditure since the last General Grant Order was made.
The Order makes a very substantial increase in the grant. The relevant expenditure has risen by nearly £9 million to £110 million as against £101 million in the last year. This involves an increase in general grant of some £4 million, which by any standard is a great deal of money. Even deducting the new expenditure on old people's homes, there is still an increase in relevant expenditure of about £7 million. Therefore, we are dealing with very large sums of money.
We must congratulate the Government on bringing about the conditions in which this increased expenditure is appropriate. As one travels about the country one is aware of the tremendous difference there is in schools, not only in cities but in country districts. This costs a great deal of money, but it is money well spent. It is expenditure we all welcome. My right hon. Friend mentioned the increased expenditure on mental health. I remember during our discussions on the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill that a great deal of misgiving was expressed by members of the Opposition about the increased expenditure which would fall on local authorities under the Act. Questions were asked in Committee and elsewhere about how far the Government would contribute towards such increased expenditure. These questions are answered tonight in the Order, because expenditure for that purpose will qualify for grant.
It is not my purpose to underline everything that my right hon. Friend said under the various headings of social expenditure, but I think that we must all welcome—
Mr. William Ross: I do not mind the hon. Gentleman underlining what the Secretary of State said,
1350
but I wish he understood what the right hon. Gentleman said. What the Secretary of State said about the Mental Health Act was that local authorities were in the process of submitting schemes. If they are submitting schemes, we do not yet know what is to be done. We can therefore take it that the Orders do not include anything in respect of that.
Mr. Hendry: If the hon. Member had read the White Paper with care and had listened to my right hon. Friend, he could read between the lines about what grant may be expected, but that was the impression I received. At any rate, that question has been dealt with by my right hon. Friend.
Hon. Members opposite must agree that the Government have dealt honourably, regularly and systematically with increases in expenditure by way of General Grant (Increase) Orders. The duty of the House is to attend to the interests of the taxpayer and act as a watchdog on Government expenditure. Not only must we ensure that justice is done, as it has been done by the Government in the Order. We must also ensure that it is done fairly in accordance with the Act and that not only is there fair treatment to local authorities but that the taxpayer receives fair value for his money.
All hon. Members will agree that the Government have a duty to examine local authority expenditure carefully. I think that they have done that very well, but I think that they ought to have a rather closer view on some aspects of the problem. It has been suggested to us that the Government should not have based their calculations on actual expenditure but should have based them on the estimates of individual local authorities. There is an old saying in Scotland and elsewhere that what you do not ask for you do not get. A local authority, being a human institution, is probably liable to ask for more than it expects to get. For that reason, the Government must make very careful research into the proposed expenditure. Probably the best basis from which to start is the actual expenditure in the past year. Adjustments can then be made to that.
I suggest that the Government should go a great deal further than that and decide, looking at Government expenditure between one type of local authority

1351
and another, what is the appropriate standard for Government expenditure. The standard of expenditure must vary very largely between, say, cities and country districts. A local authority with a very compact area must be able to run things much more cheaply than a very widely spread country area. Consideration must be given to that.
The Government must be very careful to watch for extravagance of any kind in local government expenditure. I do not intend to blame any particular authority for this, but everywhere we go we hear complaints from individual taxpayers and ratepayers about extravagance on the part of local authorities, particularly in regard to education. Many such accusations of extravagance are ill founded. The people who make the complaints do not understand exactly what is happening. The Government should give a certain amount of consideration to that. If they are satisfied that there is no extravagance on the part of local authorities, they should publish more widely the standards to which local authorities, particularly local education authorities, are expected to work.
Cases have been brought to my notice which are rather difficult to explain. For instance, a little school is downgraded from a junior secondary school to a primary school. Immediately after the downgrading takes place, large sums of money are spent in bringing the buildings up to modern standards. It is difficult for the ordinary ratepayer living locally to understand the reason for this. It is easy to explain that standards have risen. It could be done by way of public relations and explanations being given in such cases. I am not suggesting that there is any case of extravagance, but if there is the Government should clamp down and ensure that a proper standard is maintained.
The Government have a duty to ensure that we are getting good value for money by the most efficient administration. I suggest that regionalisation offers considerable possibilities in education. All over Scotland there are cases where by the accident of artificial boundaries geographical considerations are made nonsense. Here I hope to be forgiven
1352
if I give illustrations from my own constituency and its immediate environs. In the district of Lower Deeside in the County of Aberdeen the obvious secondary school for children to go to is in the town of Banchory, but by an administrative accident the town of Banchory is not in the County of Aberdeen but in the County of Kincardine. That causes difficulties which make it all but impossible for children living in the Lower Deeside villages to go for their secondary education to Banchory Academy. The obvious alternative is the City of Aberdeen, which is a cultural centre. It has been a centre of education for hundreds of years, but because of an administrative accident they are not able to go there. The education authority in the City of Aberdeen is Aberdeen Corporation.
What happens is due partly to independence and, I suppose, the self-esteem of Aberdeen County Council, that these children are taken by bus across Aberdeen to Bankside, which is away on the other side of the city. There they receive an excellent education at an excellent school—but it is a ridiculous distance for them to have to travel from home, at a ridiculous expense and causes a ridiculous amount of inconvenience to their parents. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into questions of this sort, for they occur all over Scotland, to see whether some sort of co-ordination can be arrived at so that the ratepayers and their children are not put to such inconvenience and expense and so that there may be greater efficiency for all concerned.
While I have been speaking about extravagance, I dare say that most hon. Members have come across cases of penury on the part of some local authorities. In the cities this is probably not so obvious, but in the country districts one meets it every day. In these areas there is a comparatively small rate income and the local authority must take great care when using such income as it has. Because of that, some authorities may seem to act in a rather miserly manner. I can illustrate this by citing a case in my constituency.
In the village of Kincardine O'Neill, junior secondary children must find their own way to the village of Torphins, which is two and a half miles away. To

1353
do so they must traverse a secondary road which is not uphill all the way but is sometimes impassable in the winter. The alternative is for them to go by service bus on an excellent road to the village of Aboyne, which is four and a half miles away, but to get there they must pay the necessary bus fare. While the amount of money involved is small we must remember that the means of the local authorities in these country areas are also small, and I urge my right hon. Friend to consider this type of difficulty.
In urging my right hon. Friend to consider ways of easing the sort of difficulties I have described—perhaps by introducing some amending legislation—I would refer him to the excellent speech made by the Leader of the Liberal Party on 16th April last in which he dealt with these problems much more fully and ably than I can. He explained the difficulties encountered by country local authorities and when I say that my right hon. Friend should consider framing legislation to help these remoter authorities I am merely repeating one of the suggestions made by the Leader of the Liberal Party. The saying that one half of the world does not know how the other half lives is indeed true, for people who live in the cities do not appreciate the enormous hardships suffered by country children, particularly in the winter.
I turn to the new proposal about old people's homes. I was delighted to read that provision has been made for those. Although it seemed that some sort of allowances had been made for them in calculating general grants in the past, I was overjoyed to learn that specific provision was being made for them in the Orders under discussion. My joy, however, was allayed when I read with surprise that the new method of operation would make no diffierence to the amount of grant received. However, I gathered from what my right hon. Friend said that my disappointment may not be altogether justified and I hope that my right hon. Friend will explain more fully what he has in mind on this topic.
This is a subject on which we should not be in any way miserly because I do not think that many local authorities are doing their job for the old people under the terms of the National Assistance Act, 1948, Under that Act
1354
local authorities were given power to assist voluntary organisations running old people's homes, but, to the best of my knowledge, few of them have done so. There are some excellent homes being run throughout Scotland by voluntary organisations, notably by the Church of Scotland and other churches. In my constituency, in the town of Huntly, there is an excellent old people's home run by an ancient charity called The Scotts Hospital. That home has been in existence for more than a century but the work is carried on on a shoestring, the money being derived from ancient charities, without assistance from anyone. How it continues, I do not know.
I urge my right hon. Friend carefully to consider the possibility of making more generous provision for old people's homes and to encourage local authorities to give more generous grants to those splendid voluntary homes which are doing an excellent job and which are saving the taxpayer and ratepayer a great deal of money.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for having given illustrations from my constituency to strengthen my argument, for I have found that to be the easiest way to underline these points. I think that the Orders are excellent and represent an honest endeavour on the part of the Government to produce the sort of circumstances we wish to see. If they have erred on the side of niggardliness, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith suggested, further Measures to increase these sums may be introduced from time to time. Taking everything into account, I have the greatest confidence in commending the Orders to the House.
7.38 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Steele: I found the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) rather extraordinary. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) will readily appreciate the assistance that speech gave to his remarks, because the moral of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that he wants a review of local government expenditure. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West went on in a curious way to complain bitterly about the extravagance of local authorities and, at the same time, he asked the Government to act as the

1355
public relations officers for them in Investigating every rumour and every bit of tittle-tattle in his constituency and to assure his constituents that his local authority was not over-spending.
He then went on to say that we in the House of Commons should not be particularly interested in local government expenditure because we should be looking after the interests of the taxpayer. I found that rather odd, because he criticised the hon. Member for Leith for saying, in effect, that the rates were going up and that that was due to the Government's policy. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West said, in effect, "Well, what does it matter? It is only a question of transferring expenditure from the ratepayer to the national purse."
That is exactly what my hon. Friends have been complaining about. That is exactly what this Government have been doing for the past eleven years through their legislation. They have been transferring the burden which should be borne by the national Exchequer on to the backs of the local ratepayers. We all agree that there are certain functions which are purely local. Some are so purely local that the ratepayers enjoy supporting them in their localities. There are, however, other functions which must be regarded as being national and for which the Government must face up to their responsibilities.
At the end of his speech—after indicating that the Government should pay more attention to the expenditure of local authorities, should criticise it and keep a watchful eye on it—he urged the Government to spend more money on many services. The hon. Gentleman made an entirely different speech in Committee, when he asked for more public expenditure on electricity supplies in his own constituency. We do not need to read between the lines of his speech because we know that he is trying to ride both horses at the same time, and that does not work.
I understood the Secretary of State to say that the main problem arising out of this Order is that of the provision of accommodation for the aged and infirm; that he had gone back to the previous year, looked at what the ratio of grant would have been in operation had this
1356
particular expenditure been in operation, had then looked forward and, in effect, had said, "This is the ratio that we will operate in the future."
The local authorities have not accepted that idea, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leith naturally wanted further information. He said that the local authorities asked that at least the ratio of grant should not be altered, and the Secretary of State indicated that though he was not prepared to undertake that at present he was prepared to look at it for the future. If that is so, the Secretary of State has, in effect, accepted the local authorities' case in principle and has accepted what the local authorities are saying, which is that the new arrangement means a loss to them.
I believe that in putting forward their proposals the local authorities meant that they were not gaining anything in the first two years, but were subjecting themselves to some balance the other way in recognition of the fact that their ratio—which is the important thing—if maintained in future years, would act to their advantage. They were considering the long-term case.
That being so, we should be told two things. The Secretary of State should first tell us why he did not accept the local authorities' recommendations to begin with. Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman has now indicated that he accepts that the local authorities are right in principle—because no Minister says that he will look at something again without thinking that it must be wrong and needs some alteration—we should be told why, if he is satisfied that what he is now doing is absolutely correct, he will look at the subject again. Quite frankly, what we want to be told is that what is wanted will be done.
The right hon. Gentleman's explanation gave us a picture of expanding services, and it seemed that the local authorities would be given the opportunity to do all the things they want to do. I should have thought that the Secretary of State would have taken the opportunity to tell us of some of the things the Government intended to do about increasing local and national expenditure; that in the light of Scotland's present circumstances and the promises made by the Chancellor of the

1357
Exchequer—and the Prime Minister—it really was his intention to increase that expenditure.
We have been told that in those areas where schools were necessary schools would be built, and that where the labour was available roads and all the other things would be constructed. The Secretary of State might have taken this opportunity to explain how it was to be done. But we are discussing this Order and local authority estimates as if nothing had happened, as if no change had ever taken place, and as if there were no ideas about doing that sort of thing. This makes me quite suspicious that all this talk about encouraging local authorities in areas of high unemployment to increase their expenditure is just talk for public consumption and does not mean anything at all.
Road safety may be considered by some to be a very small matter, but to me it is very important. Here Scotland lags very badly behind England. I put down Questions to the Minister of Transport and to the Secretary of State for Scotland asking for comparative figures of people employed full-time on road safety. I am told that in England and Wales about 250 road safety people are employed by local authorities, but that in Scotland there are only four. When I look at the provision in the Appendix, I find that the road safety estimate for 1961–62 was £30,000. The actual expenditure is now about £26,000, and it only rises to £34,000 in 1964–65.
Those figures give no sign of the Government urging local authorities to press ahead with this work. Something must be done about road safety, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that it is receiving the Government's attention. I am confident that we could cut down the number of deaths and accidents on our Scottish roads if more attention were paid to this item. There are very many things that do not require any great expenditure but which would help in this direction.
7.49 p.m.
Mr. William Hannan: I notice that the fire service figures have been increased, but has the Under-Secretary kept in mind that the Factories Act, which was passed some little time ago, brought in some extra
1358
fire prevention provisions and that, at this moment, a Standing Committee is dealing with the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill which has no fewer than eight Clauses which are devoted to the development of the fire service and which put on local authorities the administrative responsibility?
I became rather alarmed when the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) was speaking of local authorities being miserly. I presume he was referring to Conservative councils. With miserly councils looking after the interests of the ratepayers and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West looking after the interests of the taxpayers, the future would appear to be one of great misery for the whole country. Why cannot the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends recognise that we are in a period of expansion? Are they afraid of the term "affluence"? Our objection is that the affluence and expansion are not directed into the proper quarters and the proper services.
When the hon Member suggested that the Government might publish the standards of expenditure, I could see another job arising for Colman, Prentis & Vanley, which is something that none of us would want to occur. If, on the other hand, the Government are to get down to publishing the details of expenditure for the benefit of local authorities, where is Conservative freedom? These are the questions which are perturbing me.
Let me deal with the merits of the other statement made by the hon. Gentleman, that if these proposals do not match up to the estimated expenditure there can always be an increase Order. But when the Bill was being debated in 1958 one of the merits claimed for the new method of grant was that the Government would be able to see further ahead and plan their resources. Instead of that, what have we had? In each year we have had increase Orders. Indeed, this year we have had two, the one which we are now discussing being the second one. No doubt, we shall continue to have these increase Orders.
There was one such Order for 1960–61 and for 1961–62. Now we have this one for 1962–63. Before dealing with it in detail, I wish to point out that one of the merits claimed was that the Government would be able to see ahead for

1359
two or mare years. But two years was to be the minimum period. In fact, at one stage the Government were so enthusiastic that they were going to have an Order for three or four years. However, two years is apparently a sufficient period here, and so far there has been no attempt to introduce an Order for a period longer than two years.
In that case, I adhere to the doubts which were expressed by my hon. Friends as to the merits of this method of grant, compared with others that we have had in the past. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor two years ago said that experience had shown that the general grant was working very well. I take leave to doubt that statement, in view of the fact that we have these increase Orders coming along. Not that I have any objection to the increase. I am objecting, however, to the method. The merits which were then claimed have fallen by the wayside.
Coming to this Order, it should be noted that it is making a net increase of £2½ million in the general grant, bringing it up to £6½i million. This one increases the grant by £440,000, or a gross total of £61·94 million. But this increase of £440,000 is set against the additional relevant expenditure of £710,000. That is a percentage rate of 61·97 per cent.
When one examines the other figures in the proposed settlement of general grant for 1963–64 and 1964–65, the percentage of grant to relevant expenditure comes down to 59·84 per cent. in 1963–64 and to 60·23 per cent. for the following year. This is a reduction, and it can be shown from examination of previous figures that this reduction has been continuing since the institution of general grant. It is part of a continuing process which is bound to depress the resources of local authorities.
Far example, in 1959–60 the percentage of the relevance of the grant to the estimate was 62·4 per cent. In 1960–61, it was the same, but in 1962–63 it is down to 61·14 per cont. and in the following year 59·84 per cent. So the local authorities are being forced into an ever more unfavourable situation. I hope that the Government will think again, not once but twice, over the course which they have decided to take.
1360
I will not go over the question of the old folk's homes, but I think that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West said that these homes were included in the grant before. That is not so. It was only a small grant for capital purposes. Now, under the Secretary of State's proposals it is to be included. I hope that the representations which have been made from these benches will receive attention from the Minister.
As I understand, the local authorities first put their full estimates to the Secretary of State. Then they are examined by the various Departments. What the local authorities are objecting to—and I emphasise this—is that, instead of relating the grants to the estimates as is laid down in the Act, the Departments are continuing to use the method of relating the projected grant to the past year's expenditure. The local authorities are taking strong exception to this, and I think that they are right.
After all, if the local authorities' estimates are cut down in the course of negotiations, any expenditure into which the local authority enters over and above that amount goes on to the rates. In short, if they spend up to their original estimate the whale of the amount over the grant is added to the rates. Similarly, if a local authority, having made its estimate and having received grant, fails to spend the whole amount of the estimate, it can pass the advantage on to the ratepayers. So we give a prize to the slothful, or lazy, or miserly local authority which does not do its duty in providing for its services.
Other considerations come into the matter. The experience of local authorities is that in a period of rising prices there is a tendency that in the latter part of the two-year period no cognisance has been taken of that fact, and a cumulative amount builds up which cannot all be taken into account for a supplementary grant such as we have before us now. Indeed, it is admitted in paragraph (4) of the White Paper, in which the Secretary of State stated:
"Since the Increase Order was made further increases have occurred in the level of costs, prices and remuneration which could not be quantified at that time. These have been the subject of consultation with the Scottish local authority associations. The main items are pay awards for nursing and allied staff in the employ of local authorities, manual workers,

1361
administrative professional technical and clerical staff and part-time further education teachers."
Let it be noted that this question of salaries and the rest are under the control of the Government themselves, and many of the disabilities of the local authorities are the result of the mismanagement of the Government in the question of interest rates and of these pay awards.
It is worth while noting that we are here dealing with services which a civilised society must expand by the very nature of things. Among these, primarily in my own list of priorities is the question of education. I say this not from the point of view merely of helping young people to achieve jobs. I am thinking of Britain as a nation and its place in the world in comparison with other countries. We are lagging behind. I believe, and I think that many of my hon. Friends do, too, that the question of education is quite wrongly placed in this category and should in some respects, particularly in regard to salaries, be a national charge and taken out of politics altogether. Moreover, there are the local welfare services and the question of mental health in which no development has taken place at all.
I am well aware that local authorities have been asked to submit schemes, and when they do, the Government will find that expenditure in these matters is bound to go up, and quite properly so. The total amount will rise year after year, yet the rate of increase in the successive general grants is being gradually reduced in the percentage rate. The grant made in 1958, operating for 1959–60, was relatively large. Of course it was. Comment was made about this at the time, but I must remind the House that that was the one made in the year preceding the General Election and that the local authorities have not had it quite so good since. We are confronted with a strategy, as my hon. Friend said, which, slowly but surely, and unmistakeably, is transferring the burden of local services away from the Exchequer to the local rates, and I cannot distinguish, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West can in so many instances, the ratepayer from the taxpayer—he is the same person.
1362
The Under-Secretary of State, in part of the answer which he gave, said that the absolute figure would increase. Of course, they will increase—£114 million is higher than £110 million or £101 million. This is admitted. Of course they increase, but they tell us very little. We have to examine them in relation to the total size of the national income and compare the size of the grant with the total expenditure that local authorities expect to carry, and with that of the local authorities of other counties.
The Minister may boast that the local authorities' actual expenditure was less than their estimates but the reasons are these: first, the infliction of interest rates which make inaction and lack of planning by local authorities the order of the day. Local authorities would go very much faster but for the restrictions and handicaps in this respect. Secondly, there are the labour costs. This increase Order is the result of that. Thirdly, the acute shortage of expert workers is handicapping local authorities in getting on with their jobs. If one looks at the shortage of architects and administrators in the matter of town and country planning this is one of the principle shortages holding up local authorities in the meantime.
With the best will in the world, while I admit that there are increases here which we accept gratefully, if not gracefully, they are, nevertheless, quite inadequate for the purposes of the huge task which lies before the local authorities.
I hope that on the points about the fire service and the old people's homes the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give us some answers.
8.6 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: I cannot say that this has been a thrilling debate. It has certainly been sober and we have exercised our powers of critical examination to the best. I am sorry that the Secretary of State has gone and I hope that he will return, because he dealt with some fairly important points and made some fairly important announcements. We are beginning to wonder whether they are important or not, or whether they are just something that he said, some departure from his brief and he is now away thinking how he will get out of it.

1363
The first thing that matters is that I want to put everyone at rest—there is no danger of our voting against the Order. After all, we are getting an additional £940,000 in respect of the increase Order, and that brings the total to £61,940,000. Then we are dealing with the third-year period in which the grant is to rise by about £7 million over the next two years. The extent of the increase from now is about £7 million. I am surprised that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) has not spoken. He is terribly worried when Scotland seems to get something out of the Exchequer which England and Wales does not. He becomes the hammer of the Scots when in the Public Accounts Committee or speaking in the Scottish Grand Committee.
If he will take the relative growth in respect of relevant expenditure and the grant that this House has dealt with in respect of England and Wales, he will see that if we were to get the same relative increase we should receive another £1⅓ million, if my mental arithmetic—done very speedily on this bench—is right. Strangely enough, this is almost the same figure with which the local authorities were concerned about the change in the form of grant being given for residential accommodation. I think that the first thing that we have to appreciate is the size of the sums with which we are dealing, because it is for the Government and for us as members of Parliament to be concerned with the well-being of the taxpayer and we cannot divorce ourselves from the fact that every one of us has asked for these services and for more of these services. We cannot ignore that the Government are paying through this Order only a proportion and the rest has to be paid by the local authority through rates. I do not think that there is anything contentious in that. If the Secretary of States argues that there is something sacred in a proportion or ratio which must be maintained year after year, then we must bear in mind what that means to the local authority. Let us work it out practically. We have the figures before us.
I have been doing a little more arithmetic. Taking the revised position
1364
for 1962–63, as I make it, we leave the local authorities to bear the burden of £39,500,000. In the next year, 1963–64, the local authority burden will be £44,800,000. In 1964–65, it will be £45,548,000. There is this growing burden falling upon the ratepayers. What is wrong with that?, asks the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) since the Government are bearing more, though not a higher proportion, as we have already shown. The proportion has, in fact, gone down.
But let us face the realities for the local authorities and what I regard as the general unfairness. The taxpayer may well be the same person. But we have a Budget every year. The Budget and the yield of taxation is fixed in relation to the national wealth, the national income, which grows every year. Whether it be a real growth or an inflationary growth, it is reflected fairly, and so from year to year one can spread the burden fairly.
What happens in the collection of local rates? They do not grow every year in that way. The individual sits in the same house. His assessment is fixed now for five years ahead. There is not a valuation growth in the basis for bearing the burden of rates as there is in relation to the national income. Thus, if we put a greater figure year after year on the local authorities and, therefore, on the ratepayer, the burden on the ratepayer grows unfairly from that standpoint because it unfairly reflects ability to bear the burden.
This is interesting from another point of view, having regard to what has happened in Scotland during the past few years. We have had a revolution in our rating system. At one time, the rate burden in Scotland was borne by two different sets of people, although in some cases they were united in one person, the owner-occupier. But the number of ratepayers in Scotland has been reduced by the abolition of owner's rates and the whole burden of rates is upon the tenant. We have narrowed the base, and as we have narrowed the base we have increased the burden and worsened the unfairness. This is all part of the great fallacy in what hon. Members say about low rents in Scotland, disguising the fact that the person who bears the rent, the tenant, has also borne the whole

1365
brunt of the revolution in regard to rates.
I ask hon. Members, when they are considering the proportion aspect of the matter, to look at the fairness and justice of it as it affects the rate burden. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West shook me. He talked, on the one hand, about miserliness and, on the other, about extravagance. It was interesting to note that he had not a single specific example of local authority extravagance but he had examples of miserliness and unfairness where a local authority could, with reason, and with the hon. Gentleman's support, have spent more money. Why did not the local authority spend more money? The reason is fairly obvious when we look at the figures belatedly given by the Secretary of State.
The revised estimate of relevant expenditure for 1962–63 is £101 million and of that the education service takes nearly £88 million. That is a tremendous amount. It is a service which we cannot and dare not ignore. I hope that the Secretary of State is bending every effort to ensure that the local authorities do not ignore it. It is implicit in the White Paper that the new building programme for schools and, particularly, for technical colleges must be responsible for a considerable part of the increased rate burden and general grant burden being caused by loan charges alone, because that is the only thing which can come in at that point. Yet, of course, it is the first thing which is mentioned by the Secretary of State in connection with education.
I can remember the time when one of the lackeys of one of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors—he is now in another place—told us that, although the rate of interest was then about 5 per cent., we had no reason to be pessimistic or raise our voices in protest because it would not necessarily remain at that for long. That was about five years ago. It did not remain at that level for long. It went up and has never come down to that high rate of which we were then complaining. Of course, the cumulative effect of this upon a local authority which must embark upon capital investment as a result of responsibilities which we have placed upon it is really frightening. Moreover, this has a bear-
1366
ing on all the authority's other services because it must inevitably take first priority.
It astounds me how easily the Secretary of State not only builds technical colleges but staffs them in a couple of sentences. I wish that it were as easy as that. He must know that he would be only too happy if he had to meet some of the expenditure for which he is allowed increases. We must find new full-time and part-time staff not only for schools but for further education. I hope that the Secretary of State knows where the staff will come from.
However, putting that aspect aside, the increases do not necessarily reflect a growth of services at all. Someone said that it was easy to come back and get some more money and that there was no bother at all. I wonder whether hon. Members have noticed the detail of what we are discussing. The Secretary of State has not the last word here. At the foot of the Order there are the words
"Michael Noble,
One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State".
Below that one sees two words,
"We consent"
and then follow the names of two of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West was here when we passed the legislation providing for the general grant. The words,
"with the consent of the Treasury"
appeared more than once. The Treasury has a way unto itself much more mysterious than that purse of which the hon. Gentleman spoke.
It is an indication of the extent to which we have been forced to resort to this device that this is the second one we have had this year. It is all due not to increases in services but to inflation, to rises in costs, in wages and in salaries. This is what has been putting local authorities right up against it. The hon. Gentleman represents parts of Aberdeenshire. I wonder whether he has read today's local Press. I will refresh his memory. I am sure that the noble Lady the Under-Secretary of State will be interested in this. The headline in the Scotsman today is "Aberdeen again

1367
healthiest city". Well, "city" is all right. It says that the
"lopsidedness of development which had begun to hinder progress in 1960 became even more apparent in 1961. While more staff were occupied in providing services for the support of people handicapped by age, disease or disability, there was virtually no extension of the staff available for the promotion of health and the prevention of disease."
This is what Aberdeen wants and cannot get. The report refers to the
"shortage of accommodation for doctors, health education … health visitors"
and the rest. It was becoming evident
"that the reluctant but ruthless pruning of important tasks was beginning to have detrimental effects."
This is in Aberdeen. It goes on:
"Aberdeen would have to pay in poorer health statistics for the shortage of preventive staff",
and the shortage of these staffs is related to the pruning which has to be done in order to meet the first priorities. The Under-Secretary of State must face the situation. These increases do not necessarily mean satisfaction for Scotland; far from it. What has been said there can be said of practically every local authority in the country.
The hon. Gentleman smoothed over the meetings which he had with local authority representatives. I do not know whether he recalls some of the speeches made by the noble Lady the Under-Secretary of State when she was on the back benches—when she was not in Australia and not in America. She may well have been one of those on whom it suddenly dawned that sooner or later the central Government must take full responsibility for teachers' salaries. Many hon. Members opposite, not necessarily those who are here at the moment, have been saying this. We said it a long time ago. Of course, this was one of the things that the hon. Gentleman and the local authorities quarrelled about. This is becoming a terrific and fantastic burden on local authorities. It is a question of controversy as to whether the proportion which is being borne by the central Government is enough.
There is also the question of the old people's homes and residential accommodation. We feel strongly about this matter. We do not want anything to
1368
impede the development of these homes. We want to encourage as far as possible the voluntary homes which have been doing good work and the other bodies from whose path we cleared any statutory confusion that there might have been through a Private Member's Bill last year dealing with the help that can be given to the W.V.S. and to other organisations providing meals-on-wheels, and that sort of thing. However, the main provision in this respect will have to be made by local authorities.
I represent a local authority which is pre-eminent in this service. We have three eventide homes. We do not like to call them old folks' homes. Some of the people in them are younger than many M.P.s here borne down with the responsibility of having won an election on a minority vote. We have The Mount, Springhill and Barbadoes Road homes. I invite any hon. Member and the noble Lady to see exactly what we think are the right conditions in which old people should live. We do not grudge what we have to pay out of the rates for these places.
Hitherto, as I understand it—and I confess that I have read the report for only a short time—the grant has been made for specific places, to the local authorities direct, but now it is being included, and in the first inclusion the Government are paying only the same sum of money, seemingly fairly, as they paid before. Am I right?
Mr. Leburn indicated assent.
Mr. Ross: In future, however, it will form part of the general grant calculation, and we have been given no guarantee that what is being done by this method, which has meant a reduction in the aggregate percentage paid from general grant to local government expenditure, will be remedied in future.
All that we had from the Secretary of State—and I should like to know whether we have understood him correctly was that when the time came for him to reconsider this business, which obviously will be in the next general grant period—in other words, in about two years' time—he will have gone over the matter with the local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) was right. This is a sudden repentance, if it is a

1369
repentance. The Minister has just finished discussions with the local authorities about this. They left him in no doubt as to how they felt about it. I do not know whether he understands the general grant principle, which is that one strikes an aggregate, and then that aggregate is distributed on a formula which we passed a long time ago and which we have not touched yet, although the right hon. Gentleman is taking powers to enable him to make changes in it. Whether a local authority has provided a single old people's home or not, it gets benefit out of the aggregate for what is being spent by others.
The noble Lady the Under-Secretary of State will remember her arguments on this and how badly Aberdeen felt about breaking away from the specific grant and going over to the general grant, because authorities which were less concerned about the well-being of its old people nevertheless still got their share. This is why local authorities have a right to feel that they are not getting the benefit of their own expenditure.
I sincerely hope that the Government will consider this question of proportion. It is not a question of returning to the old proportion. If we stick to that we place an unfair burden on certain local authorities. Bodies other than the Labour Party are beginning to appreciate this. The Town Chamberlain of Edinburgh put forward, certainly for Edinburgh, a revolutionary proposal to try to bring an element of justice into this. The more we transfer essential services for which there is a very considerable national responsibility to the Exchequer for direct Exchequer payment, then so much less is the injustice created by the burden falling on the unfair system of raising money.
I hope that we shall have an entirely changed outlook on this general grant procedure in two years' time. If the right hon. Gentleman has not the power to make the changes that he considers necessary, then he has time between now and the end of January or the beginning of February and such time as we take to pass the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill—that will be done with the usual expedition of the Scottish Standing Committee—to think of the powers that he would like. We have seen the right hon. Gentleman take
1370
strange and wonderful powers that he would be far better without. If he wishes powers to make beneficial changes and to reduce the rate burden in Scotland, he will have us behind him.
8.30 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who wound up the debate for the Opposition, has said, this has not been an exciting debate. Nevertheless, it has been intensely interesting and a debate in which not only those who have spoken, but those who have listened, have found the many points which have been put forward of interest and of vital importance to local authorities.
Local government and its problems must always be given the greatest consideration and attention by the House of Commons. Despite certain minor criticisms which may have been made of them, the two Orders which we are considering are an earnest of the Government's intention to ensure that local authorities have the resources to carry out the services for which they are responsible and, at the same time, to give to those authorities as great a freedom as possible to deploy these resources at their discretion.
I accept from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), who opened the debate for the Opposition and who reserved his position, that he and his hon. Friends do not necessarily accept the whole question of general grant versus specific grant, but I do not think that either the hon. Member or, indeed, the Chair would allow me to go into that in detail tonight. I note, however, the point made by the hon. Member. Inevitably, a debate of this kind must range widely. It is difficult to get down to details of particular services. Nevertheless, one or two hon. Members have put specific question and I shall do my best to answer them. Before doing so, however, perhaps I may be allowed to cover the wider subject of the two Orders concerning general grant for 1963–64 and 1964–65.
As we know, the amounts involved are £66 million and £69 million, respectively. If one analyses the position, such criticism as there may have been, either by hon. Members or by local authorities,

