Sitting of 25 July 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Swine Fever (Slaughter Policy)
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce the date early in 1963 upon which a compulsory policy for swine fever will be introduced.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) on 18th July, it is too soon for me to give the exact date on which the slaughter policy will be introduced, but it remains my intention that a start should be made early in the New Year.
    Mr. Browne: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that it would be of great help to farmers if he could announce well beforehand the date on which the scheme will start? One might suggest that it could be made earlier than he has anticipated in view of the amount of money he will save in respect of slaughter due to fowl pest.
    Mr. Soames: As to the question of the date of announcement, I have in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I will announce it as soon as it is fixed.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what negotiations he has now had with the European Economic Community concerning British horticulture.
    Mr. Soames: A working party of the Conference has considered the problems of horticulture in the United Kingdom and has reported to Ministers who had a short preliminary discussion yesterday.
    Mr. Ridley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the answer is a lemon it will not be good enough, and that this is one of the most important areas of the whole negotiations? Will he use his best endeavours to try to get conditions which will give reasonable security to British growers?
    Mr. Soames: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am fully aware how vital it is, both within the negotiations and for the horticultural industry, that we should gat reasonable arrangements.
    Mr. Peart: Is the Minister aware that there is concern in the horticultural world about the position of the Government? As yet Government spokesmen on this matter have given the impression that they are prepared to go into the European community without any adequate safeguards. When are we likely to know what really are the safeguards the Government wish to have?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) knows well that these matters are still under negotiation. We have not on any subject within these negotiations made public what is the position of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Peart: The Minister has not answered my question. I asked what really are the safeguards the Government desire? What is the Government's policy on this? I am only afraid that Government spokesmen for agriculture—and, indeed, the Lord Privy Seal—because of a European concept will go in without giving these safeguards. I want to know What they are.
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Member asks what is the position of the Government on safeguards for the horticultural industry. I said that that is a vital element within the negotiations. It is part of the negotiations, but we are not making them public.
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will issue as a White Paper the text of his statements made at the meeting with Ministers of member States of the European Agricultural Community.
    Mr. Soames: My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal's opening statement was, of course, published as a White Paper, but the detailed discussions which are taking place during the course of the negotiations with the European Economic Community are confidential, and the statements made during them are therefore not published.
    Mr. Peart: Is not the Minister aware that the Lord Privy Seal made a statement on Euratom which was very detailed and Chart we have not had from the Minister of Agriculture anything comparable to that statement? Is he now aware that there is a feeling in the country that the Government have been rather lackadaisical about this and that the Lord Privy Seal will give everything away in agriculture and get nothing in return? When are we to have a detailed explanation of the Government's agricultural policy in relation to the Common Market?
    Mr. Soames: My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal made dear after his statement on Monday that he had published White Papers on the opening statement in the negotiations with the E.E.C., the Coal and Iron Community and with Euratom. These are the only published statements, and the proceedings within the negotiations have not been published.
    Mr. J. Wells: Can my right hon. Friend give some firm assurance to the horticultural districts, following the current round of negotiations, because those districts are very worried and would like a clear exposition?
    Mr. Soames: The Government's position is as it has been set out all the way along. We have not been able as yet to come to a final agreement with the E.E.C. countries and we are in the process of negotiation. We had another meeting yesterday and there will be further meetings.
    Mr. Peart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Privy Seal's statement on agriculture on Monday was very vague? No real assurances have been given as yet to our producers. Is not he aware of the detailed regulations issued by the Community and also the statement issued as recently as yesterday by the Common Market Commis-
    1450
    sion to set up an agricultural advisory committee? We do not know the Government's view on this. The House is anxious to know what it is.
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman says that my right hon. Friend's statement on Monday about the position of agriculture was extremely vague. But my right hon. Friend gave a very clear and concise explanation of what had been happening during the week. He was not attempting to set out the Government's position on agriculture as a whole. He was reporting to the House the outcome of the negotiations "in the round" the previous week.
    Mr. Fellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that, under the terms of the provisional agreement reached on 21st July between Great Britain and the Six on the subject of agriculture, the farming community of Great Britain will be as well served as they are under the present system; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Soames: The provisional agreement reached with the Six on annual reviews and a further assurance for farmers in the Community deals with only a part—albeit an important part— of the arrangements that would affect our farmers if we join the E.E.C. Negotiations on other closely related aspects are still going on. Until it is possible to take an overall view of the whole of the arrangements for agriculture in an enlarged Community, it would be premature to make comparisons with our present system.
    Mr. Fell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that practically nobody in the agricultural industry or connected with it is at all happy about the announcement made about the arrangements come to on reviews the other day? When is the farming community of this country to have some real assurance that it will not be irreparably damaged if we enter the Common Market? What plans are being made for agriculture if we do not get in?
    Mr. Soames: I disagree profoundly with what my hon. Friend says about the provisional agreement, as he terms it, which was arrived at on 21st July. It concerns only a particular sphere but

    1451
    a very important sphere to which I believe the House and certainly the agricultural community attach the greatest importance. It is that there should be a continuation of our annual review and also that the Community should adopt the concept of our annual review. This is what has been done in these negotiations. Of course, an annual review is not an end in itself; it is only a means to an end. As I say, there is a lot of work yet to be done on matters which would flow from an annual review.
    Mr. Morris: The Minister has just said that an annual review is not an end in itself. When can he give an assurance to British farmers that we will not enter the Common Market on terms which will result in a decrease of the profitability of British agriculture? When can we be given an assessment of how many small farmers will survive if we enter the Common Market?
    Mr. Soames: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal and myself have said time and again that it was essential that we should achieve in these negotiations arrangements which would safeguard the vital interests of agriculture. This we have always said and it is very much in our minds today.
    Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend explain one point in the tentative proposal of last Monday? What will be the channel of communication between the British agricultural industry and the European Agricultural Commission if this process of annual review is adopted?
    Mr. Soames: To begin with, it will be at national level between the farmers' unions and the Government. When the national review and the Community reviews are being undertaken, there will be discussions between the Commission and representatives of producer interests.

    Altaswede Seed
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take action to ensure that Altaswede seed imported into the United Kingdom is stained to make sure that it is not mixed with other home-grown clovers thus spreading the risk of red clover stem eelworm.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): The Seeds Regulations, 1961, require the variety and country of origin of red clover seed to be declared by the seller. We are satisfied that these requirements give the buyer of seeds adequate protection against admixture, and we do not think that the staining of Altaswede seed imported from Canada is necessary for this purpose, or would have any effect upon the incidence of red clover stem eelworm in this country.
    Mr. Harrison: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that in Canada and the United States they use a method of staining seed to ensure that infected seed does not get involved with their domestic supplies? Would he not consider, in view of the importance of the export of clover seed from the Eastern Counties, banning all infected seed from coming into the country?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am aware of the regulations in force in Canada. Experience has shown that Altaswede seed is not unsuitable for growing in this country and that it is particularly useful when supplies of home-grown clover seed are short. There are no plant health reasons why this should be stopped at this moment.

    Bacon Imports
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the decline in the quantity of home-produced bacon in the past seven years and the increase in bacon imports by 95,000 tons in the same period, he will now impose a quota on future bacon imports.
    Mr. Soames: No, Sir. The home pig producers' return is safeguarded by the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme which relates the guaranteed price of pigs to an annual number of certifications of around 10·5 million. This arrangement was agreed with the farmers' unions in 1961 and takes into account the supply position, the level of home demand and the cost of the deficiency payments to the Exchequer.
    Mr. Farr: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the increase of

    1453
    100,000 tons in the home consumption of bacon pig, which has occurred in the past eight years and which has been met entirely by foreign imports, is a very unsatisfactory position? Could my right hon. Friend advise me how it is possible for bacon producers to reduce their costs and become more competitive if the market is to continue to be swamped with foreign imports?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend talks about the market continuing to be swamped with foreign imports, but I am sure he realises that, if we had endeavoured to alter our import-export trading arrangements with other countries in tune with the movement of the pig cycle, this would not have been to the advantage of this country as a major trading nation.
    Sir A. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind the fact that there is a prospect of another 1 million pigs coming forward at home—this despite the disincentive, because we are running at over 10½ million pigs a year? Would it not be well to have a look at the import side of this bacon picture so that we can have a better balance and can give reasonable encouragement to the home producer?
    Mr. Soames: Certainly, within our international obligations and responsibilities. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the national pig herd has increased considerably. Whereas 10·5 million was the figure agreed with the farmers' unions to attract the basic guarantee, it is now upward of 11½ million, about 1 million up on forecast certifications— this despite the disincentive, which has been masked to some extent by the amount of the feed formula which has an important part to play. We shall have to look at the whole question at the next review.
    Mr. P. Browne: Does not this show that the moment the Government apply a disincentive in one direction they are bound to get increased production in another? The disincentive with respect to milk last year has now resulted in an increased pig herd. What is my right hon. Friend going to do about it?
    Mr. Soames: I do not believe that is the case so far as the pig herd is concerned. We have endeavoured through
    1454
    the flexible price guarantee to have some effect upon the large rises and falls in the pig herd, and I still believe that the basic thought behind the flexible guarantee could make a considerable contribution towards this. The movements in price at the different levels of production have not been sufficient to act as a disincentive.

    White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board
    Mr. Jegerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes to increase the membership of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board.
    Mr. Soames: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are considering the future composition of these two bodies, including the possibility of varying the number of members, and we will make an announcement well before the end of this year, when the appointments of all but one of the present members expire.
    Mr. Jeger: Would the right hon. Gentleman give a little urgency to this matter, in view of the fact that the record of these bodies in the past in connection with labour relations is not too good and they obviously need a specialist in dealing with the trade unions and their own workers?
    Mr. Soames: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. I believe that these bodies have contributed beneficially to the fishing industry as a whole; but, as I say, I will make an announcement in the fulness of time on the new membership.

    Wood Pigeons
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, to combat the menace of wood pigeons, he will take steps to make cartridges available at reduced prices to recognised individual expert shots operating on a country-wide basis.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: No, Sir. Grants towards the cost of cartridges for shooting wood pigeons are available to rabbit clearance societies, who may provide cartridges for recognised shots if they wish.
    Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that whilst it may seem very satisfactory on paper, it is not working out in practice? Is he further aware that I know the name of one expert wood pigeon shot who has killed over 100,000 wood pigeons but who has now given up because he finds that to continue under the present scheme he would have to join no fewer than forty of these rabbit clearance societies?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It is not necessary to join the societies. One only has to be recognised by them. If the gentleman to whom my hon. Friend refers was a recognised shot, my Department could arrange for him to get these cartridges with the minimum amount of difficulty. I think the gentleman concerned might well come into this category.
    Mr. Hilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the wood pigeon in Norfolk is one of the worst of several pests that we have on our farms and that it does tremendous damage? If he cannot agree to the suggestion made by his hon. Friend, will he at least ask his right hon. Friend to give careful consideration to the proposals in the letter which I sent to him a couple of days ago from the Norfolk branch of the National Farmers' Union for dealing with these pests?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am aware of the damage done by wood pigeons, and everything possible is being done to eradicate them.
    Sir A. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the increasing damage to farm and garden crops by wood pigeons in recent years, he will consult the National Farmers' Union, ornithologists and pest destruction experts on further measures which might be taken to reduce their numbers.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: We are aware of the increasing amount of damage being done by wood pigeons. The Ministry is in constant consultation with the interests to which my hon. Friend refers, and with the Advisory Council on Rabbits and other Land Pests, on further measures to reduce the number of wood pigeons.
    Sir A. Hurd: In addition to what we are achieving at present, could not more be achieved possibly by the giving of some sort of tranquiliser to the pigeons so that they could be caught more easily on the ground?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I shall give thought to that suggestion.