1371
has been of what might be called a marginal nature. The figures on which the general grant is based are built up directly from the estimates of local authorities of what they expect to spend on the services included in general grant. For the two years in question, the local authorities' original estimates of relevant expenditure amounted, as the hon. Member for Leith has said, to £111·7 million in the first year and £116·8 million in the second year. The hon. Member will, perhaps, allow me to increase these sums slightly to take into account increases which could be quantified since June which raise the figure to £112·1 million for 1963–64 and £117·3 million for 1964–65.
As we know, local authorities' estimates are then examined by the officials of my right hon. Friend's Department and meetings and discussions take place. Finally, I met representatives of the local authorities. The general grant figures for relevant expenditure were finally agreed at £110·28 million and £114·55 million. That is a difference in the case of 1963·64 of £l·866 million and for 1964–65 of £2·737 million.
To describe that as a whittling away—although those exact words were not used, that was what was implied—is not accurate. The difference is accounted for partly by the exclusion from the estimate of certain expenditure which is inadmissbile and partly by adjustments which are made during discussions between the officials of my right hon. Friend's Department and local authority officials. There are certain good examples regarding prospective staff. By general agreement, both sides accept that a more realistic figure will be the one which is finally reached.
Even if hon. Members feel that there has been any whittling away or diminution of the figure, if one appreciates that the difference between the original estimate which is submitted and the final estimate which is agreed is no more than between 1½ and 2½ per cent., great credit is reflected upon everybody concerned in dealing with the negotiations and getting the figures right and agreed. It was some satisfaction to me that when I had the meeting with the local authority representatives they were able to give their complete agreement to the figures on relevant expenditure.
1372
I should like to pay my tribute to the local authorities for the care and trouble which they take in preparing their estimates. I know it is suggested that sometimes they are inclined to aim too high in the first place. I do not accept this. A genuine attempt is made to get the figures as realistic as possible. Even with the best will in the world, however, some of the proposed expenditure may be a little off or inadmissible and to achieve an adjustment within only 1½ or 2½ per cent. is creditable.
I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock said about old people's homes. They are very important. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member say that he preferred to call them eventide homes rather than old people's homes. Perhaps neither title is yet the perfect one. Probably we can do better than this.
Two years ago it was explained in the Report on the General Grant Order that it was intended in later grant periods to collate and include all expenditure in this service in relevant expenditure. My understanding of what happened at that time was that this proposal was not criticised. Running costs were not previously grant-aided. The only Exchequer assistance which was given was in the form of capital grants of up to £11 per place provided. By bringing all the expenditure for this service into relevant expenditure, we will in future be giving grant on the whole running costs. This will surely be an advantage to local authorities as the service expands as we would all like it to do, and the whole expenditure will attract grant.
I realise, however, that the local authorities have been worried concerning the point made by the hon. Member for Leith that, as this expenditure is brought into the relevant expenditure, the effect is to reduce the ratio of grant. This did not affect the agreement which I came to with the local authority representatives on the total amount of grant for 1963–64 or 1964–65.
I do not want to go into too detailed figures, but I think I can explain it simply like this. It did not really matter very much for these years, 1963–64 and 1964–65, whether we did the calculations my way, so to speak, of taking the 59·9 per cent., or whether we kept out

1373
the relevant expenditure on old people's homes and did the calculations on the basis of 61·1 per cent.; because the answer in both cases, it so happened, came to £66 million and £69 million.
Why the local authorities have objected to this, is, of course, because they believe that by so doing one is setting the pattern of applying this new percentage of 59·9 to all relevant expenditure in the future. Of course, unless the old people's homes expenditure were to go ahead faster than expenditure on some of the other services, and notably on education, then they would find that they would not be getting the same proportion of grant on, let us say, education; they would be getting only 59·9 instead of 61·1 per cent. This is really complicated and difficult for me, but I shall be delighted to give way if anyone wants me to.
Therefore, while there was agreement up to that point they were nervous that, if they agreed at 59·9 per cent., that would in future years affect them. It seems quite clear to me that if anyone brings in a service, no matter what it is, it will have the effect of reducing the percentage grant unless we take into the grant side of the account, grant at 60 per cent. or whatever the appropriate figure is, 59·9, 60 or 61·1 as the case may be.
It is for this reason that my right hon. Friend has said that for the next period he is going to examine the question. It does not affect the amount of grant in those years, namely, £66 million and £69 million. What has been worrying local authorities is the percentage which may apply in the future.
The further point I want to make is that—
Mr. Ross: It does not affect the money the right hon. Gentleman is giving. The same amount of money is going, but in a different way. Hitherto he has given directly to the local authorities. Now he is giving it as part of an aggregate which is distributed according to a certain formula. Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that that does not necessarily mean the same? Although no one can ever tell, it does not mean the same to each individual local authority which has been incurring expenditure. It will be determined purely in relation to local authorities' own expenditures.
Mr. Leburn: Yes, indeed. I see that all right. But this is built up on the assumption, as was put into the Report two years ago, that this service was going to be taken into general grant. I appreciate that it does not necessarily go to the same authorities.
There is one other point I should like to make on this, and that is that there is no particular sanctity about any particular percentage, because in the end of the day it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to fix the amount of general grant. However, particularly having listened to the earlier debate, when we heard it mentioned once or twice by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that in England the percentage had remained steady—I think, at 56·5—over the years, I can see that local authorities may suppose that there is some particular sanctity about some particular percentage of ratio of grant to relevant expenditure. At the end of the day, however, there is not. All I am explaining is that, in view of this fact, every time a new service is brought in it upsets this ratio, and it is just for this very reason that my right hon. Friend has undertaken to examine the matter before we come to the next general grant period.
Mr. Hoy: Local authorities are not saying that there is any sanctity attached to the percentage. They are not making that claim. But there has been a fall in the percentage over the years. Local authorities are afraid that the Government will use the lowest one, which they will be faced with in two years' time, and regard that as the Government's share. That is what the local authorities would regard as being very unfair.
Mr. Leburn: I clearly understood that point. It was for that very reason that my right hon. Friend took the point made by local authorities and has given the undertaking that he wishes to examine the matter further.
As to one or two of the specific points, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) mentioned the question of mental health. Expenditure in 1961–62 was £235,000. Expenditure has been allowed for in 1963–64 to the extent of £474,000 and in 1964–65 to £600,000. Thus, it has more than doubled since 1961–62.

1375
The hon. Member also asked about fire services. As he probably knows, the main increases shown in the White Paper are concerned with expenditure on increased staff, due mainly to the adoption of the 48-hour week. I take note of his point with regard to the existence of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill, and if there is any unforeseen expenditure in that respect, there is no doubt that that will be a matter which could be dealt with by an increase Order.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) spoke about road safety. I am afraid that I cannot necessarily give him a very encouraging reply. The figures which appear are those based on the estimates of local authorities. But he knows that I am anxious to see more being done about this. The amount of money available, however, is not very great and is applied mainly to increases in staff. I hope that as a result of our discussions today and what we have said about the importance of road safety some note may be taken of it.
Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman appreciate that what is happening with local authorities is that the main burden in respect of education is so heavy that it is pushing the proper meeting of responsibilities for road safety, the youth service and so on further and further down the list? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will deal with the pressure of the rate burden on local authorities from that angle instead of telling them to spend more.
Mr. Leburn: I was about to finish by saying a word about the rate burden. Notwithstanding the criticism uttered this evening, I shall give the House two sets of figures which are fairly telling. First, in 1961–62 Exchequer grants in respect of Scotland totalled £112·21 million, which equalled 53·6 per cent. of expenditure. The rate proportion was £96·12 million, which equalled 46·4 per cent. The estimate is that in 1963–64 Exchequer grants will total £127·61 million, equalling 55·5 per cent. and the rate proportion will be £102·14 million, equalling 44·5 per cent. So the result is that the Exchequer contribution wild have gone up by 2 per cent. and the rate contribution down by 2 per cent.
Mr. Ross: So the rate contribution has gone down, but the rate burden has gone up.
Mr. Leburn: I understand that. On the other hand, as I have said before, and am not ashamed to say again, this is an operation where the interests of all sections of the community have to be considered, including both the taxpayers and the ratepayers. In these Orders we have genuinely tried to come to a fair figure as between the central Government and the local authorities.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the General Grant (Scotland) Order, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.
General Grant (Increase) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order, 1962 [copy laid before the House 6th December], approved.—[Mr. Noble.]

MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMIT)
8.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I beg to move,
That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1962, dated 5th November, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.
The maximum speed limits for different classes of motor vehicles are set out in the First Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and the House will recall the amendment which we made to that Schedule last year, when we increased the speed limit for buses and motor coaches from 30 to 40 miles an hour. The amendments we now wish to make by these Regulations are considerably wider in scope and much more intricate in detail. But rather than ask the House to approve an elaborate series of particular amendments, we thought it best in this case to revoke the entire Schedule and replace it by a new Schedule which incorporates both the amendment made last year and those we now propose.
While quite a lot of the Schedule is new, there is also much that is unchanged, including the whole of paragraphs 5 to 14. This somewhat complicates the picture. It may help if I give the House, in simple terms, the gist of the principal changes which the new Schedule makes.

1377
First, the maximum speed for goods vehicles without trailers, but including articulated vethicles, is to be raised from 30 to 40 m.p.h. Secondly, goods vehicles pulling trailers are to have their limit raised from 20 to 30 m.p.h., with the exception of light vehicles towing light trailers or caravans, whose limit will be raised from 20 to 40 m.p.h. Thirdly, cars towing light trailers or caravans are having the limit raised from 30 to 40 m.p.h. while cars towing heavy trailers are to go up from 20 to 30 m.p.h.
Motor tractors and locomotives, as they are called—that is to say, heavy tractors over 7¼ tons—which reach certain standards of design with regard to brakes, tyres, springs and wings, and towing trailers of similar standards, will have their limit raised from 20 to 30 m.p.h. and from 12 to 20 m.p.h. respectively. Finally, motor tractors pulling two or more trailers, and locomotives with more than two trailers, are raised from 5 to 12 m.p.h.
No doubt hon. Members will have specific points to raise or questions to ask and I shall do my best to answer them. But I want to make four points on the general philosophy which underlies these Regulations. First, the law must keep abreast of technical progress. These Regulations will have the effect of changing the law in a highly technical field.
Unlike road speed limits, which have to take account, first, of the human situation which may arise on particular stretches of road—careless drivers or pedestrians, children and so on—vehicle speed limits are related first and foremost to the technical characteristics of the vehicle itself. As these characteristics change, so, of course, the law must be prepared to change, if it is not to lose touch with reality and fall into something like disrepute. That is what has been happening in recent years in this field.
The vehicle speed limit laws have fallen into some disrepute and are now disregarded on a wholesale scale, but I should like to make it absolutely clear that we are not proposing to change the law simply and solely because it is being largely disregarded. If we believed it to be a good law, if we believed that the speeds laid down in the present Scheule really were the highest speeds at which
1378
various types of vehicles could be driven with safety, we would not propose to change them, however much they have been disregarded.
The remedy for wholesale disregard of sound laws is not to change them, but to step up the rigour of their enforcement. We are changing the law here because it is out-of-date, and for no other reason than that. The fact that it is widely disregarded at present is some evidence that it is out-of-date.
Secondly, the legal background has changed significantly as a result of the passing of the Road Traffic Act, 1962. When Section 5 of that Act comes into force—and the House will perhaps recollect that this provides the penalty of disqualification for certain road offences under what we call the "totting-up" procedure—we expect that the traffic laws will be more scrupulously observed. If not, the whole purpose of our legislation will have been defeated.
Where, hitherto, a maximum legal speed limit of 30 m.p.h. has meant in practice a maximum enforced limit a good deal higher, we may expect that in future there will be no such difference between the two. In other words, if the law says 30, it must from now on be taken to mean 30, and not 40 or 50. I submit that that is the only basis on which we can properly consider these proposals—that they mean what they say, and that they will be enforced accordingly.
My third general point is that vehicle speed limits must be related to normal road conditions on the better class of main roads outside urban areas. They must not be related either to motorway conditions, on the one hand, or traffic conditions on dangerously congested roads, on the other. There will be many places where the higher speeds which this Schedule proposes would be highly dangerous on account of particular traffic hazards, which do not warrant the imposition of a road speed limit. But that is no argument for limiting the whole class of vehicles to a lower limit everywhere. The maximum permitted speed ought to be the speed at which the vehicle can travel safely on normal good main roads. That is the test, and I should explain that none of the vehicle speeds in this Schedule applies on motorways.

1379
Finally, vehicle speed limits must be related to the normal condition of the vehicle population to which they apply and which they govern. The fact that some vehicles are old, or badly maintained or are being overloaded or in some other respects dangerous, ought not, I suggest, to be allowed to govern the speed of their class of vehicles as a whole. Faults like that have to be met by their own specific remedies, and not by using speed limits to do the work.
When the House was discussing the amendments regarding the speed limit for buses and coaches last year, there was some doubt and indeed a little despondency because of what we were doing. A number of hon. Members indulged in somewhat gloomy prognostications about what the effect would be on the accident rate. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in his place, and perhaps he will intervene in the debate. He will remember, also, that on that occasion he was very emphatic about the point.
My hon. Friend said:
"… I forecast, without the least possible doubt, that as a result of these Regulations there will be an increase in the number of accidents in which public vehicles are involved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1961; Vol. 644, c. 1667.]
Since my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby was a bit gloomy on that occasion, he will be happy to know that that forecast has proved wrong. So far from the number of accidents concerning these vehicles increasing, it has gone down. In the first six months of this year, public service vehicles were involved in 3,988 collisions with other vehicles, compared with 4,020 in the corresponding period of 1961, when the lower speed limit was in force.
Incidentally, there is a further piece of evidence to the same general effect which I should like to put to the House. Goods vehicles speed limits have been increased once before, in 1957. We then increased the 20 m.p.h. limit for the three-tonners and over to 30 m.p.h. Subsequent studies by the Road Research Laboratory found, in its words,
"no clear indication that the change had had any effect on the number of accidents per vehicle on the road."
I can tell the House that we are reason-
1380
ably confident that the proposed general increase in speed limits for goods vehicles which these Regulations bring about ought not adversely to affect road safety.
There is no historical evidence from past experience with either goods or passenger vehicles which would support the contention which is sometimes put forward, that a sensible increase in maximum permitted speeds must inevitably lead to an increase in accidents. I do not think that there is any evidence to prove that.
If, in the light of experience, it were to turn out that there was a significant rise in the rate of accidents involving fatal and serious injuries and this could be directly attributable to these Regulations, we would certainly consider either reducing the limit again, or adopting some other counter measures as might seem appropriate. However, I am somewhat optimistic about this matter and I hope that neither I nor any of my successors will be obliged to meet that undertaking. I commend the Regulations to the House as sensible and useful provisions which are long overdue.
9.3 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Strauss: As always, the Parliamentary Secretary has made a good case for the proposition he has put before the House. However, that does not mean that he has completely relieved the minds of many of us about the dangers which may follow acceptance of these new Regulations. The Parliamentary Secretary is quite right to bring in an entirely new Schedule, complicated and difficult to understand as it is, rather than to amend the old one.
The weakest part of his case was his suggestion that because the speed limit had been widely evaded in the past that was evidence that the law was out of date. I do not believe that is so. I fear that just as the law has been evaded in the past and vehicles have travelled at speeds substantially greater than those permitted, so the same thing will happen again. Unless we can be assured that enforcement will be far stricter than in the past, which means having substantially greater police forces available for enforcing the law, the new speed limits will be observed

1381
by only a minority of goods vehicles and exceeded by the majority.
Many of us are put in some difficulty by the presentation of these new speed limit Regulations. We do not want to retain restrictions which result in the transport of goods by road taking longer than necessary, because that imposes an unjustified, and in some cases a severe, handicap on industry. If as a result of technical advances existing Regulations are out of date, we do not want to retain the old Regulations and thereby oppose the march of progress. We must accept that great advances have been made in the technology of vehicle braking and that all modern vehicles have much more efficient braking systems than those incorporated in vehicles ten or even five years ago. On these grounds there is a strong argument, which I admit straight away, for some relaxation in the present speed limits.
The demand for this relaxation has come largely from industrialists and road hauliers. There is nothing necessarily wrong in that, but two things must be borne in mind. First, industrialists and road hauliers are naturally primarily concerned with the prosperity of their enterprises and not with the toll of road casualties. That is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport and the House.
Secondly, we know that there is in the transport industry—both in the road haulage section and in connection with the C licence vehicles which are run by industry—a section—a small section it is true, but still large enough to be dangerous—where the operators are socially irresponsible and make no effort, or very little effort, to abide by the Regulations laid down by Parliament.
We know, because we have plenty of evidence of this, that these employers, and sometimes the drivers themselves—I must include them in this accusation—evade the traffic laws and are consequently a menace on the roads. Our fear is that this minority will take advantage of this further relaxation and become quite a serious menace—not large, but substantial and something of which we should take notice—to road safety.
This evening when considering this proposal, for which there are strong
1382
technical grounds, particularly grounds which suggest that they will advantage industry, the House must consider the safety aspect. That is our duty. In passing, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey my congratulations to the Minister for the steps he has been taking during the last week or two to try to keep down the toll of accidents over the Christmas period. He has been exceedingly active, and I hope successful, in his endeavours. He has done a very good job.
What he has been doing confirms the view that I have expressed on some occasions before, that the one exception to his otherwise black record as a Minister is his proved devotion to the cause of reducing road accidents. We hope that he will be successful, and I believe that he would have been more successful if he had accepted the proposal urged on him during the passage of the Road Traffic Bill earlier in the year that the fact that a certain percentage of alcohol existed in the blood of a driver was sufficient evidence—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will not stray too far from the Regulations we are discussing.
Mr. Strauss: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I agree. I was out of order. There is no doubt about it. It was a point which I wanted to make and, if it is not relevant to the Regulations, it is certainly relevant to the season. I ask the House to consider the safety aspect of these proposals. We would have nothing to fear from these proposals if all those involved in the road transport industry were prepared to sacrifice their own interests and scrupulously abide by the Regulations laid down by Parliament. I mean by that that drivers should not be asked to run to schedules which force them to exceed the speed limits in order to meet the convenience of their firms and that all owners of commercial vehicles should keep their vehicles in really good condition.
As it is, we have plenty of evidence to show that that is not happening today. We have available the reports of a number of licensing authorities, and I shall cite one or two of them. The last Report of the West Midlands Licensing

1383
Authority revealed that there were 527 convictions for working excessive hours in that area—and we can be sure that if there were that number of convictions there were a large number of offences committed which were never brought to court.
The Report of the South-Eastern Licensing Authority showed, from the examination of goods vehicles in that area, that 26·5 per cent. of those examined were defective to the point of prohibition. Road checks showed that 41·5 per cent. were defective. The Report of the Metropolitan Traffic Licensing Authority stated that the desire of operators to obtain maximum pay loads for minimum engine capacity and chassis weight meant that vehicles were under-powered for the loads and speeds demanded of them and that, as a consequence, the vehicles were over-driven and unsafe. The Ministry of Transport's own report on road accidents in 1961 showed that goods vehicles were involved in every fifth motor accident resulting in death or serious injury.
Considering these important facts, we must ask ourselves—in view of the failure of many firms either to keep their vehicles in good condition or to ask their drivers not to exceed the speed limits and commit offences thereby—whether it is really safe to lift the speed limit from 30 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h. I suggest that the figures I have quoted are not very reassuring and give rise for concern.
There are other reasons why I suggest that we should be cautious. Whereas the brakes on new vehicles are, no doubt, exceedingly efficient—and I think that the Parliamentary Secretary hinted at something along these lines—and while the latest vehicles have the dual braking system incorporated in them, there are a large number of old vehicles on the roads which do not have up-to-date braking systems. If they are permitted to travel at 40 m.p.h.—and they will probably do 45–50 m.p.h.—there is a danger that when they have to pull up sharply, the new speed limit will make it impossible for them to pull up in a safe margin.
We must also consider the question of trailers. It is well known that when a vehicle pulling a trailer brakes sharply
1384
the trailer is apt to swing and become dangerous to other vehicles on the road. I know that this has given concern to a number of authorities and that when the problem of faster speeds was discussed at the Ministry of Transport's Departmental Committee meeting last year the proposal about trailers was regarded with some anxiety by the Assistant-Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and the representative of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I understand that the proposals as a whole were only accepted by that Committee by a small majority.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that these easier speed limits must be considered in relation to the ordinary roads on which most of these vehicles run—not the motorways, but the main roads. Again, these higher limits may be all right for the straight roads, but most of our roads are not straight. They bend and curve all over the place, and a high proportion of the roads over which commercial vehicles travel, are not the main roads but the side roads.
Mr. Chesterton has told us how it happened that so many of our roads curve and bend. He said:
"Before the Romans came to Rye
Or out to Severn strode,
The rolling English drunkard
Made the rolling English road."
If that is true, there can be no more striking illustration of the disastrous consequences of drunken driving. The fact remains that most of our roads do curve and bend a great deal. So that there is a further serious element of danger if these heavy commercial vehicles are to run at these higher speeds on a high proportion of British roads.
For these reasons, many of my colleagues are wholly opposed to these Regulations. The Transport and General Workers' Union has expressed its opposition to them. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary looks about him to see how many of my colleagues are now present to voice their opposition, but I can assure him that they may have so much confidence in me that they think it not necessary themselves to attend—
Mr. Hay: If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman is doing a very good job.
Mr. Strauss: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that I am expressing the deeply held views of many of my colleagues, particularly those who are associated with the Transport and General Workers' Union. They are very worried about these new limits.
The hon. Gentleman admitted that we cannot be certain that with the operation of these new speed limits there may not be more accidents. At the best, this is a gamble—and it is a gamble with people's lives. It is a gamble, and no one—not even the hon. Gentleman—denies it. He has said that he is reasonably confident that everything will be all right and that an increase in the number of accidents will not result from these higher limits. I hope he is right—perhaps, on balance, he is—but we cannot tell.
I should have been far more chary of supporting the Parliamentary Secretary's advocacy of these changes had he not very clearly declared at the end of his speech—and we shall keep him to that declaration—that if it is found that this increase in speed limits results in an increase in accidents that can be properly associated with the new speed limits, he, or his "boss", will take such steps as may be necessary—even going so far as to reduce the limits again—to put the situation right.
If he tells us that he is prepared, whenever the evidence is forthcoming, if it is, and we all hope that it will not be, to take such remedial action—and he has made very specific declaration on this point—that will probably satisfy many of my colleagues. It certainly satisfies me. I therefore hope that it will be possible to put these Regulations into operation—which will undoubtedly benefit industry—without any of the alarming effects that many of us fear. We do not welcome these Regulations; we accept them with reluctance and some fear, and intend to watch the situation very closely.
9.20 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I support these Regulations, and I do so having regard to the speech of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) because it seems to me that he has overlooked one important point.
I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that any speed on the road is safe
1386
provided it fulfils two conditions. First, the nature of the surface of the road and the tyres on the vehicle must be such that the vehicle keeps a good grip on the road and holds the road instead of, as sometimes happens with bad tyres or a light vehicle on a poor surface, water ski-ing on the top of a film of water on the road, which gives little control over braking. Secondly, it must be possible to bring the vehicle to a standstill within a reasonable distance, within the limits of vision.
When motor vehicles first came into use, the speed which would satisfy those conditions was bound to be very low because very little was known about the construction of motor tyres or brakes or road surfaces. But as technical improvements have developed, it is natural that a safe speed has become higher than was formerly the case.
A point which the right hon. Gentleman overlooked, but which is perfectly well known to everyone, is that if too low a speed limit is maintained which the public do not accept as reasonable, accidents are caused because people will deliberately ignore that speed limit and in their impatience will take no notice of the Regulations. As most hon. Members know, I was seriously injured in a motor accident which arose from this cause. I was travelling as a passenger in a vehicle, the driver of which was somewhat impatient. We were travelling behind a lorry the driver of which was more or less observing the speed limit, which I think at that time was 20 m.p.h. it may have been 30 m.p.h.
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: No, it was 20 m.p.h.
Mr. Wilson: The situation was becoming intolerable. We were on a two-lane road and this lorry was trundling on and on. Finally, the driver of the car in which I was travelling attempted to pass the lorry too near to a corner and we hit head on another vehicle which was coming round the corner. As a result, I spent the next eight months in hospital.
These accidents are caused by people losing patience, when they feel that the limit is unreasonable. Therefore, if we insist on keeping too low a speed limit, far from imposing a safety regulation we shall be encouraging accidents. Therefore, it is most undesirable to keep the limit too low.

1387
What is the appropriate speed is a matter of judgment and experience, but I should not have thought that the speeds in these Regulations were unreasonable in view of the case which the Parliamentary Secretary has made for them and the fact that passenger vehicle speeds have already been increased, apparently without bad results. I should have thought it was much better slightly to increase the speed limit rather than retain a speed limit which most people think is unreasonable.
There is only one note of caution that has just come to my mind. There has been considerable talk recently about articulated vehicles, and certainly with an inexperienced driver of such a vehicle troubles can arise. The vehicle can jack-knife right across the road if the driver is not experienced and applies his brakes too suddenly. An articulated vehicle which is driven too fast can be rather dangerous.
There are in the Highway Code some observations about pulling-up distances at various speeds, but I noticed the other day in a newspaper a letter pointing out that these observations apply to passenger vehicles, and there is little guidance available to the public as to what is a safe distance at which a vehicle heavier than the ordinary passenger vehicle can be pulled up at various speeds.
Having regard to these increased speed limits, it might not be inappropriate to issue some firmer information than is at present available to drivers as to what is the distance in which they can pull up with heavier vehicles at various speeds. It would be rather difficult because each vehicle varies according to its type. Subject to that, I think that these Regulations are an improvement on the existing ones.
9.26 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I do not know whether hon. Members noticed a report in the newspapers this morning. I quote from the Guardian whose report was headed
"Three die at bus stop.
Lorry's 30 ft. slide.
Two men and a woman died and two more people were injured when a lorry crashed into a bus stop, uprooted a lamp standard and
1388
slid on its side for 30 feet in Huddersfield Road, Oldham, yesterday."
That is not an isolated instance. Many such cases appear in the newspapers every day in these one-paragraph reports and are perhaps not noticed as much as they ought to be. I notice them particularly because I have an anonymous correspondent who cuts them out and sends them to me, and about once a month I receive about one hundred cuttings concerning lorries and other goods vehicles which have been involved in accidents.
The significant thing that I notice about these reports is the number in which the accidents occurred, merely because the vehicle could not stop, or so it appears, mounting the pavement for no apparent reason, out of control down a hill, and running into shop fronts. They are not necessarily collisions with other vehicles but because for some reason a heavy vehicle has got out of control. The figures confirm this. From the 1961 Report on Road Accidents the figures show that 17,802 goods vehicles were involved in accidents in which only one vehicle was involved or only one vehicle and a pedestrian. How in the face of that could my hon. Friend make the first point which he put to the House this evening that the law must keep abreast of technical progress? If it could be said that these goods vehicles, heavy lorries and so on, have such a safe record compared with other vehicles, there might be some argument for increasing their speed limit from 30 miles to 40 m.p.h. One ought to be able to say that they are safer on the roads having regard to the restrictions which are already placed on them. They have been subjected to a 30 miles per hour speed limit, special licensing and special examination and spot check examination on the roads, yet 20,766 goods vehicles were involved in fatal and serious accidents during 1961, one-fifth of the total. When one compares it with other vehicles it is 20,000 against 87,000 in round figures.
It may be said that I am taking absolute figures of vehicles involved in accidents and that, of course, goods vehicles travel a far greater mileage than any other vehicles and the important point is number of vehicles

1389
involved per so many vehicle miles. But if one looks at those figures—and here again I am taking figures from the Minister's Report, Road Accidents, 1961—in the case of cars involved in fatal and serious accidents, the vehicles involved per million vehicle miles was 1·1. That is exactly the same figure as for goods vehicles under 1½ tons and the figure is 1 in respect of other goods vehicles. The figures are almost exactly the same in each case. For all accidents, again on the mileage basis, the figures are 3·9 for cars, 4·2 for goods vehicles of the lighter weight and three for the heavier weight.
Thus, with all the restrictions which are placed upon them, their examination, their special licensing and so forth, goods vehicles are at present as dangerous on the roads as private cars, even taking the mileage, standard. If we remove one of the most important restrictions, the 30 m.p.h. speed limit, and raise it to 40 m.p.h., who can doubt that they will become more dangerous?
Since my hon. Friend made such a point of technical advance and said that the law must keep abreast of it, I refer to a document which was quoted by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) the Annual Reports of the Licensing Authorities. I do not wish to weary the House, but this is so relevant to the point made by my hon. Friend that I feel I should quote from some of the reports from the traffic areas on their examination of vehicles.
First, the Northern Traffic Area. Number of vehicles examined in 1961, 8,569. Number of prohibitions issued, 3,140, of which 652 were immediate prohibitions—so bad that the vehicles had to be taken off the road at once.
The Yorkshire Traffic Area. Vehicles examined, 14,000. Prohibitions, 3,000, of which 900 were immediate prohibitions.
The North-Western Traffic Area. The report says:
"37 per cent of all vehicles inspected were issued with prohibition notices, 14 per cent. immediate and 23 per cent. delayed. These figures suggest that there is room for considerable improvement in the condition of goods vehicles, and the desirability of inspecting a greater proportion of them".
The West Midland Traffic Area. Vehicles examined, 8,000. Prohibitions,
1390
3,300, of Which 645 were immediate, the vehicles being taken off the road at once.
The East Midland Traffic Area. The report says:
"It is, however, significant to note that the number of prohibitions issued has increased over last year's figure, and this can only indicate that goods vehicle maintenance leaves much to be desired. For example, when two major road checks were carried out at the northern end of the motorway M.1 and 154 vehicles were examined, it was necessary to issue 56 prohibition notices, 12 to take effect immediately".
That is 56 prohibitions out of 154 examinations of goods vehicles stopped at the end of the M.1. That was the proportion found to be defective.
The Eastern Traffic Area. Vehicles inspected, 11,000. Prohibitions issued, 3,000.
The South Wales Traffic Area. This is what is said:
"Altogether, a total of 7,000"—
I am using round figures—
"inspections covering 5,000 vehicles were carried out during the year under review, and prohibition notices were issued in respect of 2,500 vehicles, 754 being immediate prohibitions".
I will take one more example. This is what is said by the Western Traffic Area:
"… there has been no noticeable improvement in the maintenance of the vehicles owned by many of the smaller operators, whose motto seems to be, 'If it goes, it's all right'."
In face of all those reports from the licensing authorities, how can my hon. Friend say that there has been such technical progress that we should allow these vehicles to go at a greater speed on the roads? This must all be set against what is said in the Highway Code:
"Vehicles other than private cars may need twice the distance to pull up on a dry road. It is the stopping distance that counts in an emergency."
This was well put in the Observer last Sunday by Gordon Wilkins, the motoring correspondent of the Observer, with whom I do not often agree and with whom I had a "set to" on television on Saturday night. I quote what he wrote in the Observer the following day:
"The A.A. and R.A.C. have already endorsed the proposal to raise the lorry limit, on the grounds that it will improve the flow of traffic and reduce overtaking. They might have asked some of their members how they feel when trapped in a small car in a group of fast-moving lorries belching diesel smoke,

1391
burdened with the knowledge that if the car stops the lorries may not be able to. A good eight-wheeler in new condition can stop from 30 m.p.h. in slightly under 50 ft., but from 40 m.p.h. it would need at least 90 ft. This will be greatly increased if there is overloading and poor maintenance, and spot checks have shown a disquieting amount of bad maintenance."
My hon. Friend quoted what I said on a previous occasion when the speed limit on public service vehicles was increased. He knows very well that the road accident statistics are divided into those in which a vehicle and a pedestrian are concerned, those in which only one vehicle is concerned, those in which two vehicles are in collision and those in which three or more vehicles are in collision. He gave the House the figures of public service vehicles involved in collisions, which, of course, is not the full story. Even in that instance, he rested his case on the fact that in 4,000 accidents there was a reduction of 82. But that was only in the case of public service vehicles in collision with other vehicles.
I challenge my hon. Friend to give me one instance when an accident rate has decreased as a result of an increase in the speed limit. Or, to put it the other way round, I challenge him to give me an instance when an accident rate has not increased after the raising of the limit. I will take even vehicle miles and not the absolute number of accidents.
These Regulations are as certain to cause death as if my hon. Friend had handed a revolver to a trigger-happy lunatic. It has been proved on so many occasions that when the speed limit is increased accidents themselves increase.
My hon. Friend said, in effect, that we must be realistic, that goods vehicles now travel at greater speeds and that if we raise the speed limit they will not go any faster. But that was not the result of the previous increase in the speed limit. I quote from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research's Road Research Laboratory's Report relating to the increase in 1957:
"After the change in the limit, the proportion of heavy commercial vehicles exceeding 30 m.p.h. rose from 45 per cent. to nearly 56 per cent."
It therefore cannot be said in the light of previous experience that if we raise
1392
the limit it will be observed. The fact is that the more we raise the limit the greater is the non-observance of it, as was shown by that previous raising of the limit from 20 to 30 m.p.h.
Finally, I quote from what is, I think, the latest Ministry circular about road casualties. It is dated 20th November, 1962, and is optimistically headed "Fewer killed". The last paragraph states:
"The largest percentage increase in casualties was among goods vehicle drivers and passengers. The number killed and seriously injured, 4,049, was 11 per cent. more than in the previous year, while, it is estimated, goods vehicle traffic increased by one per cent."
This 11 per cent. increase in casualties is among drivers and passengers, so that one can assume that the increase is higher if one takes all casualties in accidents involving goods vehicles. That 11 per cent. increase in casualties to goods vehicle drivers and passengers when there was only a 1 per cent. increase in vehicle traffic compares with a 6 per cent. increase in car driver casualties in the corresponding period when the volume of motor car traffic increased by 7 per cent.
In face of that shocking indictment of goods vehicle driving over the period of nine months covered by the report, how can my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary say that it is safe to increase the speed limit from 30 to 40 m.p.h.? I repeat my conviction that, as with the speed limit increases for users of other vehicles, this change will have disastrous results.
9.41 p.m.
Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: In welcoming the Regulations, I am very much in agreement with the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson). We all know of my hon. Friend's zeal in transport matters, although many of us thought that he carried it a little far When he had to investigate personally what it was like to be involved in an accident.
I have always felt that the laws and regulations which we pass in the House of Commons need the willing acquiescence of the large majority of the people. It seems to me that the existing Regulations have become out-of-date and that the present speed limits have been exceeded.

1393
There are two matters which I should like to put to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, although he may not be able to give a complete answer tonight. Is he more hopeful that the police will be able to enforce the new Regulations rather more severely than they have been able to enforce the old ones?
The A.12, the main road from London to Yarmouth, runs through a large part of my constituency. There is today a large new class of private car drivers with trailers. I refer to the people who indulge in the sport—and they are to be thoroughly encouraged—of sailing small boats, or even driving speed boats. These drivers buy their trailers and carry the lightweight boats upon them. The trailer is low-slung and travels extremely easily behind a small private car.
Unwittingly, many of the drivers do not know the Regulations governing the use of vehicles with trailers. Is it possible that by agreement with the trailer manufacurers a pamphlet could be issued informing people who buy trailers of the Regulations governing their use? Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear this suggestion in mind as a means of ensuring that users of these vehicles conform with the Regulations and do not remain in ignorance of them.
9.44 p.m.
Mr. Hay: I think that the House would expect me to reply to some of the main points which have been made during the course of this brief debate. I did not expect an ecstatic welcome to the Regulations, but I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for what they have said. They have not been prepared to give us a completely blank cheque, but, at least, we have not had it returned marked "R.D."
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who, as I said when he was speaking, very adequately put forward the views of some of his right hon. and hon. Friends who, for various reasons, are not present tonight, began by complimenting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on the successful publicity that he has been giving to the subject of Christmas road accidents. I will see that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks are brought to the ears of my right hon. Friend, who will be quite
1394
astonished to receive praise from any quarter.
Dealing with the Regulations, the right hon. Gentleman referred, of course, as I expected he would do, to what I suppose one may call black sheep employers of haulage drivers—employers who force their drivers to keep often unrealistic schedules by breaking the speed limit. Of course, I hold no brief whatever for those sorts of people, but I would suggest both to the right hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who made a somewhat similar point by referring to the reports of the Traffic Commissioners, that the fact that large numbers of offenders are being brought to book is not necessarily evidence that a large number of other offenders are going unpunished.
I should have thought that the House would have welcomed the fact that the reports show a very high standard of enforcement on this very difficult subject of drivers' hours, and certainly none of the evidence which I have in my Department goes to show that the abuses which the right hon. Gentleman was referring to are in the slightest degree widespread. On the contrary, we have every reason to think that formerly these offences were widespread, but now the situation has much improved.
Of this I am certain, that if we can get these Regulations, if we can bring these vehicles' speed limits more into line with what everybody accepts is really common sense, then we can expect an even smaller number of offences on hours being committed in the future. There will be less incentive to employers to force their employees to drive their vehicles at over the speed limit to keep to a schedule, if the schedule can be adjusted in a realistic fashion. One must have regard to the type of vehicle which they drive today and the general condition of our roads, which, despite what the right hon. Gentleman says, I think is improving—not, perhaps, as fast as we in the Ministry of Transport would like, but certainly much better now that it has ever been.
Perhaps I could say another word about the question of hours. Drivers' hours and driving fatigue are subjects which are frequently raised in this connection, and many people believe that the increase in speed is a dangerous measure for that reason. I want to tell

1395
the House that we are extremely aware of the interests of the lorry driver. He is a very vital human factor in the equation, and nothing must be done to impair his skill and ability to drive his vehicle safely. If the new speed limits are found in practice to make any difference to drivers' fatigue—which we do not expect, but if that should be the case—we will look at the situation in the light of the evidence, and consider whether any reduction in hours may be justified.
But it may well be that in the conditions which are typical conditions we have to consider for this purpose—that is, driving on reasonable, good, open roads, and not in congested, dense traffic—the fatigue involved in maintaining a maximum of 30 m.p.h. is greater than in allowing a vehicle its head and letting it cruise at 40. Perhaps what I have said on this subject of hours may be noted in those quarters particularly interested in the subject.
Let me say a word next about trailers, which the right hon. Gentleman also mentioned, and in this connection, something about the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison). The Regulations make an important change in respect of goods and passenger vehicles towing trailers. There have been in recent years some substantial improvements in the design of all kinds of trailers, and, in particular, caravans. Particular attention has been paid to brakes and tow-bars and methods of attachment to the vehicle. The old limits of 20 and 30 m.p.h. are in this respect quite unrealistic, and we think that the limits in the new Regulations of 30 m.p.h. and 40 m.p.h. are much more in accord with the realities of safety requirements.
In the particular case of caravans, we have given a good deal of thought to the question of whether a restriction should be laid down which would limit the higher speed of 40 m.p.h. to certain types of caravan trailer or to particular combinations of car and caravan. Various possibilities have been examined from the technical point of view; all of them have been probed, and lots of new ideas have been canvassed.
1396
Our difficulty about drawing a line is that there are so many variable factors to be taken into account. The safety of a combination of car and caravan depends not only on unladen weight, but on the laden weights of the two vehicles and, more particularly, on the way in which those weights are distributed. It also depends on the brakes, on the manner of attachment to the car, and, finally—which is a very important factor in the liability of the trailer to "snake" from side to side of the road—on the distance between the towing connection of the car and the centre of the rear axle.
While, in general, a combination in which the caravan is much heavier than the towing car may create a hazard, there are certain vehicles, such as the Land Rover type, which can tow a heavier caravan with complete safety, while other heavier cars with a long overhang would be unsafe with a lighter trailer.
There is a big export business in caravans, and on the Continent there are very few restrictions on caravan speeds. If we were to introduce differential treatment here as between vehicles over and under a certain weight, it would undoubtedly have adverse consequences on design and exports. I have met representatives of the caravanning interests, and they left me in no doubt about that.
I am satisfied that in general car-caravan combinations present no serious safety problems on the roads, and the proposed increase in speed to 40 m.p.h. should not result in any increase in accidents. On the contrary, I think it is possible that a number of lives may well be saved as the result of reducing the amount of overtaking and the frustration caused to car drivers who have the misfortune to be caught behind one of these combinations moving religiously at 30 m.p.h. on heavily-trafficked country roads during the holiday season.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), who reminded us of the very unpleasant experience that he underwent some years ago, referred to this point about overtaking. It is important to remember it when one considers accidents in this connection. If one assumes, as I have indicated we ought to, that the law will be obeyed in the

1397
future, regardless of whether or not it is obeyed at present, there can be no doubt that the amount of overtaking will be much less if goods vehicles travel at 40 m.p.h. than if they are limited to 30 m.p.h. The Road Safety Committee, when it discussed the proposals previously, took this point very much into consideration and came to the conclusion that it was one of the main reasons why this change should be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby was, as I rather expected he might be, somewhat critical of our proposals. I suggest that one can read a little too much into newspaper reports of individual accidents One always regrets to hear of the personal (tragedies which are caused by that type of road accident, but I would like him to find out whether the accident which he quoted happened inside a town. If so, it must presumably have happened in an area where there was a 30 m.p.h. road speed limit, and the fact that the vehicle may have been travelling at more than 30 m.p.h. has no connection whatever with these regulations, because these regulations apply only to the vehicle. Even if the vehicle has a vehicle speed limit of 40 m.p.h. on it, it must still travel at not more than 30 m.p.h. when in a built-up area.
My hon. Friend quoted a number of figures and, in particular, the number of fatal and serious accidents involving goods vehicles of various types per million vehicle miles. He referred to the fact that, in 1961, 4·2 goods vehicles of one type and 3·0 goods vehicles of another were involved in all types of accidents per million vehicle miles. That may seem a lot, but when one considers that motor cycles reached a figure of no less than 17·3, motor scooters 18 and public service vehicles—buses and coaches—9·7, which is more than double the number of goods vehicles, one comes to the conclusion that one can draw all sorts of inferences from published tables of figures.
I will not quote a celebrated saying about figures which do not lie because you, Mr. Speaker, might pull me up. There is a continuation of that remark which I will not repeat in the House. But I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby when he says that
1398
one can show conclusively from the figures that what we are doing is not conducive to safety.
Mr. Graham Page: My comparison was with ordinary cars, and in that comparison the figure is about the same, if not a little more for goods vehicles.
Mr. Hay: It is true that my hon. Friend is talking about ordinary cars. But let us look at the figures for fatal and serious accidents. They are: goods vehicles, 1·1 per million vehicle miles, cars and taxis, 1·1; motor cycles, 5·9; motor scooters, 4·7; and public service vehicles 2, which is twice as many as in the case of goods vehicles. Yet we know that public service vehicles are probably about the safest vehicles on our roads.
However, I will not take up the time of the House by talking on this at great length. But it is not the case that we are, by these Regulations, producing, as my hon. Friend put it, a loaded revolver and putting it in the hands of a trigger-happy lunatic. That is a gross overstatement.
Finally, I will deal with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye. I would remind the House that under Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act we have, as I have stated, a new power which gives the courts the opportunity, and, indeed, the duty, of disqualifying people who commit certain types of road offence. This is another reason why these speed limits should be brought up to date. If this power is put into the hands of the courts, with a duty imposed on them to disqualify, it is only right that speed limits, whether applying to roads or to vehicles, should be realistic. Public opinion would demand no less.
I am obliged for the interest taken in this matter. It is a subject which always creates a good deal of excitement, but it has not produced quite as much heat as I expected tonight. I hope that the House will let us have the Regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1962, dated 5th November, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.

TANGANYIKA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
Considered in Committee.
[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
9.58 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a Speaker's Chair to the National Assembly of Tanganyika, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
I wish to make a few comments in support of the Motion, which, of course, will commend itself to the Committee. First of all, the Committee, when it accepts the Motion, will be pledging itself to honour the necessary Estimate. Secondly, I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, have in hand arrangements for the gift to be presented by a small Parliamentary delegation which, I am told, will visit Tanganyika early next February. I think that we would all envy those who will be members of that delegation. I should certainly be glad to be a member of it.
This is one more in a long tradition of gifts from this House to other legislative assemblies within the Commonwealth, and it is very pleasant that we can have this Motion tonight as a token of our friendship towards the people of Tanganyika and the fellowship we feel for their National Assembly.
One last thought I should like to put before the House. I think that Tanganyika, almost above all countries, has been fortunate in the leadership that it has had for many years. A most notable—
It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress.

TANGANYIKA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on the Order relating to Tanganyika (Gift of a Speaker's Chair) exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

TANGANYIKA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
Again considered in Committee.
Mr. Macleod: I was referring to the leadership that Tanganyika has been fortunate in having from people of African, European, Asian and other communities over the years. In a very notable roll of Governors, names like Cameron, Twining and Turnbull, perhaps, are outstanding, and amongst those leaders, of course, the first Prime Minister and the present President, Mr. Julius Nyerere, who is a friend of mine and of many hon. Members of the House, is very eminent.
I should like to end by putting before the House some words that he used in October, 1959, when he expressed the aspirations of the people of his country. This is what he said:
"We the people of Tanganyika would like to light a candle and put it on top of Mount Kilimanjaro which would shine beyond our borders giving hope where there was despair, love where there was hate, and dignity where before there was only humiliation."
Those words are, in fact, now on top of Mount Kilimanjaro. They have been affixed to a plaque which is part of the celebrations that attended the attainment of republican status within the Commonwealth by Tanganyika. They have been placed there, and they stand as an expression of what the people of Tanganyika seek, not just for themselves, but for all the people of Africa, and, indeed, of the world.
It is in this spirit that we send to the National Assembly of Tanganyika from this House this message of good will and of affection, and this gift that we would wish to present to them.
Mr. G. R. Strauss: I wish only to associate my colleagues on this side of the House—all right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition—most warmly with the terms in which the right

1401
hon. Gentleman has moved the Motion, and with the Motion itself.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported.
Report to be received Tomorrow.

TANGANYIKA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to education in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise—

  A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (1) grants to any board established under that Act for the purpose of discharging functions relating to examination;

  (2) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums so payable by way of general grant or of Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in Scotland;

  (3) sums by way of the return to teachers or to their personal representatives of the whole or a part of contributions paid by such teachers to the Secretary of State for the purpose of supporting pensions for the widows, widowers, children and dependants of teachers, and sums by way of interest on contributions so returned;

  (4) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State.

  B. The payment into the Exchequer by the Secretary of State of any sums which he may be authorised so to pay under the said Act of the present Session.

  Resolution agreed to.

  SCHOOLS, KENT (MINOR CAPITAL WORKS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. John Wells: My concern tonight is twofold; first, to show the importance of so-called minor capital works, up to a sum of £20,000 per unit, and, secondly, to show that the County of Kent is not getting its fair share of the money available. If we were able to cut out some of the frills of major educational matters, that would enable more money to be spent on minor capital works, and that in its turn would benefit a far greater number of children because the spread of money throughout
  1402
  minor works would affect a larger number of schools and, therefore, a larger number of pupils. I remind the House that although they are called minor capital works, they are minor only in so far as the sums involved are concerned. They are by no means minor in their importance.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will remember that I raised this matter at Question Time more than a year ago, and I have been disquieted about the position of minor capital works ever since. In the County of Kent, we do not have a school population bulge in the same way that the rest of England has. We have had a steadily rising school population. In 1950, the school population of Kent was 189,000 pupils. In 1962, it reached the figure of 247,000, and by 1972 it is estimated that it will be 282,000, a total increase of very nearly 100,000 pupils in 22 years.
  At present it is fashionable to talk about the drift to the South-East as though it were all to the detriment of the rest of England, and yet this drift is placing a great burden on the education authorities of the South-East, and particularly on Kent. The new population which we have in Kent is largely suburban-minded. People may have come to Kent for one of many reasons—the natural beauty of the county, our improved railway services and in many cases because of the very good reputation of the Kent County Education Authority. But the fact remains that they are suburban-minded.
  They are the sort of people who are used to having an internal W.C. in their house. Out of some 30,500 rateable dwellings in my constituency, only some 7,000 do not have an internal W.C., and that gives a measure of the standard of living within the homes of my constituents. The fact remains that the great majority of the schools in the neighbourhood have W.C.s which are out of doors. There may be no great harm in this, but the children see the contrast between home, where everything works well, and school, where in the past fortnight, for at least four schoodays, they have all been frozen up. I do not want the House to feel that I believe that frozen water closets are all there is to minor capital works

  1403
  in education. The Kent authority is facing far greater problems than that.
  When it prepared its 1963–64 minor works programme, the Kent Education Committee compiled a list of all the projects which were outstanding, some of them very long deferred and all of great importance. The total was £1,747,845. The Education Committee is composed of reasonable people who realised that they could not ask for £1¾ million in any one year.
  I will briefly tell the House how this figure was made up. Six hundred and sixty-six thousand, eight hundred and fifty £s was for primary schools, of which over half was for additional teaching places. Two hundred and sixty-five thousand £s was for replacement of unsatisfactory sanitation. A mere £23,000 was for improved playing facilities. All this was for primary schools.
  Secondary schools took about £811,000, roughly divided in quarters between additional teaching places, sixth form science and other important facilities, hall/gymnasia for schools without them—these are secondary schools—and sanitation, cloakrooms and other improvements. The rest of the £1¾ million was divided between urgent projects far further education, which were to take £156,545, new or enlarged kitchens £71,000, and three important projects for special schools £42,000. These figures give a measure of Kent's real need. I remind the House that, because of the shortage of proper school places, nearly 100 village and similar public halls are still being used for teaching purposes in Kent.
  The education authority realised that Kent could not ask for this very large sum of money in one year and pruned its list drastically. It left it so that it would include the extra teaching places I have mentioned. The school meals project I have mentioned. This, together with £80,000 for sanitation and much reduced figures for special sohools and clinics and only £104,000 for further education came to the total of £879,000, which was the figure the Ministry was invited to give the County of Kent. We wanted £1¾ million. We asked for £880,000. We were given a derisory £260,000.
  1404
  When I raised this matter with my right hon. Friend the Ministea of Education at Question Time on 6th December, he pointed out to me that the so-called "mini-minor" works under £2,000 no longer formed part of this and therefore the situation was not as bad as it seemed. I welcome this. I also welcome the greater flexibility that it has given the education authority, but an education authority cannot buy very much for less than £2,000 today in the way of minor capital works, as I hope to show later.
  During the current quarter and the four preceding quarters the Kent Education Authority has been able to spend only £150,292 in these mini-minor works. I apologise for the horrible term, but I think that it is generally prevalent throughout the Ministry. If expenditure in the coming five quarters were to run at the same rate on these mini-minor works and that were added to the miserable £260,000 that we have been offered, we would then have a total expenditure of just over £410,000 in the coming year. I am giving the Minister the benefit of the doubt by giving him five quarters instead of four for the mini-minor works. The £410,000 is a great deal less than the £455,000 that Kent was allowed in 1960–61. This is a reduction, and I view it as a retrograde step.
  I also welcome the change that we have got from £10,000 to £20,000 as the ceiling for minor works, but although it makes for greater flexibility there are a large number of items which would previously have been classified as major works which are now making crippling inroads into our minor works allocation. For instance, in important scientific projects alone £130,000 could be spent on only nine projects.
  I do not wish the House to think that I am dealing only in broad generalisations, and I will therefore give a few specific examples. Because I quote these particular schools which happen to be well known to me or to which my attention has been drawn, I do not want hon. Members to think that these are the hardest hit schools in Kent. Various hon. Members and myself have often stressed the importance of scientific teaching, but today in Kent we are desperately short of seven laboratories in technical colleges. The cost of these

  1405
  would form part of the £156,000 I mentioned earlier; money we wanted for further education. Three of these would be in Bromley—and I hope that I might have some support from my illustrious right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who represents that constituency—two would he in Tonbridge and two in the Medway Towns.
  To give an example of the pressure on 6th form places, the Chistlehurst and Sidcup Grammar School for boys now has over 200 pupils in its 6th form. Libraries are badly needed; not books but physical buildings, in a large number of excellent 6th forms, notably the Gravesend Grammar School for Boys, the Huntleys Secondary School at Tunbridge Wells and at the Tonbridge Secondary School for Girls. The Warren Wood Secondary School for Girls at Rochester, which has about 500 pupils, has neither a school hall nor a gymnasium but only one general purpose dining room—and the school is only about ten years old.
  In my constituency I am eagerly looking forward to a new primary school at Ulcombe, but the Loose County Primary School remains a source of great anxiety. Here is a school with sanitation facilities which are hopelessly out of date. The sanitary facilities in this school, which is in an essentially new suburban area, are about half of the statutory requirement. In round figures there are 11 W.C.s for 475 pupils and I understand that the statutory requirements for that number would be 19. There are other matters I could mention concerning the school.
  In my village of Mereworth there is a school in a very special position. At present it 'has 106 local children on the roll, 52 from Royal Air Force families and 38 from United States Naval families. The length of stay of these Service families varies from 3 years to a few weeks. There is no hall and very inadequate sanitary arrangements. The Kent Education Authority has tried to get these put into modern order under the £2,000 limit but has been unable to get the sanitary facilities for anything like this figure. The United States naval families all speak highly of the education their children get at the school, but are the sanitary arrangements giving a good impression of our country to these young foreigners and
  1406
  is the overcrowding fair to my young friends and neighbours or the first-class staff who work there?
  On 6th December my right hon. Friend told me that Kent had been given seven out of the eight requests on its top priority list. My right hon. Friend forgot to tell the House that that list was a rushed request, was for items which could start before March and that the whole list was, in the view of the Education Committee, essential, top priority and was only a choice among near equals. On the same day my right hon. Friend told me that Kent was to get £90,000 out of the £6 million increase in the current year. Is this a fair proportion of the national total? When I remind the House that the school population in Kent is 247,000, compared with the national figure of 5 million pupils, then on this basis hon. Members will see that Kent should have had £211,000 and not £90,000.
  Our real worry is with the future. What help are we to get towards clearing our backlog of £1¾ million? I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to remind my right hon. Friend that the population of the south-east is still growing, and I believe that this money should be more widely spent on minor works in order to benefit the greatest number of pupils in those areas where people really want to live, and not in those areas where the theorists think they ought to live.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: I must necessarily be very brief, but I am very glad to be able to support the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells), because whenever he has raised the matter at Question Time I have been able to support him. Lord Eccles, as he is now, made the point that the Ministry is in a weak position on minor works, and readily susceptible to cuts. For the same reason, the Parliamentary Secretary should agree that this is a programme that can be very readily and rapidly expanded. I hope that he will do so.
  As the hon. Member for Maidstone has pointed out, there are really two classes of children; those fortunate enough to go to the new schools and those at the old schools. A tremendous amount can be done at very limited

  1407
  expense. A second factor that I must impress on the Parliamentary Secretary is that a large number of additional new places are provided by the minor works programme, and that is very important.
  I shall not trespass on the hon. Member's Kent interests, but I will say that what is said on behalf of Kent can be said on behalf of other counties and county boroughs in the country. I would particularly call attention to the education authorities in the areas which the Government are at present trying to aid, because I have just received a protest from the Newcastle Education Committee saying that its programme has not been accepted by the Ministry. I am told of a similar position in regard to the programmes submitted by Durham and Sunderland. This is a sphere in which the Government—and it is a governmental responsibility primarily—could readily help these areas by doing everything possible to support their programmes.
  The Parliamentary Secretary must admit that up to the present the Government have not done enough, and I want to call attention to the figure of £21 million which I have called in aid on each occasion at Question Time. I pay tribute to Lord Eccles for obtaining this figure. That was the figure of starts in 1960–61, and we cannot be satisfied until we get back to it. I hope that what the hon. Member for Maidstone has said will have impressed on the Parliamentary Secretary that something must be done, and done quickly.
  10.23 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway): When my right hon. Friend was answering Questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) he said that he would welcome the opportunity of an Adjournment debate in order to deploy at greater length the arguments in relation to Kent's minor works programme, and I hope that in the few minutes left to me I can answer some of the questions my hon. Friend has now raised. I am glad, too, that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has intervened, because it gives me a chance to explain the confusion that arises over the figure
  1408
  of £21 million that he introduced when I was answering Questions at one point.
  I think that the difficulty arises because three separate sets of figures are used in relation to minor works. They are for minor works allocations, actual minor works starts, and minor works payments made—normally referred to as "work done". We were at that moment discussing allocations of minor works, and when the hon. Member mentioned the figure of £21 million it was my impression that he, too, was referring to allocations rather than to starts. I think that he will agree that the total allocation of £16 million for 1963–64 is well up to the average of recent years. The average for the past five years is £15½ million.
  Before I turn to the case of Kent, it might be helpful if I were to say a word about the manner in which my right hon. Friend distributes sums available between the various claimants. The total amount for minor works for any given period is not the same as the amount we distribute to education authorities as their allocation. We have to keep a reserve to cover jobs costing less than £2,000, and I entirely absolve my hon. Friend of responsibility for inventing the term "mini-minor works".
  We allocate some money centrally, as, for example, to voluntarily-aided schools. The allocations are not made between local education authorities on a purely arithmetical basis. I think that it would be wrong for us to take that line. We look at what each local education authority asks for. They send in bids with some account of the kind of projects they want to carry out. Obviously, we take account of their size, the number of children and the number of schools, and we try to meet the needs of the smaller authorities which happen to have one large particularly urgent job. A small local education authority might, for example, qualify for an allocation of not more than £10,000 but yet it might have one particularly urgent job costing £20,000, and it might get an allocation of £20,000.
  We have this year shown a distinct bias towards the areas of relatively high unemployment, as in the North-East and the North-West. I accept, of course, the point that my hon. Friend makes, that the drift from the North to the

  1409
  South creates problems in the South just as it creates problems in the North, and we give priority to areas where growing population looks like outrunning school places. I accept that Kent is an area of this kind. It is quite true that the population of Kent is steadily increasing. The recent electrification of railway lines as far as the coast has made a great deal of the county far more accessible. Maidstone and Ashford are developing. There is a possibility of a new town. There is a great deal of "filling-in" in the Medway area. As a result, there is a demand for new schools or for an expansion of existing schools. This my right hon. Friend fully recognises.
  However, I would stress that Kent is not alone, nor is it even exceptional, in its population increase. There are about 36 other authorities in whose areas the increase in school population during the last decade has been as large as or larger than in Kent. My hon. Friend mentioned the figures. According to my reckoning, the increase in the Kent school population during the past ten years has been about 27 per cent., which is a very substantial increase. But perhaps I may give a few examples of those with even larger increases. During that period Hertfordshire had an increase of 78 per cent., Berkshire 64 per cent., Buckinghamshire 60 per cent., West Sussex 57 per cent., and so on.
  This is not a complete answer—I realise that—to the point that my hon. Friend is making. He is arguing that there will be an even greater increase in population over the next few years in Kent, but I think he will agree that what I have said is an indication that there are many other local education authorities who are in a similar or worse position in this respect.
  My hon. Friend has talked about the cut in the allocation to Kent, and it is perfectly true that we have not been able to meet the request of Kent in anything like its entirety either for 1962–63 or for the next financial year. As he said, the authority asked for £879,000 and the allocation is £260,000. My hon. Friend makes a derisory gesture at that, but I think he will realise that it is a very strange state of affairs—almost a unique event—if a local authority gets all that it asks for.
  1410
  I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend makes, that the Kent authority does a good deal of pruning before it submits figures to us, but so do other local education authorities. The totals of local education authorities' bids for the 1963–64 minor works allocation came to about £30 million. The total which we had to distribute between local education authorities in England was just over £9 million. It will be seen, therefore, that, in receiving just under one-third of its allocation. Kent conformed fairly nearly to the proportion which prevailed over the rest of England.
  I have mentioned that the North-East and the North-West have done relatively better than the Home Counties in the South and South-East. I am sure that the House will agree that, in the prevailing situation, this is a right decision.
  Mr. J. Wells: That is exactly what I do not agree. The South-East is where the people are going. What is the point of building elegant schools for no children? We want improvements where the children are.
  Mr. Chataway: I assure my hon. Friend that his vision of school conditions in the North-East and North-West is not very accurate. There is a need for modernisation of schools in those areas which is every bit as pressing as that required by conditions in the south.
  Mr. Willey: The proportion of older schools in the North-East is greater. On top of that, we have large numbers of building trade workers unemployed.
  Mr. Chataway: There are these two points, and, as the Chancellor has said on several occasions, there is the opportunity to initiate work in these areas of unemployment, work which, if it were initiated in other areas of Great Britain, might have an inflationary effect.
  The truth is that it is open to many authorities to complain that they could use a much larger allocation than they receive. My right hon. Friend has to do his best to achieve balance and fairness within the limited resources at his disposal. Given this situation—which, of course, is not unique this year or unique to this topic—I cannot agree that Kent has been unfairly treated.

  1411
  There is one pencil-thin ray of hope that I can offer to my hon. Friend, though I do not pretend that it is anything substantial or anything in the nature of a promise. My right hon. Friend has kept back a small part of the £9·15 million which was available for distribution among the English local education authorities, and this he will in due course distribute among those authorities which have a particularly strong case for receiving an extra allocation. But the reserve is very small. While my right hon. Friend will certainly consider Kent's claim for a share of it, I cannot give any indication as to how much, if any, the county would receive.
  I agree entirely with the points which were made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North in relation to minor works generally. My right hon. Friend
  1412
  accepts completely the proposition that there is a vast amount which can be done by means of these small jobs. A great deal can be done with them for the education service.
  I am sorry not to have been able to give a more forthcoming reply to my hon. Friend, but, in the light of the explanation which I have given, I hope that he will realise that my right hon. Friend is fully aware both of the importance of minor works in general and of the reality of Kent's needs in particular. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that, in the difficult process of distributing much-needed resources, a great deal of care is taken to ensure that it is done with justice.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

  CONGO
  CONGO
  SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES)
  SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EGYPT (SUEZ CANAL SHIPMENT)
  EGYPT (SUEZ CANAL SHIPMENT)
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  UNITED NATIONS (FINANCE)
  UNITED NATIONS (FINANCE)
  EAST PRUSSIA (FRONTIERS)
  EAST PRUSSIA (FRONTIERS)
  VIETNAM (INCIDENT)
  VIETNAM (INCIDENT)
  DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (INDUSTRIAL GOODS)
  DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (INDUSTRIAL GOODS)
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  UNITED KINGDOM AND UNITED STATES (EMBASSY STAFFS)
  UNITED KINGDOM AND UNITED STATES (EMBASSY STAFFS)
  UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT DECADE
  UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT DECADE
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Bulls (Vibrio Foetus)
  Bulls (Vibrio Foetus)
  Wheat
  Wheat
  Feed Formula Addition
  Feed Formula Addition
  Forestry (Report)
  Forestry (Report)
  Market Research and Development
  Market Research and Development
  Farm Improvement Scheme (Slatted Floors)
  Farm Improvement Scheme (Slatted Floors)
  Rumanian Beef
  Rumanian Beef
  Exports of Livestock (Soviet Bloc)
  Exports of Livestock (Soviet Bloc)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Servicemen (Christmas Leave)
  Servicemen (Christmas Leave)
  Gurkha Brigade
  Gurkha Brigade
  Parliamentary Elections (Service Candidates)
  Parliamentary Elections (Service Candidates)
  Skybolt
  Skybolt
ROYAL NAVY
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Ratings (Discharges)
  Ratings (Discharges)
  Nuclear Submarines
  Nuclear Submarines
BRITISH ARMY
  Land, Norfolk
  Land, Norfolk
  Serviceman, Malaya (Death)
  Serviceman, Malaya (Death)
  Service Families, Germany
  Service Families, Germany
  W.D. Contracts (North-East)
  W.D. Contracts (North-East)
  Signalman Egerton (Discharge)
  Signalman Egerton (Discharge)
  Parliamentary Elections (Service Candidates)
  Parliamentary Elections (Service Candidates)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Airfields, Hull Area
  Airfields, Hull Area
  United States Base, Wethersfield (Noise)
  United States Base, Wethersfield (Noise)
TRANSPORT
  Rochdale Report
  Rochdale Report
  Traffic Engineers
  Traffic Engineers
  Drivers (Qualifications)
  Drivers (Qualifications)
ROADS
  Newent Bypass
  Newent Bypass
  Lower Thames Street
  Lower Thames Street
  Medway Bypass
  Medway Bypass
  Tyne Tunnel and Darlington Bypass
  Tyne Tunnel and Darlington Bypass
  Straying Animals
  Straying Animals
  Eggborough Bypass
  Eggborough Bypass
  Ham Road Works
  Ham Road Works
  Sheffield-Leeds Motorway
  Sheffield-Leeds Motorway
  North-East
  North-East
  Rectory Lane, Denham
  Rectory Lane, Denham
SHIPPING
  Beachley-Aust Ferry (Incidents)
  Beachley-Aust Ferry (Incidents)
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Soviet Bloc and China (Embargo)
  Soviet Bloc and China (Embargo)
  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION B.B.C. (Programmes)
  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION B.B.C. (Programmes)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Parliamentary Elections (Service Candidates)
  Parliamentary Elections (Service Candidates)
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
  Chief Inspector of Explosives (Report)
  Chief Inspector of Explosives (Report)
EDUCATION
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (Book)
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (Book)
  Correspondence Courses
  Correspondence Courses
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
HOSPITALS
  Maintenance Allocation, Gateshead
  Maintenance Allocation, Gateshead
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Physics Technicians
  Physics Technicians
HOUSING
  Prefabricated Houses
  Prefabricated Houses
SCOTLAND
  Western Isles (Jetties)
  Western Isles (Jetties)
  Hunterston Nuclear Power Station
  Hunterston Nuclear Power Station
  Land Reclamation Schemes
  Land Reclamation Schemes

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

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. It is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order, 1963, be made in the form of the Draft laid before Parliament.
"I will comply with your request."