    Fowl Pest, Norfolk
    Mr. Hiltonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state, to the nearest convenient date, the number of poultry slaughtered as a result of the present outbreak of fowl pest in Norfolk; how many of these were ducks, turkeys and chickens, respectively; what was the amount paid out in compensation; what new measures are being taken to combat the outbreak; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Infected area restrictions controlling the movement of poultry into, out of, and within central and eastern Norfolk have been in force since 30th March. From then until mid-July, 411 outbreaks were confirmed in Norfolk, involving the slaughter of nearly 1½ million infected and contact birds. Of these approximately 1,200,000 were chickens, 231,000 turkeys, 16,000 ducks, 3,000 other birds including geese and pheasants. The total compensation for these birds is estimated at about £1¼ million.
    Regarding future policy I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 18th July in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd).
    Mr. Hilton: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that lengthy reply, may I ask him if he is aware that the number of poultry of all sorts involved in this most recent outbreak in Norfolk and the resultant cost are of great concern to us all? As to the statement which was issued by his right hon. Friend a few days ago, is the hon. Gentleman aware that most people in Norfolk, and especially the farmers who have been in the poultry trade for nearly fifty years and have never suffered from fowl pest, will welcome the new proposal that slaughter and compensation should stop, but will the hon. Gentleman make doubly sure that adequate

    1457
    supplies of vaccine are made available as soon as possible at reasonable prices for poultry keepers?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Yes, we will.

    Meat (Prices)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the continuing high prices of meat and the failure of the predicted increase in summer supplies to materialise, if he will make a statement on the present position and the prospects for the next three months.
    Mr. Soames: As I explained to the House on 2nd July, I expect that during the later summer months there will be a considerable increase in the number of cattle and sheep coming on the market and that this will be reflected in price movements both at wholesale and retail level. The poor spring and late grass season this year have retarded marketings, particularly in the case of sheep and so tended to keep up prices in the late spring and early summer.
    Marketings of pigs have been higher than a year ago and prices have been substantially lower both at wholesale and retail level.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he made that statement he implied that the butchers were to blame for the high prices when, in fact, the wholesale prices were going sky-high? Is he further aware that last week the president of the National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations accused the Minister of sheer electioneering for the by-elections and of hoodwinking the housewife by that statement? Since none of us in this House believes that the right hon. Gentleman would descend to such sordid practices, will he make a statement denouncing that suggestion of the Federation?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman has completely misinterpreted what I said. The statement to which he refers was made in May and not in July. I said that we saw a considerable increase in marketings during the summer months, that at the moment prices were high in the wholesale markets, that we envisaged these prices would fall when the cattle came forward in greater numbers and
    1458
    we expected the fall in wholesale prices to be reflected in a fall in retail prices in the shops.
    Mr. Darling: As I understand that the Minister has now been converted to the view that he cannot operate a deficiency payments scheme satisfactorily in a free market, and as there are obvious dangers in prophesying price movements, will he undertake to publish a price schedule week by week showing what retail prices of meat ought to be, based on the F.M.C. price list, which would be of great benefit?
    Mr. Soames: Retail prices vary considerably up and down the country. Wholesale prices are readily available. Significant movements in wholesale prices are frequently recorded in national organs and many people see them.
    Mr. Dodds: The Minister talked about a cut in the summer—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

    Holdings
    Mr. Hiltonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the number of farmers in the United Kingdom in 1939, 1947, 1956, and at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: As the agricultural returns relate to holdings, it is not possible to give the actual numbers of farmers in these years. The number of holdings in the United Kingdom, excluding holdings in Great Britain consisting solely of rough grazings, was approximately 525,000 both in 1939 and 1947, 512,000 in 1956 and 470,000 in 1961. A large proportion of holdings are worked part-time, and some are worked as distinct units within a single farm business.
    Mr. Hilton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this gradual decline in the number of holdings is causing concern in farming circles, particularly among small farmers who are very apprehensive about their future in view of the possibility of our joining the European Economic Community? Can he give any estimate of the number of small farmers who are likely to go out of business if we join the Common Market,

    1459
    having regard to the large number in the Six who have already been put out of agriculture?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The amalgamation of smallholdings is inevitable with the growth of modernisation and increased efficiency. This is bound to happen. It is much too soon yet to give an answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is my hon. Friend able to give the number of farmers included in the total decrease who have been removed from their land because of the spread of towns, new towns and building, or are those figures not available?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I have not those figures available at present, but I will look into the matter for my hon. Friend.
    Mr. C. Hughes: As the decrease has been alarming during the past six years, can the hon. Gentleman give any reasons for it? Does he expect that the decrease will continue at the present rate, and for how long? Also, does he think that a decrease like this is desirable in the interests of British agriculture?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I do not agree that the decrease has been alarming. A decline from 512,000 to 470,000 in just over seven years is not alarming, though it is the trend. The reasons for it I have already given. The hon. Gentleman must realise that in the economic circumstances of the day, expansion, mechanisation and increased efficiency sometimes warrant such a decrease. This is what has been happening.

    Potato Acreage
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his proposals to increase the potato acreage for 1962.
    Mr. Soames: The 1962 potato crop is already planted.
    Mr. Peart: I accept that, but what about the position in 1961–62 and 1962–63 in relation to the future programme, since the Government have through their policy deliberately restricted the acreage?
    Mr. Soames: The Question asks about our proposals to increase the potato
    1460
    acreage for 1962. The hon. Gentleman now asks about 1961 and 1963 as well. I find it hard to understand exactly what he wants by way of information.
    Mr. Peart: The Minister knows that the Government's policy was to restrict the potato acreage and that this brought about a shortage which has caused concern in many parts of the country. I want to know, for the next twelve months and beyond, whether it is the Government's intention still to have this restrictionist policy. The Minister can be very clever about it, but he knows the purpose of the question. I ask him to give a straight answer.
    Mr. Soames: We had a long debate about this and about the object of the Government and the object of the Potato Marketing Board. This is to use the information which it collects and has available in order to exhort, or the reverse, growers in an endeavour to get an acreage of 750,000 acres or thereabouts each year. Of course, the yield varies tremendously. If one can keep the acreage steady, at least one has a chance, taking one year with another, of coming out roughly with the right amount of potatoes, but with a commodity which varies in yield such as this does one is bound to have wide variations.
    Mr. Peart: But is not the Minister aware of the concern which is felt?

    Fishing Limit
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has now had from fishing interests and from other sources advocating the extension of the existing three-mile limit off the British coast.
    Mr. Soames: In addition to those referred to in my reply of 2nd April, I have received representations from the National Federation of Inland Wholesale Fish Merchants.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that inshore fishermen are very concerned about damage to their nets caused by foreign vessels operating just inside or just outside territorial waiters —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if the House would leave to me

    1461
    the duty of maintaining order, bearing in mind that a running commentary during Questions creates awkwardnesses for other people in hearing.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware also that off the Scottish coast there are anomalies which allow foreign vessels to fish where Scottish vessels are not allowed to fish? Could not all these matters be overcome by an extension of the existing three-mile limit?
    Mr. Soames: I am aware of the problems which my horn. Friend raises. As he knows, this is a question of what is in the best interests of this country as regards our fishing limit and also of our international obligations in this respect. I am well aware of the case and of the strong feelings of inshore fishermen in this matter. It is something which we have to watch continuously, but, in my view, this would not be an opportune moment to move to extend our fishing limit.
    Mr. Hoy: Will the right horn. Gentle-man remember when he is considering this matter that his hon. Friends behind him supported the ban on British fishermen though it was opposed from this side of the House?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friends are very well aware of the nice balance in this and that there are interests which are in flavour of extending the limit and also that the British Trawlers Federation is anxious that it should not at this time be extended.

    Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923 (Section 9)
    Sir E. Erringtonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will amend Section 9 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, in so far as it relates to the clearance of coarse fish, as recommended by the Bledisloe Committee.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: My right hon. Friend is at present considering this and other recommendations by the Bledisloe Commiteee, the majority of which, if accepted, would involve amending legislation, but I am not yet able to make a statement.
    Sir E. Errington: Does my horn. Friend realise that in Scotland and the Republic
    1462
    of Ireland there is no such limitation as is imposed by Section 9 of the Act? Does he understand the importance of this to the trout-fishing interests?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I realise the importance of this and I realise that in Scotland the limitation does at present apply. This is one of the points which my right hon. Friend will be considering before he brings proposals before the House.

    Wholesale Fruit and Vegetable Markets
    Mr. Darlingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what technical assistance he is giving to the Horticultural Marketing Council in the preparation of a national plan for regional wholesale fruit and vegetable markets, and for the most efficient designs for such markets.
    Mr. Soames: Most wholesale markets are owned by local authorities, and the preparation of a national plan is not one of the functions of the Horticultural Marketing Council, as laid down by the Horticulture Act. But it is prepared to advise on the layout and facilities of individual markets, and such technical assistance as my Department can give is always available to it.
    Mr. Darling: Does this mean that the Minister is satisfied with the present position? Has he read the pathetic Report of the Horticultural Marketing Council which makes perfectly clear that we need new wholesale markets in this country? Has he read the Report of the National Farmers' Union committee about the French five-year plan to create a network of wholesale markets in France? Will he realise that, if we are to go into the Common Market, the costly and inefficient marketing arrangements which we have in this country ought to be wiped away and we ought to have better and cheaper markets to offset the increases in prices which will come from entry into the Common Market?
    Mr. Soames: I have, of course, seen both of these Reports, and most interesting they are. In this country, since the Runciman Committee recommended that there should not be a central marketing authority but that markets

    1463
    should be in the hands of local authorities, this has been the policy we have pursued. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether I am satisfied with the situation today. The answer is that no one can be satisfied with the small amount of progress which has been made in modernising markets. This is a matter of the gravest importance for the horticulture industry as a whole, and it is exercising my mind very much at present.
    Mr. Peart: What does the Minister intend to do about it—nothing?

    Toxic Sprays
    Mr. Darlingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the fresh evidence of the dangerous long-term effects of synthetic insecticides and other toxic sprays on birds, animals, fish and human beings, a copy of which has been sent to him, whether he will put in hand an investigation into the claims made by the manufacturers of these sprays, with a view to the introduction of regulations to prohibit the sale of all sprays that are not completely safe and harmless to all animals and fish.
    Mr. Soames: I am obliged to the hon. Member for drawing my attention to the recent series of articles in the New Yorker on possible dangers arising from the use of pesticides. These articles do not appear to contain fresh evidence, and I am satisfied that the arrangements we already have in this country for investigating new agricultural pesticides before they are put on the market provide adequate safeguards for human beings and wild life.
    Mr. Darling: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most frightening aspect of these articles is not in the articles themselves but in the expert evidence quoted that the poisons remain in the soil, that persistent and repeated spraying is killing wild life, birds, animals and fish in the streams, and that there is evidence that the poisoned soil is causing diseases in animals which may well be transmitted to human beings? Would he not agree that in these circumstances and in view of the long-term prospects of the continual poisoning, we ought to ban immediately many of these sprays?
    Mr. Soames: No, Sir. The technical and scientific advice to me on this matter is that there is nothing new in the way of evidence in those articles that was not already known at the time when the research study group went into the whole question and produced a report which has been accepted both by the medical authorities and by wild life interests in this country.
    Mr. Bullard: Will my right hon. Friend keep a sense of balance about this? As well as studying the articles in the New Yorker, will he also pay special attention to the report of the committee to which he has referred and which was presided over by Professor Sanders? Will he not agree that there is nothing particularly healthful in having crops messed on by birds, pigeons, rabbits, and other animals, and that we need to create a paradise for people as well as for pigeons?
    Mr. Soames: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says, and I can assure him that I shall do my best to maintain a sense of balance.
    Mr. Darling: Will the Minister bear in mind that much of the expert medical and scientific evidence in America has contradicted its previous views on these sprays and that it is the long-term effect of the sprays which is now causing concern? Although we may not want crops dirtied by birds, we certainly do not want crops which will cause cancer in animals and human beings.
    Mr. Soames: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should make too much out of this from the articles that have appeared in a magazine. As he knows, the greatest precautions are taken and no dressing or pesticide is allowed to be used unless it has been tested and passed.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his approach today, no doubt unwittingly, might be interpreted as being complacent? Does he not recollect that the Estimates Committee last year recommended a full inquiry into the effects of chemicals in industry both on natural life and human life? Does he realise that there is a problem here? Although he may be perfectly right in taking this comforting

    1465
    attitude will he institute a comprehensive inquiry into a matter that is causing immense anxiety to all interested in natural life and human health?
    Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. I can assure my than. Friend that the most helpful report and recommendations of the Committee to which he has referred have in fact been implemented and that there is constant research going on into this.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: We have dealt with only fourteen questions by four minutes past three. I desire to renew my request to hon. Members to keep supplementary questions short.