NOTTINGHAM JUVENILE COURT ORDER
2.36 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether an answer has been received to the inquiries which the Lord Chancellor stated on December 13 were being made concerning the decision of the Nottingham Juvenile Magistrates' Court.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, the Answer to the noble Lord's Question is in the affirmative.
LORD WALSTON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his clear Answer. Would he now be good enough to inform us what was the content of the result of his investigation?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly, my Lords. The chairman of the Bench has written a long letter to me—I will not read it all to your Lordships—and sent me a copy of the full notes taken at the hearing of the case. From these it
1128
appears that the sentence to which the noble Lord drew attention was one sentence taken from a long statement made by the Chairman in which she was seeking to encourage the two applicants to provide a good home for their children. As one member of the bench said immediately after the hearing, they were not concerned with the colour problem. They were concerned about the accommodation available, which at that time consisted of one room with one bed for the two adults and two children in a house which was in fact occupied by coloured people.
It is, I think, unfortunate that any reference was made to coloured people, for when one sees the record of the evidence and the full text of what was said, it is clear that the court was solely concerned with the interests of the two children and the accommodation available for them in these premises.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords. I am most grateful for that further information on this matter. But I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether he does not recollect that the actual words, as quoted in The Times and which apparently are not denied, are specifically
"We do not really favour the sort of accommodation where there is a coloured population"?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I think we really must be careful where we are going here. I quite understand the noble Lord's interest in this question, but it is vital, I think, that Parliament should not be used at Question Time except for the purpose of interrogating the Executive on matters for which they have departmental responsibility. It is, of course, elementary that the Lord Chancellor has no departmental responsibility, nor has any other Minister departmental responsibility, for what is said by individual Judges. It does not, I think, matter whether the individual Judge is a Judge of first instance in the High Court, a judge at petty sessions, an ordinary magistrate, or a Judge in the House of Lords sitting judicially. We really must be careful that we recognise that, as the Constitution stands at the moment—and I, myself, should be sorry to see it changed—noble Lords must not question individual

1129
Ministers or the Government as a whole about the acts of the Judiciary. We all know they are not infallible, but the Government are not responsible for that.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I should have thought that that statement requires a little examination. I have a fairly long Parliamentary experience in another place. I should have thought that if that answer were made in another place there would be strong objection to it, I should like to look carefully at the printed text of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, but surely we are entitled in Parliament to be able to criticise the actions of magistrates if we do not like the results that they have arrived at.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I ask for nothing more than my words should be studied, as the noble Viscount said, most carefully. All I was seeking to say was that the Government cannot be asked questions about things for which they are not responsible departmentally. Of course Parliament can, if it chooses, in a proper way, criticise anybody, so far as I know, from the Monarch downwards. But the Government cannot be asked questions about things for which they are not responsible. What the noble Lord, Lord Walston, was in fact seeking to do was to ask the Lord Chancellor a question about something which a magistrate had said, and that, I must insist, is something for which the Lord Chancellor is not responsible in the departmental sense.
LORD REA: My Lords, could the noble and learned Viscount say what remedy Lord Walston has, and what course he can take?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should like to think about that. I think the ordinary remedy in most cases is to put down a substantive Motion if he thinks that a matter is of sufficient importance to warrant a substantive Motion. If he thinks the law is no good, then the remedy is to introduce a Bill.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I must say that I was rather surprised at the actual words just used by the noble and learned Viscount, that you cannot ask of a
1130
Minister a question in regard to something for which he is not departmentally responsible. That may be a matter of arrangement within the Government, but no free representative of the people in another place, at any rate, is to be debarred from asking questions on any subject within the ruling of the Speaker, and not the ruling of the Government.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords. with respect, another place has a most definite limitation upon the questions which can be asked—namely, the Table. And they do habitually stop Questions for which there is no Government responsibility. In this House we have no Table in the same sense; we have a Table, which we are all very fond of here, but they do not exercise any authority over us, nor does the Leader in this House exercise any authority. The House exercises its own discipline over itself. But the basic law of Parliament is the same, so far as I know, and the custom of this House is basically the same: the House asks questions of Ministers only about matters for which the Government exercise executive responsibility.
In the Commons the individual Minister usually answers about matters for which he has departmental responsibility. In the House of Lords the Government answer by their chosen spokesmen about matters for which the Government have responsibility. But I think we must be very slow indeed to assume responsibility in the Government for the sayings of judges of whatever degree of importance on the bench, and indeed for the Judiciary generally. I did not intervene in the previous series of questions very largely because I did not want to interfere with the natural interests of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, but I think we ought to see where we are going in this matter before we go any further in the same direction.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, if we were to rest upon that last answer, it would practically mean that no Peer should put down a Question of the kind my noble friend put down at all. In fact, however, a certain statement that was made in the court was raised by my noble friend, and it has drawn very courteous treatment from the noble

1131
and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, who, in the course of his statement to the House this afternoon, expressed an opinion: it is a pity perhaps that reference to the colour question was made. We are very glad to have that kind of Answer. In the House of Commons this is a Home Office matter. I think that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has answered quite correctly, and we appreciate the trouble he has taken over this; but I would not consent to accepting the position that no Peer and no commoner can put down a question on these matters in any way he likes.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I have not sought to limit what any noble Lord seeks to put down on the Order Paper; but if the noble Viscount wants to alter the custom of Parliament in this House, the very clear remedy is open to him, which is to put the matter down before the Procedure Committee. I have no authority in this matter at all. All I do say is that I very much doubt whether any such Questions would have got past the Table in the House of Commons. I think that if the noble Viscount wants to vindicate the right of a Peer to ask the Government Questions about matters for which the Government are not responsible, in other words, to indulge in a running commentary on public affairs, the best thing we can do, is to alter the Rules of the House in the proper way. What we cannot do, with great respect to the noble Viscount, is to allow things to develop in such a way that the Rules of the House are altered without the House authorising it. If the House authorises it, then, of course, it is another matter.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, are we to gather from the noble and learned Viscount that he is telling the House to-day that the Lord Chancellor was out of order in coming here, fully prepared as he was and in the most courteous manner, as head of the Judiciary, replying to a Question about the attitude of a member of the bench for whom he is responsible?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No; the last thing I would venture to do would be to suggest that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack was out of order. I do not know what would happen to me if I suggested such a thing. What I did suggest was that it had gone about as far as it ought to go without a reference to the Procedure Committee.
LORD WALSTON: Might I, still being in order, ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether, in view of the remarks and inquiries he has made he would make it abundantly clear to the public at large that these remarks of a member of the bench are not in any way consistent with normal Government views or policy?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am extremely reluctant to give any directions to the benches as to how they should perform their duties. I have given a pretty full answer to the noble Lord, and it is quite true there was a reference in the court in what was said by the bench to accommodation for coloured people. But I think that I have answered the noble Lord very fully about that, and, of course, I have made some comment on it which I thought it was right for me to do. I have no doubt that the interchange this afternoon will be noticed by many magistrates, and I have no reason to suppose that any unfortunate expressions of this character will occur, or occur at all frequently, and certainly not in Nottingham, where this Bench sits, for there there is a coloured magistrate upon the Bench.
LORD SALTOUN: Before we leave this, my Lords, might I thank the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House for his very clear and unexceptionable statement, which I shall value always and rely upon? It has often been sought to block a question which I wished to ask in your Lordships' House on the ground that it did not refer to one particular Department or another. His statement that the questions are asked of the Government, to be answered by the Government, is a very valuable one, and perfectly correct, and I am sure we are obliged to him.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
Order of the Day for the House to be in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [General limits on borrowing]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHACKLETON: It seems suitable, before we pass from Clause 2, to consider Whether the money that is proposed to be provided for borrowing by the Corporations is in, fact the right amount. This means that I must again raise certain questions bearing on Government policy with regard to the Corporations, and the way in which they want them to operate, because it is apparent from our debates that there is some difference of view as to whether the Corporations are required to operate purely as commercial bodies, or whether they have certain public duties.
It would probably be more likely to lead to success if the Government took a little more trouble to understand the problems that confront British Overseas Airways Corporation in the process of discharging their duties, and were slightly more sympathetic to them I must say again that I greatly deplore the misinterpretation of the statement by the Chairman of B.O.A.C., Sir Matthew Slattery, who in his famous "bloody crazy" statement was referring to certain of the less commercially desirable activities of B.O.A.C., which they undertook either in their judgment as in the public interest, or under pressure from the Government. This was misinterpreted by the Minister of Aviation, by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and by many other people as referring to the whole of the accumulated deficit.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in replying to this point on the Second Reading, set the record straight by saying that he realised what Sir Matthew in-
1134
tended, but he rather indicated that it was not a very clear statement. The statement was made at a Press conference, and I think the very least a responsible Minister Should have done, before criticising the Chairman of one of our nationalised bodies, who is in no position to answer, was to ask him what he actually said. Although we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for setting the record straight, I think the Minister of Aviation might have done both the House of Commons and Sir Matthew Slattery the courtesy of checking what it was that Sir Matthew actually said. It is part of the criticisms that have been made, and lit is part and parcel of—I will not say prejudice, but a rather superficial approach.
I should like to return again to the statement made by the Minister of Aviation in another place, and on which we received little satisfaction from the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. In this statement the Minister of Aviation said that he could not accept so easily [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 666 (No. 6), col. 814]
"that the depreciation in the value of the Corporation's aircraft fleet has only been fully revealed this year. This is not a situation which has come upon us in the night. It has been building up for two or three years past; and in any business efficient management must call for a clear understanding and a clear presentation of the balance sheet."
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, does not apparently agree with that, because when we discussed this he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 245 (No. 23) col. 837]:
"… my understanding was that the criticism was devoted not to the mechanics of the thing but to the thought lying behind it: that it ought to have been thought of before; not that there had been delay in putting it into the accounts."
What does the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, mean? Either we have proper accounts, and they reveal the situation properly, or we have a situation in which the report will say one thing and the accounts another.
If these accusations, so lightly made, had been made of a private company, I think they would have caused the greatest alarm and despondency among the shareholders and very severe criticism of the board. Furthermore, it is particularly unfair, since for the last few years British Overseas Airways have been trying to do precisely what they

1135
are now blamed for doing at the last moment. In their accounts this year they referred to the obsolescence of aircraft, but in their notes to their Accounts in 1958–59 they said:
"As the aircraft in question are still in service, no provision has been made in these accounts for any consequential and possibly substantial deficit which may emerge if and when such realisation is effected."
It was the wish, I understand, of the board of B.O.A.C., and certainly of the auditor, that some reflection of the anticipated write-down should go into the accounts, and this was the recommendation of the auditor.
I am of the opinion—and I have information to this effect—that there was direct intervention by the Government of the day, Mr. Watkinson and the accountants, on some curious argument that it was impossible to start writing down assets while they were still in use, which is an astounding doctrine; and that, furthermore, the board of B.O.A.C., probably wrongly, agreed to this pressure. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, made considerable efforts to suggest, as did the Minister of Aviation, that no improper pressure, or indeed any pressure, had been brought to bear on B.O.A.C. in regard to commercial and other matters. I have already given an indication, and I am told that the same things have happened in this year, that it is conceived that B.O.A.C. might have wished to show even further figures, and were told that this might damage the saleability of the Comets. Actually, it was the wrong Comets that the Minister of Aviation was thinking about—the earlier ones, which might well have carried an even greater write-down.
We have had the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. I do not know whether the noble Lord is going, to say that in fact that Select Committee reported wrongly, in making clear the extent to which pressure and influence have been brought to bear upon the Corporation over the years (it is in Hansard, and I have the Report here if any noble Lord wants to challenge it) to engage in activities which an ordinary, fully commercially-motivated undertaking would not have done. If B.O.A.C. are to fulfil the purposes which
1136
the country and, I think, the board themselves interpret them to be, we must recognise this fact. If the Government want a certificate from the chairman or board of the nationalised body every time they agree to co-operate, they will not find they will get either good co-operation or responsiveness to the public interest. We know perfectly well, because the figures have been given, their enormous value from the standpoint of the nationalised interest, in foreign earnings, in exports of aircraft, and in helping with undeveloped areas, and if the Corporation continue to do this I think it would be better if the Minister of Aviation showed a little more fairness. It is not appropriate, on the Question, That Clause 2 stand part, to discuss the whole question of the policy of commercial aviation. We know that there are certain restrictions on trooping and other matters, into which I gather there is going to be an investigation. But I hope that the record will be set a little more straight than has hitherto been done.
2.58 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that he should have seen fit further to raise in the course of this Committee stage the matters to which he referred on Second Reading, because I am only too glad to have the opportunity of, as he calls setting the record straight as it does need some setting straight. The noble Lord started by asking the Government to treat the Corporations, and B.O.A.C. in particular, with greater sympathy. The reason why the record needs setting Straight, if I may mix my metaphors, is that if the noble Lord has not got hold of the wrong end of the stick in many respects, he has at least got hold of it by the middle so that the stick is wobbling about.
To start with—I shall try to take the points in the same order as the noble Lord spoke of them—let us settle this matter lot this rather interesting and forceful comment that was made by the Chairman of B.O.A.C. I do not think that even the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, would want to accuse my right honourable friend of having delivered himself of some kind of snap reaction in haste. I think he may take it that my

1137
right honourable friend did inform himself of What had been said art this Press conference. I still think, as I said to your Lordships on Second Reading, that the form of the statement was open to some misinterpretation as to exactly what the Chairman was referring to at the time. I also said—and for convenience I repeat it—that the Chairman has since taken considerable steps to make it clear exactly what he did mean. I then went on to say that the question of a capital reconstruction, whether it included or exceeded the field to which the Chairman had been referring, might well be looked at in the future, but this was not at the time. After that, the noble Lord said that it followed from Government interference, which is a point to Which I should like to return in a moment; but at the present time I do not see that there is any need for the apology for which he called. I think the atmosphere is very much clearer now, and that the actual position of this rather more than usually forceful statement is now very much nearer the proportion Which it deserves.
The noble Lord went back again to the subject of depreciation, about which he had some things to say. To-day, he did not use the word "malpractice", which is the word he used on the last occasion in the same connection; but he used the word "accusations", which had rather the same implication. The first thing I should like to paint out to your Lordships is again something that I said on the last occasion, which is again appropriate. Not only did I say it, but it was said in another place, and it has been said before, in reply to the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, from which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has quoted quite freely. The Minister of Aviation has the power, it is agreed, to give directions as to the manner in which the accounts of the Corporations are presented, but he has no power to determine the sums which are to be included under any particular heading in the accounts. I am sorry to take up time by saying that again, but I think it is very important to get it crystal clear. The normal thing that happens is that the Corporations present the form of their accounts to the Minister from year to year in advance of their publication, and it has been the practice for the Department and the Corporations to
1138
discuss any questions arising out of them which are of common concern to them both. In the course of these discussions it is not surprising or unusual—in fact, I think it would be regarded as normal—for the Minister to raise questions and to give advice—Which, in the past, has sometimes been taken and sometimes not.
Before I come on to the events of 1958–59, to which the noble Lard, Lord Shackleton, has referred, I should like to deal with the noble Lord's suggestion as to what has happened recently with regard to the Corporation's proposals for depreciation. He said that there were "unhealthy accusations", or something like that, formerly referred to as "malpractices". What actually happened was this. In the course of such discussions as I have just been describing, the Ministry fully agreed with B.O.A.C. in their desire to look ahead and to allow far the expectation of a shorter life and a fall in the second-hand value of their aircraft, so that they could present a more realistic picture than had appeared to date. It it quite true that B.O.A.C. had it in mind to write down the Comets even more sharply than they had, and by doing that they would have left the annual depreciation provisions for future years where they had been up to the present. The Ministry considered that B.O.A.C.'s proposal to accelerate the depreciation of the Comet was right in principle—and this is the point to which I should like the noble Lord to pay special attention. What the Minister disagreed with was the proposal to write the provisions for depreciation down so sharply that exactly that effect would come about—that the future years' depreciation, while the Comets were still in service, would remain the same as at present.
The reason he thought that was not right was because it would be open to public misunderstanding and criticism, on the ground that it might well look as if B.O.A.C. were relieving future years of their due amount of depreciation. Now depreciation is as much a part of the running cost of an aircraft as is the pilot's salary and the fuel bills, and the Minister did not think (and in my view he was right) that that was the proper way to do it. He thought also that it went further than was required by the application of the principles which had been agreed between the respective accountants in the past. Further, he

1139
thought that it might have a damaging effect on the sales of Comets. The noble Lord may well say that that has nothing to do with B.O.A.C.; but, at the same time, I do not think it is a consideration which my right honourable friend could properly leave out of account.
These matters to which I have just referred were thoroughly discussed with B.O.A.C., and, in the event, the Corporation decided to accelerate the depreciation but to accelerate it rather less than they had proposed. The extent to which they have in fact increased it and have anticipated future obsolescence will, I think, be found quite graphically indicated in their Annual Report.
If I may go back to the events that happened in 1958–59, of which the noble Lord has made quite a lot, and which he laid at the door of Mr. Watkinson, again we had this implication of some sort of improper interference or malpractice. But if anyone is going to say that what was done at that time was wrong, and is going to read into it grounds for accusations of malpractice, then I must say, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord (for whom, I may say, I have a very healthy respect), that it is nonsense. You have only to look in the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, from which the noble Lord has himself freely quoted, to see that B.O.A.C. themselves volunteered in evidence before the Select Committee that they thought they had not allowed sufficient depreciation, and that they would have allowed more but could not afford it. That is what they said, and I think it must have impressed the Select Committee who said in paragraph 21 of their Report that
"B.O.A.C. themselves recognise that they have not in past years put aside adequate sums for depreciation; it seems that their overseas competitors provide amortisation at a higher rate."
Paragraph 124 referred to it and more specific reference to this matter will be found in Questions 2,351–2–3.
May I tell your Lordships, in view of what has been said about this, exactly what it was that happened in 1958–1959? It is true that B.O.A.C. came to the Minister with proposals for writing off a large amount of capital. It is true again that these proposals included
1140
sharply writing down the D.C.70's, as well as other much wider proposals for revaluation of their assets and changing the form of the accounts. That is a very different matter from proposals for normal depreciation. The Minister at the time was quite properly concerned that the account should not show a needlessly unfavourable result. He raised some questions one by one on each of the various items which comprised the total. And he invited B.O.A.C. and their accountants to reconsider their proposals so as to avoid unnecessary losses. They did that and decided to make special provision for only one of the items in the original total. That was the redevelopment expenditure in connection with the Britannias and Comets. Perhaps, before I leave the point, it is worth mentioning that if B.O.A.C. had proceeded with their original proposals some £15 million or £16 million would have been written off as a capital loss without passing through either the operating or profit and loss accounts. I think the noble Lord, if I recall his words properly, asked me whether I wished to confirm or deny what he had said. I am not going to do that myself. Having revealed the facts of what happened at that time, I am going to leave it for the House to judge whether it is confirmed or denied.
LORD SHACKLETON: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, he is not suggesting it would not have appeared in the Balance Sheet, is he?
LORD CHESHAM: No, I am not suggesting it would not have appeared in the Balance Sheet. I said—and I will repeat it in case the noble Lord did not hear me very clearly—either the operating or profit and loss accounts. That is what I said, and that I understand to have been the position. I do not think that the Minister at the time was wrong to query that form of presentation.
My Lords, I should like to turn now, because it is most important, to what the noble Lord said and to his allegations of interference at various times by the Minister of the day which has caused B.O.A.C. to be in the financial state that it is in and have this large accumulated deficit. I am sorry to bore your Lordships, but I think I shall not make

1141
my point unless I requote the paragraph, or the extract from the paragraph, from the Report of the Select Committee which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, quoted last time. It reads:
"Although the Minister has no express statutory control over the Corporation's capital expenditure they always seek his approval (and that of the Treasury) for orders of aircraft, and these amount to 80 per cent. of their total capital. They have agreed not to open new routes without the Minister's consent. They fly on various routes, domestic and international, because he asks them to, and they lose money in the process. They seek his approval for all fares and rates on non-international routes. They refrain at his wish from keeping aircraft specifically available for charter work; they come to him for permission before creating or investing in a subsidiary company."
The noble Lord quoted that paragraph and he quoted it as evidence that whatever had gone wrong in B.O.A.C.'s life so far was the fault of the Government because of this control they had, whether statutory or otherwise.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord really is misrepresenting me. I never at any time attributed the misfortunes of B.O.A.C. to Government interference. The whole burden of my speech was that the Minister denied that there had ever been any Government interference except over Kuwait Airways; and that this was not therefore an excuse. I have never suggested that it was wrong for the Government to exercise this sort of influence.
LORD CHESHAM: Well, I am getting either deaf or stupid, My Lords.
A NOBLE LORD: Oh dear!
LORD CHESHAM: Quite likely the latter, I agree. The noble Lord used this to try to convince your Lordships that there had been interference, because he has been alleging that all along, with the depreciation rate B.O.A.C. wanted to make, and also that it was the result of non-commercial policies imposed by the Government which gave rise to the remark we have been talking about and which was attributed, among other remarks, to the Chairman. Shall I modify what I said if I chose my words without care? Shall I say he quoted that paragraph as backing him in his contention (which is paraphrasing what he said himself) that the Corporation are subject to such pressures from the Government as to make it unfair to
1142
expect them to operate commercially? Perhaps that would be another way of putting it which he might find more accurate. I think it is a matter over which there can be long and probably unprofitable argument.
I am sure, since the noble Lord quoted freely from the Select Committee Report, that he will not mind if I, too, should be allowed to quote from it as well. On routes, the Chairman of B.O.A.C. at the time told the Committee—and this is to be found in Question 595:
"I think it absolutely right to say that all the routes we operate are operated of our own free will."
And when asked what difference it would make if B.O.A.C. were actuated entirely by the profit motive in the choice of routes, he said (and his managing director agreed with him at the time) that it would not make a very substantial difference to profits. Those are Questions 611–612.
On the Question of choice of aircraft, the Report says that Government policy is that the Corporation should fly British wherever they can. That seems to me an entirely admirable and proper policy, and I am sure that your Lordships would be properly critical if the policy were otherwise. But it does not mean that they have been forced, against their wishes, to take aircraft that they do not want. The Chairman told the Committee (Question 287):
"I am not aware of the Ministry having refused to allow us to buy the aircraft we needed—not in my time."
On the same point, an official of the Ministry told the Committee (Question 91):
"We do not impose"—
he was, of course, referring to aircraft—
"on the Corporations. We would merely suggest to them that there are certain reasons why it might be better to go to one place rather than another. After we have done that, if the Corporation say that the aircraft or the source which we have suggested is not going to produce the aircraft type they want, we could not press that against their view. They themselves must have the last choice, because they have to operate the aircraft and only they know what it is that will give them the commercial benefits they are looking for. And so, in the last resort, it is they and they alone who can say, 'We must have a certain aircraft'."
In Questions 388 to 390 the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, in his capacity as Chairman of B.E.A., made it

1143
plain that he was able to insist on gaining his wish, based on his commercial preference, to place orders for the Trident.
In Question 257, the B.O.A.C. Chairman agreed that no pressure had been exerted against his wishes in having his choice of aircraft. On the question of investment in subsidiaries, about which we have had some conversation, the Managing Director of B.O.A.C., in his reply to Question 1801, emphasised the value of these companies as providers of feeder traffic. In his reply to Question 1806, the Chairman said that Kuwait was the only instance of such an investment being made at the direct request of Her Majesty's Government. In reply to Question 2409, the Deputy Chairman said:
"We go into these arrangements primarily because we think that they will be valuable to our commercial interests."
I could go on in this way and make many more points. I could say, for instance, that the original quotation which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made in aid is out of date in certain respects. It refers to the question of the Corporations' keeping aircraft specifically available for charter purposes and the prohibition on doing so. Well, there is no restriction on that now. And the question of fares is now not one for my right honourable friend and his Department; it is one for the Air Transport Licensing Board. Similarly, any airline, nationalised or independent, can apply to that Board for a licence to operate any route. So, to that extent, I think the noble Lord will agree that the paragraph is now out of date.
When we study the Select Committee's Report in this kind of detail, it gives an impression which is different from the picture which the noble Lord drew from it by building on his quotation from one paragraph only. There is no question of a sort of malevolent Ministry impeding the Corporations' every wish and imposing endless uncommercial policies on them. The situation is much more like the proper and natural one, with a constant exchange of information, frequent meetings and discussions, and the kind of close co-operation which is inevitable when the Minister has to answer for the Corporations in Parliament. I would only ask that if anyone doubts that, including the noble Lord
1144
himself, he should read paragraphs 215 and 216 of the Report.
I do not agree with the noble Lord that an apology is owed by the Minister to the Chairman, on the lines of the argument which the noble Lord put forward. The Minister is rightly perturbed because a nationalised industry has built up an accumulated deficit of £65 million, of Which nearly £50 million appear in a single year's account. I think that your Lordships would be critical if he did not show concern at that kind of loss. Surely this is no time for complacency in the matter, or even, if I may say so, for quarrelling about the exact shade of meaning of past expressions. As I have told your Lordships, the Minister has very properly put in hand an investigation to get the facts, so that adequate remedial measures can be taken. I have outlined to your Lordships what could be the consideration given to certain aspects din future. I think that this is a time, above all others, when B.O.A.C. need the full co-operation of the Government, and vice versa, and I hope that your Lordships will proceed with the final stages of this Bill, which will enable that to take place.
3.27 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I will not detail the Committee beyond saying that I think that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has completely missed the point of my intervention. I have never accused the Government of malevolent attacks on B.O.A.C. Indeed, a great deal of what they did was definitely in the public interest. But I do think that the speech of the Minister of Aviation in another place was, in the circumstances, grossly unfair. Of course, I do not expect an apology to the Chairman. Ministers practically never apologise, anyway. All I said was that it would have been a reasonable act of courtesy to ask the Chairman of a nationalised corporation, for whom you are responsible, what he really said before criticising him in public. And we have the record more straight on that.
On the question of Government interference, and whether it be right or wrong—much of it. I think, is right—the noble Lord's account of the action of the Government in regard to the writing off of depreciation comes under the magic phrase of "accelerating more slowly".

1145
If there is any single commercial decision which is surely the responsibility of the managing board of any business, it is the rate of depreciation; and here, clearly, we have been shown that there were considerable talks and considerable pressure. Whether the Corporation were right to agree, I do not know. I think it is perfectly right that the Minister should do this. What I am objecting to is the calm dissociation by the Minister from any responsibility in the matter and the putting of the whole responsibility on to the Corporation.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves this point, I have no doubt that he will recognise, if he follows my argument right from the beginning, that I did make the point, that, while the Minister may express his opinion and offer his advice, the Corporation do not have to take it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this question of taking advice from Ministers is a pretty tricky one. I think that any nationalised body who did not heed very closely and follow the advice of the Minister in a matter of this kind would be in trouble. However, I am not blaming the Corporation for taking the advice or the pressure of the Minister. Again, I never suggested that the Corporation's routes were forced on them for uncommercial reasons. What I did say was that it was unfair of the Minister in another place to deny that the decision to invest in these associated or subsidiary companies had been inspired by the Government for reasons of foreign or Commonwealth policy, and to deny, by inference, that there had been, except in the case of the Kuwait operation, any inspiration. Frankly, I do not believe it to be true.
I do not want to go over the whole ground again. I think the Minister of Aviation should stand up a little more for the Corporations for whom he is responsible, and I think he should be fairer. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for the facts that he has revealed, and I am extremely glad that there is going to be an investigation by a specially appointed Government auditor in these matters so that we may learn exactly how certain of these decisions, and particularly on the accounting side, are arrived at.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 13), Bill read 3a, and passed.

FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
3.33 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this may be a convenient time for me to repeat in this House, with your Lordships' permission, a statement which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend, the First Secretary of State. I think it may be convenient if I use the precise words of my right honourable friend, and they are these:
"In the course of the debates on Central Africa on May 8 and December 3 I emphasised two points: first, that it was the desire of Her Majesty's Government to find an acceptable solution of the situation in Central Africa which would maintain the very real advantages of continued association between the territories; and second, that Her Majesty's Government acknowledged the position of the Malawi Congress Party, namely, that they are not prepared for Nyasaland to remain within the present Federation.
"Her Majesty's Government are aware of a widespread desire for early decisions which will remove uncertainty and give new impetus to progress and development. Her Majesty's Government therefore propose, now that new Administrations are in office in Northern and Southern Rhodesia, to engage in early consultations with the Federal and Territorial Governments. I propose to visit Central Africa to initiate those consultations and to seek in co-operation with the Governments concerned ways and means of achieving a practical and durable solution. Full account will have to be taken of the close links which have developed between the territories, and particularly between Northern and Southern Rhodesia whose economies are so closely interwoven. The form that the future association of the territories may take will be covered by the consultations to which I have referred.
"Her Majesty's Government accept in principle that Nyasaland shall be allowed to withdraw from the Federation. I should explain that such a withdrawal does not mean that the present constitutional relationship between Northern and Southern Rhodesia is thereby broken.
"The financial and economic consequences for Nyasaland will be serious and substantial.

1147
The Nyasaland Government are fully aware of them and are ready to adopt policies to minimise them.
Detailed negotiations between Her Majesty's Government, the Federal Government and the Nyasaland Government will be required before effect can be given to the decision that Nyasaland should secede. Her Majesty's Government will expect the Nyasaland Government to shoulder its just commitments and liabilities arising from its membership of and withdrawal from the Federation. Many matters will need to be examined and negotiated, including in particular those arising from the Nyasaland Government's obligation to bear its due proportion of the Federal debt, and to assume its proper responsibilities, financial and otherwise, in respect of the problems which may arise over the transfer of present Federal functions and its effect on individual officers, and also over the future of Federal statutory bodies and their staffs operating in Nyasaland. Arrangements will have to be reached regarding loan expenditure by the Federal Government in Nyasaland between now and the actual date of withdrawal. Other problems requiring examination will include the Nyasaland Railways.
There is no reason why the decision regarding Nyasaland need impair the basic economic strength of the rest of the area, which rests on its agricultural, mineral and other resources. These resources will continue to provide a good foundation for a stable and expanding economy. It is of course very important that credit should be maintained, and that private enterprise should continue to invest in the area. In seeking a solution to the political problems of Central Africa, it will be Her Majesty's Government's aim to co-operate with the Governments concerned in maintaining confidence, especially over the period of transition.
Her Majesty's Government reaffirm their constructive purpose, taking account of the benefits that have been derived from the past as well as the aspirations for the future, to secure in Central Africa conditions in which a stable and expanding economy can be maintained and people of all races can live in harmony.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, from our point of view—and I hope your Lordships will agree—in view of the Motion on the Order Paper and the number of speakers down, instead of having the usual questions immediately after the statement, it might suit the House better to go straight on with the Motion on the Paper.
LORD REA: My Lords, I support that view. I think it is a very good suggestion.

BRITISH POLICY IN CENTRAL AFRICA
3.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL rose to draw attention to the urgent need for Her Majesty's Government to revise its policy in Central Africa; to dissolve the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland; to secure continuing economic and administrative relationships between the three territories; and to obtain constitutional reforms to enable them to achieve early independence under representative Governments: and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree with my noble Leader and with the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party that this is a convenient moment to discuss Central Africa. Three important events have taken place there since our last debate. First, there has been the Nyasaland Constitutional Conference in November which resulted in agreement about external self-government for Nyasaland. Secondly, there has been the General Election in Northern Rhodesia which has been followed by the first African Government in that territory. Then there has been the overwhelming victory of the Rhodesian Front Party in the elections last week in Southern Rhodesia. These, I think, are three events of great importance of which we must take full account.
Finally, we have before us this afternoon a policy statement of Her Majesty's Government of extreme importance, because it represents the first substantial change in the policy of the Government since Mr. Butler took office and the most important change in policy since the Federation was set up nine years ago. Therefore, I think your Lordships will agree we have a great deal to think about. I must apologise in advance, because I am usually not an offender about the length of my speeches, that on this occasion I must ask your Lordships' indulgence if I speak at rather greater length than usual, and my plea is the complexity and difficulty of the problems which confront us in Central Africa.
I suggest that, in the light of events that have recently taken place in Central Africa, there should be a reassessment of Government policy, both in relation

1149
to the Federation and in relation to the territories. I believe that the change of policy just announced by the Government, which is most satisfactory—I say that immediately—as far as it goes, will be wholly inadequate to deal with the new situation. Other noble Lords will take a different and, indeed, perhaps an opposite point of view. But I think the House will agree that this is a good opportunity for noble Lords—inasmuch as we are fortunate enough to have among our Members many noble Lords with special knowledge of Africa, such as the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, whom we are delighted to see with us again, and other noble Lords with great experience in handling colonial affairs. I can count no fewer than three ex-Colonial Secretaries on the two Front Benches below the gangway—to offer the Government their considered advice about the next move in Central Africa.
It is because I want to start some constructive thinking about the future that my Motion is in the ordinary form of a Motion for Papers and is not a Resolution of censure on the Government for the failure of its policy of federation in Central Africa. This is not because I do not think censure is deserved. On the contrary, this policy of federation in Central Africa, which the Government have now abandoned after nine years of mounting African opposition, will be remembered, I believe, as the worst error of judgment in colonial policy that any Government here have committed since the war. indeed, it was more than an error of judgment: it was a surrender of a basic democratic principle of government by consent, which we apply here, which we have always applied here, and which we have applied in every dependency overseas apart from Central Africa. The effect of this disastrous policy has been to build up a degree of hostility between the races in Central Africa that may still lead to bloodshed and violence. We all trust that this final disaster will be averted, but we cannot be certain.
There is acute political uncertainty, and this uncertainty about the future of the Federation has dried up investment and paralysed business. Of course, the three territories have become much more prosperous since the Federation was established; but how much better if this prosperity had been brought about in East
1150
Africa by the closest possible economic co-operation, without interfering with their separate evolution to independence!How much better if the Government had followed the wise advice of the Bledisloe Commission's Report and had used the Central African Council as the organ for economic development and cooperation between the three territories!How much better if the next task of the Government had not been a salvage operation to cushion the adverse economic effects in Nyasaland of breaking up the Federation and to prevent the three territories from drifting completely apart!
That is as much as I have to say about past mistakes, and it is certainly as much as I would dare to weary your Lordships with on that subject. What we have to do now is to find a policy that will match the new situation in Central Africa. While I welcome again, most warmly, the decision to allow Nyasaland to secede, why is it that the Government stopped there? Why do they not go a step further—a logical step—and do as the Monckton Commission recommended, by making a declaration of intention to allow any territory to secede if it so desires on reaching a stage of internal self-government?
There are two reasons for taking this further step at the present time. The elections in Northern Rhodesia have produced an African Government with an anti-federal mandate. The basis of the coalition between the two African Parties there is the common desire to get out of the Federation. How can we deny to Northern Rhodesia, when the time comes, what we have just granted to Nyasaland? The other reason—and this, again, stems from recent events to have changed entirely the political atmosphere in Central Africa—is that for the first time since the Federation was set up all three territorial Governments are opposed to federation. Sir Roy Welensky fought the election in Southern Rhodesia on the federal issue, and his Party has been heavily defeated. How can you maintain a Federation when the majority of the elected representatives of three territorial units are against it? What is more—and this, again, is a new factor—the Federation would now be maintained in defiance of European as well as African opinion,

1151
because the great majority of European voters are in Southern Rhodesia and they have shown by their votes that they are against the Federation.
To give this option would, of course, be tantamount to saying that the Federation will soon be dead. I believe this should be said, because it is a necessary condition for further progress. Mr. Kaunda of Northern Rhodesia would be most willing to start talking about economic and administrative co-operation with Dr. Banda of Nyasaland and with Mr. Winston Field of Southern Rhodesia, but only on the condition that he is allowed the right to secede. I am quite certain that Mr. Kaunda will not even consider means and methods of cooperation with his neighbours until he is sure that the British Government will allow him to leave the Federation. This is the only way to create a climate of goodwill in Northern Rhodesia which we have been, I am thankful to say, so successful in creating in Nyasaland.
The other reason why I believe it is most important for the Government to admit the moribund condition of the Federation is that this will help to clear the air of political uncertainty; and, as I said earlier, what is paralysing the economic development of the Federation is this atmosphere of political uncertainty. Uncertainty at the present time is bound to continue until business knows what the future is going to be, and it is surely better for business to face an unpalatable political issue than to face the unknown—and the position at the moment is that it is facing the unknown. Once this issue of federation has been settled, once it has been cleared right out of the way, then the leaders in all the three territories will be able to get together to plan their future relationships on the basis of their most important common interests. It would, for example, be greatly to their mutual advantage to retain free movement for labour and the products of industry and the soil within the whole area. This would preserve the economic benefits of a common market without any of the political drawbacks of which I think your Lordships are vividly aware in another connection.
To give a further example, some of the existing powers of the Federal Govern
1152
ment relating to common services, such as inter-territorial highways, railways, aviation, post and telegraphs, and higher education, might well be transferred to a common services organisation which would function in the same way as the Common Services Organisation in East Africa. The Kariba Dam and power station supply another common service, an absolutely basic and common service for the copper belt of Northern Rhodesia and for the factories of Salisbury and Bulawayo. It would also be a good thing for the economic development of the three countries, although perhaps even more difficult at the present stage, that these should be co-ordinated at Ministerial level by some sort of inter-territorial Ministerial committee. But all this depends on the willingness of the political leaders in these territories to work together; and I am quite certain they would be much more willing to do so if the issue of federation were cleared right out of the way. It is extremely encouraging to hear that Mr. Winston Field is already on friendly terms with Dr. Banda and that Mr. Kaunda has welcomed the victory of Mr. Field's Party in Southern Rhodesia. I am sure that there is a basis for discussion, understanding and agreement between the leaders of the three territorial Governments.
It may be said, of course, that economic co-operation is not a substitute for political integration and that the break-up of the Federation is another step in the Balkanisation of Africa, but it should not be forgotten that there are other ideas of federation besides the existing Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya want to form an East African Federation; and the other day I was talking to a very responsible Somali who told me that the Government of Somalia would like to join an East African Federation—which shows the remarkable potential extent of such a Federation. It would, of course, leave the door open to any territories in Central Africa, once they are independent and outside the existing Federation, to join if they so desired.
My Lords, may I say a few words in conclusion about the three territories? The agreement last month about internal self-government for Nyasaland does

1153
a great deal of credit to all concerned, including those responsible on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, but I think that Dr. Banda and the Malawi Congress Party deserve special credit for their willingness to accept continued control by the Governor over finance and the public services. It is most encouraging that Dr. Banda seems to be in no undue hurry about independence; that he recognises the need for expatriate officers during the next stage and after independence, and that he is not too proud to go on accepting budgetary aid. In the statement to which we have listened it is perfectly clear that Nyasaland will have to shoulder a much heavier financial burden after it has left the Federation. It will lose the federal contribution to its budget; it will have to take responsibility for its share of federal loans: and it will have to take over those of the federal services which function in the territory of Nyasaland. It is very satisfactory that Dr. Banda has shown his willingness to face up to these commitments and his desire to meet them
But I should like the Government to consider very carefully this matter of finance for Nyasaland, because it is perfectly evident that Nyasaland will continue to require budgetary aid after it becomes independent. The effect of a drastic cut in expenditure when independence comes about would be very serious indeed, and I really cannot see (and this is a suggestion I should like the Government to consider) why Her Majesty's Government should not subsidise the budget of Nyasaland—that is, the budget of an independent Commonwealth territory—and go on doing what it is doing at the moment. After all, it has happened elsewhere in Africa: the French assist a very large number of former French African territories and we contribute to the budgets of foreign countries in Africa, Libya and Somalia. I hope very much the Government will give serious thought to this proposal, and in the knowledge that both Nyasaland and Kenya will face insuperable financial difficulties unless the Government can continue to help them in this way to meet their commitments after independence I sincerely hope that this is an aspect of policy with which the Government will ultimately agree.
I should like to say one word about the expatriates, the British civil servants in Nyasaland. It is said in the White Paper that the scheme of compensation for overseas officers will be negotiated with the Nyasaland Government. It will take a very long time to train Africans to take the place of British officers in Nyasaland which, from that point of view, is far the most backward of the three territories. I hope that whatever scheme is worked out it will not offer more attractive terms for these British officers to retire with their compensation than to continue in the service of the Nyasaland Government.
The other point is this. It would be grossly unfair, in my view, to expect such a poor country as Nyasaland to pay even half the amount required for compensation, which is what we have done in Uganda and which was the usual practice up to the present time. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will offer either to meet the whole cost of compensation or at least to give Nyasaland a long-term loan at a nominal rate of interest to cover its share of the cost. That is all I have to say about Nyasaland, except that we are all delighted that Nyasaland is making such steady and satisfactory constitutional progress and that now there is an African Government in Nyasaland conditions there are peaceful and entirely satisfactory.
A word now about Northern Rhodesia. The elections in Northern Rhodesia have surely sealed the fate of multi-racialism in that territory. The voting went on strictly racial lines. Sir John Moffat and his Liberal Party have vanished from the scene, after failing to secure a single seat. Ten of the so-called "national" seats, which require a minimum of votes from both races, remain vacant after the second time round. The case of that distinguished elder statesman Sir Stewart Gore-Browne is an interesting illustration, just one, of voting on racial lines, because he was standing for U.N.I.P., Mr. Kaunda's Party, in a "national" constituency. He got only 55 European votes, with 5,000 European voters on the roll of the constituency. The present Constitution of Northern Rhodesia was based on the assumption that voting would be non-racial and that, therefore, there would be a balance between the races in the Government of the country and possible participation be-

1155
tween both races in the Executive Council. This assumption has proved entirely false.
The voting has also shown that the Macleod Constitution makes fair representation of the electorate quite impossible. For example, U.N.I.P., Mr. Kaunda's Party, received nearly two-thirds of the votes cast, yet it has fewer seats than the United Federal Party, which is the largest single Party in the Legislative Council. Mr. Kaunda has had the good sense to form a Coalition Government with Mr. Nkumbula, which, of course, put him in a much stronger position to press, as he is now doing, for a new Constitution. This new Constitution should at least represent the will of the majority in Northern Rhodesia as faithfully as the Constitution of Nyasaland. Furthermore, I hope that it will give Northern Rhodesia control, as we have recently done in the case of Nyasaland, over its internal affairs. That would be the logical next step to the constitutional development of Northern Rhodesia. I hope, therefore, that when Mr. Butler goes to Lusaka he will start talks immediately with the Parties in Northern Rhodesia for the next stage of constitutional advance.
Mr. Kaunda, as I know from personal experience—I should like to mention this because he has been attacked in your Lordships' House and I think it is only fair to say that my view is different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Colyton—is a man of great moderation, and I believe that if Her Majesty's Government meet him over secession and a revised Constitution, the two things he wants, then he will guarantee equality and tolerance between the races. I think that he will also, like Dr. Banda, be in not too much of a hurry about independence.
The most important event of all, I think, in Africa, and indeed the most surprising, too, has been the victory last week of the Rhodesian Front in the elections in Southern Rhodesia. Let us be frank; let us be courteous; let us be realistic. This victory is, in my view, a victory for white supremacy, which will call a halt to the concessions to racial equality and non-discrimination made in recent years by Sir Edgar Whitehead and the United Federal Party. I believe that this vote is basically an expression of fear and distrust, fear of African
1156
domination of the Federation, fear of African domination of Southern Rhodesia, fear that Southern Rhodesia may go the way of Tanganyika, Uganda, Ghana and Kenya. I believe that was the basic thing behind the minds, or rather the emotions—because the emotions are far more important than other mental processes—in determining how people voted. Sir Edgar Whitehead talked of African majority rule within fifteen years. Now that danger—speaking from the point of view of the supporters of the Rhodesian Front—has been averted for the foreseeable future. The Land Apportionment Act will not be repealed. There will still be separate benches in the parks for blacks and whites. It is important for us to understand that this is the point of view of the average Englishman, the average English woman, in Southern Rhodesia.
All the 35 seats won by the Rhodesian Front were won by Europeans in European constituencies. Out of the 29 seats won by the United Federal Party, which on the face of it is a fairly narrow majority, only 15 were won by Europeans; the remaining 14 seats went to Africans standing in African constituencies representing no more than a handful of African voters, because the great majority of Africans responded to the appeal to boycott the election, and I do not believe more than 1,000 or so recorded their votes in the African constituencies. This shows an overwhelming, European support for the Rhodesian Front, but also of course, unfortunately, the hostility and repugnance towards it of even the few Africans who defied the Z.A.P.U. boycott and gave their votes. But, while the growth of non-racialism in Southern Rhodesia has been halted, it will be difficult for the new Government to introduce fresh measures of racial discrimination.
The new Constitution provides effective safeguards against discriminatory legislation. But of course everything will depend, as it always does, on the spirit in which the Constitution is worked. We shall only know that after the new Government has been in office for a reasonable period of time. The new Ministers are untried men without administrative experience, and I am sure we all wish that they should be given a fair chance of showing what they can

1157
do for their country. After all, a team can be judged only by its performance. One can judge the performance of an untried team, like the team of Ministers in Southern Rhodesia, only by giving them the chance to show how much they can do for their country. I am sure, incidentally, that we are all glad that a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, is among their Ministers. I hope we shall hear a great deal about this from the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, and I shall stand to be corrected, certainly in the minds of most of your Lordships, if his view differs from mine. Although primarily I believe the Rhodesian Front stands for white supremacy in Southern Rhodesia and for a society based on racial separateness or segregation, it also represents a revolt against Whitehall, against British colonial policy.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has told us often—and I have no doubt this will be among the things he will tell us this afternoon—that the white Rhodesians feel they have been let down, or perhaps even betrayed, by Her Majesty's Government. I believe he is perfectly right. I think that is one of the reasons why they voted as they did. This means that the new Government will press more urgently than did its predecessor for independence for Southern Rhodesia. And here I am sure Her Majesty's Government will show a great deal of respect and a good deal of firmness. In any event, Southern Rhodesia cannot become independent while it is in the Federation, and it will take a considerable time even if the Government were to adopt our policy, which I dare say it will not do immediately, for the Federation to dissolve. But when the time comes to consider independence for Southern Rhodesia we surely can say that we cannot discharge our responsibility for both races in Southern Rhodesia, unless something is done between now and then to lessen our fear of a head-on collision and to remove or lessen tension between the races.
Our judgment on the timing of independence must therefore turn on race relations, and primarily on race relations in Southern Rhodesia. The new Government could help us, and I think themselves, in this way, by repealing some of the repressive measures of their
1158
predecessor. And, of course, it is much easier for them to do it than for another Government of the same Party. They could also remove the restrictions on Mr. Nkomo and other leading members of his Party, and release all political detainees who cannot be charged with complicity in acts of violence. If they desired—and I hope that this is a matter which they will consider—to give a constitutional outlet to African political aspirations, to prevent those aspirations from going underground, as they are otherwise bound to do, they could then remove the ban on ZAPU, the principal African Party. These are all things which, if done, would contribute to better race relations.
Another fact that we are bound to point out to the new Government in Southern Rhodesia is that our responsibility for their external relations means that we shall continue to have to answer for them at the United Nations if there is any deterioration in race relations, and, indeed, if there is not any distinct improvement. That is as awkward for us as it is for Southern Rhodesia; because we get blamed for a policy which is repugnant to the majority of members of the United Nations, and to most of world opinion, although, of course we cannot control this policy and have no say in it. To put in a nutshell what I am suggesting to the Government, I think we should show the Southern Rhodesian Government that we are willing to help; that we are willing to co-operate, especially with the economy of their country which has already run into serious difficulties, but that there must also be a willingness on their part to meet us half way on matters which are our concern as well as theirs.
Finally, my Lords, let me say this. I believe that the initiative in all these matters, federal and territorial, should continue at the moment to come from us. But whatever we do should be done obviously after the fullest consultation with the federal and territorial leaders and, if possible, with their agreement. I am therefore more than delighted that Mr. Butler is himself going to Central Africa at the beginning of next year. I cannot imagine any better way of achieving the object I have just stated than for Mr. Butler to pay this visit, and to have

1159
intimate private talks with the federal leaders and with the political leaders in all the three territories. We wish him the utmost success in dealing with what he himself has described as the most difficult and intractable problem in the whole of his political life. On his success depends the reputation of this country as a Colonial Power, and the fate of all three races in Central Africa. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.12 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to extend my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on his speech. This Motion comes, I think, at a most opportune moment, because we go into Recess to-morrow and we have had the benefit of a wide and well-informed survey by the noble Earl and also of some wise counsel; and no doubt the same will be true of many other speeches which we shall hear this afternoon.
It seems to me that with the statement to-day we have come to a parting of the ways in Central Africa. From this statement we learn that Nyasaland will be allowed to withdraw from the Federation. I join the noble Earl in welcoming that statement and in congratulating the Government on having had the courage, albeit somewhat belatedly, to make it. One factor which I do not recall the noble Earl mentioning is that the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia meets next month. Mr. Kaunda, the President of the United National Independence Party, will move, and Mr. Nkumbula, the President of the African National Congress, will second a Motion calling for Northern Rhodesia to secede from the Federation. So that is two of the component parts of the Federation: one is being permitted to secede, and the other will call upon Her Majesty's Government next month to allow her to secede. As your Lordships know, the two Parties I have mentioned form the first African Government in Northern Rhodesia, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the British Government will agree—I cannot see how they can do otherwise. Once they have allowed Nyasaland, rightly, to secede, they cannot prevent Northern Rhodesia from seceding. This means that the statement to-day is the death knell of the Federa
1160
tion: in other words, the days of illusion are over. Those who wrapped themselves up in a comfortable illusion are now left naked to the winds of change. They can say good-bye to the tine, misguided hopes of the British Government and the Conservative Party so far as this Federation is concerned.
This is not unexpected. Like the noble Earl, I do not wish to spend any great length of time in going back into the past; but I think I must spend a little time, as he has done, and I would recall to your Lordships that in Parliament, outside Parliament, and not least in this House, the Government were warned years ago—in fact nine years ago, of the danger of forcing federation against the will of the Africans. We had a powerful debate in this House, which those of your Lordships who were Members at that time will remember, on the 1st and 2nd April, 1953. In the course of that debate Lord Noel-Buxton, the Lord Bishop of Chichester, my noble friend Lord Rea, Lord Ammon, Lord Winster, Lord Hemingford, the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, Lord Faringdon and the noble Earl, Lord Longford (or Lord Pakenham, as he then was), all warned the Government against the imposition of federation. That was a pretty powerful team, I would say, although noble Lords were speaking from different parts of the House. For example, Lord Hemingford was, and is, a Conservative peer.
Speaking on April 1 for the official Opposition, I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 181; col. 512]:
"In conclusion"—
this was the view of the Opposition at that time—
"I beg the Government to pause while there is yet time, and not to blunder on with this plan, irrespective of African wishes. And I say to the Government: 'Pause until you can take Africans with you. If you cannot do that, drop the plan'. It would involve no loss of prestige—indeed, the Government would gain prestige. To go the other way means disaster: disaster for the Africans and disaster for us"
Who can say that either I or the other noble Lords who pressed that point of view at that time were wrong? In fact we have been proved right.
As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said, we now have two African nationalist Governments representing a

1161
majority of the population in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, and we have a Right Wing, white Government in Southern Rhodesia representing a small proportion of the population, although of course an important one. I am given to understand that the Rhodesian Front, led by Mr. Winston Field, is supported by about 40,000 European voters out of a population of some 300,000 whites and 3½million others. Of the Opposition in Southern Rhodesia, half of the members of the United Federal Party, led by Sir Edgar Whitehead, were elected in African constituencies with 1,500 votes in all, six of them being elected with fewer than 100 votes apiece. As the noble Earl said, no doubt that was due to the African boycott. Some of Mr. Field's followers, so it is reported, undoubtedly favour apartheid.
So much for the past; so much for the present. Now what about the future? The first problem that is presented is what replaces the Federation from an economic point of view. This is of the utmost urgency and importance. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and I fully support the advice he has given to the Government—namely, that we must strive to create a common services organisation as in East Africa, to replace the economic services and to take over the economic commitments of the Federation. I think that is of vital importance. I am not sure whether this is the view of Her Majesty's Government, because in the statement to-day, although we have not had a great deal of time to consider it, this particular portion arouses some concern—namely,
"Many matters will need to be examined and negotiated, including in particular those arising from the Nyasaland Government's obligation to bear its due proportion of the Federal debt, and to assume its proper responsibilities, financial and otherwise, in respect of the problems which may arise over the transfer of present Federal functions"
I am very much hoping that in regard to economic affairs these responsibilities and functions will be continued by some sort of common services organisation rather than be split up. I should have thought it is physically impossible, certainly most inconvenient, to try to split them up among the various territories. They have developed as a whole their posts, services, telegraphs, airlines, and all the rest of it, and I should think it would be most difficult to split
1162
them up. How do you split up an airline? I should not like the task of doing it. I am sure, as is the noble Earl. Lord Listowel, that the financial aspect will loom large, and if the Nyasaland Government has to bear a proportion of the federal debt and to assume responsibility for federal commitments, I know who is going to bear that burden: the British taxpayer. Nyasaland will be quite unable to bear a liability of that kind. It is a completely undeveloped, poor country. How on earth is it going to bear a burden of this kind, in addition to the normal budgetary problems which it has to carry?
The next problem is as to what politically is to replace the Federation. I have no doubt that Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia will follow the normal colonial pattern, and, in my view, no special constitutional or political problems will arise. There are a lot of difficulties, but no special problems, because they are basically colonial territories which have achieved, or are achieving, self-government and which will achieve independence.
When one comes to Southern Rhodesia, it is a different matter. It is still a Colony, and Great Britain is still responsible for it at the United Nations and before world opinion. But what is its future with, as is the case to-day, a small group controlling it? Already I see, according to the Daily Telegraph, that Mr. Kaunda has threatened to impose a barrier between Northern and Southern Rhodesia to stop imports of manufactured goods, unless Mr. Nkomo is released by Mr. Winston Field. All Sorts of problems of that kind can arise. It is our duty—and when I say "our duty", I mean the duty of the British Government—to bring statesmanship to bear in order that there shall be consultation and co-operation with Rhodesians in all sections of the community in Southern Rhodesia, especially with the leaders of the overwhelming majority of the African people: that is to say, the leaders of the African Nationalist Party, some of whom are now in detention.
I do not by any means think that all is lost in Southern Rhodesia. We have to start again, with fresh hope and a fresh outlook, and must ensure that the people of the territory shall have just as

1163
much right to exercise their political judgment and just as much political power as people in other territories. That will mean, of course, an African Government in Southern Rhodesia. That is what Her Majesty's Government will strive to bring about. I think that the British Government must not be deflected by the interests of a small minority, however important economically that minority is.
There are wild rumours in Salisbury, according to the Press, that the Rhodesian Front is likely to resort to open defiance of the British Government's colonial policy and to retain, at all costs, white supremacy. I doubt that. It will be interesting to hear what the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, has to say on this matter, but I very much doubt if that is so. It must be remembered that, in the last resort, the Government of Southern Rhodesia is entirely dependent upon British power, and none other, to support its measures. It is the British Government that is behind it, whatever it does. I think that the British Government could insist on the implementation by the Southern Rhodesian Government of the human rights legislation which is in the Constitution and the repeal of the Land Apportionment Act, and on doing away with the surviving vestiges of racial discrimination.
I should like, as I have done previously, to thank Sir Edgar Whitehead for what he has done in those fields. He has never had a great deal of credit for what he has done, and he did not go as far as many of us would like, but he did go some way—and it is because he did so that he was rejected in the recent elections. Unless these various measures are reformed then neighbouring African States will react sharply against them; and they can be, as one can imagine, fairly drastic reactions too. I think we should insist on the reform of the franchises both in Northern and Southern Rhodesia, so as to do away with the fancy, loaded systems which exist there—matters of high complication which appear to work out so that the people with the majority of votes do not get the majority of seats. If the British Government do not do these things, then we shall be regarded by world opinion as living in Central
1164
Africa not under the Southern Cross but under the "Double Cross".
Before I conclude I should like to says a word or two about the Congo, which, so far as I can recall, the noble Earl did not mention but which is very important in this context. What is the situation between Katanga and Northern Rhodesia? I have heard that just recently Mr. Tshombe has met Mr. Nkumbula and Mr. Kaunda in Northern Rhodesia. I do not know what they decided, or whether they decided anything. There is no reason why they should not meet; they control neighbouring territories and it is advisable for such people to meet to discuss matters. I have no objection to it at all, and I think that it is an interesting development.
The United Nations has suggested that Katanga copper and cobalt should be exported through the Port of Matadi so as to obtain revenue from it. We are very interested in this proposal, because Northern Rhodesia, as a present outlet for Katanga copper and cobalt, will be affected. In fact, if there is any forceful attempt to stop the export of copper and cobalt, we shall be expected to assist by blocking that route. We are also interested as taxpayers because we are one of the countries paying very heavily for the Congo operations. Several countries—Soviet Russia, France, Belgium, Portugal and others—pay nothing towards these operations. I believe that those countries which pay nothing should have no vote or say in regard to what happens in the Congo or in regard to other actions which may arise from the Congo; otherwise we shall find that those who do not pay the piper will call the tune.
The Congo involves a great crisis of confidence in the United Nations. I feel that we should give the Secretary-General all the support we can, in cooperation with the Government of Northern Rhodesia. The United Nations is a human institution and therefore fallible, but it is one of the main hopes for the world so far as earthly instruments are concerned. We must not let it go the way of the old League of Nations. I am quite sure that Mr. Kaunda will fully share this view; and our attitude in Northern Rhodesia, and his,

1165
may have a very important effect upon the future of the United Nations.
My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in wishing well to these new Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I hope that with statesmanship and with courage the British Government will be able to bring these three territories into the future in a democratic manner, with great benefit and prosperity to their people.
4.31 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in the remarks with which he introduced his Motion this afternoon, and the noble Lords Lord Ogmore, who has followed him have welcomed warmly the statement on the future of Nyasaland which was made earlier this afternoon by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is of course fully entitled to his views; and we all, if I may say so, respect his sincerity, even if we differ widely from his conclusions. But to many of us, I am sure, this debate is, in one respect at any rate, the most painful of all those that we have had in this House during the short but troubled history of the Central African Federation. For we have been told this afternoon that Her Majesty's Government have decided unilaterally to agree principle to the secession of Nyasaland from the Federation. That, my Lords, was the one thing which the Conservative Government, at the time when the Federation was set up in 1953, pledged themselves not to do. This has been plainly stated by the Federal Government, and it will I am sure be confirmed this afternoon by the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, who was the main delegate of the Rhodesias at the Conference and, as we all know, is a statesman most highly respected in the whole Commonwealth, with his stalwart sincerity and integrity.
My Lords, I too, can confirm what was said at that Conference, for I also was a representative of Her Majesty's Government at it. I have been at pains to refresh my memory as to what happended there, and I can assure your Lordships that there can be no doubt at all that British Ministers at the Con-
1166
ferenoe gave most explicit assurances that the Constitution of the new Federation that was being set up would not be liquidated without the free assent of all the Governments concerned; and that included the Federal Government. Yet, my Lords, that is just what has been done by the statement we have heard to-day.
It may, of course, be argued that to-day's statement does not of itself bring the Federation to an end. But that, if I may speak plainly, I believe to be a completely specious argument. If it does not actually bring the Federation to an end, it goes a very considerable way towards it. For not only must it be obvious to anybody that the action that Her Majesty's Government have now announced, in cutting out from the body politic of the Federation one of its main members, must strike a severe blow at the existence of the whole institution, but also, what I think is even more important, it may well, whatever the Government statement says, by creating a precedent open the door to similar action in the case of Northern Rhodesia. I think that is a point already mentioned by the noble Earl. If Northern Rhodesia, too, were excised from the Federation, the Federation would automatically cease to exist.
Nor in my view is there any more validity in the argument, if that be advanced, that legally and constitutionally it is within the competence of any Parliament in this country to undo what has been done by preceding Parliaments. No doubt from the strictly legalistic point of view that is perfectly correct; but it does not, I suggest, provide ground on which any self-respecting country could stand in practice. For if it were generally applied, it would deal a death blow to the whole principle of the sanctity of treaties and other international engagements, which is, as we all know, the main base on which peace, and indeed civilisation itself, rests. Especially, I think, is that true of this country of ours, where our whole moral position in the world has always rested on the fact that our word was our bond.
Why then have the Government done in the present instance a thing so contrary to our whole traditions? One can only conclude that it is because they

1167
have more recently involved themselves in some conflicting obligation with Dr. Banda. They are, in fact, in the uphappy position of having to break their word to somebody, and they find it less embarrassing to break their word to their own kith and kin than to him. But even if that be the case—and one can understand their dilemma—could they not have asked him to wait for just one month before claiming his pound of flesh? It may well be that, if and when the assurances were given to Dr. Banda, Ministers had forgotten how binding were the earlier pledges which were given in 1953. One can understand that. But now that they do know about them, surely they could have asked him to wait just those few weeks. That should have been enough to save them from charges of bad faith, for I understand that in less than a month's time, at the end of January, Mr. Butler is to visit the Federation, and the whole position could then have been discussed with all the Governments concerned, just as was envisaged in the White Paper of 1953.
Who knows, my Lords, whether, had that been done, some new relationship between the constituent states of the Federation could not have been worked out, which would have commanded general assent? For everyone, I think, agrees—I would agree with this as much as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, does—that, things having reached this pass, changes, and possibly major changes, are now necessary. There would, at any rate, have been a fair chance of negotiating what I think is now called a package deal, which might have secured the assent, if not the enthusiastic assent, of all concerned. But all the prospects of negotiating such a package deal have, I suggest, been inevitably gravely prejudiced if one of the main elements of a bargain has been given away before the negotiations begin; and Her Majesty's Government ought to have known that.
That being the case, I repeat: Could Dr. Banda not have been asked to wait until Mr. Butler's visit in January? Perhaps he was asked and perhaps he refused. But in this case, where our good faith was involved, could we not have insisted? Surely, my Lords, that would have been the right and proper thing to do. And even if the talks in January failed, the situation would have
1168
been no worse than now, and we should at any rate have honoured those obligations we undertook in 1953. It is, of course, possible that the Government regarded the Federation as dead, anyway—although I am sure we were all glad to note (and I would put this especially in the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel) that Mr. Field, in his first speech, said that he would not take the initiative in breaking the Federation. Yet in the light of what has happened in Southern Rhodesia over the week-end, no one can now rule out the end of the Federation. It could happen.
For it must be clear to everyone—and I think this is almost the only point on which I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—that the Government's policy in Central Africa has failed, and failed disastrously. With all the shifts and shuffles, with all the chopping and changing that we have seen, what has it achieved?—the establishment in two States of the Federation of Governments wedded to the domination of the black man, and in the third of a Government wedded to the domination of the white man. The only political leaders who seem in a fair way to being driven into the political wilderness, at any rate for the time being, are Sir Roy Welensky and Sir Edgar Whitehead—the two men who have stood throughout unflinchingly for that true non-racialism which I have always understood to be the official policy of Mr. Macmillan's Government.
No wonder, my Lords, the Rhodesians feel disillusioned. The vote in the Southern Rhodesian elections this week-end must, in my view, be regarded not as a vote against Sir Roy Welensky or against Sir Edgar Whitehead. To quote the words of the Times' Salisbury correspondent in an article he wrote in their issue on Monday, it was a vote against outside;
"interference in their internal affairs";
against all the meddling and the muddling to which they have been subjected in the last few years. They have seen, those Rhodesians in the Northern Territories of the Federation, Constitution after Constitution scrapped almost before the ink on them was dry. They have seen something to which I am afraid the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is wholly blind: Kenya dying economically before their eyes, facing an immense