    Lark-Denver Sluice (Cut-Off Channel)
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the Government moneys involved, how far work has progressed on the new out from the Lark to Denver sluice; and when he expects it to be completed.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Excellent progress continues to be made on the cut-off channel, and the contractors are well ahead of schedule. At the present rate of progress, and provided no unforeseen difficulties occur, it is expected that the channel will be completed by the end of 1963.

    Great Ouse River Board
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, when making grants available to the Great Ouse River Board for a cut-off-channel and other new works, he will make it a condition that the completed waterways shall be available for use by pleasure craft and barges.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: No, Sir. The managements of the channels constructed under the Great Ouse Flood Protection Scheme is a matter for the river board.
    Mr. Parker: In view of the excellent work done by the Thames Conservancy both in improving drainage and boating facilities, could not a directive or lead be given by the Minister to other bodies, like the Great Ouse River Board, to do the same?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The things that have been done by the Thames Conservancy Board will undoubtedly be taken into consideration by river boards in the future.

    Defoliating Agents
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to inform farmers, and especially fruit and grain-growers, of the possible effects on their crops of defoliating agents capable of being used in war.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I do not think I can give special advice to farmers about the effects of defoliating agents, nor would this appear to be necessary as there is no serious risk of their being used in war time against this country.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the evidence given to the United States Representative Sub-Committee as long ago as 23rd March, 1961, shows that complete areas can be stripped of leaves and of crops and fruit? Is it not likely that the Soviet Union could also use this, and should not the farming community of this country be fully informed of the possibilities which exist in this respect?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am aware of this United States report. There are considerable difficulties inherent in delivering this kind of poison against this country. When we look at all the dangers today, there are much greater threats than this, but I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of reports by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, Animal Health Branch, that a virulent African type of foot-and-mouth disease is present in Turkey, what special precautions he is taking to ensure this disease is not brought into Great Britain.
    Sir A. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are to be taken by Britain, in conjunction with other European countries, to safeguard herds and flocks

    1467
    against the African virus of foot-and-mouth disease which has lately attacked stock in Israel, Syria, Jordan and Turkey.
    Mr. Soames: It is of vital importance to us that this disease should not spread through Europe and thus place us at risk. The Director General of F.A.O. and the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease, of which my chief veterinary officer is chairman, have been considering urgently the foot-and-mouth disease situation in the Middle East, and I understand that the Director General intends to make recommendations as to the measures necessary to prevent the spread of the disease into Europe.
    Sir A. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that we are not taking any meat into this country from the countries that are so badly infected, because we know that the virus can readily be carried in carcase meat? Will he assure us that Pirbright is working on a virus that may give us some kind of immunity if this disease should spread into Europe?
    Mr. Soames: We do not import any uncooked meat from any of the countries in the Middle East or the countries mentioned in the Question. We have traditionally and for a long time had a small established trade with Africa for small quantities of uncooked meat and there is considerable veterinary control and restriction on the movement of that meat. The virus concerned is being worked on and a vaccine is being produced at Pirbright bait it would not be for use in this country if this disease were to come here. It would be by slaughter that we would eradicate it.
    Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the fact that the Continent controls foot-and-mouth disease by vaccination and that they do not have a supply of vaccine to control this virus, and that we import meat from Europe, will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that if this disease spreads from Turkey into Europe no meat will be brought into this country?
    Mr. Soames: I shall, of course, keep a very close watch on that.

    Smallholders, Norfolk
    Mr. Fellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of smallholders in Norfolk; and what are the numbers of farmers engaged in horticulture in Norfolk, giving separate figures for those engaged full time and for those engaged part time.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: As at 31st March, 1961, the number of statutory smallholdings in Norfolk, provided by the County Council, was 1,267, of which 705 were full-time holdings and 562 were part-time holdings. In addition there are 7,000 to 8,000 small farms and holdings owned privately.
    Of the total of 12,000 holdings in Norfolk covered by the agricultural censuses, as at June, 1960, some 4,400 grew horticultural crops, some as specialists and many in conjunction with other farm enterprises. I have no information as to how many of these are full time or part time.
    Mr. Fell: I thank my hon. Friend for that very full Answer. I will not repeat the question asked earlier today by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells), but may I ask my hon. Friend whether the Government are aware of the great worry among the small farmers, not only in Norfolk but all over the country, about the present negotiations?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am fully aware of the feelings of my hon. Friends and of the small farmers, but I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon.
    Mr. Bullard: In view of the enormous importance of the horticultural section of agriculture in Norfolk generally, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the misgivings which horticulturists have about the negotiations which are going on which seem to involve a temporary arrangement in the transitional period only as regards the future of horticultural policy in Europe? Will he ensure that there is something more permanent than a temporary transitional arrangement?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has heard my hon. Friend's remarks and will bear them in mind.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Polish ex-Regulars (Pensions)
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the evidence of the increasingly distressing circumstances in which many of the surviving Polish ex-Regulars have been living in the United Kingdom in the last six months, he will now take the necessary steps to ensure that they may receive a military pension.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): There are some difficulties about the solution suggested by the hon. Member, but I am considering whether there is anything more that can be done to help in cases of distress.
    Mr. Fletcher: I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. In view of the protestations on this subject which have been made to the Prime Minister and to others in the past, may we now have some hope that the new Minister will adopt a more liberal and enlightened policy on this subject and will correct what has been a manifest injustice for many years past?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that everybody has a good deal of instinctive sympathy for the gallant officers and men who came to help us, but there are difficulties about that particular solution. I have not had time to examine the matter in great detail. I have tried to leave a little chink open so that I may examine it further.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: When considering this matter, will my right hon. Friend have examined very fully the arrangements which the French Government have come to with the present Polish Government about providing the necessary finance to enable a pension as of right to be paid to Polish ex-Service men who live outside Poland?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir. I think that there is a good deal of misunderstanding about what other Governments have done and about what we have done. We have done a great deal for the Poles, but I will examine all these matters.

    Nuclear Deterrent
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on
    1470
    the Government's present policy in regard to the independent nuclear deterrent.
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Defence what proposals he now has for strengthening the British nuclear deterrent.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in the House on 26th June, Her Majesty's Government intend to maintain the British nuclear deterrent.
    Mr. Longden: May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment? Is he aware that what people want to know is just how independent our deterrent is. If it is not independent, let us drop the pretence that it is. If it is independent, may we be told clearly Why it is necessary, as I think it is, that we should retain it? Will he tell the people these things in what I might call "home-truths"—that is, in simple, clear, forthright language which everyone can understand?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I shall endeavour to be intelligible.
    Mr. Wall: Will my right thon. Friend consider the future generation of nuclear deterrents, and, in so doing, will he give particular consideration to the advantages of the Polaris submarine which at the moment this country does not possess?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Obviously these are all matters which will require consideration, but I cannot deal with all of them in answer to this Question.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has assumed his new great office, will he consider again with a fresh mind whether it is in the national interest that we should maintain this so-called independent nuclear deterrent? Can he say whether we have been having any talks with America about the cost of Skybolt and whether it is true that the costs which we would have to pay are rising rather alarmingly?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that in the case of Skybolt we are getting an independent deterrent a great deal cheaper than we would have done if we had done the development ourselves.
    Mr. Wade: May I press the Minister on this question of definition? What exactly does he mean by the "independent nuclear deterrent"? Do Her Majesty's Government seriously contemplate using nuclear weapons independently or even threatening to use them independently? Is not that an out-of-date as well as dangerous concept?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is hardly for me to try to instruct the hon. Gentleman on the use of English. "Independent" means independent. However, I think that between allies a little more concentration on inter-dependence would not be amiss.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not in any way be influenced by the briefings that the members of the Opposition Front Bench get from the Pentagon?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I fully appreciate that.
    Mr. M. Foot: While reserving my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he has yet had time to circulate throughout his Department the speech which he delivered on the subject of an independent nuclear deterrent when he was able to speak his mind as a free man from the back benches?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: In view of the point made by the hon. Member, I will try to refresh my memory on the subject.

    Policy
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the present defence policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: At a convenient opportunity.
    Mr. Hughes: May I refresh the right hon. Gentleman's memory? We understood that as Chancellor of the Exchequer he was strongly critical of the heavy expenditure on defence at that time and felt that it contributed to inflation. Is he now prepared to agree to the reduction of Government expenditure on defence, or is he to be the gamekeeper turned poacher?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Tedious though it may be, I recommend the hon. Member to study the whole of my speech as Chancellor of the Exchequer and not just one part of it.

    Nuclear Tests
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Defence if he will invite Professor Don Leet to the United Kingdom to discuss with Her Majesty's scientific advisers his method of detecting underground tests.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. All scientific information on this topic is welcome and no special invitation is needed to secure this end.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the House on 22nd May, the Prime Minister assured me that he would study any evidence made available by Professor Lewis Don Leet and that in response to that, Professor Don Leet wrote to the Prime Minister on 5th June sending the evidence and saying that he would greatly appreciate an opportunity of consultations with British scientists to test his claims but that so far the professor has had only an acknowledgment from the Prime Minister, who has cautiously transferred this Question, which I put down to him? Is it not absurd that when a man of that stature makes an offer to come and collaborate with British scientists, the offer is not accepted with open arms?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Far be it from me to prevent any consultations on this extremely important topic, but Professor Leet, like a great many other scientists in this field, is in consultation with the American Government. We have our own scientists, discussions are going on and there is close contact between us and the American Government. If we all started issuing invitations to one another, I do not think that it would really help.

    France (Nuclear Weapon Programme)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Defence if he will end all direct and indirect British assistance to France's nuclear weapon programme.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: We have not been asked for, and are not giving, any assistance to France's nuclear weapon programme.
    Mr. Allaun: Does not the Minister admit, first, that Rolls-Royce assistance to Mirage vitally helps the French nuclear weapon programme as a whole and, secondly, that the spread of nuclear weapons to other nations greatly increases the danger of war?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: In my last post, I made some small contribution to helping to get the Germans, the French and ourselves jointly to develop a vertical lift engine. I considered that a sensible thing and I very much hope that nobody will be opposed to any inter-dependence of that character.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister suggesting that trading arrangements come before the matter of peace? That is the implication.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Defence if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not supply a British guided weapons system for France's projected nuclear missile and will refrain from giving further instruction in low altitude bombing techniques to the French Air Force; and if he will ensure that no official design assistance is afforded to the French Mirage vertical take-off engine.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.
    Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister deny that Hawker Siddeley is giving the French ballistic missile organisation information based on Blue Water?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, I do not think so. The hon. Member has an exaggerated idea of what helps the nuclear deterrent. We cannot cut off all contact with France in case any piece of knowledge might be used in that direction.
    Mr. Paget: Is not the real trouble that whilst, for largely prestige reasons, we insist upon maintaining independence for ourselves in this field, it is difficult to object to anybody else seeking similar independence and that this may have tragic consequences?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That depends on what the hon. and learned Gentleman means by "object to anybody else". The
    1474
    French are a nuclear Power for this purpose and also they are our allies in N.A.T.O. We understand their reasons for that.
    Mr. M. Foot: Does the Minister consider it a good idea that the French should be an independent nuclear Power?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: We fully understand the position of the French in this matter, as they understand ours. I make no criticisms of France.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Second Sea Lord (Staff)
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many are at present employed on the staff and in the office of the Second Sea Lord; and what was the number in 1941.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): Unfortunately mo figures are available for 1941. The nearest date for which a reasonably comprehensive figure is available is 1st April, 1946, when there were 679 persons employed in the Departments under the Second Sea Lord's superintendence, excluding naval ratings, for whom no figure is available. At 1st April, 1962, there were 485 persons employed in these Departments, including 66 naval ratings. There were five persons in the Second Sea Lord's personal office on 1st April, 1946, and five persons on 1st April, 1962.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Whilst appreciating what my hon. Friend has done in an effort to try to reduce these figures, may I ask him to bear in mind that my information is that in 1941 this figure was much lower than it is today and that if the reputation of the Royal Navy and the organisation behind it is to be maintained, it is essential that we get the best value for our money? Will he make all the efforts he can to try to ensure that this is achieved?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: My noble Friend and I have given a solemn undertaking to this House that we will cut the headquarters staff of the Navy 1 per cent. every year for five years. We shall continue to do this. This area is not one which will be immune from that attention.