1169
disaster, and possibly civil war. They feel that they themselves are on a very slippery slope, and they have decided to call a halt to this interference from outside. Whether they are right or whether they are wrong, that is what they have done. And none of us yet knows what can be saved from this hall, against British colonial policy.
Some people, I notice, reading in the Press, seem bleakly to say, "But the whole conception of a Federation is doomed"; and no doubt there may be a very considerable measure of truth in that, so far as the Federation in its original form was concerned. But, personally, I refuse to take so defeatist a view as that. I still hope that it may be possible to create some interrelationship between the territories of Central Africa. I take it that Mr. Butler's visit to the Federation will still take place—indeed, it is probably more necessary now than ever it was; and it may be that Dr. Banda, who speaks for Nyasaland, and Mr. Kuanda and Mr. Nkumbula, who speak for Northern Rhodesia, may be brought to see the advantages of a continued co-operation between States so interdependent as those of Central Africa. And Mr. Winston Field, whom I know as a sincere and patriotic man, will, I am sure, do his best to induce counsels of moderation among the more extreme of his supporters. In addition, they will, of course, have the support, if I may say so, of that great man Sir Roy Welensky, who, in spite of what is said about him in this country, has always been the champion of moderation in Central Africa.
Finally, there is Mr. Butler himself, who has long experience of negotiations of all kinds and who has not been personally involved, except as a member of the Government, in the errors of the past. He, one can be sure, will do his best. I do not pretend that the good impression he had previously made during his visit to the Federation will not have been tarnished, in the eyes of Rhodesians, by his action this week in advising Her Majesty's Government unilaterally to agree to the secession of Nyasaland. That is inevitable, since it means a conflict with all the solemn undertakings on which they were relying and which were entered into between all the Governments concerned in 1953.
1170
But one must recognise that he may have had this position wished on him by his predecessors, and one may fairly hope that it will not provide a precedent, and will not be regarded by him in particular as providing a precedent, for similar action in the future. In that spirit, I think we can all bless his visit.
But, my Lords, I am very sure that there is a lesson which we simply must learn from these melancholy events if we are not to drift into yet further disaster. It is the same as that which, I believe, our country had to learn so painfully at the time of our troubles with our American colonies 200 years ago—and I would say this in particular, if I may, to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. In dealing with remote places where conditions are so very different from our own, we must not always smugly assume that we who live many thousands of miles away know better than those who live on the spot what is the right way of tackling their policies and their problems; what is the right pace for them to advance. That, I believe, is an essential lesson for all of us; and if we do not learn that lesson now, after this experience, I sadly fear that all we stand for and have worked for in Africa will disappear into the limbo of the past, and the wind of change will end by blowing us all away.
4.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT MALVERN: My Lords, I have come quite a long way just to say one thing. When I saw the Motion which was on your Lordships' Order Paper, I was reminded of the fact that there has been a very bad attack of amnesia over recent years in this country which has caused nearly all our troubles. I know that there was considerable opposition in certain circles to the formation of a Federation—you get that in every Parliament. But what was always stressed was that this opposition all came from the African people. As a matter of fact, the number of Africans who opposed it was comparatively small, and the number of Europeans in Southern Rhodesia who opposed it (they are now in power) was also comparatively small. I have said that I have come over to say one thing, and it is this. As one of the principal delegates to the Federal Conference, and one whose signature was necessary to enable the Federation to be brought about, I wish

1171
to say that if I had known that all that had been decided in committee was to be repudiated by the British Government, I would never have signed.
The strange part of it is that I do not think there is any viciousness in what they have done. I think it is their system of Government. For many years, as some of your Lordships know, I had to carry on negotiations with this country and its Government as Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. Secretaries of State, of course, at the beginning, seemed to change fairly frequently, but there was one feature of stability which was that the permanent staff stayed for quite a long time in the same office. That has all been changed. I mention that because, how did it come to pass that the Prime Minister of England allowed the Monckton Commission to inquire into the question of secession? The noble Marquess has already told you that we spent two or three days discussing the wording of the review clause to make perfectly certain that the question of secession could not be discussed when once the Federation had been brought about—and, after all, it is just common sense. You cannot possibly carry on a federal system if any one of the States can blackmail you. The thing was very ably put, as you would expect, by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, in his Memoirs, when he described how, at the Nigerian Federal Conference, he insisted that the question of secession, once Federation had been brought about, could not be discussed again.
My Lords, it is quite true that in our discussions I do not think we ever thought that any of the States would try and blackmail the Federal Government and break it up. But we had another great anxiety and that was, how were we going to make this new State creditworthy? We all agreed—the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was for most of the time in the chair, and Lord Chandos and Lord Swinton assisted to their utmost—to ensure we got wording whereby no question of secession could possibly take place. Then why would the Prime Minister of England give the Monckton Commission permission to discuss secession? I believe him to be an honourable man; it simply means he was never informed. He went off on his own, but he has caused the present impasse. It all
1172
dates from then. And the situation has deteriorated almost weekly because these ambitious gentlemen who wanted to become kings of the castle or Messiahs or something like that cottoned on to that, and the whole thing has gone on because of the fact that they have only to be a sufficient nuisance and they will have the right to get out of the Federation to which they belong.
We have heard this afternoon that it would be a good idea to have again something like the Central African Council or the East African Commission. Well, of course, the Central African Council was unilaterally torpedoed by Southern Rhodesia. There is not much stability there. The only reason why the High Commission in East Africa has not been torpedoed is that they had until recently not had any sovereign, independent Government concerned in it. There was still an element of control from the United Kingdom. How long it will last when that is withdrawn it is impossible to guess. The noble Earl who introduced this Motion thought, or hoped, that something could be rescued and there could be some arrangement other than federation by which the economic and administrative relationships could continue. Hopeless!You cannot have these things. They cannot work unless there is some constitutionally-formed body that has the power; and if they have the power the constituent parties could not be in a position to blackmail them and destroy them whenever they feel like it.
As I have already told your Lordships, naturally I am not disappointed at what has happened because I realise that other people have messed it up. But I am disappointed when one finds a country like the United Kingdom letting us down in this way. There is a possibility, of course, that some of it was deliberate, because you have to remember that, at any rate since the beginning of the century, it has been the traditional policy of the United Kingdom Government to make certain that she is on friendly terms with the majority of other nations; and she has allowed nothing to stand in the way of achieving that end. I will not go through some of the incidents that have happened in the world in the last fifteen years which show that policy is still the policy they have adopted. The unfortunate Southern Rhodesians, and

1173
others, have been accused from time to time in this country of racial prejudice. There, again, I should like to put the blame where it lies, because I know it is customary now to say there is no racial prejudice here, it could not exist. Racial prejudice started in this country. It was rampant when I was a young man living in this country and I do not see why I should deny it because, after all, I am quite convinced it is one of the terrible things which will be the very last to be eliminated on the earth before Man can be perfected and all men become members of one nation. I believe it is almost a religion.
In spite of that, we can overcome it and gradually educate the people to drop it. For myself, I have no difficulty. As a medical student in London I worked with all sorts of colours. I never had any prejudice against them. I merely regarded them as curios. I remember that. There was no racial prejudice in it at all. In our part of the world, particularly in Southern Rhodesia, it is not so much racial prejudice to-day as social prejudice. I realise that your Lordships on the Benches here might think that is worse—I do not know.
The recent election in Southern Rhodesia was almost a natural reaction. We got them to accept the new Constitution. It was a great battle but it was won two to one. Your Lordships may wonder why we who have retired took part. It is very difficult to retire completely in our part of the world; and I did take part in that campaign, and we persuaded the people, largely European, to accept that Constitution. What did it contain? Among other things, apart from the Charter of Rights and so on, it contained a provision which would ultimately (and nobody could say when) hand over the control of Southern Rhodesia to the African people Nobody seems to remember that. It was a tremendous advance. How soon? Only a crystal gazer could tell this. I am inclined to think that the late Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia unnecessarily fixed a date. He said fifteen years, and I think that was one of the things that probably drove a bit of a nail in his coffin. It was not necessary to mention the period. It was accepted that as we could afford to spend more money on the education of the African people, they
1174
would be in the majority before very long.
It was not a question, under that system, of having African supremacy. The idea was that in this period while more and more of them were qualifying, we should get together; we should goven together; we should understand one another. Therefore when the time came for the Africans to be in the majority on the electoral roll they would no longer, neither the Europeans nor the Africans, vote on colour. It is all very tragic that this has been upset. I am not particularly worried about the change in Southern Rhodesia. It was a natural reaction. They had been very good at the referendum and done the right thing, and I think they were asked to swallow rather too much in one gulp at the general election. However, there were many considerations. This was not the only one. I am sorry to come back to the same whipping boy, but a good deal of what has been said in this country was responsible for the result. After all, the people out there can read. Papers and telegrams are published and all the unpleasant remarks made about them, just when they thought that they had been rather good, had their effect. You in this country are partly responsible for the result.
However, they are not much of a show. I do not think they will last very long. I think that they will be lucky to last two years. Perhaps it is a good thing to have somebody else in power occasionally: it is part of the system. I was asked by a newspaper reporter, before I left home, what I thought of this, and I replied, "This is democracy in action. We are not supposed to have one Party. We can have one Party only when the Government is not sufficiently advanced to realise that there must be more than one" Of course, all these African Governments have gone in for one Party. They could not work any other system. It is not in their make-up. They do not understand it
I have noticed some of the things they do not understand at the University College at home, where we are educating Europeans and Africans together. It only highlights the problem. The Africans play soccer; the Europeans play rugger. The Europeans have "rags"

1175
and the Africans think they are mad for not studying. We get all this sort of thing, and it takes time. I am afraid that everything is being rushed on the altar of keeping in with the majority of the other nations of the world. That, to-day, means UNO—phew!a body that breaks its own rules, as often as not, and goes to war in the Congo for the sake of peace! It has to go on. We need something. I do not want to be too tough about that. We have to have something to fall back on, but it is not shaping very much better than its predecessor.
What was feared at the time of federation, especially by those in the Protectorates, was that reactionary Southern Rhodesia would hold up the development of a united Africa. Of course, those of us who have taken an interest will know what a tremendous advance has taken place, not only economically, but also socially and politically. It has been a tremendous success: and if it had been allowed to simmer a bit longer that success would have lasted and we should have had a wonderful state in what was, only 70 years ago, savage Africa.
I should like to detain your Lordships a little longer, if I may, to pay a testimonial to those Africans who stood by Whitehead in the last election: they practically took their lives in their hands. But what is of extreme interest is that they all got in, except in one constituency, where we had a rather eccentric European, who I think had 46 votes and got in by 4, while 650 other voters in the constituency, practically all Africans, did not vote at all. From time to time those Africans who are prepared to co-operate are called "stooges". I suppose that some of your Lordships heard of one African police reservist who recently, not five miles from Salisbury, while cycling back to his place of work, was seized by four other Africans, thrown down, had petrol poured over him and was burned to death. I say, "some stooges," people who will stand up against that sort of thing. There is a very large friendly section of Africans who could have been brought on, as they are being brought on, and made this federal scheme work.
I am not going to speak much longer, but I would say this before I sit down.
1176
The main thing is that in the course of her general policy Great Britain has repudiated a signed Agreement by making this statement this afternoon. I have a copy of the minutes, but I am not quite sure if they are secret or not—it does not matter. I do not expect some of the other noble Lords who were there to get up and support me. We are far too near a General Election in this country at the present time. And I have no particular feelings about either side. I have worked officially for them both and have found them on both sides a mixed bag. You get good and bad Secretaries of State. You get knowledge-able ones and ignorant ones—just a cross-section of the people.
Many of us have a tremendous admiration for the new First Secretary. We believe that he is a man of integrity, who has a tremendous experience and has displayed great ability. We hope that he is coming out in January, in spite of the statement made to-day, to see whether he can possibly get something out of this mess and get them together again. Of course, we are all assuming, after hearing the statement, that Dr. Banda will secede. I do not know. Some people, as soon as they get the right to do a thing, give it up. It ceases to be a hobby. So we cannot tell what his views are. But I must say that the African scene to-day is quite weird. There is a Messiah in the West, but then there is only one Party there. Again, we have Nyasaland led by a Messiah. When I was home earlier in the year I was asked if they were inspired here by the Malawi Party's great victory. I said, "Yes, it is quite clever, but is it quite fair in Party politics to have one Party led by a god?" That is the sort of thing you have to put up with in Africa.
I hope that the First Secretary will come out and try to rescue some of it. I do not think it impossible, so long as they slow up a bit, to produce a reasonable settlement. But all the pressure from the commercial men is to get on with it. A couple of years wasted now in a standstill might solve the whole problem. What is needed is calm and deliberate consultation between all Parties. I believe that we have now reached the stage that, if any Party

1177
refuses to attend a conference, they should be ruled out. Over the last few years we have had this Party and that Party going to London but not going into the Conference. I call that playing a nursery game, and it cannot get anywhere. But unfortunately the British Government rather encourage them: "We cannot go on without all these people in"—and all these people decline again next time. They have every encouragement. I know that some of them think that they can get their way by abstaining. I hope that the First Secretary's State visit will produce something and I hope that it will not be necessary for me to return to this matter. I am getting a bit old, but perhaps I should be here. I have always shown great loyalty to this country and have always thought that the French description of it was very badly placed. I had to live to nearly the age of 80 to find that it was an accurate description.
5.10 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I feel that we should all wish to say how delighted we are to have heard my noble friend Lord Malvern, who, with his usual inimitable charm, has given us a speech of great courage and sincerity. Of all the great debates which have been held in your Lordships' House during the past years on the subject of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland this is certainly the most crucial. We must be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for putting down his Motion, and also for his prescience in fixing the date. It could not have come at a more opportune moment, when these events of the utmost gravity have occurred in Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia, culminating with the statement this afternoon to which I shall revert later.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, we have come to a parting of the ways. The British Government have to take a firm decision now to keep the rest of the Federation in being, though perhaps under a different name and in another form, or to face the consequences which would flow from not doing so. A joint announcement made by Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government in April, 1957, following the talks between my noble friend Lord Home, my noble friend Lord Boyd of Merton, and
1178
Sir Roy Welensky, stated that the progress made by the Federation since 1953
"had justified the hopes of its founders and provided a sound basis for future development of the policy of partnership between the races which the Federation is pursuing."
Where does that policy stand to-day? Thanks to what I am afraid I can only describe as the weakness and misdirection of British Government policy during the past three years; thanks to the pressure of extreme African nationalism and to the sinister intervention of the United Nations, the theory and practice of non-racialism and partnership is dangerously threatened in Central Africa. Non-racialism is the crux of the problem in Central Africa to-day, just as it was in 1960, when the Monckton Report said of the Federation—this was only two years ago—
"To break it up at this crucial moment in the history of Africa would, we believe, amount to an admission that there is no hope of survival for any racial society on the African continent and that differences of colour and race are irreconcilable."
I do not think that that is a thesis which we can accept, any more than the Monckton Commission accepted it two years ago. I believe that it applies equally strongly to-day, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, when he comes to reply for the Government, will be able to give us a categorical assurance that those are the lines on which they still intend to proceed.
To do so, we have to face up to this fact: that the system of Pan-African racialism, which has had such disastrous effects in Ghana and in the Congo, and may, indeed, one day have in East Africa, is simply not acceptable in Southern Africa where a mixed racial society exists and will remain. It is, I submit, absurd to suggest that every African state must be treated exactly alike, on the basis of "One man, one vote" and the now somewhat tarnished export "Westminster model", quite irrespective of the history of the country and its racial composition, its geographical position and state of development. We have an obligation to these countries to achieve genuine political, economic and social progress and prosperity, but not to give way to demands for immediate independence and so-called democracy, if that means chaos and disaster. It seems to me largely because, after the famous "Wind of

1179
Change" speech three years ago, these objectives were abandoned or lost sight of, that the First Secretary of State today finds himself confronted with what he has described as the most intractable problem in the whole of his political career.
However, we have to take the facts as we find them. We have been told this afternoon of the Government's acceptance of the principle of secession for Nyasaland. Whatever the merits or demerits of that proposal, I have to say that I deeply regret the manner and timing of its announcement. My noble friend Lord Salisbury has reminded us of the pledge given by the representatives of Her Majesty's Government at the Conference in January, 1953, to the then Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, my noble friend Lord Malvern, and to other representatives of Southern and Northern Rhodesia. I was present throughout those meetings and I remember very well what was said. The British Government's representatives stated categorically that the federal Constitution could not be liquidated or upset without the concurrence of all the Governments involved.
As regards the legal position, we all heard the views of my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir in our debate in March of this year; and we all know that the Federal Government hold somewhat different views. However, one thing is clear: that in the last resort, as has already been said by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, the British Parliament can do anything it wishes in this respect, in just the same way as it could technically have abrogated the Australian or Canadian Constitution before the Statute of Westminster. But the moral obligation of Her Majesty's Government in his matter is, I submit, absolutely clear. They have no right to undo or loosen the ties of federation without the consent of all the parties to the 1953 agreement.
It really is ironic that Her Majesty's Government, who, together with other Governments, lay such stress on the importance of conforming to the terms of the Loi fondamentale in the Congo when it comes to the secession of Katanga, should act in a totally different
1180
manner when it concerns our own people in the Federation. Whatever private pledge may have been given to Dr. Banda, it could not supersede pledges formally given at the 1953 Conference. Then, again, as my noble friend said, what was the hurry in making this statement this afternoon? Could the Government not have waited until the First Secretary went out to the Federation for talks in three weeks' time, or preferably, perhaps, until a formal conference had taken place? As it is, there is bound to be a further loss of faith in the words and intentions of Her Majesty's Government, which throughout the whole of the past three years have bedevilled our relations with the Federal Government and, indeed, members of all races in Central Africa.
We are vary fortunate, I believe, in having in Sir Roy Welensky one of the outstanding statesmen, not merely of the Commonwealth, but of the whole world. He is a man of complete integrity and high idealism and wholly dedicated to the cause of non-racialism. It seems to me tragic that in these crucial years Her Majesty's Government have not found it possible to walk step by step with him. It is all very well to say that we have obligations to the two Protectorates. Of course we have. But that does not mean that we have any lesser responsibility to the Government of the Federation, which we ourselves established and for the continuation of which we are morally committed.
It was only to be expected that once an extremist-dominated Government was set up in Northern Rhodesia one of their first acts would be to call for secession. This is apparently to be done in a Motion to be moved in the Legislative Council in Lusaka next month. I hope we may have an assurance here to-day that the official members of the Legislative Council will be instructed to vote against that Motion, and I trust that the nominated members Will do likewise. Those of us who wished to see a steady evolution towards self-government in Northern Rhodesia on a non-racial basis by expanding the Lennox-Boyd Constitution have always deplored the makeshift Constitution which finally emerged. But having regard to the results of the election—the United Federal Party, 16; the United National

1181
Independence Party, 14; the African National Congress, 7—it is surely very strange that the Governor did not in the first instance send for the leader of the United Federal Party and call upon him to try to form a Government, particularly as they had an electoral alliance with the African National Congress. Surely, this would be the usual constitutional procedure in this country.
I realise, of course, that in the strictly legal sense the decision is one for the Governor, but I know from my own experience that in practice he is guided by the views of Her Majesty's Government. I recognise fully the task with which the First Secretary is faced, and I am conscious of his earnest and tireless efforts to find solutions, but I feel it was regrettable that he should have seen Mr. Kaunda and Mr. Nkumbula while the final results of the election were still in doubt, without at any rate inviting Mr. Roberts, the Leader of the United Federal Party, to come to see him as well. It was bound to lead to further regrettable and, I think, unnecessary suspicion in Northern Rhodesia and in Salisbury.
Now we have this uneasy alliance between Mr. Nkumbula and U.N.I.P., a Party which he himself told me last spring had organised attacks on his person and which has since been responsible for the death or injury of dozens of A.N.C. members—and, of course, vice versa. I see that it is announced to-day that Mr. Kaunda has been asked by Moscow to report on his policy. It does not surprise me. Although he now says that his Parity is not in any way associated with Russia, the fact remains that Mr. Nkumbula told me last spring that U.N.I.P. had accepted funds from behind the Iron Curtain, and that he himself, on behalf of A.N.C, had had similar offers and had refused funds from the same source. I think we must hope that, as has occurred elsewhere, office will bring a fresh sense of responsibility to these leaders, and that the wiser members of their Parties will help to sway their counsels and the behaviour of their adherents.
I now turn to Southern Rhodesia. Here we have seen, in the election results, the effect of drift and weakness in recent years on the part of the British Government and the extreme demands of
1182
African Nationals. Again and again, I and many others have warned the Northern African leaders that this would follow from their policies and their attitudes. I remember as long ago as 1952 begging Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland not to ignore the interest of their brothers in Southern Rhodesia and to drive that country into the arms of South Africa. I do not say that that has occurred, but I have no doubt whatever that the defeat of Sir Edgar Whitehead—to whom I should also like to pay a very special tribute—was directly due to the combination of events in the Northern Territories, to the vicious attacks made at the United Nations, and to what must appear to Europeans in Southern Rhodesia to be British pandering to African extremists.
I have the highest respect for Mr. Winston Field and many of his associates, whom I am happy to number among my friends, and I feel sure that they will discharge their duties ably and wisely, but it would be useless to deny that this Party and supporters include some white racialists who, to my mind, are just as dangerous as black racialists. It is only a year and a half ago that the Southern Rhodesian referendum, by an overwhelming majority, approved the new Constitution put forward by Sir Edgar Whitehead, with all that that implied in the movement towards the abolition of all racial discrimination. Without in any way wishing to get involved in Southern Rhodesian politics, I think it is tragic that this healthy trend, with such measures coming along as the repeal of the Land Apportionment Act, has been halted or slowed down. In the long view, Europeans and Africans must learn to live and work together, whether in the Northern territories or in Southern Rhodesia; and in order to do so without suffering grave economic, social and, I would say, political troubles, they must also learn to do so within the framework of some sort of association of the three territories, call it what you may.
In the case of Nyasaland, it is primarily in economic matters that some form of association is desirable. The recent Constitutional Conference in London terminated most successfully, and we should all wish to congratulate Mr. Butler and Dr. Banda on this happy outcome.

1183
Dr. Banda has always made it clear that he stood for secession. Although for many reasons—to which I should like to refer briefly—I regret this, the fact remains that Nyasaland is overwhelmingly an African State, and if Dr. Banda and his Party wish to "go it alone" they should be allowed to do so, provided, of course, that the proper constitutional procedure was followed.
I was glad to see from the First Secretary's statement in another place on December 3, that he has received from Dr. Banda a plan for raising finance which is realistic and which will help to alleviate their difficulties in the event of their leaving the Federation. That is all to the good, but there are many other aspects of this economic matter which are open to question. We must not underrate, for example, the really formidable problem of the need for the Nyasas to seek employment outside their own country. In fact, as many as 200,000 out of some 750,000 adult males are employed outside Nyasaland at any one time, including, in 1958, some 123,000 in Southern Rhodesia. Having regard to Southern Rhodesia's own unemployment problems, which are very great, it seems to me essential that close arrangements and agreements should exist between those two countries in this matter. It is here, of course, that the long-established friendship between Dr. Banda and Mr. Winston Field may help to play a useful part. I know that Malawi leaders are sensitive about these matters, and I certainly should not wish to see economic difficulties being used to try to achieve political aims. But we are dealing with the harsh facts of economic life, and for this reason I most strongly hope that new ties of some sort can be negotiated freely between Nyasaland and whatever new form of federation may emerge.
The position of Northern Rhodesia is, at first sight, similar to that of Nyasaland, but there are many very important differences. There is the long, historical connection between the two Rhodesias which, after all, were both developed as a result of the vision and energy of Cecil Rhodes. There is a large white population in Northern Rhodesia, and the copper mines which are the main source of wealth are entirely dependent
1184
upon European skill. Northern Rhodesia's access to the sea lies through Southern Rhodesia, from which it also receives all its coal and most of its electrical power. When copper prices fell in 1958, the effect in Northern Rhodesia was largely cushioned by the more buoyant situation in Southern Rhodesia. In short, the economics of the two territories are complementary, and any attempt to break them up would diminish markets and seriously endanger the credit-worthiness of the whole Federation.
Contrary to what most people believe, it is Southern Rhodesia which would suffer the least from a dissolution of the Federation, but here again a most serious economic setback would certainly occur, particularly in the field of the rapidly-growing secondary industries. It has been suggested by several noble Lords this afternoon that a common services authority, such as exists in East Africa or, perhaps, the revival of the old Central African Council, would fill the bill. I do not for a moment believe that either of these would meet the case. It was because there was no central political power that the original Central African Council failed and the plans for federation were put forward. Then again there is this question of the Federal National Debt. Clearly, as the Monckton Report stated, the United Kingdom would incur heavy liabilities under the Federal loans already guaranteed, and, of course, an additional moral obligation to prevent an economic collapse. The announcement of unilateral action by Her Majesty's Government in regard to Nyasaland which we have heard this afternoon seems to me to lay upon them additional moral responsibilities in this connection.
So, to recapitulate, it is vital, in my view, that the federal structure should be preserved for both political and economic reasons. To allow it to break up would be a tragic and perhaps final blow to the conception of a non-racial society in Southern Africa, with incalculable consequences for the rest of the world. At the same time it would involve a serious and perhaps disastrous set-back to the great economic progress which has been achieved during the last nine years; to an economic progress which has led to a vastly higher standard

1185
of living which, in turn, would suffer.
In my view it is something which we cannot contemplate, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will be able to make it clear to us this evening that it is something that they, too, cannot and will not contemplate. The difficulties are enormous, and the First Secretary has all our sympathy and good wishes in his tremendous task. We can rely on him to put the arguments fairly and squarely to all those with whom he is to have consultations next month. Is it really too much to ask that, whatever the differences there may have been in the past, the necessary goodwill should now be forthcoming from all the political leaders, European and African alike, to enable Mr. Butler to bring this task to a successful conclusion?
5.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I had intended to make certain of not trespassing on your time as I did on the last time I had the honour of speaking, and I wrote out a speech which was duly timed. But it fell into a swimming bath about midday and I had the choice of making the wettest speech I have yet made or doing without notes altogether—and I am doing without notes.
I feel from the tone of this debate that one must ask: where are we going? I thought that we ware all united in seeking to bestow upon Africans, who so evidently and ardently wish it, freedom from colonialism and imperialism; that that was being applied steadily and planned with the idea of the minimum loss of efficiency throughout all the territories of Africa which we control; and that in those territories where there are a small number of white people (the maximum, I think, is one white person to twelve black in Southern Rhodesia) this principle should not be indefinitely held back because those white people, no matter what benefits they have bestowed, do not want it.
Therefore, I am wondering whether, when the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, says, in the case of Southern Rhodesia, that it is a mistake to put a date, he intends readily that the date should be the Greek kalends. That is what most of the Africans fear; and from contacts I have had with Africans I am convinced that the existence of the political element in this Federation has been a
1186
great impediment to gaining their confidence. What are their views on this Federation? They say: "We do not like it. Is not Africa soon going to be ours? Why do you force us into this Federation?" This is the fee-ling I have gathered from discussions with Africans anywhere between the Horn and the Cape. I feel that it is a great impediment to their sense of the speed at which they are gaining freedom. But I do ask what is the meaning of non-racial? What is the meaning of multi-racial? Does it mean a modification of the plain to bestow upon African territories in some good time or other, the Uhuru which they are demanding and which I thought we were preparing to give? Is non-racial a qualifying factor on the programme of independence or is it not?
It seems to me that this freedom which they are demanding is no different from the freedom which my ancestor, Byron, asked for the Greeks, or for which my grandfather, Blunt, was imprisoned in Ireland for speaking in favour of Home Rule. In my early days I thought that Blunt was probably wrong and that Byron may have been wrong. But when I was sent to Ireland to suppress the activities of the Sinn Feinners, and so on, it was one of the great disillusionments of my early youth that the man upon whose head £10,000 had been placed, and who was described to me as one of the bloodiest of murderers and a traitor, should be the man to whom the noble Viscount, Lord Fitz-Allen handed over the keys to Dublin Castle in 1922. Ever since I have wondered: are these so-called Messiahs today who were murderers then?
I have come to the conclusion that these leaders who have appeared in Africa are the people we have to deal with. I hope that any suggestion that this Uhuru—which is not anti-British, not anti-white, not anti-European and, happily, not anti-Christian; but is for freedom and is the same thing that others have been fighting for all over the place—is a Red movement may be discounted by the very appropriate Indian proverb:
"He who finds himself in the mouth of a lion will appeal for help, even to the tiger".
That is a truth. Of course they will go to Moscow if we do not give them what

1187
they want, especially as we have said again and again that it is right. I am wondering whether there is any real difference in this House except a difference of timing. If so, a great deal of the heat that has been exploded might have been less: because if we are agreed so far, then it is only a matter of time before the Africans will get what they want.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that there are federations in mind. There are indeed, and I cannot myself help being aware that the federations that the Africans have in mind are totally different from any of those that we have in mind. At least that is my information. For example, I noted that in the last few days of July this year Mr. Jomo Kenyatta—a man we may not like; who has a standing in African eyes from the Cape to Cairo and is among a small body of people who are national heroes, and one has only to hear the speeches made to him and about him by other Africans to be aware of this—made a speech, which was reported in the Somali News of August 4, giving his ideas of a federation which he had discussed with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Somalia. He said:
"We have touched, as your Prime Minister has just said, on a federation including those territories such as Ethiopia. Somalia. Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Zanzibar, Nyasaland and the two Rhodesias."
He mentioned another territory, which I will mention later, in talking to Press correspondents. There are great obstacles to that particular federation coming off, but it has been discussed by an independent African State with one of the two most prominent leaders in Kenya.
The same thing has, I know, been discussed in Addis Ababa with the Emperor of Ethopia, and at a conference at which Mr. Kaunda was present, that is reported in The Times of February 4, 5 and 8 this year. Why cannot we try to see a federation through African eyes? It seems to me that we as a colonial, imperialist Power have a tremendous influence and great duty in bringing each territory to independence. After that it is not what we say but what the Africans say that counts. Can we not therefore call a conference on a wider basis to include the territories which many Africans have been
1188
talking about as a Federation? It is true there are difficulties: the Emperor of Ethiopia, in spite of his declaration of last February that it was incumbent on the British to apply the principles of constitutional advance in the High Commission territories in a way that has been done elsewhere, is himself an imperialist. The battle is not against anything but imperialism, whether it is black or white or multi-coloured. The Somalis who were over here, and whom we entertained as guests in this country a few weeks ago, said clearly: We are no longer afraid of white imperialism. That is part of our history. We are now grateful. We want to be friends and to continue to be friends".
As your Lordships know, and as I have said before, a great part of their territory is still part of an imperial Power which joined with us and carved it up about 80 years ago. That is the difficulty there. There is the N.F.D., which is a bone of contention between the Somalis and Kenya; between Kenya and Tanganyika lie the Masai, who are cut in half between the two: something should be done for them. The man who has undisputed legal title in the coastal strip of Kenya, is the Sultan of Zanzibar. Going further South there is the Central African Federation, which, in the view of those who regard it as an impediment, is an extraordinary creation. To start with, its name is incredible; it is as far South of the centre of Africa as Khartoum is North; the same distance as between here and Rome, 1,000 miles. It is not African; it is a white creation; it is not a true federation because it has been imposed, and federation implies a measure of equality. Therefore, it is a great relief (I do not accuse anybody) to hear to-day what has been said by the Government.
But there is this bigger thing. Coming to this question of freedom for each territory, there are two points I would make before finishing. The first is this: it is not altogether obvious, or it has not been altogether obvious, that the idea of freedom should have been bounded by boundaries which have been established by the colonial imperialist Powers. I say that it is not obvious, because African politicians have been denouncing those boundaries for years and years, saying that they were wholly artificial. Now they have applied to