    Helicopters
    Commander Courtneyasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what methods are employed for prevention of deterioration whilst at sea of helicopters installed in frigates and other of Her Majesty's ships.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Manufacturing specifications take account of the special conditions in which these helicopters have to operate. Once in service, they are stowed in snips' hangars when not in use and additional protective measures are employed such as the de-watering oil process, the washing down of the external surfaces with fresh water, and using sprayed lanolin coatings.
    Commander Courtney: Is my hon. Friend aware of the potentialities of a new type of collapsible aluminium hangar which has been developed in this country and which, I understand, is in use in the Royal Canadian Navy?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I was not myself aware of this, but if my hon. and gallant Friend sends me details I should be happy to draw it to the attention of our design authority.

    H.M. Submarines "Dreadnought" and "Valiant"
    Commander Courtneyasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when it is expected that Her Majesty's submarines "Dreadnought" and "Valiant" will become operational with the fleet.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: We hope to commission the "Dreadnought" before the end of this year. She will then require extensive triads, so I cannot forecast with any accuracy when in 1963 she will become operational with our fleet.
    The "Valiant" was not laid down until this year. Any forecast so long in advance of the date when she will become operational with the fleet would have no real significance.
    Commander Courtney: Is my hon. Friend aware that American nuclear submarines are now being built under the three-shift system, that about sixty are projected and that the latest will be built within a space of two years? Can my hon. Friend tell the House what the Admiralty will do to reduce the appalling time that is taken to build our own nuclear boats?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The Admiralty and Messrs. Vickers are very anxious to speed up this building to the greatest possible extent. There has been an element of two and even three-shift working since the "Dreadnought" was launched in October, 1960. I might add that we hope that some of the unofficial disputes which have taken place may be lessened when the shipwrights and the boiler makers amalgamate and that then we might not have quite the same trouble over demarcation that we have had in the past.
    Mr. Willis: Has any decision been made whether these two submarines are to be followed by other nuclear submarines?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: There is no decision at present.
    Mr. Wall: Would my hon. Friend agree that the addition of two hunter-killer submarines is of limited value to our national security, whereas the addition of two Polaris submarines would be of very great value to our national security? Will he look into the matter again?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is another question. We must, however, get into the business of nuclear propulsion and these submarines will give us valuable experience, both in building and in training and in the operating of these vessels.
    Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
    Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you terminated Questions today at 3.29 and 40 seconds—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—20 seconds ahead of schedule, thereby depriving me of the opportunity of asking Question No. 35. [An HON. MEMBER: "The clock had struck."] No, the clock had not struck. My right hon. Friend is quite wrong: it had not struck. We were about 20 seconds ahead of schedule. In those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, could I be allowed the opportunity to ask my Question No. 35?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Speaker: I regret we were not able to hear the hon. Member asking his Question, but I am afraid that the House has to entrust to me observing and heading what the time is.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
PIPE-LINES BILL [Lords]
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
Order for Third Reading read.
3.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like, first, to express my very sincere gratitude, and that of my right hon. Friend, to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works, and, in doing so, to assure him that my gratitude is quite untinged with envy though I am acutely conscious of the fact that by not myself being a member of Standing Committee B I missed a positive feast of oratory; and such opportunities are fortunately, rare, though not all that rare.
When we reached the Report stage of the Bill, yesterday, following upon the protests which had been made by the Opposition, in time-honoured manner, about the imposition of this wicked device, I in my innocence supposed that we would pass as quickly as possible over a number of Amendments and new clauses. In fact, we did cover a great many important points. Nevertheless, a great deal of time was spent by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) and others in touching up their well-known, old-fashioned and somewhat melodramatic masterpiece which shows a gallant band of Socialist Members rescuing the unfortunate country from a lot of predatory, rapacious and profit-thirsty oil company villains. All I would say is that we are all so familiar with that masterpiece by now that it has begun to wear a bit tibia, and I hope that the Opposition will find another picture to show us before long.
In commending to the House this undoubtedly desirable piece of legislation —and I should like, in using those words, to acknowledge that they are not my own, but those of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin)—I should like to express the opinion that the differences between the two sides of the Committee and of
1478
the House have been, with one major exception, those of method rather than principle. I should like to express, in passing, my personal view that it is rather a pity, when we discuss these very important and highly intricate problems, that we should always convert them into doctrinal mountains. The points with which the debates have been mostly concerned have been those of control, planning, and safety, and I propose very briefly to say a word about each.
I thought that yesterday the Opposition appeared to ignore the very wide powers of control which the Bill confers upon the Minister, and I refer particularly—I do not want to refer to a whole lot of Clauses—to Clause 1 (2), which reads:
"The Minister, on an application for a pipeline construction authorisation, shall have power in his discretion to grant the application or to refuse it."
Really, this, in my opinion, gives the Minister all the powers which could possibly be thought necessary, and moreover, perhaps I should remind the House, under Clause 6 the Minister will have the power, if he thinks it right, to apply the cross-country pipeline procedure to local pipelines as well.
Let me come very briefly to the subject of planning. The word "planning" has now become a missile which we are inclined to throw at one another, meaning different things on different occasions; but it has some sort of magic content of its own which makes reasonable discussions on it sometimes a little difficult. There are two aspects of planning here. First, there is the national view of it, and then there is the local one. So far as the national planning point of view is concerned, I have already mentioned the very wide powers which are conferred upon my right hon. Friend.
The existence of those powers does really make nonsense of the Opposition's suggestion that the network of pipelines, when it comes into being, will be chaotic, unplanned and uncoordinated. The difference between us— and I accept this—is that the Opposition, on the whole, think that planning machinery in detail should be set up now, whereas we very much prefer the course, which we have adopted in the Bill, of tailoring planning machinery according to needs and experience.

1479
So far as local planning is concerned, I was myself particularly struck yesterday at the way in which hon. Members on the other side constantly appeared to ignore the powers, the experience, and, indeed, the abilities of local planning authorities. They did not appear to give them credit for any of the knowledge and experience of local affairs which they must have and which they must be supposed to have.
I should also like to refer to the plea, from which I do not altogether dissent —indeed, I do not dissent from it at all—that in legislation we should seek to make easy the task of local authorities; but equally, I think it right to say that we must and are obliged to look at the public interest as a whole, and this very much includes the competitive power of our industries. If we are to hedge about a new development of this kind with restrictions which, added together, would be extremely costly in delay, we should, I think, be making a great mistake.
I often fed that a habit has grown up today of almost searching for reasons for stopping people doing things, or, at any rate, of conducting into their actions, or their proposed actions, such lengthy inquiries as to render the action which eventually is permitted long out of date and obsolescent. Therefore, our intention in the Bill has been that, while we admit administrative machinery and control to be necessary, it should be so framed as to expedite proceedings rather than cause delay.
It will be recalled that in some recent debates there has been a serious plea made for action; and urgent action, to be taken in areas stricken by unemployment. This plea does not seem to me to be in very full harmony with the suggestion which appeared so frequently yesterday that administrative convenience should have priority over industrial efficiency.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: Nonsense.
Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense", but his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) repeatedly made the point that it is our responsibility to try to make the task of local authorities easy, and very little
1480
weight was given to what, to my mind, in the present position of the country, must be of paramount importance, whether we can brush up our economic life so that we are able to compete in a world which gets more competitive day by day.
The third problem was safety. I readily agree with what hon. Members opposite said yesterday—that this is perhaps the most important problem of all. Under the Bill it is clear that every proposal, both cross-country and local, will be looked at thoroughly from this point of view. Indeed, it is largely because of safety considerations that the Government felt justified in suggesting to Parliament that such wide discretionary powers should be conferred upon the Minister. We must remember at all times that here we are dealing not with an old industry, but a quite new development which will inevitably bring with it a series of very new problems.
The Government believe that the Minister should be in a position to get as soon as possible an overall view of the needs and problems as they emerge. The Bill ensures that he will get the maximum experience and knowledge. He will also be free to consult anybody he pleases. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) sought to write into the Bill a provision to give the Minister the right to consult a number of authorities. We opposed that for the reason that my right hon. Friend already automatically has that right and will most certainly use it. The Bill will undoubtedly face him with many problems, and he will, of course, need to exercise his quite unfettered right to consult anyone who is likely to be able to help.
I said at the beginning that the differences between the two sides of the House are largely those of method rather than principle. I also said that there was one exception, and I will now deal with it. This is the question of ownership. It is only here that we have any fundamental difference between us. As I understand, the Labour Party would like to set up a statutory board which would own and develop the pipeline network. Our position is not a doctrinal one at all. It is very simple.
First, we do not believe that the State is equipped to be a skilful, successful,

1481
and enterprising commercial pioneer. Above all, we do not wish to see the already immense demands made by the public sector of our economy further swollen by the need to find the financial resources required for the development of a network of pipelines. In the words of my right hon. Friend on Second Reading, we believe that the users know best their own business. The hon. Member for Ashfield made great play of this in Committee, but I think that he made much too free a paraphrase of those words when he said that private interests know best. Certainly, the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) did when he said that what is good for Esso is good for Britain.
What we are saying is that the user knows the market best, and knows the likely demand better than anyone else. Therefore, under the Bill the initiative in the first instance, and only in the first instance, is left to him. It is for the potential user to make proposals. To get out of any possible doctrinal difficulties. I remind the House that both the railways and the canals have the right to construct pipelines on their property. After proposals have been made, every conceivable power and discretion that could be necessary is conferred by the Bill upon the State, which will have every opportunity to control and co-ordinate and to ensure safety.
I really believe that our differences are very much slighter than might have appeared in many of the debates in Committee and even slighter than appeared in the Chamber yesterday. I do not want to go into them further at the moment. All I want to do in commending the Bill to the House is to express the hope that the opportunity given by the Bill will be used and developed to the best interests of the nation as a whole.
Many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, and I have no doubt that many who served on Standing Committee B wish to take the opportunity of paying glowing tributes to my right hon. Friend who has handled the Measure, and I am very glad now to extend to them the opportunity to do so.
3.47 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: I have two preliminary comments to make on the speech of the Parliamentary Secre-
1482
tary. First, he did not utter the traditional platitude that Ministers at this juncture apply to Members on both sides of the House for the contributions that they have made to the improvement of the Bill. For that, I am grateful. Secondly, in the sixteen minutes that the hon. Member devoted to his Second Reading speech he overlooked the need for the Minister to say something about what is in the Bill in commending it for Third Reading. What he did was to go over all the ground that we went over in discussing Amendments which the Minister rejected. I cannot express the same gratitude to the Minister for having omitted to tell us what is in the Bill when commending it for Third Reading.
The hon. Gentleman said that the differences between the two sides of the House after we had got over our doctrinal arguments were related to method rather than principle. Many of the issues have been of very great importance and upon them there would probably be a very long argument about whether we were discussing method or principle. In any case, they have been arguments of very great importance to which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to pay very little attention.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the Opposition had complained at very great length about the inadequacy of the powers given to the Minister. He should read the report of the discussions. No one has ever complained that the Minister was not taking enough power. The complaint all along has been that he has been taking so much power to himself and giving so little to Parliament. The Minister has all the power in the world, but he has not made adequate provision in the Bill for his accountability to Parliament for his misdeeds. That is the complaint, and I regret very much that, after all the discussions, the Parliamentary Secretary seems to be unaware of it. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Opposition's ideas about the way in which pipelines should be constructed and operated were old fashioned and out of date and had been rejected.
Mr. Peyton: I said that what was old-fashioned and out of date was this masterpiece which every now and then right hon. and hon. Members opposite

1483
come back to—that of painting the picture of the pure, innocent maiden, representing the country and the Government, being rescued by a gallant band of Socialist M.P.s. This picture belies the facts.
Mr. Fraser: But masterpieces do not get out of date. Unlike Ministers and Governments, they live for ever. The hon. Gentleman said that the State is not equipped to be a skilled, efficient, commercial pioneer, and that pipeline development was new ground. It is not quite as new as that. The State broke this ground during the war when it built 1,200 miles of product pipelines in Britain, from which some of the oil companies are deriving very considerable benefit. It was not private enterprise which broke the new ground originally; it was the State.
Her Majesty's present advisers still take the view that in the most important works of modern society the job should be undertaken not by the State, but by private enterprise. But what about atomic energy development? Would that have been done by private enterprise? Earlier today, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty was telling us about nuclear propulsion in ships. That is being done under the leadership of the Admiralty. Were our nuclear power stations built by private enterprise or by dull, unimaginative unpatriotic people appointed by the Minister of Power to rum the electricity supply industry?
The Minister himself said something similar about the Government and private enterprise at an earlier sitting. I took the OFFICIAL REPORT containing that reference and showed it to some of those he has appointed to run the electricity supply industry. I am prevented from telling the House what they said in reply, for it would be rather unparlimentary language.
The Parliamentary Secretary began by telling us about the effect of the guillotine Motion and his disappointment that we ware not able to have full discussion yesterday on all the new Amendments and new Clauses. No doubt he had in mind particularly Amendments and new clauses put down by the Minister. As this is our last discussion before the Bill goes back to another place, with all the changes made in it by the Minister,
1484
we might bear in mind that 28 Clauses have never been discussed at all. Not a word was said about them in Standing Committee or on Report. Nearly 100 Amendments were made by the Minister with no opportunity of discussion or explanation of their purpose.
Then there are six very important Schedules, containing provision as to what has to be done when an application is made for pipeline construction authorisation and a great deal of the procedure connected with compulsory acquisition of other people's land and with compulsory rights over other peoples land. But we have never debated a single word of any of those Schedules.
The Leader of the House will perhaps note that when the beloved Guillotine fell at 10.30 last night, there were still 40 Government Amendments on the Notice Paper. They had been tabled over the weekend by the Minister of Power, but they were all put without any discussion at all and without even an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to explain their purposes. Because of the Guillotine, hon. Members on both sides of the House were disabled from putting forward Amendments which they thought would improve the Bill.
If noble Lords give the Amendments made in this House the same consideration as they gave to the Bill when it was first before them, it will still not be possible for the Government to get the Bill this Session. The Bill has been greatly changed, not as a result of discussion in the House of Commons but as a result of second and third thoughts by the right hon. Gentleman, very largely under pressure from the Country Landowners' Association and, in some parts, especially in respect of Clauses 9 and 10, by the oil companies who were not very pleased with some improvements made in the Bill in another place.
This is a bad Bill, a wicked Bill. Parliament has been tricked, and I regret to say that I think that it has been tricked deliberately by the right hon. Gentleman. All this started with the Report of the Select Committee on the Esso Petroleum Company Bill. That Committee reported to the House the need for general legislation governing the laying of pipelines with proper Parliamentary control.

1485
After the House received the Select Committee's recommendation, we decided not to proceed with further Private Bills on this subject. We declined to give a Second Reading to the Trunk Pipelines Bill in the spring of last year.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman now, but I wanted to consult for a moment. I must require him to withdraw the phrase "tricked deliberately by the right hon. Gentleman".
Mr. Fraser: I take your advice and guidance, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw the phrase.
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that, by your Ruling, those words are expunged from the record?
Mr. Speaker: We do not need to make a fuss about this. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), in compliance with my request, has withdrawn the words, and the matter is closed.
Mr. Fraser: The point I am trying to make is that when the Select Committee's Report was accepted unanimously by this House, certain promises were made by the right hon. Gentleman. These were that he accepted the Report, that he would have pipeline development according to a proper balance and pattern, and that there would be adequate Parliamentary control. Yet this Bill makes no provision for any of these things. It did not do so when he introduced it, and it still does not do so. That is why I seek to convey to hon. Members on both sides of the House that the person we must blame for that is the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman has given himself very great powers but has allowed Parliament the absolute minimum of control. We shall only be able to query the Minister's decision when we learn that he has either granted a pipeline construction authorisation or refused one. Only then shall we be able to ask Questions about it, after the event and then only if we get to know from some outside source that a decision has been made, because the Minister will not be obliged to inform us that he has made a decision. The Parliamentary Secretary appreciates how important it is
1486
to got these pipelines laid in the right place, but the Minister has not given himself the power to say where they will be put down, when they will be put down, which applications he has approved, and which he has refused. The right hon. Gentleman has, however, given himself power to convey public utility powers on private persons to exploit those powers for personal gain. I may be an innocent, but I had always assumed that when Parliament granted public utility powers it reserved them to public utilities.
Mr. Frederick Lee: That is old-fashioned.
Mr. Fraser: It may be old-fashioned, but a principle is involved. If we grant a person rights over other people's property, he should be accountable to the public. Furthermore, we should take steps to ensure that he does act in the public interest. But under the Bill these tremendous public utility powers are to be granted to private persons at the whim of the Minister and without any Parliamentary control. This is what makes this a bad Bill, and I should have thought that this point would have been readily accepted by Members on both sides of the House.
As I hinted a moment ago, noble Lords in another place put into the Bill what are now Clauses 9 and 10 to give the Minister power to require the optimum use of pipelines by companies other than the owners of the pipelines, to avoid the unnecessary construction of other pipelines, or, as the Minister put it, to avoid the construction of a proliferation of pipelines. But the Minister has so hedged round these new Clauses with protective provisions for the owners of the pipelines that his powers to ensure that that happens are practically worthless.
By the time one has read to the end of the Clause, one has gone full circle. There is so much protection for the owners of pipelines that if the Minister honours the provisions of the Bill in the interests of the owners he will never allow any other company to use the pipelines. This is the effect of his succumbing to the blandishments of the oil companies after the Bill had gone through another place.

1487
The Minister has made many Amendments to the Bill to protect the landowning interests, presumably, as I said, at the request of the Country Landowners' Association, but he has made no concessions to the public interest as represented by the local authorities. If the new Clauses in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) had not been considered, we should not have been able to discuss any interests which local authorities might have in the Bill because all the Clauses dealing with their interests were subjected to the Guillotine, and we were not able to discuss them or the proposed Amendments to them.
The position, therefore, is that the land-owning interests in the countryside have had their interests protected, but the land-owning interests in the urban areas have not been afforded any protection at all. Land-owners, property owners and the occupiers of houses, offices, and shops in towns and villages who might have had their interests protected by the local authorities have not been afforded the opportunity of having their interests properly discussed, and no concessions have been made to their representations.
Under great pressure in both Houses of Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman has incorporated in the Bill powers to make safety regulations, but he has made it clear that he has no intention in the foreseeable future of exercising these powers. I had intended to quote what the Minister said yesterday, but in the interests of time, and because a number of other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, I shall not do so. I do not think that I have misrepresented his intentions.
The right hon. Gentleman has no intention in the foreseeable future of exercising the powers in the new Clause which he reluctantly agreed to write into the Bill. He proposes both now and in the future to rely on the powers under Clause 20 to impose requirements on individual pipeline owners.
Who will advise the Minister when he is considering what safety requirements to impose by notice under Clause 20? His advisers are limited to six technical
1488
men in the petroleum division of his Department, all of whom are pensioners of the two biggest oil companies in this country. These are the people who will have discussions with the oil companies, both large and small, to decide what safety regulations should be imposed. Company A will not know what requirement is to be imposed on Company B. Local authorities will not know what safety requirements are to be imposed on those who propose to construct pipelines over their land and under their streets. People who may suffer injury from accidents due to the installation of these pipelines will not know what safety conditions have been imposed, because the Minister has decided that he will not in the foreseeable future lay down any safety regulations.
This does not lead us on this side of the House to regard this as a good Bill, and in this respect I remind the hon. Gentleman that all hon. Members who spoke on the safety aspect expressed views contrary to his. Hon. Members on both sides stressed the need for safety regulations from the beginning, not just a power for the Minister to make these regulations at his discretion at some time in the unforeseeable future.
The Minister has rightly provided that a compulsory rights order shall give no right of support by sterilising the minerals under the pipeline. This was raised by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), and I think that it was right to make this provision. There will be protection for those engaged in the extraction of minerals of all kinds—sand, gravel, limestone, and brimstone—but there will be no protection for those engaged in the extraction of the one mineral owned by the nation, the one for which the Minister is supposedly responsible, the one which is in competition with oil as a fuel. I am, of course, referring to those engaged in the extraction of coal.
The shoe is on the other foot. If the extraction of coal more efficiently— which is what the Minister ought to want —leads to subsidence causing a break in a pipeline, it is the National Coal Board who will foot the bill. But if the extraction of sand or gravel or any other mineral causes a fracture in a pipeline, the person who will be held responsible

1489
is the pipeline owner. He will have to make good the damage and may be involved in the payment of damage to many people, notwithstanding that the pipeline was fractured by the extraction of minerals from underneath it. That is the way in which the Government treat minerals which are privately owned and those which are publicly owned, and yet the Minister still expects us to regard the Bill as worthy of Parliament's approval.
We have no confidence that the Minister will administer the Bill in the public interest. Whatever we think of him personally, he has not made any provision to bind his successors. My experience of him during the passage of the Bill makes it impossible for me to say that I trust him to administer the Bill in the public interest. Whatever hon. Members on either side of the House may think of the Minister personally, I repeat that he has not made any provision in the Bill to bind any of his successors to administer the Bill in the public interest.
Monopoly powers are about to be granted to large companies to supply oil and oil products to certain areas. That cannot be denied. But we shall not have a proliferation of pipelines into one area, such as London Airport, and we will not have a proliferation of pipelines from different refineries to one centre. The Minister will grant his pipeline construction authorisations to oil companies who will have virtually monopoly rights for the supply of oil and oil products to particular parts of the country. What the Parliamentary Secretary said about those parts of the country where there are pockets of unemployment could not have been more irrelevant, for the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that those are the areas to which no pipelines will be laid.
Mr. Peyton: There is nothing of the kind in the Bill.
Mr. Fraser: I do not know what was the relevance of that remark.
The Parliamentary Secretary seems to think that there is an inconsistency between our saying that the rights of local authorities should be properly protected and our saying at the same time that the Government should take urgent steps to get on with the provision of employment in those parts of the country where
1490
there is a great shortage of employment. The only deduction which we can make from that is that the Government Should hurry on with the Bill and get the pipelines constructed so as to find it easier to deal with unemployment.
Mr. Peyton: All I wished to suggest was that there was disharmony between the very strong and perfectly reasonable plea that the Government should get on with the job of promoting efficient, prosperous and virile industry in the North-East, and in another context, the suggestion that industry should be hemmed in with restrictions which would impose all kinds of unnecessary and expensive delays.
Mr. Fraser: The only way in which the North-East and Scotland will be affected by the Bill is that the conveyance of oil and oil products into London and the Midlands will be made cheaper by the use of this form of transport, which will increase the attraction to industry of the Midlands and the London area, thus making it more difficult for the Government to steer industry into those parts of the country where there is unemployment. The hon. Gentleman must not think that the holding up of the Bill would be a bad thing for Scotland, or the North-East, or the South-West, or any other area where there is unemployment. One of the reasons why we wanted pipelines to develop according to a proper plan and pattern was that, through their various agencies, the Government might have been able to use that development to make those parts of the country where there is unemployment as attractive to industry as those areas where there is no unemployment, so that we might have some social planning in future where there has been none in the past.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the railways and canals had power to construct pipelines on their own land. How generous! Does he think that the oil companies would be willing to have their products conveyed by the railways or canal authorities in pipelines constructed alongside the railway tracks and canals when they could readily get authorisations from the right hon. Gentleman to put down their own pipelines elsewhere and thereby gain a virtual monopoly of supply to the area to which their own pipeline is directed?