1189
them a measure of sanctity, so that it is virtually treason to question them; and that leads to difficulties where an adjustment of boundaries is obviously desirable.
I am impressed with this sense of unity because it is a gift from us to them. Never mind what they say about it. When we went there, even when I went there 40 years ago they were divided, the Masai raided tribes 600 miles from the Wahehe, in the South, to the Boran, in the North; and when they raided they speared every man, woman and child. I had a chief, a colleague of mine—not in raiding—who was a lone raider and did precisely these things, and I had many a discussion with him. But that sort of thing was prevalent throughout whole areas of Africa, in my time. My authorities regarded him as a bloodstained murderer. I reinstated him because his tribe regarded him as a double V.C. and would not elect anybody else. Therefore, we worked together; and he abandoned his habits when I was there.
Shortly after reinstating him I asked him, "What would you do if we were all to leave?" He said, "If you were to leave to-night, to-morrow morning before the sun was up I should be over those hills to the Manyattas land the Suk with my spear". That man became a friend of mine. I am certain he had no further wish after a time to carry on with his old, very hazardous way of life. He called me his brother and walked in front of me garbed in such Western costume as he thought suitable. He insisted on accompanying me to the boundaries of his chieftaincy whenever I went out on safari. His garb was usually a pair of boots and an umbrella.
This unity has been achieved. I give an illustration from Kenya which I know. Sixty-two tribes are virtually united in one administration. That is a tremendous achievement. We have got as far as that, and they regard it as so precious as to call it treason to modify it. It is due to all those incorruptible civil servants who year after year have brought about this change. As a kind of culmination of it I received my first Christmas card from a young African officer of the new 2nd Battalion of the Tanganyika Rifles, which has the same beautiful ribbon as that on my tie, a nice silver elephant and one word:
1190
umoja, unity. That is what we have done there. This principle of freedom must precede federation. That is what every African says—Freedom first, Federation next.
I want to say one other thing in connection with this which echoes what several more learned noble Lords have said, and that is with regard to the Congo. The Kenyatta Federation includes the Congo, although I did not mention it. He omitted it from that particular speech. When we come to the Congo, it is a puzzle to me why we should not apply the principle of uhuru and umoja to Katanga as well as anywhere else. What is the United Nations doing in forcing what is, so far as one can see, an artificially imposed unity—imposing it by force at our expense? Why is this? It seems to me as bad as what is done by the Emperor of Abyssinia in keeping one lot of Somalis from another, who is including Galla, who do not want to be with him at all. It seems a form of transposition of imperialism on to a situation which should be treated quite differently. Why should we not send to Katanga, as we sent to the N.F.D., a Commission to find out what they want before we start shooting them? We have all sorts of dying imperialisms, black in the North, white in the South, and the United Nations on the flank. It is imperialism which is the enemy and not anti-white. Could we not issue invitations for such a Federation of the countries I have mentioned, the Congo if they wish, Katanga separately if it wishes, or discuss this splendid idea of Federation for an area the size of Europe, with the great lakes, the greatest resources of water, which is like gold, deserts which could be improved with water, and with 50 million people in it? The Africans have suggested it; it is not my suggestion. Let us adopt their suggestion instead of fiddling about with our ideas of Federation. Federation is not our business. Uhuru is our business, to give them freedom, and after that it is their affair. I am sure that is right.
5.50 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, a few weeks ago many people in this country were somewhat upset to have a truth, or a partial truth, told them by a candid friend from across the Atlantic, to the

1191
effect that we had lost an Empire and not yet found a role. Any of your Lordships who have listened to the noble Earl who has just sat down would certainly be convinced, if he was not already, that to have lost an Empire in the way that we have lost it is certainly nothing to be ashamed of; in fact, it should be our objective to proceed as fast as we can along the path that we have been travelling since at any rate 1945.
When we cone to the question of the role that we should play in the New World, here again I feel that Mr. Dean Acheson was at fault in saying that we had not found a role. We have found a role. Our rôle surely must be the continuation of freedom, as the noble Earl has just said, and at the same time to help to create and keep together and strengthen the successor to the Empire—in other words, the Commonwealth. It is difficult to define what the Commonwealth actually is. It is a voluntary association of free people. It is something which is held together, though certainly not by any overriding economic interests because many of our interests are at variance with each other. It is not held together by our being of the same colour—we have many colours in the Commonwealth; nor is it held together by race or religion because we have many races and religions in the Commonwealth. It is held together by something far less tangible, perhaps far less recognisable; it is held together, I believe, by an adherence to certain principles, to certain ethical standards in behaviour, in political life, in business, in the whole concept of how free peoples should evolve, how they should develop and what their future should be.
That, surely, is our present rôle, and anyone who says that we have no role at all, or have not found a rôle, must have missed what I hope is an obvious truth to most of your Lordships. But they can, perhaps, he forgiven, for feeling that: because although we have this real rôle in the Commonwealth as the successor to the British Empire, we have unfortunately, and to our shame and our unhappiness, failed to fulfil that rôle in the past ten years, and each time more and more seriously. We have had the failure which not many months ago we were discussing in your Lordships' House, of the West Indian Federation—not such
1192
a serious part of the world, though an important part, and important as an indication of how we were proceeding in this new rôle of ours. More recently, we have had our failure in East Africa, and to-day we are discussing our failure in Central Africa.
Even those of us who have welcomed the decision of Her Majesty's Government which the Lord Chancellor read out to us only recently cannot feel anything but unhappiness and shame, when a statesman with the feeling towards this country and the experience that the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, has, can refer to this country as "perfidious Albion" in the closing words of his speech. As I say, whether one takes the view that the Government have done right or not (and I believe that they have done right), the fact that they have done it in the atmosphere of their own creation, an atmosphere which has given rise to an accusation by an old and valued friend of breaking faith and perfidy must cause us the deepest shame and unhappiness.
Federation itself which is close to the centre of this problem that we are discussing now, is a good idea. It is the right thing to aim at, it is right in Central Africa, just as it was right in the West Indies. But again, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has said, without the full approval of the people who are concerned, it is a useless idea. It must he carried along with the consent and the enthusiasm, as well as the approval of those who are most vitally concerned. That is why I welcome the Government's recognition of the fact that, so long as the three members of the proposed Federation are not willing partners to it, there can be no forcing of this particular issue.
Nyasaland itself, we expect now that it has a democratically elected Government on a full franchise, will soon leave the Federation. Northern Rhodesia is moving in the same direction, both as far as franchise is concerned and, so far as one can see, as far as the wishes of those in the Federation are concerned. But Southern Rhodesia is still a long way behind in this process of democratic evolution. I think we are justified in asking what it is that is different in

1193
Southern Rhodesia which has delayed its progress so far behind that of its two neighbours.
Are the Africans in Southern Rhodesia less worthy of having the vote than those in Nyasaland and those in Northern Rhodesia? Are they more ignorant? If they are—and I very much doubt it—are they in fact more ignorant than the voters in, for instance, the West Indies, where there is already a universal franchise; where there is no literacy test—nothing of the kind at all; where many of the voters cannot read, cannot write and have little idea as to what are the issues when it comes to a general election, and yet have been given a vote? If one really comes down to the point, what about some of our own voters at home? I am afraid that some of them at election time are not always clear what they are voting about. Any of your Lordships having experience as candidates for another place will know this well. I have myself canvassed people and asked them to vote for me and for my Party, and one of the answers which comes to my mind, was "I will give you my vote—anything to get that man Attlee out and Churchill back again." Surely that is not a high example of political intelligence. Yet I have no reason to think that we are not more or less democratically governed here. So, my Lords, I would suggest that you cannot justify the fact that there is no universal franchise in Southern Rhodesia on the ground of ignorance.
You may then justify it on the ground of corruption, or on the ground of intimidation. But, again, let us look a little at our own history. We do not have to go back many years, certainly not further back than the end of the eighteenth century, to find a considerable degree of corruption in our Parliamentary elections, particularly when we had nothing like universal franchise, when the franchise was supposedly restricted to those people who could best exercise that right. As for intimidation, I do not think that occurs in this country at the present time. But it is not many years ago that tenants on farms and in tied cottages were turned out of their farms and evicted from their cottages because they had the temerity to vote Liberal instead of voting for a Conservative landlord in the way he thought right.
1194
So we in this country have had intimidation, perhaps of a rather less violent kind than certain types which are reported to be now going on, and to have gone on, in Africa.
Therefore, my Lords, we surely cannot justify this difference in treatment between the people of Southern Rhodesia and those of any other country on the grounds of ignorance, intimidation or corruption. The real reason, I suggest, why they have been treated differently lies in the fact that for the past ten years the Government of this country have been cowardly. They have not had the courage to face a showdown with those in power in Southern Rhodesia. They have tried to keep in with them, they have tried to keep them happy and satisfied, and it is this very cowardice which has led to the state of affairs that exists to-day, where we have had to run the risk of being accused by people such as the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, of breaking our word. The trouble is that the longer you go on being cowardly, the more courage you need to change your attitude when eventually you come to do so. That time has now come, and the Government, I am glad to say, are at last beginning to show some courage in dealing with this problem. But now they must go on and do more.
I suggest that there are four things we should urge the Government to do, with the least possible delay. First of all— and this, in effect, has been done already—we should abandon federation; but only for the moment: we must not abandon the idea of it. We must still make clear that we hope eventually federation will arise, but we also must make it clear from to-day that none of these three territories will be forced into federation against their will. In this connection the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said words to the effect that we must not smugly assume that we in this country know more than the people on the spot how to run their country in relation to federation. I think that that its true; but, equally, we must not smugly assume that the people in those territories of Central Africa whose skins happen to be the same colour as ours know more about how to run those territories than the people whose skins are a different colour. We must pay heed to the views of all the statesmen, the politician's, the potential voters and others,

1195
but it is the greatest error to pay attention only to the voices of the Europeans and to ignore the voices of the Africans who are in such a very great majority.
The second thing I suggest we must do is to insist on a speedy end to racial discrimination in every form in any territory for which we have any responsibility: discrimination whether of a social kind or whether in regard to ownership of land—discrimination wherever it may arise. I was interested, saddened, but in agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, when he painted out to us that racial discrimination had its roots in this country, and I think it is very much harder for us to adopt the attitude we must adopt in Africa without actually adopting lit in this country as well.
At the same time as insisting on an end to these practices of racial discrimination, we also, in my view, should insist on an end to those practices which curtail political freedom. We must face the fact that in Southern Rhodesia the present time the state of affairs is such that it is not very far removed from a police State. It is an ugly word, a word none of us likes to use, but, my Lards, what is in fact a police State? My definition is that it is a State where the normal writ of habeas corpus does not run; where the ordinary individual does not have unfettered access to the courts to defend his individual freedom, but is subject to Ministerial edict without appeal to the courts; where the police act on behalf of the Minister, and where the individual does not enjoy the protection of the judiciary.
In certain cases in Southern Rhodesia at the present time we are perilously close to that situation. For instance, public meetings may not now be held if there are more than eleven people meeting in a public place, nor are more than 100 people allowed to meet in private. Any appeal against this ban is not to a judge in a court of law, but to the Minister—to the Government itself. There is now a new offence in Southern Rhodesia with a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment—the serious offence of anybody unlawfully ceasing to work or refraining from going to work. That type of interference with the freedom of the individual is some
1196
thing which, I grant, must be allowed at certain periods at times of grave emergency, but it is not an atmosphere which can be allowed to continue month after month, year after year; nor is it the sort of atmosphere in which it is possible to achieve anything like co-operation or confidence in the future, or the right relationship between the different elements, political, social and economic, which is essential if that country is to have any peace and prosperity.
The third point which must be insisted upon by us is a rapid extension of the franchise and a statement that no territory will become independent until it has a full franchise, so that we are quite certain the people have a voice in a Government which is going to demand independence rather than be the voice of a minority Government. Fourthly, we must ensure that the common services, so vital to the economic survival of the area and so vital to any future Federation that may arise, are kept in being. That is a specific, clear responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and must be carried on by them, through agencies, if they like, but with the full acceptance of that responsibility.
My Lords, we all know that the future of these three territories depends, in the long run, upon real co-operation between all the people living in them. The Africans cannot get on without the Europeans; the Europeans cannot get on without the Asians and Africans, and so on. We want them all to remain there; we want them all to work there, and to feel that what work they do gains for them a just reward. But that cannot be achieved until we have removed the barriers which exist at the present time, until we have given confidence (because it has never been there) among the Africans themselves, the overwhelming majority of the people, and shown them that we are intent upon doing them justice and making sure that their standard of living, as well as their freedom, rises at the same time. Our eventual hope must be that the area of federation should be re-established and that it should be enlarged (if not so far as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, envisages, at least to embrace East Africa also) and that there should be some form of free trade area development—not perhaps a common market, because we know the difficulties there, but a political Federation which

1197
will enable that area to play its part in South Africa and also in the British Commonwealth of Nations. That is the role we must take on for ourselves; that is the rôle we have neglected in the past ten years; that is the role we must succeed in carrying out if this country is to have any standing in future in Africa.
6.10 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for having put down this Motion, and my noble friend Lord Malvern for having come all this way to deliver his most admirable speech. He is a man who can say things which many of us would not dare to say, and in a manner which does not seem to offend anybody. However, if I may say so, I think the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is as inappropriate, ill-timed and inept as Mr. Butler's announcement which we heard to-day. Both of them suggest that the men in Westminster know best, and all my experience, which now goes hack 50 years in connection with the Colonial and Commonwealth countries, tells me that it is very seldom that the men in Westminster know best. More usually the men on the spot know best. Here I agree very much with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and with others who indicated that.
I think the principal criticism I make of the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is that it is too soon, precipitate. I was in the House of Commons when Mr. Jim Griffiths sold us the idea that Federation in these territories of Central Africa would be a good thing. I was one of those who helped him to persuade the House of Commons that it was a good idea. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, either did not know that or forgot it when he attached the whole of the blame for all that has happened in Central Africa to the Conservative Party.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I admit that I knew that Mr. Griffiths and the Labour Government at that time supported the administrative preparations that were made for Federation. But I am sure the noble Lord would agree that the Labour Party did not support the establishment of the Federation, and voted in both
1198
Houses against the Bill that set it up in 1953.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, they not merely supported the administrative arrangements, they initiated the idea. So we have Mr. Jim Griffiths starting the idea, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, now telling us to abandon it without any pause for consideration. The Labour Party has indeed made a somersault. But I also agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that the Conservative Party, the Governments we have had in the last ten years since Federation, have shillied and shallied and never been able to make up their minds to give Federation a fair chance.
I was on record, at the time of Mr. Griffiths' initiation of Federation as having said in the House of Commons that sovereign power should then have been transferred to the Federation, and I believe that was the best course that could have been taken at that time. At the time of the Monckton Report I went on record, in this House, as saying that it was a profound mistake for them to discuss secession. At the time that the Report came to this House, I again pleaded that any idea that secession should be a matter for the option of the territories in five years should be abandoned, because it seemed to me quite obvious that it would thereafter become the ordinary platform of every demagogue. "I will bring you the dissolution of federation sooner. Vote for me", must be the cry. I mention these two statements only lest it should be thought that I am being wise after the event. For what it was worth, I was wise, or some would think unwise, before the event in both of these cases.
What are we to do now? I should have thought that we could have waited until Mr. Butler had gone there in only four or five weeks; that he might then have had discussions. I could have hoped that if he in his wisdom and his judgment found it inevitable, and perhaps found that the people in Central Africa had all agreed—some reluctantly, perhaps all reluctantly, but had nevertheless agreed—that the present Federation must go, it could then have gone. Then, practically at the same time, we might have had three territories all agreeing, perhaps not to a new Federa

1199
tion, but to a new consortium or association which might be a Federation in everything but name. But it seemed to me that it must have some political content. A mere council such as they have in East Africa, which arranges the railways and posts and telegraphs, would not be enough. In that consortium or association there must be some kind of power, which I would call political power.
It seems to me, in trying to look into the crystal ball, that Nyasaland has been virtually promised the right of secession. I presume it has also been promised independence. I presume, also, that the independence will be conditioned by large grants from the Treasury, but that there will be no control over finance. I cannot regard that as satisfactory, but it has apparently been promised. I suppose it will follow logically that Northern Rhodesia will ask for the same. If that is so, then it seems to me that Southern Rhodesia must also have the right—not of secession, because there will be nothing to secede from when Northern Rhodesia goes, if they go, but the right of independence from such powers and controls as remain from the Mother Country. If then these three units are all free and independent, it is not inconceivable that Mr. Butler, and their own common-sense view as to what is absolutely necessary for them all, might bring them together again. I could have wished that we had waited for that.
One must look at the viability of these three territories, or so it seems to me. A Federation or an association of these three territories could be viable. That means to say, it could support itself politically and economically. I am quite certain that Nyasaland cannot do that economically; I doubt whether it can politically, but we shall sec. Northern Rhodesia probably could support itself economically, and perhaps it can politically, but not, my Lords, as a democracy.
Do not let us be under the illusion that we are planning democracy in Africa. It has been the experience that, wherever freedom has been given to the African people by the British in Africa, Parliamentary democracy has not followed. What has followed has been a period of trial of a sort of democracy, followed by the gradual assumption of power by one
1200
Party, then the elimination of the other Party, and eventually some form of dictatorship. I do not cast stones at those who follow this course. I do not even criticise it. It seems to me that it was almost inevitable. How could you suppose that persons as unskilled in the art of government, and as untutored in the ways of Parliamentary democracy, could possibly run such a system? It is not something that they could understand. Moreover, in many parts of Africa they have lived for 80 years or more under Colonial rule, and Colonial rule is the antithesis of democracy. It is a kind of benevolent dictatorship, something of which I think this nation can be exceedingly proud. Nevertheless, it is the antithesis of democracy.
In those Colonies which were populous and considerable, and which have been in existence a long time, there may have been for their last ten years a system, first of committees and councils and advisory bodies, then of legicos and then, eventually, of something approaching a Parliament. Indeed, to a remarkable extent the system has stuck and has been operated successfully in the Caribbean, but not in Africa—not yet. Nowhere do I know of a territory in which anything like a parliamentary democracy is operating in a free African State.
I do not think we must expect it; but there is no reason why Nyasaland, perhaps under a dictatorship—and let us hope and believe a benevolent dictatorship—and Northern Rhodesia, if it also goes that way, should not join together with Southern Rhodesia, which will be a limited democracy—it never was a full democracy, but it has a limited kind of democracy. At least, it has given an exhibition on how a two-Party system can operate, as we have seen only this last week. As was observed by another noble Lord, there is evidence before our eyes that there are two Parties in Southern Rhodesia, although admittedly it is only a limited democracy. But there is no reason why these three territories, different as they are constitutionally, and more different as they will become, in my judgment, should not come together in something like a Federation, even if they have to look at Roget's Thesaurus to find a synonym for that word.
There are two lessons to be drawn from what has occurred, my Lords—

1201
and these will be my last observations. Only two days ago the Guardian said that a lesson was to be drawn from what has happened in the Southern Rhodesian elections, and the lesson which the Guardian drew was that it was a natural reaction to the interference of UNO. I believe that to be true. Human nature is such that if you are constantly sniped at and criticised from outside, you tend to harden the view you are holding rather than to give way. Nobody likes being blackmailed, or having pressure brought to bear upon him, whether it be moral pressure or force; and the constant interference of UNO, as well as the constant criticism (much of it untutored and unfair) which emanated from many in the United Kingdom, are in my opinion responsible for the result of the election which took place only a few days ago in Southern Rhodesia. But do not let us despair of it. These men love their country; and let us remember that it is their country. They have been there—and their fathers and grandfathers before them—for quite a long time. Among their ancestors were those who pioneered that country and went up there, bearing great hardships, to civilise it and to bring the land, as well as the primitive people, into some sort of order and civilised shape.
The other lesson we have to learn is one that I have mentioned before and will only extremely briefly refer to again—that is, we must not assume that those countries in Africa to which we give freedom, or which acquire freedom, will be, or will remain for any length of time, democracies. That may not be a reason for stopping the process, but do not let us assume that it will be so; and do not let us blame them if it is not so.
Finally, if we are witnessing the demise of the Federation—and I think we are, in its present shape and by its present name—let me say just one sentence of praise for the Federation and for Sir Roy Welensky. Those who know Southern Africa, who have been there and have seen the country and have lived in it, must know what an extraordinary change has taken place in that country. There has been a change in social attitudes among the people, among the various classes and races;
1202
a change in the standard of living, in opportunity; for the poorer people, who are mainly the black people, a change for the better. So much so, indeed, that Sir Roy Welensky was able to say, only a few weeks ago, "We" (meaning the Federation) "have the highest standard of living amongst black people in Africa, the highest pay for our servants and the best opportunities of any country in Southern Africa except South Africa itself." He was able to say that. Let us give praise both to the Federation and to Sir Roy, and let me express the hope that, even if it be by another name, at least some semblance of strong political and economic association between these three territories may be revived. It is in that hope that I wish Mr. Butler good luck on his errand.
6.27 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in congratulating the noble Earl who moved this Motion I should like to prelude the remark that I disagree with most of what he said by saying also that I have always deeply admired his sincerity, I appreciate the loftiness of his sentiments, and I almost invariably disagree entirely with the conclusions which he draws from them. But the terms of the Motion which we are discussing to-day seem to me to be themselves open to criticism. The policy of Her Majesty's Government, so far as I know, has always been since the inception of the Federation to encourage the advance of these territories to self-government—and, indeed, to ultimate independence—on a basis of racial co-operation, with the emphasis taken out of race and placed on merit and capacity. The political failure of this policy against a background of remarkable economic success is the tragedy which we are facing to-day.
I do not propose—nor, indeed, would time permit—to trace in detail the reasons for this apparent failure, except to remark what I feel ought to be stated: that a major contribution, as I see it, to this failure has been made outside of the Federation by irresponsible speeches, in this country and elsewhere, as well as the general encouragement given to the flamboyant claims of African leaders; by weakness and indecision in Westminster and Whitehall: and by the growing popularity of the doctrine which is inscribed, as we

1203
all know, in a famous place in Accra,
"Seek ye first the political kingdom and all things will be added unto you".
Set against the inevitably slow movement of real progress, naturally, that motto, if accepted fully, has caused a lot of trouble.
I have wondered, my Lords, in what way the noble Earl who moved this Motion wants Government policy to be revised. Does he want the whole idea of qualified co-operation jettisoned, and to see in its stead a policy of government by right of unqualified numerical superiority—just that? Surely we have had enough examples in recent times of the difficulty of safeguarding the rights of minorities, however entrenched in constitutional provisions. I am as sincere a believer as the noble Earl in the equality of rights and opportunities for all citizens, of whatever race; but we certainly do not agree on the best way of combining such equality of rights with the selection of a competent and just Government.
To pass on to the rest of the Motion, which calls for the: dissolution of the Federation and at the same time insists on the need to secure continuing economic and administrative relationships between the three territories, I would simply point out—though it ought to be unnecessary to do so—that, it is easier to say that than to do it. The economic and administrative stability of the territory and its international credit are bound up in the Federation, and it seems to me that working out the economic and administrative partnership would have to precede any action on dissolution in order to avoid the inevitable chaos which attends on uncertainty; and would certainly attend on that order of priority in dissolving the Federation before working out what happens next and securing agreement to it.
Apparently Nyasaland, with its 2.840,000 Africans and 9,500 Europeans, and 13,200 of other races, is to be given the right to secede. In itself, as has been pointed out to-day, this is a breach of the Federation. Although Nyasaland is the smallest unit, with its 46,000 square miles (of which 9,300 squares miles are water), the consequent problems of finance, of the public services, of employment, and indeed of unemployment,
1204
are very grave and difficult to settle. Who will subsidise this new State? Who will pay its debts or keep it solvent? The new African Government of Northern Rhodesia will apparently claim an equal right to secede; and this is a far more serious proposition, because the affairs of Northern and Southern Rhodesia are so interlocked as to make the severance as dangerous to the health of the two units as a similar operation is on Siamese twins.
The Federation we are so lightly talking of dissolving comprises 485,000 square miles—a country larger than the Whole of the British Isles, France, all Germany and Holland. It is sad to think to-day of the great experiment of 1953 when we all, the British Government and the four Governments in Africa, put our hands to the plough in a high endeavour which is now ending in disaster. The concluding words of the Sunday Telegraph editorial last Sunday seem to me to sum up the position. They said, referring to Mr. Butler:
"If he and the recent Commonwealth and Colonial Secretaries who preceded him had given a little more encouragement to the efforts of Sir Roy and Sir Edgar, Britain might have left a worthier legacy in Africa."
My Lords, no amount of Constitution-making can alter the hard fact of life: that educational, medical and health facilities, and agricultural progress, have to be paid for. The needs are immense and so must be the cost. It is also clear that a rapidly growing African population demanding a better life will remain an explosive element politically under any Government, unless the economy of their country expands in such a way as to provide them with the things which their education and a longer expectation of life make necessary for them. One of the main objects of the Federation was to do just that; and its strength was able to attract the necessary development capital from outside. It was never, as the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, pointed out, intended to be a temporary arrangement or to rest on any optional suspension of a right to secede. The right was never there until it was recently, and, I think, very unwisely, given.
The practical problems involved in this dissolution are immense. Fifty per cent. of the capital in the Federation is owned by non-residents and repatriation

1205
of capital and the drying up of fresh investment is likely to follow. I understand the public debt is over £300 million. A considerable amount of that is specifically guaranteed by the British Government. Under European guidance the agricultural potential of the country has been vastly improved; but what will happen to that under other auspices is a matter which one fears. It would seem that African leaders of to-day are prepared to pay for present power by mortgaging the future prosperity and progress of their people. The British Government have apparently decided to acquiesce in this and to abandon any ideas of their responsibility for it. If, in addition, the British taxpayer is expected to foot the immense bill for this retreat, the consequences of this policy will, at long and miserable last, become clear to people in this country.
So, my Lords, the first request of this Motion is being forced upon the attention of the British Government by their agreement to the rights of secession for the weakest and smallest members of the Federation. The problem of how to make Nyasaland into a viable State without cutting down present standards and eliminating hope of early future progress remains. I thought the noble Earl passed rather lightly over this tremendously difficult administrative problem. Northern Rhodesia, now with an African Government, is making secession her first aim. Her internal resources place her in a more hopeful economic position, but again there remains the public debt of the Federation and the tremendous, interlocked common services and trade with Southern Rhodesia. I agree that its Constitution—that mathematical misfit which seemed designed to perpetuate and accentuate racial feeling—cries out for reform. Mr. Butler, looking at the unpromising picture, has said that the Central African problem is the most intractable that has came to his notice in the, course of a long political career. One hopes he will bear in mind, if I may say so respectfully, the wise words of Sir Edgar Whitehead:
"The common sense of geography is the thing to believe in—and the common sense of the people. After all, whatever our political form of Government, the two Rhodesias and Nyasaland will be next door to each other for all time. The Zambesi will not cease to be there because of a political change. For
1206
next-door neighbours not to work together in unity and amity for the common good is foolish.
"The greatest contribution we can make to the maintenance of the federal association is to show that we in Southern Rhodesia, of all races, can reach agreement amongst ourselves and work to a common end, and set the example that will help the larger unity."
It is easy to talk of freedom and self-government, but what does this mean? You cannot be free, either as a nation or as an individual, unless you are economically free, and the only hope for the members of the Federation is a collaboration in economic partnership, which will inspire confidence abroad and at home and produce the capital investment without which the menace of unemployment, hunger riots and unrest will certainly stalk the land. So far as I know, unemployment has not been mentioned to-day as part of the likely legacy of secession, but it is a very grave and serious menace for the future.
The British Government, while paying public tribute to the ideal of racial partnership, have in practice seemed to disregard the advice of those with long experience of the territory and to regard the loud claims of African nationalism as irresistible and the European community, which has built success, as expendable. My noble friend Lord Malvern has reminded us that promises and conventions have been destroyed, apparently drowned in the flood of events.
Why has Sir Edgar Whitehead been defeated? Nat, as I suggest, for the reason given by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, but surely largely because Europeans have lost confidence in the British Government's good faith and have begun to feel that they could not rely on a proper appreciation by Her Majesty's Government of their role in Southern Rhodesia. They voted, surely, against a premature surrender of Government to untrained hands rather than for any particular policy. In 1953, we put our hands to the plough together to build in Central Africa a miracle of prosperity and multi-racial partnership in industry, agriculture, commerce and politics. What happened? Those in command in Whitehall and Westminster lost the vision, lost their faith in the mission of their own countrymen and decided upon the premature surrender of political and administrative authority

1207
to the advancing demands and ambitions of loud-voiced, self-appointed African leaders, whose methods of violence and intimidation silenced the dissentient voices of their own people and misled the ignorant majority.
The three curses of Africa have been said to be ignorance, disease and poverty. In the case of Central Africa, the attempt to deal with them has been hampered by political animosities and weakened by public ignorance and poverty of imagination in this country. This debate has rather taken on the tone of, "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him". But I should like to conclude my contribution to the funeral oration this afternoon by paying a tribute to the two men, Sir Roy Welensky and Sir Edgar Whitehead, who have so gallantly and single-heartedly tried to bring to fruition the dream of racial co-operation to which their political lives have been devoted. It is not their fault that this set-back has occurred. It may be that in the more distant future the co-operation which they have tried so hard to establish will emerge perhaps under African leaders, who have learned by experience the secrets of successful administration. It was long ago that these proud lines were written:
"We sailed wherever ships might sail;
We founded many a mighty State;
Pray God our greatness do not fail
Through craven fear of being great."
It has failed for precisely that reason and the debate on this Motion is in the form of a memorial service.
6.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT CHANDOS: My Lords, I intervene for only a few minutes because I was Secretary of State for the Colonies—in fact, I represent about one half of the 13 feet of Secretary of State on the small Bench—at the material time. An hour or two ago, a copy of the speech delivered by Sir Roy Welensky, the Federal Prime Minister, came into my hands. I followed the practice, which I have no doubt many noble Lords do, when they get a copy of a book of contemporary memoirs: I looked at the index to see how I myself come out. I have not had time to study the speech in detail, but I have had time to see where Sir Roy quoted me. He
1208
has quoted me quite widely and I think out of a document which I regard as confidential. I am rather sorry that he has done so, because I feel that the precedent may be unwise.
In what I have to say, I assure your Lordships that I am relying entirely on my memory. My memory of ten years ago may be blurred, and an old man forgets; but I think that on this occasion my memory is correct—for two main reasons. I may say that what I am talking about is the fact that the Constitution of the Federation cannot be brought to an end except with the consent of the four constituent Governments in Africa, acting in concert with His Majesty's Government, as it then was. Why do I rely on my memory that in fact these pledges were given? First, my memory accords exactly with that of the principal delegate from Africa, my noble friend Lord Malvern, who spoke this afternoon and who made it quite clear that he would not have signed the federal instrument if the possibility of secession had ever been conceded by His Majesty's Government. That is the first reason why I think my memory is correct.
The second reason is that it is my profound political belief that no federation or federal instrument can subsist if the right of secession is ever written into the Constitution. The centrifugal forces that are released will always render the Federal Government impotent if any of the constituent parties to federation have the right of secession. It is for this reason that, if the documents are examined and they do not constitute a pledge, I should greatly regret it and should regard it as a failure on my part that it was not written in. But I think that my memory is correct.
The right way to deal with this situation, I believe—and I have some reason to think that it became difficult for the Government—would have been to call a conference of all five Governments. I do not think they would have found any opposition to the secession of Nyasaland, and they would then have had a conference at which the future course of co-operation between these three territories could have been plotted in a sober atmosphere. But that has gone by. All I can say is that I wish the First Secretary of State every good wish in the

1209
difficult task that confronts him. He is a man of great integrity and adroitness; and he, if anyone, may be able to erect a new structure on the ruins of that which has been destroyed, largely, I think, because of the disregard of the pledges given in 1953.
6.52 p.m.
LORD BOYD OF MERTON: My Lords, I, too, will detain your Lordships for only a moment or so. First, may I warmly endorse all that my noble friend Lord Chandos has said? I was Minister of State during the early days of his service with the Colonial Office, and at that time I was closely involved in the earlier talks preceding federation. I was away in the year 1953, the year to which reference has been made, because I had been appointed to another Department, but during that period so great was my interest in federal development that I kept in close touch—and as Minister I was able to do so—with the developing story at the start of federation. Then, in the following year I came back to the Colonial Office as Secretary of State and had some close associations with Central Africa for five years. I, of course, knew of the undertakings about secession that had been given during the course of the various discussions, and I realised that these undertakings were regarded as pledges (as we ourselves regarded them) by the people to whom they were addressed. It was in the confidence engendered by these pledges that federation was born, that investment was encouraged and that plans for a liberal and progressive policy in Central Africa were laid down.
This is, to many of us, a very melancholy occasion. But it is the future that matters much more than the past, as the welcome voice of my noble friend Lord Malvern has reminded us. Our thoughts will be with the First Secretary of State when he goes in a few weeks' time to Central Africa. I wish that his statement of policy, which we heard to-day, had not been a unilateral one, and that it had been found possible to delay the statement until he had reached Central Africa, where there would have been discussions on many other aspects of the federal scene apart from the Nyasaland one—and when, let us pray, a wise solution for all the territories can be devised. I share with my noble friend Lord Chandos the belief that, if this is
1210
possible, the First Secretary of State, perhaps more than anyone else alive, is qualified to bring this about. If so, it will be a solution in which the work of many devoted people, and not least that of Sir Roy Welensky and Sir Edgar Whitehead, to build up a strong, viable, multi-racial State in Central Africa will not in the end be frustrated.
6.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House for any length of time, especially after the last two speeches. I just want to add my support for the Motion before the House and to say how much I agree with my noble friend Lord Listowel in the course he has proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, thinks that this is entirely wrong. However, I am even more convinced that we have been right, in general, in the policy put in our Motion, now that the ex-Colonial Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd of Merton, has made it so clear that we have to direct our attention to the future, as well as to the past, in this critical situation which has now arisen. I very much want that to happen. I listened with great attention to the quite stirring speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. It was not quite so personal as some speeches the noble Marquess has made, but it was a really interesting speech. I have thought a great deal about it. I do not agree with him altogether, as he well knows. On the other hand, he has undoubtedly the grounds of a serious quarrel with members of the present Government in regard to what he indicated as more or less a breach of faith. I am not going to enter into that particular difference of opinion between the noble Marquess and the Government.
I can see, too, that there is very much in the speech that was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, this afternoon, thinking on the same lines. But, as the last speaker has just said, the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, himself, in a speech which I thought added, if I may say so, to the enjoyment this House always has from some basic and sound humour connected with a speech, has referred to the need for looking to the future as well. I hope that we shall all direct our attention in that sense. On the other hand, I am sure that noble Lords

1211
present will not mind if I cast my mind back a little to the year 1953.
The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, would, I am sure, concede this to us: that we were never unmindful of the great economic advantages which could be obtained from united action by the three territories, in federation or otherwise, because of the early talks my right honourable friend in another place, Mr. James Griffiths, when Colonial Secretary, had with that very idea of getting unity of purpose and harnessing the economic resources of the country to industrial, economic and agricultural success. But when we got as far as 1953, conditions were rapidly changing in the world at large. The effect of the drive among the native populations for a quicker accession to liberty, and of the new world organisation, the United Nations Organisation, upon public opinion, meant that we had to look again at this matter very seriously.
I would remind the last two noble Lords who spoke that in the debate at that time there was a considerable dubiety in the utterances of the Government. I think the Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1953 himself said (I believe it was in about June or July of that year) that he had to recognise that there was a hard core of African opinion against federation. It was my noble friend Lord Attlee, then still in the other place, who praised the idea of federation, but said that he wondered whether the Government were not rushing it, and suggested that, even at that late hour when the final measure was being discussed in the other place, it might be worth while to delay a little to see whether there was any possibility of coming to a better state of relationships between the races in Central African territories before this step was finally taken. I remember, also, that the late Lord Jowitt, in this House, in July, 1953, spoke to the same effect and gave warning that he thought matters were being rushed too quickly in this direction.
Now we have come to the situation when we, at any rate, must regard federation, as such, as dead, unless there is something made to arise again from the dead. It seems clear from the speeches to which we have just been listening that any act of secession from
1212
such a Federation itself finishes the Federation. It cannot be the original Federation if one territory among the three is allowed to secede. Therefore, we must leave it very largely on the basis of deciding in our own minds, awaiting the Report of the First Secretary, as to what he is able to obtain in progress towards a solution from his visit there.
But also I have to say to the House, and to Parliament in general, that we can of course say this. There is no doubt that the Government have taken the steps that would, in our view, have had to be taken in any case, and which we should wish them to take in view of the events which have occurred, and we are only doubtful whether they have yet gone far enough. On the other hand, while I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Listowel that perhaps we might have gone a little further at this stage, may I say that if we can bring the right views before the Government, and if the result of the visit of the First Secretary to Central Africa is further to advance the relationship between the different people's out there, then we shall be only too glad to see the most intimate and co-operative arrangements between the three territories, independent if you like, to harness for the benefit of all the economic resources of all the three territories. In the meantime, if there are questions arising, such as would be indicated from the Government statement, in regard to, say, the commitments which would have to be entered into by Nyasaland, to whom the promise of secession has already been made, then we should not be in any way mean or stingy about our help to Nyasaland in that direction.
Finally, I always feel that we are sometimes perhaps inclined on the Left—I am speaking generally on the Left—to accuse our own country of not being sufficiently alive to the urgency of extending freedom within our Commonwealth. I am not sure that we are always 100 per cent. justified in what we say. But we have a general principle. I would say, on the other hand, that if you will look back at the speech at Manchester Free Trade Hall in 1843, I think it was, which was made the basis of Winston Churchill's great appeal to this country at the beginning of his term of office as Prime Minister in the last Great War, you will find

1213
that Emerson quotes this country as being
"old but not decrepit, with a heart that beats the strongest in times of cloud and difficulty."
He hails Parliament and this country as Mother of the Free, in a year when the United States was still sunk in slavery. I am not altogether without pride at the extent to which liberty has been brought by this old country of ours to many of the territories who are now surging forward in massive formation to achieve the independence that they desire.
I would end by quoting a very short idea that was always with us in the Labour Party with regard to this matter. You may think it is idealistic. Perhaps it is, if one examines one's own personal life and mind in relation to it:
"Is true freedom but to break
Fetters for our own dear sake,
And with leaden hearts forget
That we owe mankind a debt?
No; true freedom is to share
All the chains our brothers wear.
And with heart and hand to be
Earnest to make others free."
7.5 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, this debate has covered, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, a very wide range. Some hard things have been said, both in your Lordships' House and outside. I myself do not believe that they are justified, and I shall seek, so far as I can, to satisfy your Lordships that they are not. Before I deal with that matter, may I first say something about the decision of Her Majesty's Government to accept in principle that Nyasaland should be allowed to withdraw from the Federation? I ask your Lordships to consider that question without regard, for the time being, to any question of pledges, or right to legislate, or conventions, or anything of that kind. I would submit to your Lordships that two questions fall to be considered and have been the subject of debate to-day. The first is: Was the decision of Her Majesty's Government, annouced to-day, right? And, secondly, is it a decision that Her Majesty's Government are free to take? A great deal of what has been said to-day has been on the second issue.
I should like first to say something about the question, looking at it objectively, was the decision announced today right? Your Lordships will remem
1214
ber that the Nyasaland Conference in 1960 produced an agreed Constitution, which for the first time gave a direct vote to Africans in electing representatives to the Legislative Council, and that at the elections which ensued in 1961 the Malawi Congress Party, campaigning on a clear platform of removing Nyasaland from the present Federation, secured an overwhelming majority. Of those enfranchised on the lower roll, who were mainly Africans, 95 per cent. voted, and 98 per cent. of the votes cast went to the Malawi Congress Party. They won all the 20 lower roll seats. They also won two out of the eight upper roll seats, and the third went to an Independent with declared Malawi support.
We are often reminded that Nyasaland is a Protectorate: its inhabitants are under the protection of Her Majesty. Some of your Lordships, some of us, may regret the manifest attitude of the majority there. Some may think that it is not in that country's best interests. But, however that may be, I venture to say that few, if any, of your Lordships, looking at this matter objectively, would contend that this country should ignore that clearly expressed opinion of the people of Nyasaland. I would myself put it as high as to say that that mandate of the Nyasaland electors is one that we cannot ignore. Indeed, we could ignore it—and I would ask your Lordships to consider this—only if Her Majesty's Government were prepared to embark on a policy of repression. The consequences of such a policy would surely be incalculable; and such a policy would be wholly inconsistent with those that Great Britain has followed for so long with regard to dependent territories.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, reminded us of the American Colonies and of the lessons of history from our treatment of them. He might also have mentioned the sad history of our relations with Ireland in years gone by, when we sought to impose policies contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants. Surely by now we have learned those lessons. Such a course of action in regard to Nyasaland—a policy of repression—would surely end any hope of achieving in Central Africa the broad purposes we had in mind when the Federation was formed and which, I submit to your

1215
Lordships, should not be abandoned now.
In these circumstances the decision to recognise in principle that Nyasaland should be allowed to withdraw from the Federation is, so it seems to us, an inevitable one and also the inevitable starting point for the consultations on the future of the three territories which, now that there are new Administrations in office in Northern and Southern Rhodesia, my right honourable friend the First Secretary of State proposes to initiate in the New Year. As the statement I read to your Lordships makes clear, a great deal will have to be done before effect can be given to the decision that Nyasaland should be allowed to secede. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in the course of his most interesting speech drew attention to some of the problems involved. But our acceptance of that principle that Nyasaland should be allowed to withdraw from the Federation does not of itself, of course, operate to make any change in the Federation itself; nor does the secession of Nyasaland of itself in law operate to terminate the federation of Northern and Southern Rhodesia.
My Lords, nine years ago we embarked on what I think everyone would regard as a great experiment. We hoped, by creating the Federation, to establish a non-racial society in which peoples of all races would live and work together in peace and friendship and mutual understanding. Our ideals were high, and certainly they were not selfish. We hoped that we had laid the foundations of a secure and stable society and to enable the inhabitants of the three territories to gain as well the great material advantages of close association. My Lords, should we abandon those ideals, either now or on the secession of Nyasaland? I sincerely hope that your Lordships will agree with me that the answer must be, "No". Do those ideals become impossible of fulfilment if Nyasaland secedes? Again, I hope the answer is, "No". I propose to come back to this point later in my speech, if your Lordships will permit me. I would just add this now.
I know that there are many people in the Federation who have worked hard throughout the last nine years to realise
1216
the hopes which were held when the Federation was started. I know that there will be a great many of them who will regard this secession as a serious blow and a grave disappointment. It is not perhaps unusual, in such circumstances, to seek to blame Her Majesty's Government. My Lords, we should, in my view, be blameworthy if we failed to take account of the wishes of the population of Nyasaland. I would submit to your Lordships that we have no moral right to take that course. And, really, in all justice Great Britain should not be blamed for recognising the views of the vast mass of people of that country and recognising that she may secede. I do not propose to say any more on whether, viewed objectively, the decision on this of Her Majesty's Government announced to-day is right. I submit that it is not only right but inevitable, in view of the wishes of the inhabitants for whom we, despite the creation of the Federation, remain responsible.
I should now like to turn to the second question I posed at the outset of my speech—namely, is this right and, as I think, inevitable decision one that Her Majesty's Government are free to take unilaterally of their own initiative? May I break this question down a little further? First, as a matter of law, can the British Parliament effectively provide for the secession of Nyasaland? Secondly, if, as a matter of law, the British Parliament can do so, are Her Majesty's Government inhibited by any convention or by any pledge from introducing legislation for that purpose? The Rhodesian and Nyasaland Act of 1953 was passed after, I think, the Conference (I am not quite sure about this, but it was certainly at about the time of the Conference to which your Lordships referred), and made provision for the creation of the Federation by Order in Council. Section 1 (2) of that Act provided that the Order in Council might authorise the amendment or revocation of any of its provisions in any manner specified by the Order in relation to those provisions. The Act went on to say:
"save as may be so authorised that Order in Council shall not he capable of being revoked or amended except by Act of Parliament."
It thus appears that from the time of the passage of this Act and before the Federation was created the right of

1217
the United Kingdom Parliament to revoke the Order in Council creating the Federation—and that, of course, would bring the Federation to an end—or to amend the Order in Council, was clearly recognised.
As a matter of law, it is in my view clear beyond any doubt that the United Kingdom Parliament can, by the passage of an Act, revoke or amend the Order in Council which created the Federation. It fell to be my duty to consider this question some two years ago, and I am glad to say that my opinion on it was endorsed by my predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Kilmuir, in your Lordships' House on March 27, 1962, when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 238, col. 957]:
"As a matter of pure law, I entertain no doubt that the power of the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate how it wishes for the Federation remains unfettered."
Indeed, that is recognised in the Constitution of the Federation annexed to the Order in Council made under the 1953 Act. Article 29 (7) of that Constitution reads as follows:
"Nothing in this Constitution shall affect any power to make laws for the Federation or any of the Territories conferred on Her Majesty by any Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom."
My Lords, I have taken up some time to deal with this point because there have been suggestions—not I think put forward by anyone except the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, to-day—that we really are not free, as a matter of law, to legislate on this matter. I must confess that I have never heard that seriously asserted on behalf of the Federation. I have never heard it suggested that, as a matter of pure law, the United Kingdom Parliament has not the power to legislate to provide for the secession of Nyasaland if it chooses to do so.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I did not suggest that, as a matter of law, we had no right to pass legislation repealing federation. What I did suggest was that as a matter of custom we have no proper authority for doing so, any more than we should have had the right to repeal the Constitution of Australia or Canada before the Statute of Westminster in, I think, 1926.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am coming to that, but I must say that I
1218
listened very carefully to the noble Lord's speech and I heard him make some reference to a matter of law in this matter.
I now turn to the second question which I posed: Are Her Majesty's Government inhibited from so legislating by any convention or, as the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, likes to call it, custom (I do not mind) or, indeed, by any pledge? I know that a view has been put forward in some quarters that there is a convention or understanding to the effect that we should not so legislate except at the request or with the consent of the Federation, that for us to do so would be a breach of a recognised convention and so a breach of faith, and it is to that that I should now like to devote my argument. I should like, if your Lordships will permit me, to examine this contention somewhat closely, because, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, a charge of bad faith cannot and should not be lightly dismissed, and I hope to satisfy your Lordships, as I must confess I am satisfied, that such a charge in relation to a breach of convention is without foundation.
Conventions, of course, play a large part in our constitutional relationships both at home and overseas. They develop gradually from usage, from custom, and, as is stated in Halsbury's Laws of England if I may quote the passage:
"From the middle of the 19th Century, however, there was a convention against Parliament legislating for the self-governing colonies without their consent."
And, again quoting from that same work:
"The power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to revoke or amend the constitution of overseas dependencies knows no legal exceptions, but there is a convention that in the case of a self-governing colony the power shall not be exercised without the colony's consent."
Your Lordships will note that the convention is stated to apply to self-governing Colonies, and it is from the practice of consulting the self-governing Colonies before legislating that the convention was gradually established. In the case of the Dominions it was embodied in the Statute of Westminster, 1931. That Act, as your Lordships know, applied to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State, as it then was, and Newfoundland. Those

1219
countries, with the exception of Newfoundland, had then reached a stage of recognition internationally as independent States. The Preamble to that Statute recognised that it was—and I quote from the Preamble—
"in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion."
That was enacted in Section 4 of the Statute. I ask you to note that one does not find any similar provision in the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Federation Act, 1953, nor in the Order in Council made under it. If it was the intention that this convention should apply to the Federation when it was formed, then one would have expected a clear reference to it either in the Act or in the Order in Council. It is not there. On the other hand, the 1953 Act recognises that the Order in Council can be revoked or amended by Act of the United Kingdom Parliament, and, as I have said, Article 29 (7) expressly reserves our right to legislate for the Federation and the territories and does not make that power exercisable only at the request or with the consent of the Federation. The passage I read to your Lordships from Halsbury makes it clear that the convention applies to self-governing territories. It does not and has not, so far as I am aware, applied to all territories having what is called a responsible Government: that is to say, a Cabinet system. That is stretching the convention too far.
There are a number of territories which enjoy or have enjoyed responsible government in this sense—many of the West Indian territories, for example—but it has never been the case that we have passed Acts here applying to them only at their request or with their consent. The Federation itself cannot be regarded, in my submission, as equivalent to a self-governing Colony. It is composed of three territories, one of which can appropriately and properly be described as self-governing, namely Southern Rhodesia, the other two of which have not up to now possessed a Cabinet system and for whom Her Majesty's Government have had direct responsibility.
1220
In the White Paper introducing the recent changes in the Southern Rhodesia Constitution it was stated that:
"The Constitution of 1923 conferred responsible government on Southern Rhodesia. Since then it has become an established convention for Parliament at Westminster not to legislate for Southern Rhodesia on matters within the competence of the Legislative Assembly of Southern Rhodesia except with the agreement of the Southern Rhodesian Government."
This convention has never applied in relation to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and if on those two territories and Southern Rhodesia joining in the Federation while keping their separate and distinct identities it was intended or agreed that this convention should apply to the Federation, then I must say I should have expected some express reference to it in the Order in Council such as one finds in the Statute of Westminster, or at least in some public document such as a White Paper. One does not find it.
But the matter does not rest there. In 1957 there was a joint announcement by the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Federation on certain matters. I will deal with them, if I may. Paragraph 1 of that announcement records that discussions were held between Sir Roy Welensky and Mr. Greenfield on the one hand, and the noble Earl, Lord Home and the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, on the other hand, about certain aspects of the Constitution of the Federation. Paragraph 7 of that announcement reads as follows:
"The Federal Prime Minister drew attention to doubts which had arisen in regard to the purpose and effect of Article 29 (7)"—
the Article to which I have already referred your Lordships—
"of the Federal Constitution and to the subject of legislation in the United Kingdom for the Federation."
The announcement went on:
"United Kingdom Ministers made it clear that the United Kingdom Government recognise the existence of a convention applicable to the present stage of the constitutional evolution of the Federation whereby the United Kingdom Government in practice does not initiate any legislation to amend or to repeal any Federal Act or to deal with any matter included within the competence of the Federal Legislature, except at the request of the Federal Government."
That was the convention we recognised, and so the question falls to be considered: does legislation by us for secession involve any breach of that convention recognised in that announcement?

1221
The inclusion of Nyasaland in the Federation was not the result of any federal legislation, and so to secure the secession of that territory does not involve the repeal or amendment of any Act of the Federal Government embodying Nyasaland in the Federation. But we must also, of course, consider whether provision for the secession of Nyasaland was within the legislative competence of the Federation. If it was, it would be a breach of the convention, a breach of faith, for us to provide for secession except at their request.
I maintain, after giving the matter the fullest consideration that I can, that it was not, and is not, within the competence of the Federation to provide for secession. Article 29 of the Constitution specifies the matters within the legislative competence of the Federation. They are pretty clearly defined. It is true that by Article 97 special provision is also made for the amendment, subject to certain conditions being satisfied, by the Federal Legislature of the Constitution annexed to the Order in Council. It might be argued that, because it is within the power of the Legislature to amend the Constitution, legislation by us to provide for the secession of Nyasaland without the request of the Federation would be a breach of faith. But to amend the Constitution of the Federation created by the Order in Council is one thing; to reduce the Federation to one of two countries and not three is another. In my opinion, the Federal Legislature have no power to provide for secession, just as they have not under Article 97 power to break up the Federation entirely.
I think it is pretty clear, too, that the announcement to which I have referred, from its terms was directed to what I may call the ordinary normal legislative acts under Article 29, the Article which the announcement shows was under consideration at that time, and not to Article 97 at all. it is also clear that this topic was raised by Sir Roy Welensky because of doubts that had arisen as to that paragraph of the Article. I understand that certain politicians in Southern Rhodesia were constantly proclaiming that Article 29 (7) enabled the British Government to interfere by their legislation with the internal affairs of the Federation. It vas to put these fears
1222
at rest that the announcement was made—an announcement directed to internal legislation under Article 29 and not to any amendment of the Constitution or alteration of the territory of the Federation. I am fortified in the view that I expressed by the fact, as I understand it, that the Federal Government do not seek to maintain that the Federal Legislature can provide for secession. As the 1957 announcement was directed to internal legislation, as the Federal Government do not claim that they can provide for secession, there is surely no shred of a foundation for any allegation that legislation by us for secession without the request of the Federal Government is contrary to that announcement.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure that we have all listened with immense interest to the legal opinion which the Lord Chancellor with all his ability has given. But my point was a much simpler one than this. What I said was that British Ministers gave most explicit assurances—that was, during the discussions in 1953—that the Constitution of the new Federation which they were setting up would not be liquidated without the free assent of all the Governments concerned, and that included the Federal Government. That is the statement I made, and it was, in effect, confirmed by Lord Malvern, by Lord Chandos and by Lord Boyd of Merton, all of whom were in one way or another connected with the negotiations. Does the noble and learned Lord deny that during the conversations that undertaking was given, and that it was the basis on which, as Lord Malvern said, the Rhodesian Government accepted the White Paper?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as I had already said, I was dealing with this in the following order: first, whether the decisions were right; secondly, whether Her Majesty's Government were inhibited by any convention or any pledge from initiating this legislation. I prefer to deal with it in order. I have dealt with it so far on the question whether the decision was right; and I have turned, secondly, to the question whether any breach of any convention was involved. The third subject that I was going to come to was the question whether there was any breach of any pledge. But before I

1223
come to that I did want just to say this. I have listened with care to the noble Marquess's speech, and I am going to say something about that, if he will allow me, but I would rather clear these matters out of the way first.
I was saying that secession of Nyasaland will inevitably alter the character of the Federation. It may necessitate some amendment of Federal Acts by the Federal Legislature, Acts like the Income Tax Act, which now applies to Nyasaland as well as to other territories, if certain provisions on the Federal Statute Book are not just going to become a dead letter. But so far as secession is concerned, that in my submission can be effected by the United Kingdom Government without any breach of any convention. I am sorry to delay in replying to the noble Marquess, but I am seeking to cover in the course of my reply not only points which have been raised in your Lordships' debate but, if your Lordships will permit me, other points which have been raised in the Press and also in conversations with me.
Before I leave this question I must refer to an argument which I have heard advanced, which I think perhaps was touched on slightly to-day, based on the Petition which Parliament received from Western Australia. Your Lordships will remember that in 1933, two years after the Statute of Westminster, Western Australia petitioned the United Kingdom Parliament to be allowed to secede from the Commonwealth of Australia. It was decided that that Petition was not receivable. It is on that precedent that it has been sought to found an argument in relation to the problem your Lordships are discussing. But that argument really will not stand up to examination. This Parliament could, under the Statute of Westminster, legislate for Australia only at the request, and with the consent, of the Dominion. That Petition came after the Statute was passed, and long after Australia had become an entirely independent country within the Commonwealth. Of course, the Federation is not an independent country.
I think I can now come to the question which the noble Marquess raised in his speech, and which he raised again
1224
in an intervention a few moments ago. If I understand it correctly, it is said that pledges were given in regard to secession in the course of the discussions in the Conference concerned with drawing up the Constitution—pledges which prevent Her Majesty's Government from acting unilaterally now without the consent of the Federation, except at the expense of a breach of faith. That Conference preceded, I think, the 1953 Act, and certainly the Order in Council because the Order in Council embodied its results. In dealing with this, I must confess that I am in some considerable difficulty because, in all the public documents and in all the public announcements made after the conclusion of that Conference, one can find no indication in any contemporaneous document of the existence of any such pledge. There is nothing that I can find in any contemporaneous public document which supports the secession.
I wonder—and it does bother me, because I have listened most carefully to what your Lordships have said—why, if such a pledge as is suggested was given and accepted, it was kept secret and not embodied in the Act or in the Order in Council. It is not a question, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, indicated, of inserting a provision for securing the right to divorce. If such a pledge was given, it was to secure that there should be no divorce.
When one comes to look at the Act constituting the Commonwealth of Australia, which was passed in 1900, one finds these words in the Preamble:
"Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and under the Constitution hereby established:"
This is my difficulty, my Lords. In no public document—not in the Act, not in the Order in Council—is there any reference to, any indication of indissolubility. That does not quite conclude the question, and I recognise that perfectly well. The noble Viscount, Lord Malvern who said that he was the Minister at the Conference, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos and the noble Lord, Lord

1225
Colyton, attended it, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd of Merton, who I think was not present at the meetings in question, made himself familiar with what conversations took place. My Lords, as I understand it, the purpose of the Conference was to thresh out the Constitution, and I imagine—though I was not there—that arguments went backwards and forwards on the different points with regard to that. The purpose of the Conference, I am sure noble Lords will agree, was not for the purpose of giving secret pledges. Lord Malvern did indicate that at the time these assurances (if one can use those words) were given, they were concerned about the right of review which is contained, I think, in Article 99 of the Constitution. As I understood his speech, he was concerned to make sure that the question of secession should not be raised at that time.
I can well see statements being made by Ministers at that time in that particular context and with reference to what should take place at the review when the Constitution was being drafted. I wonder whether anyone contemplated then that 90 per cent. or so of the electors of one of the territories would be voting against remaining within the Federation. Was that ever considered? I wonder. It would require a remarkable degree of prescience, although it would require no considerable degree of prescience to say, when considering provisions for the review: "Let us make sure what can be reviewed at the time of the review; let us reach some agreement, if we can, about that".
My Lords, I do come back to this. The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, in his usual both persuasive and attractive style, if I may say so without impertinence, talked about an old gentleman's memory; he said that old men forget. He also spoke about Sir Roy Welensky having revealed passages of confidential documents, and thought that the precedent was unfortunate. I am in some difficulty over this, because what is said in confidence—and these discussions at this Conference, I understand, were in confidence—surely should not be used for the purposes of public discussion. It is surely not a matter that can be lightly brushed aside by saying that it does not matter whether they are secret or not. Surely it is much to be deplored,
1226
for this reason. If confidential discussions are to be disclosed at the instance of one of the parties to them, then that must prejudice the freedom of discussion in any future confidential meetings.
Sir Roy Welensky, I gather during the course of the debate in this House, has made a number of quotations from the confidential reports of what was said in the course of the Conference. I would just say this, if I may. The special and unique value of the Commonwealth rests to a very great degree on the basis that member Governments can freely exchange views and ideas among each other, with the assurance that, however much they may differ from time to time, those confidences will be respected. Once that principle is breached, the very value of such a special relationship is brought into question; and one can be astonished that the Federal Government, who are well aware of these traditions and conventions, and who have such experience of the machinery of Commonwealth consultation, should have chosen deliberately to disregard these fundamental understandings. I would only add that what has happened can only make more difficult the conduct of future consultations with the Federal Government.
My Lords, I am in difficulty in dealing with this matter, because I do not think it would be right for me to quote verbatim from those documents. I will just say this. The noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, no doubt was concerned, as he clearly indicated, with what should take place at the Review. I myself doubt whether anyone contemplated the situation that has now risen, and I doubt whether anything was said or accepted as a firm pledge that this country would abandon its right to legislate, as it clearly had the right to legislate, on such a matter without consent. However, I do not believe that it is fruitful to pursue that matter. Suggestions of breaches of convention or of breaches of faith or broken pledges, and controversy about them, cannot help the future of Central Africa or of anyone else. It can only make even more difficult the constructive work that lies ahead.
My Lords, of course we should have liked to have the agreement of the Federation to the recognition of the principle that Nyasaland may secede. Of course, we should have liked that, and

1227
we have done our best to proceed throughout by agreement, but it has, I am sorry to say, been impossible to secure it. It became clear in the recent discussions with the Federal Ministers that Her Majesty's Government could not secure the agreement of the Federal Government to the statement to be made to-day because they, for their part, would not agree to terms which would have been acceptable to the Federal Government. In their White Paper issued this afternoon the Federal Government have made public what those terms were. They wished the statement to incorporate satisfactory guarantees for the continuance, as they put it—and I quote the words:
"of a strong political and economic association between the two Rhodesias".
I feel sure that your Lordships' House will agree that Her Majesty's Government could not possibly give such a firm pledge in advance of the further consultations which we now propose to initiate. But their own White Paper does show that it is completely inaccurate for anyone to suggest that no consultations have taken place on this matter with the Ministers of the Federal Government.
My Lords, we have done our best to proceed to get agreement. We have not succeeded, and the position with which we are now faced and which I ask your Lordships to consider is that we nave the choice either of ignoring the views of Nyasaland, or, without the agreement of the Federation, of proceeding to recognise that Nyasaland may secede. If we, in these circumstances, took the course of saying that we would not proceed without the Federation's agreement, that would mean that the Federal Government has a veto on all constitutional developments in Central Africa; and that Her Majesty's Government cannot for one moment accept.
My Lords, in the situation that faces us to-day, in view of the clearly expressed wishes of the people of Nyasaland, it would not be compatible with our responsibility to that country to seek to prevent her from leaving the Federation, to seek to ignore or to overrule the clear and unequivocal expression of determination not to remain within the framework of the present Federation.
1228
But to accept in principle that Nyasaland should be allowed to withdraw from the Federation is not, in my belief, the end. I do not accept the view that it means writing "Finis" at the end of a historic chapter of achievement and endeavour over the last nine years. In our long history we have witnessed before a divergence of political and economic interests, and here we have the political interests of Nyasaland pulling one way and the economic interests constantly pulling another. As the statement I read to your Lordships says, the financial and economic consequences for Nyasaland will be serious and substantial. If Nyasaland is to progress, we must see if some new kind of association with the Rhodesias cannot be evolved. If the Rhodesias are to progress there must continue to be association and co-operation between them, too.
I said earlier, my Lords, that as a matter of law the present decision on secession related to Nyasaland only, and not to the present constitutional relationship between Northern and Southern Rhodesia. The form which future association of the territories may take will, of course. be covered by the consultations which we now propose to initiate. The task before us is formidable, and one calling for great wisdom and statesmanship on all sides. What we want to do, and what my right honourable friend will seek to do, is to find an acceptable solution which will maintain the very real advantages of association. We want to put an end to uncertainties, and to ensure for the people of Central Africa, of all races, a peaceful and prosperous future. Those are our objectives, and in an endeavour to Promote them my right honourable friend the First Secretary will visit Central Africa early in the New Year. I listened to your Lordships' expressions of good will towards him, and I am sure he can count on the support and good wishes of your Lordships' House.
My Lords, I should like to conclude by thanking the noble Earl for raising this Motion, and for enabling us to have an opportunity of debating this most important subject.
7.53 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I was rebuked by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for interrupting too soon, and I therefore

1229
waited till he had finished his remarks. But do I understand his contention to be that, if a pledge is contained in a confidential document, it does not count as a pledge? Perhaps he will allow me to finish. The noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, who spoke to us this afternoon, said that a pledge was given and that it was because of that pledge that he agreed to the terms of the White Paper. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he has looked in the Order in Council, he has looked in all the legislation connected with it, but he cannot find the pledge. On the other hand, the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd of Merton, all say that the pledge existed. It seems to put us in a difficult position, because this is not really a question of law: it is a question of ethics. Are the Government bound by something which they said in private, or are they not?
What I want to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or possibly the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, is: will they agree to the publication of this passage? There is nothing secret about it. It may have been confidential, but I can assure them there is nothing that is secret: and it may even be regarded as ancient history now. But during the proceedings of the Conference, notes were taken of what was said. Will the Government publish them?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if I may answer that last question first, I would say that no one knows better than the noble Marquess that publication cannot rest with me or with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. That is a question which would have to be considered by a great number of people other than those who are now present this afternoon. No doubt his suggestion will be noticed, among others, but, for the reasons my noble and learned friend has said, very serious issues would arise about the publication of a document of this kind. I cannot possibly answer offhand or without proper consultation as to the serious constitutional issues that are involved.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I fully appreciate that an answer cannot be given tonight, because
1230
obviously this is a very large question and it will, no doubt, have to be considered by the Cabinet as a whole. But there is a danger, and a serious danger, that it will appear to many people, certainly in Rhodesia and possibly in this country, too, that the Government are sheltering behind the confidential character of this document. If they are not sheltering, there is no reason why the document should not be published. I only ask that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or whoever it is. will put it to his colleagues. It would relieve a great deal of anxiety and mistrust if these passages were published.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, now that the noble Marquess has raised the question of publication, it is obviously a matter which will have to be considered. This can scarcely be denied. But I must emphatically repudiate the view that, because we have shown hesitation about the publication of a document, to the confidential character of which we attach vast importance, we are sheltering behind anything. The fact of the matter is, as my noble and learned friend said, we are placed in an intolerable dilemma by this kind of thing. Clearly, as the noble Marquess knows and has said in plain terms, there is a verbatim record of what was said. It is no good talking about one's private recollection of these things. Either one is free to discuss it altogether or not at all. There cannot be a halfway house, and it is the halfway house which has been achieved by these disclosures. We must either stand on the principle of confidentiality, to which we attach vast importance, or we must publish the whole thing. Now that the noble Marquess has raised this issue it will be dealt with, but I cannot take it further this evening.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No; that is all I ask.
7.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to thank very much indeed all the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which I think has been a great debate on a great theme: the theme of British responsibility for Central Africa. I think the authority of your Lordships' House always

1231
depends on the number of speakers with a special knowledge of the subject under discussion. Looking at the list I see that of the thirteen speakers, four had lived for a rather long period of time in Africa, five had been Ministers at the Colonial Office, and three of those five had actually been Secretaries of State. My Lords, if I Iliad been a referee judging this debate, I am afraid I should have had to decide that the Government, though not disqualified for breaking the rules, had heavily lost on points, because of the thirteen speakers, again, eight were against the Government and five were for the Government. At the same time, I would pay a tribute to the loser for his courage in standing up to seconds, all of whom did their best to talk him into retiring from the ring. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  NUMBERS OF UNITED KINGDOM MIGRANTS
  NUMBERS OF UNITED KINGDOM MIGRANTS