1491
At a time when the Government are expressing concern about the financial difficulties of public transport services, it is a tragedy that the Minister has not made any provision for consultation with them in the consideration of applications for pipeline construction authorisation. The commodities to be conveyed by these pipelines are now conveyed by tanker on the railways, on the roads, on canals, or even on the rivers, and mostly by public transport. The least we might have expected from the Minister is that he would agree to have consultations with those authorities before deciding to take business from them.
At this stage of our proceedings, we are somewhat inhibited from discussing the Opposition's constructive alternative proposals, but we can and will register our most emphatic protest against what is contained in the Bill and the way in which it has been put through Parliament.
4.18 p.m.
Mr. John Farr: I was one of those hon. Members fortunate enough to serve on the Standing Committee which discussed the Bill It was about the fourth Standing Committee on which I had served and for the first time I had my eyes opened to what the Opposition's time-wasting tactics could accomplish. For many sittings, I think sixteen, varying in length from 2½ hours to nearly 12, the Opposition took every possible step to waste the Committee's time.
Mr. Lee: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member so to criticize the Chairman of a Standing Committee as to imply that the Opposition were allowed deliberately to waste the time of the Committee?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am bound to say that it was passing through my mind that on the Third Reading debate one should limit discussion to what is in the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member will do that.
Mr. Farr: That is what I was going to do, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I was pointing out that many hours were spent on Opposition trivia.
There were 27 sittings of the Committee altogether, and I should like to
1492
take this early opportunity of congratulating my right hon. Friend on the patience and courtesy which he extended to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in steering through this contentious Bill. While it was an involved and contentious Bill when it arrived in Committee, it was very much more involved and contentious when it left the Committee, especially after the addition of numerous Government Amendments, which I feel, although perhaps I am not qualified to say so, made a difficult task even more difficult. There were stages in the Bill when it was very difficult indeed to follow exactly what was being discussed.
I should like to refer to one point which I consider of major importance, but which, however, was discussed in Committee on only one occasion. This point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) during the ninth sitting of the Committee. He was the only hon. Member on either side to speak on it, and after the then Parliamentary Secretary had replied he withdrew his Amendment. I think that I am right in saying that hon. Members on both sides assumed, when we were discussing a pipeline, or a network of pipelines, and were struggling to find a definition of a pipeline, that all these pipelines were to be placed underground. Indeed, much of our argument was centred on whether one pipeline or a number of pipelines going into one trench formed one pipeline or a system or network of pipelines.
Nearly all hon. Members of the Committee assumed that the pipeline system when it was laid would, naturally, go underground. We struggled as much as we could, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) struggled with the rest of us, to visualise a big network of pipelines stretching from Edinburgh, perhaps, to Leicestershire, and I think he will agree that we always assumed that these pipelines would be underground and, therefore, invisible. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether we are sure that these pipelines will be underground. During the discussion of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tones, the then Parliamentary Secretary said that he would look into the point and see whether he could include it in the Bill

1493
when it was brought before the House today.
I well remember in 1959, about one month after I came into this House, a debate on town and country planning. I well remember an hon. Member on this side, a revered Member with many years' Parliamentary experience, saying that, in many cases, electricity pylons added to the beauty of the countryside. Hon. Members may be surprised that not one hon. Member present on that day questioned that statement. Not one expressed surprise. Indeed, it seemed to be completely accepted.
I suggest that we must remember that there will be the temptation on the part of pipeline operators, both from the point of view of expense and easy inspection, to place their pipelines on the surface of the ground. There is a temptation there, and, as I read the Bill, there is nothing in the Bill providing that they shall not.
The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): May I endeavour to help my hon. Friend on this point? He will find that, at the end of Clause 42, it is provided that the Minister
"shall have particular regard to the desirability of ensuring that things constructed in the course of the execution of the proposed works are kept below ground so far as that is practicable."
I think that that will achieve the objective which my hon. Friend has in mind.
Mr. Farr: I am much obliged for my right hon. Friend's intervention. I had noted that particular provision. While I hesitate to go on, because I do not want to get out of order, I was endeavouring to suggest that that phraseology was not strong enough.
I feel that pipeline operators are not concerned with the beauties of the countryside. If the pipelines can be placed on the surface, for easy examination, pipeline operators will not always be concerned whether there is an added danger to people passing by if there is a leak or an explosion—an added danger which would not, perhaps, be so serious if the pipeline were buried underground.
It is in the hope that, in a few years' time, hon. Members on both sides of the House will not have lived to see a
1494
spider's web of electricity pylons all over Britain, while below them is an iron girdle of surface pipelines, that I have raised this point. Nevertheless, I have great pleasure in adding my support to that given to my right hon. Friend the Minister and the late Parliamentary Secretary—[Laughter.]—I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies), who is very much alive.
4.26 p.m.
Mr. E. G. Willis: I would agree with the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) about the undesirability of the countryside being covered by a network of pipelines, over which may be superimposed, presumably, a grid of electricity cables, but that is about the only thing on which I did agree with him. I can hardly agree with his commendation of the Bill.
I was particularly interested in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, and in the delightful picture which he conjured up of the Opposition always rushing into this battle on the side of the British public, as against the vested interests of big companies, in this case the big oil companies. The hon. Gentleman did not enjoy the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, but he must have been asleep yesterday, or he would have been aware of the delightful picture of his right hon. Friend, as a sort of modern St. George, out to slay the dragon of planning. In fact, he went so far as to say that the new secret weapon of the Opposition was planning. I hope that he will convey that idea to the Prime Minister, who, apparently, must also be aware of this secret weapon, and seems to be attracted by it at present. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister would think that the views of the right hon. Gentleman are slightly heterodox.
This is a unique Bill. It has the unique Parliamentary distinctions of being, as far as I know, the fifth Bill to be guillotined this Session. In that respect, the right hon Gentleman has set up a new record for entry in the "Parliamentary Whittaker". Probably more of this Bill has been undiscussed than almost any other Bill subjected to the Guillotine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has pointed out, this has

1495
meant that large sections of the Bill were not discussed at all, in spite of the fact that they were exceedingly important. It is too late now to start discussing them, so I will say why I think that this is a bad Bill.
It is bad, in the first place, because it does nothing to ensure that we will have an orderly development of pipelines. We shall certainly get pipelines; the Parliamentary Secretary is very anxious to ensure that. He will see that they are driven across the countryside and that we shall have them whenever they are wanted, as quickly as possible, so as not to delay the profit-making of Esso, Shell and the rest of the oil companies. That is apparently his purpose in life. He has come to the Ministry with that great fixed ambition in his mind. We shall see what happens. There is no guarantee that we shall have an orderly development of pipelines.
Not only that: the Bill will not even ensure that we get a system of pipelines which will serve the interests of the nation as a whole. The Parliamentary Secretary raises his eyebrows, but I cannot see these pipelines serving Scotland or the North-East. The Bill does nothing to ensure that, although such a service might prove to be very important in reducing costs and making production more efficient and competitive, thereby making the prospects of industrial development more likely.
We shall not see that under the Bill. All that the Bill does is to serve the profit-making capacity of the big oil companies. The Parliamentary Secretary appears to think that that is a delightful picture. That is exactly what the Bill does. It might be unpleasant to remind Mm of it, but that is the fact, whether he likes it or not. That is one reason why the Bill is a bad one.
Secondly, it gives to private people powers which I do not think are given to them in any other Measure. It gives them power to plough up other people's land in order to lay pipelines. Admittedly, they have to obtain permission from the Minister, or power to acquire through him, but I know of no other Measure which contains such powers and they are tremendous powers to give to private companies. The fact that the
1496
powers given by the Bill are so tremendous, and have never been given to people other than public authorities and public utilities, causes us to take the view that the responsibility for the construction of these pipelines should have been given to a public authority or a public utility. That is another reason why I regard the Bill as a bad one, and cannot see my way to support it.
Thirdly, the Bill makes little attempt to meet the wishes of local authorities and to offer protection to the people within areas about which local authorities are concerned. As far as I know, no consultation has been held with local authorities—at least, Scottish local authorities. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman regarded it as worth while to consult the Counties of Cities, in Scotland, or the County Councils' Association—bodies which are vitally affected by the Bill.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) spoke of the fears of local authorities-large authorities like the London County Council and other county councils in England—he received very short shrift. None of the Amendments which local authorities wanted was accepted. They are still seriously concerned about the effect of the Bill. They feel that the Minister has failed to take the necessary precautions to provide adequate safety arrangements for people and property in the vicinity of pipelines.
It is a serious condemnation of the Minister and the Bill that nothing has been done to take account of the interests of local authorities. They are very important bodies. The Tory Party is always telling us that it wants to strengthen local authorities, and that it believes in vigorous local government, but at the same time it has a stranglehold on local government and is gradually choking it to death.
All the Bill does is to provide a streamlined, cheap method for large private companies to obtain permission to lay pipelines. Since we were dealing with this subject for the first time in general legislation, we should have taken a much wider view. We should have done much more than has been done. That is another reason why I cannot support the Bill.

1497
I will repeat my main reasons for opposing the Bill. First, it does not provide for an efficient and proper system of pipelines. Secondly, it places in the bands of private companies immense powers over property and private citizens—powers which are possessed by no other private people; thirdly, it completely ignores the wishes of large and responsible local authorities. That is why we regard the Bill as a bad one, and that is why I shall take pleasure in joining my hon. Friends in the Lobby to vote against it at the end of the debate.
Mr. Farr: Will the hon. Member be kind enough to tell me whether or not he agrees that his opposition to the Bill really arises from the fact that he feels that this new method of transport should be nationalised?
Mr. Willis: That is an added reason.
Mr. Farr: Is that the main reason?
Mr. Willis: There are a number of reasons why I believe that pipelines should be placed under the control of a public authority. I have already given one. I do not like these immense powers over private property and private persons to be given to private companies. If these powers have to be given to somebody they should be given to public bodies which are accountable to this House, so that we can have a proper development, and a plan of production. That is an important reason.
Equally important is the necessity for creating a proper service, and the fact that if we are to have an additional transport system it ought to be integrated in a manner which avoids wasting our valuable resources. We cannot afford wastage. I should have thought that the hon. Member would have come some way to meet us. We are struggling for a living in the world, and we shall be struggling for many more years. We shall win that struggle only if we use our resources—our manpower, ingenuity and technical skills—not in a wasteful but in an efficient manner. Efficiency in transport means the avoidance of wasteful overlapping of three or four systems. It means the creation of a co-ordinated system, in order to make the most effective use of a particular form of transport.
4.40 p.m.
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I always appreciate the speeches of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and today he has spoken at considerable length, although I do not think that his remarks contained anything very significant. The hon. Member would like a number of pipelines from England to Scotland. That would be part of his scheme for the planned economic use of pipelines. We should bear in mind that, first, a pipeline must be economic to operate. There must be a reason for its construction and I fear that, were the British Transport Commission or its successor, the Railways Board, to formulate its policy on the lines indicated by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, there would be every reason for the organisation to go "into the red".
A pipeline would not be built unless it were competitive with other systems of transportation, including roads, canals and coastal shipping. It is also necessary to calculate whether there is a sufficiently large market to be served by a pipeline, and it would be necessary to ensure that the line would be worked to its full capacity. If we considered building pipelines into Scotland simply because that operation would fit in with the figments of the imagination of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, it would have the effect of imposing a liability on the sort of State corporation which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I do not think that that idea was in the mind of my right hon. Friend when, in the Bill, he introduced a system of public regulation, which, of course, we all support. It has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser)—and I regret it that there are—
Mr. T. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Scotland has far more of existing pipelines than might be considered her share according to the population?
Mr. Skeet: I am aware that in Scotland there is the Grangemouth pipeline for crude oil—
Mr. Willis: There are more than that.
Mr. Skeet: That is between—I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh,

1499
East, is not leaving the Chamber. I have some more important remarks to make about his speech.
I am now dealing with the hon. Member for Hamilton, who has indicated that in Scotland there is the Grange-mouth—
Mr. T. Fraser: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that the Government built pipelines in Scotland during the war and that they are still in use? The only addition is the crude oil pipeline from Finart to Grangemouth.
Mr. Skeet: The hon. Member was, I thought, referring to the pipelines built during the war in an area comprising a quadrangle inside the United Kingdom. These were devised for wartime purposes. If we consider the United Kingdom generally, the pipelines now being constructed—not for war purposes, because the war has passed—are being constructed in line with the programmes outlined by the oil companies—
Mr. Willis: Hear, hear.
Mr. Skeet: —the chemical companies, the china clay companies and many other interested bodies.
If there is anything for which my right hon. Friend should be rebuked it is that the Bill is too comprehensive. The hon. Member for Hamilton maintained that this was a bad, and indeed a wicked Bill, because its provisions did not go far enough in certain directions. I maintain that it goes too far. Had my right hon. Friend taken account of experiences in Europe, which were pointed out to him ad nauseam during the Committee stage proceedings, he might have limited the provisions in this Bill to pipelines conveying hydro-carbon oils and certain chemical products. Had that been done, I think that many of the complexities with which we are now faced would not have arisen.
The trouble, in my opinion, is that my right hon. Friend is formulating proposals for the future use of pipelines, which is something that at this time cannot be clearly envisaged. At some time in the future it may be possible to convey capsules containing parcels or letters by means of pressure exerted by a flood of water to push them along.
1500
It might be conceivable that in this country we should do what is done in Yugoslavia, where pipelines made of a sort of plastic are used to convey milk over a distance of miles. It might be possible to construct pipelines for the conveyance of non-ferrous metal in the form of a slurry. It is conceivable that, under the auspices of the National Coal Board, granulated coal might be conveyed by pipeline. These are some of the things which we may look forward to witnessing in the future.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Yugoslavia like their milk sour? If so, is he suggesting that our people would like their milk sour?
Mr. Skeet: I am not suggesting that at all. The Yugoslavs may like their milk sour. I have not had the experience, as the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) has had, of going to Yugoslavia and seeing these pipelines in operation. But I should imagine that when the milk emerges from the pipeline it is probably as fresh and healthy as any milk which we have in the United Kingdom.
I was trying to indicate the general coverage of the provisions in the Bill which could apply to pipelines conveying anything provided that it was not gas or water. One of the fallacies of hon. Members opposite is to think in terms of an integrated system of transportation. That policy, carried to its logical conclusion, would include the gas trunk pipelines and the water mains. That, however, is not accepted by the hon. Member for Hamilton. Such pipelines are especially exempted from the provisions in the Bill.
Apparently the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East is leaving the Chamber. Later in my speech I should like to return to his remarks, although I do not wish to detain him in the Chamber for any length of time.
During the Committee stage—this point has been dealt with by the hon. Member for Hamilton—there were 28 Clauses in the Bill and five Schedules which were not discussed, largely because of the extensive amount of time occupied by remarks from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East.
Mr. Willis: The hon. Member did not do so badly himself.
Mr. Skeet: On the last day on which the Committee sat, during the morning sitting, we dealt with the question of deer and grouse in Scotland, and that was largely at the instigation of hon. Members opposite. Only during the afternoon sitting did we move on to the serious matter of the new Clauses.
May I come back to the important point of whether we are to have an integrated system of transport in relation to pipelines? When there is a pipeline conveying oil between the refinery and the market, its operation is integrated with the operations of the refinery and the market, and the distribution of petroleum products. Why should there be inserted a third party, the Railways Board, between the refinery and the market? Any profit would probably be absorbed by the transport system, whereas if any profit is to be made, it would be utilised to reduce the price of the commodity sold to the public.
Another thing which would have to be borne in mind, if we had this type of service, is that someone must provide the money for the Railways Board to invest in the first instance in the construction of pipelines. That is not the intention. We are saying that pipeline companies which wish to build pipelines must raise the risk capital themselves, or obtain it by ploughing back profits into the undertaking, so that the expense does not fall upon the taxpayers. I think, therefore, that we may ignore the suggestions from hon. Members opposite about such a transport system.
I am certain that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East is now proposing to leave the Chamber. I have, however, many important matters to discuss. The hon. Gentleman is rather reluctant—
Mr. William Ross: The only thing which keeps me in the Chamber, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is the hope that an hon. Member opposite will actually mention the provisions contained in this Bill and relate them to the Third Reading debate. Can you tell me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) has strayed into the path of order during the Whole time he has been speaking? He has mot mentioned anything about the Bill and there is a strict
1502
limitation imposed upon a Third Reading speech.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Bill covers about 65 pages, and I took it that the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) was referring to something contained within those pages.
Mr. Skeet: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. There are 69 Clauses and five Schedules. I am dealing with the extremely important matters which are referred to in the Bill, and I am telling my right hon. Friend how wise he was to have constructed the Bill in this form.
When dealing with oil companies and other enterprises which are concerned about this matter—I think that hon. Members will concede that the people who will be largely concerned in future with the laying of pipelines will be the oil industry, the chemical industry, the china clay industry and like enterprises —my right hon. Friend has included provisions in Clauses 9 and 10 relating to the sharing of lines, so as to avoid the construction of too many installations throughout the country. There the Minister has been particularly wise.
I pay tribute to the work done in another place in providing the foundation for these Clauses. In Committee upstairs, we were able to improve them still further. We have not fallen into the difficulty experienced in the United States of America of having common carrier status which have proved a failure. On the other hand, we have not fallen into some of the difficulties under the French system. We have a system in which there are operating companies and if they have spare capacity application can be made either at the inception or later for a third party to come in and use it.
I do not think that anyone would complain of this provision. It is fair and democratic and I think that it would dispense entirely with the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Hamilton that it will build up a monopoly for any one firm or operating company. That is not to say that in this field we have small undertakings. As I mentioned in Committee, although there may be small enterprises in the United Kingdom, abroad their parents are very large establishments.
Mr. T. Fraser: Will the hon. Member take it from me that B.P. and Esso have assured me that the volume of petroleum products which they take by pipeline now to London Airport could not have been taken there by any other means, which means that no other oil company could possibly enter that market? Is that not a monopoly?
Mr. Skeet: That may well be so, but we are considering a number of markets. The hon. Member has considered only one, London Airport, but there is an enormous potential market which has been growing in the Midlands. It may be that several pipelines will be constructed there. It may be that some of the smaller enterprises in the United Kingdom may be able to participate in those developments. Monopoly is not being encouraged.
Although I say that the Bill has been improved in Committee, I very much regret that many of its Clauses have not been adequately considered. That certainly was not the fault of hon. Members on this side of the House. We had extremely long sittings in the Committee upstairs.
Mr. Ross: What about the Guillotine?
Mr. Skeet: In spite of the Guillotine we were able to give a certain coverage to the Bill which otherwise we would never have achieved. We find, reluctantly, that the Land Powers (Defence) Act, 1958, its not incorporated in the Bill. This is a comprehensive piece of legislation and it has been left outside. It is simply referred to in Clause 61. I should have thought that the Government would have included it.
I should have thought, also, that in tidying up matters some suitable definition could be found for gas which is utilised industrially or in households so that some modification could have been made in the Bill to Section 52 of the Gas Act, 1948. I pointed out to my night hon. Friend in Committee that it would appear that the gas industry has a veto over certain pipelines and could make a charge. It would have been very much better if the whole matter could have been regulated by this Bill.
Another matter of great concern to me has been the question of mining facilities which have not been fully implemented
1504
and included. The Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, has been excluded by a Clause of the Bill. This is time-honoured machinery and in the past applications have been made to the courts for way leaves for pipelines and other facilities. Why these things have not been included in the Bill I cannot understand. All in all, we can say that many of the Clauses which have been brought in have led to an improvement and although it is not in exactly the form I should like to see, I think that we can say that it is generally acceptable to us.
Clause 40 deals with rating and I think that it establishes a precedent. I do not want to speak for too long on that, because I had an opportunity of covering it in Committee, but I think the precedent is rather dangerous. If the Crown is defeated in the courts on any particular case it can simply come to this House with any Bill and have the facility rated. So we find Clause 40 inserted for the rating of main pipelines. It is, of course, acknowledged that if, on the other hand, the assets of an industry are rated by the courts the Crown does not come with a Bill to see that they are derated. These are difficulties. I have suggested to my right hon. Friend that the proper way of dealing with the matter would be to have a proper rating Bill at the appropriate time when all these matters could be considered together.
Under the Private Bill procedure, although there are many difficulties for outside operators they are persuaded to include a number of additional Clauses. In certain circumstances the pipeline promoter will get more out of this Bill than he would do under Private Bill procedure. For example, under Private Bill procedure he would have to subscribe to the mining code, while under this Bill he is not subject to it. Under Private Bill procedure in certain Bills which have passed through this Chamber he would have had to put up £250,000 to insure in the event of accident. He would have to do that under a Private Bill possibly by agreement, but under this Bill he does not have to do it.
There are difficulties, and although my right hon. Friend has tried to tidy up the provisions he has, nevertheless, created certain difficulties which we on this side

1505
of the House cannot overlook. The hon. Member for Hamilton referred to certain powers given to my right hon. Friend. He has been given a number of blank cheques. He has been given power under Clause 20 to give notice to ensure the safety of these lines. We assume that at a later date, and not too far distant, he will be able to lay down suitable regulations—the earlier the better—for the industries concerned. We assume, also, that for the classification of areas to which Clauses 1 and 2 will not apply my right hon. Friend will give due consideration to the interests of the industries concerned—the china clay and brine industries—which are confined in small areas. The cement industry may also be considered. Although my right hon. Friend has taken these powers, there is no undertaking on his part. He will not do more than give an assurance that they will be occasionally implemented. The powers exist and may be exercised; we hope they will be.
Hon. Members will be glad that this day has arrived. We have had over 20 long sittings and as many as 120 Divisions. We hope that when the Bill goes to another place it will receive further scrutiny and that when it goes on to the Statute Book it will be worked by my right hon. Friend in the way in which it is intended. Anything he might have said upstairs in Committee will not help the courts in construing its provisions because all the courts can do is to construe the letter of the law in an Act of Parliament and no reference can be made to debates in this House. I hope that we shall not have to come back to the Chamber with further Amendments for some time.
There are adequate provisions for safety in the Bill, and every effort has been made to ensure that the public are adequately safeguarded if there is a breach or a leak in the line, although these pipes do not easily break. Nor do they easily corrode, because of cathodic protection. Experience in Europe shows that there have been very few instances of trouble of this nature, and many problems are academic.
5.1 p.m.
Mr. William Warbey: The Third Reading of a Bill, especially when the Bill has been considered in another place, is frequently an occasion for re-
1506
joicing and a kind of pre-natal, joyful ceremony for a mew and worth-while Statute to be put on the Statute Book. This, however, is an occasion for a general funeral ceremony, because in agreeing to this Bill we are burying the Bill which we might have had. I can say no more about the Bill which we might have had except to shed a tear for it in passing.
I am glad to make my next comment when my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has been able to rejoin us. We are very glad to see him back. The Parliamentary Secretary quoted my hon. Friend as saying that this is a desirable Bill. It is indeed, but of all the desirable Bills we have ever had in the House this must be the worst. It could have been a very good Bill. It could have been an agreed Measure. Leaving aside the basic controversy of public ownership—and we could have left it aside after fighting out the general principle—we could still have constructed a Measure which would at least have carried out the Government's original avowed intentions about pipeline development.
We could have constructed a Bill which would have ensured that there was public control of the development of pipelines transportation in an orderly fashion in the public interest. We have not done that, and the Bill is nothing like that at all. It is not like it, first, because the Minister has refused virtually all co-operation from the Opposition in the construction of the Bill. He has frequently, contentiously and arrogantly rejected many of the proposals which we have made to improve the Bill.
It is a bad Bill, secondly, because, as my hon. Friend said, it has not been properly discussed. Three-quarters of the Bill has not been discussed at all by the House, either upstairs or down here. Altogether, 50 Clauses and five Schedules, many of them of fundamental importance, have been passed either without discussion or virtually without discussion. It is a bad Bill, thirdly, because the Minister has broken the promises which he made over a year ago about the character which pipeline legislation would have.
On Second Reading of the Trunk Pipelines Bill on 27th April, 1961, the

1507
Minister stated what were then the Government's intentions about general legislation. He said that he envisaged the procedure consisting of general legislation, a public inquiry, Ministerial approval and Parliamentary approval. Those were the four steps which we were to have in the development of pipelines. If I may quote again what I quoted on Second Reading, he said that there would be an inquiry which
"might be on the lines of those held when the Generating Board make proposals to build generating stations or place grid lines all over the country, with any one able to be heard and make representations, the subsequent procedure being to allow the House of Commons to express an opinion on the provisional decision reached as a result of the public inquiry. The hon. Member for Ashfield made the point that it was important for Parliament to be allowed to look at all the proposals that might be made. He was quite right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1961; Vol. 639, c. 720.]
After that, the Minister changed his mind. After he had changed his mind about this procedure he wrote a letter to explain why he had done so. I quoted this letter in Committee, and I do not propose to quote it again, but I suggest that hon. Members who are interested in the doctrinal and philosophical approach of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to the problems of planning should read this letter, because it is a very interesting revelation of what Conservative planning involves and of the pressures which go to shape that Conservative planning.
In his letter the Minister said that he had changed his mind because at the time when he gave the undertakings which I have already quoted the various possible procedures for dealing with this problem had not been considered and he had not received advice from the many interests involved, both officially and unofficially. He changed his mind about the whole procedure for the development of pipelines as a result of representations made to him from both official and unofficial quarters. When some of us on this side of the House suggested that the pressures to which he was subjected were those of the big oil companies, we were accused of having suspicious minds.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that we delight in representing the oil companies as bloodthirsty and predatory. After all, this suspicion of ours has been
1508
confirmed by the Minister, and now even more emphatically by the Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister said on Second Reading that it was likely that the first authorisations would go to the users of pipelines and that this would be so because it was the users who knew best.
Although the right hon. Gentleman did not actually say it, as this was part of an argument about how the development should be planned, the implication clearly was that by waiting for the initiative for proposals to come from users and granting applications to users he would be ensuring and preserving the public interest. That is only another way of saying that what the users regard as being best in their own interests is best in the national interest.
The Parliamentary Secretary slipped a little further. He said this afternoon that the Bill leaves it to the users to make applications for authorisations for pipelines. It does nothing of the sort. The Bill says nothing about applications being limited to the prospective users of pipelines. The Parliamentary Secretary has let the cat out of the bag now. We now know definitely that it is the intention of the Government so to operate the Bill that authorisations for cross-country pipelines are granted only to prospective users.
Who will the prospective users be in the near future? Will they not be the big oil companies operating in this country? Are they, or are they not, going to be Esso, Shell and B.P.? I should be very surprised indeed if, after what we have heard, not only from the Minister but from the Parliamentary Secretary, authorisations are, in practice, granted to anybody else.
Mr. PeytonI should be sorry if anything I said this afternoon were taken to indicate that anybody who wished to operate a trunk line could not apply for it. Nothing I said was intended to convey the impression that by law or practice only a user of a pipeline could apply for or would get an authorisation. I think that the hon. Gentleman understands that very well.
Mr. Warbey: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary's slip was only a Freudian slip, representing the subconscious intentions of the Government.

1509
The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Bill itself does not prevent anybody else from applying. I am saying that he has revealed the fact that the Government intend in operating the Bill to grant authorisations to the big oil companies and the Bill as now constructed is designed to promote the development of pipelines by the major oil companies and to facilitate the construction of pipelines by the major oil companies. It is designed for that purpose and none other.
I do not want to elaborate this point, which I should have thought would be obvious even to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), but it has never been assumed in the House or in the country that vested user interests, whose main concern is avowedly to look after the interests of their shareholders, and, therefore, to make a substantial profit, are the best judges of the way in which the economic development of this country should take place. I should be astonished if the hon. Member for Harborough or any other hon. Member opposite would be prepared to subscribe to that view. In fact, they do not entirely, because the Bill contains some form of protection for certain types of persons who will be affected by the activities of the oil companies which promote pipelines.
Mr. Farr: The hon. Gentleman is talking through his large metaphorical hat, because he has been continually referring in his remarks to oil companies, and oil companies alone, as being the only beneficiaries under the Bill. That is exactly what he said a moment or two ago. I am sure that he will agree, on reflection, that many other commodities will be carried by pipelines, and not only oil.
Mr. Warbey: That is true. I said in the early stages of the Bill that we all know that there will be other developments and that other products will be carried through pipelines. However, the primary and biggest development which we shall face in the near future will be the carriage of oil and the promotion of pipelines by oil companies. Does the hon. Member doubt that? Of course he does not. He knows that it is true. That is what the Bill is primarily designed to facilitate.
1510
Virtually the only people who are really protected in the Bill against the predatory activities of the oil companies, to use the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, are the private landowning interests. We even witnessed an attempt by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) to get for the private landowning interests the Whole of the proceeds of the exploitation of pipelines. It was not accepted, because even the Government were not prepared to go so far as to allow the landowners to collar the whole of the booty. All they are concerned with is that there should be a fair share between the various private interests and that the rules of competition for private enterprise should be observed.
In his letter to me the Minister referred to another form of pressure to which he had been subjected Which had led him to change his mind. He said that there was also official pressure upon him. I think I know What that official pressure was. It was from his own colleagues who are trying to get this country into the Common Market. I suspect that they said that the Bill must be so constructed that the form of procedure will be such as to comply with the rules of competition of the Common Market; that is to say, there must be such a development of pipelines as to ensure that, while monopolies are given their opportunities, the monopoly powers are not exercised in such a way as to conflict with other private interests.
The Bill has been so reconstructed that it will not have to be revised if this country is taken into the Common Market. The net result is that we are given a classic example of Conservative planning. The Minister himself boasted about that on Second Reading. He said that through the Bill he wanted to show that Conservative planning works. We shall see through the operation of the Bill just what Conservative planning means, and just how it will work. It will take a form in which big private enterprise is relieved of as many restrictions on its operations as possible while, at the same time, as many restrictions as possible are placed on the operations of public enterprise.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of avoiding the danger of hedging around the promoters of pipelines with costly

1511
restrictions, but he is not worried about the costly restrictions that are being imposed on public enterprise, and the costly competition. Public enterprise is quite rightly subjected in the public interest to certain restrictions. It has to operate in the national interest. For example, it has to operate uneconomic sections of transport, and observe statutory codes of safety in the mines—the kind of things chat will not be imposed upon pipeline operators.
It is public enterprise that is to be restricted and hampered. It is public enterprise, in the form of the National Coal Board, that will have to bear the cost of compensation if rights of support are lost when pipe-lines are carried across coalfields, but the Bill relieves private enterprise of costly restrictions. By the Bill it is even being relieved of the costly process of having to promote a private Bill for the operation of a pipeline, and I must say that I am very doubtful whether I shall vote in favour of the Third Reading.
We all agree that a pipelines Bill is desirable; that some form of public control is necessary. We might be in-inclined to agree that the Bill is better than no Bill at all, but I am not sure because, when we proceeded by Private Bill, promoters had at least to pay some of the cost of promoting the necessary legislation. We also had the opportunity of Parliamentary control because, under that procedure, Parliament had the last word. We could not only make changes in the detail of the proposals, but had the last word on whether or not the proposals should go through at all.
We now have none of that control. It is left solely to the Minister in his discretion. The final condemnation of the Bill is that it takes completely from Parliament the power to control this important new form of economic development, and hands it over entirely to private interests, supported by a Tory Minister.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. Ray Mawby: The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) said that under the Private Bill procedure it was easier for Parliament to control development, and he seemed very happy to think that promoters of Private Bills had to spend a lot of money in appearing
1512
before Select Committees. It is important to remind the House that it was the last Select Committee to consider a Private Bill under this procedure that advised the House that no more private legislation covering pipeline development should be promoted. It was basically because of that recommendation that some public Bill had to be promoted to make sure that in future we would have some control of a development that will accelerate in the years to come.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated, as one would expect, on the oil side— because, at the moment, it is the oil companies that are mainly concerned with operating pipelines—yet we all know that as a result of developments now going on, many bulk products will be moved in this way. It is important to remember that it was as a result of the Report of a Select Committee that this House was seized of the view that there should be no more of this private legislation but that we should have a public Bill. Here is that public Bill, and we should welcome it.
The argument throughout our proceedings has been directed to whether this Bill is the right sort of Measure to deal with pipeline development. I think that it is, and while the hon. Gentleman sneers at Conservative planning, this Measure is one example of making certain that Parliament and the Executive will give a guide to how things will develop in the future, will lay down safety provisions, will make certain that there are opportunities of obtaining wayleaves and rights over land and that those rights will not be enjoyed by private companies to a greater extent than they are enjoyed by public authorities. That is another purpose of the Bill—
Mr. Eric Lubbock: The powers are in excess of those given to public authorities, because the railways are not being given the same powers as the oil companies.
Mr. Mawby: The Bill gives the railways certain exemptions which the pipeline promoter does not enjoy. At the same time, there are certain restrictions on the railways that do not apply to the pipeline promoter. However, I do not think that on Third Reading we can

1513
rehearse all the many arguments that were put forward in Committee. This is not the time or the place for that, but I may say that when I referred to public authorities I had in mind the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Ministry of Transport, and so on, whose rights of compulsory acquisition are very strictly laid down in previous Statutes.
This Bill may not be completely perfect, but its aim is to make certain that we have a procedure whereby the pipeline promoters can obtain some of the benefits that normally accrue to the public authorities, but they will be hedged in with the same restrictions that are placed on the public authorities in order to maintain the freedom of the individual and the rights of the property owner.
That brings us to the next point. The hon. Member for Ashfield again made some very sneering references to private landowners and said that all that the Bill sought to do was to protect their rights. In case anybody should get the wrong idea, let us ask ourselves who private landowners are. In the main—
Mr. Willis: Widows and orphans.
Mr. Mawby: It seems that this matter is being greeted with derision, but if one looks at the facts one realises that most of us in this country are landowners in some form or other.
Miss Margaret Herbison: I am not.
Mr. Mawby: We may be content to live in council houses, but the majority of people are not. Why should we say that because a person owns or is buying a house on mortgage he is not a private landowner and may not be subject to the same claims as would a person who owns a large amount of land? This, I think, is important, because in many towns there will be a number of people who will be faced with the prospect of a pipeline passing through their back garden. Surely their rights are as important as the rights of anyone else. Therefore, I do not think we should sneer too much about the private landowner.
Mr. Arthur Skeffington: The ordinary householder does not even have to be given statutory notice that a pipeline is going under his house. He has no protection under the Bill.
Mr. Mawby: The ordinary house owner? [HON. MEMBERS:" That is night"] I would defy anyone to put a pipeline under my house without my knowing it.
Mr. Skeet: I think I am right in saying that there will be a system of pipeline markers showing where pipelines are proposed to be laid. Clause 34 deals with the giving of information about a proposed pipeline, and one can make a search to find out whether a pipeline is going under one's house.
Mr. Mawby: I think that the main point here is that the Government have sought in the Bill to create hedging arrangements in order to ensure that safety factors will be recognised and that the ordinary individual will be properly looked alter. The aim of the Bill-indeed it is written into the Bill—is to make certain that there shall not be a proliferation of pipelines but that, as far as possible, there shall be a merging together of pipelines and opportunities for sharing pipelines where the maximum capacity is not likely to be used by the owners.
Anyone who considers it commercially practical to lay a pipeline from point A to point B will seek permission so to do and the Minister by using his powers under the Bill will make certain that all the proper formalities are followed. The main consideration will be a commercial one, whether, in fact, the pipeline is needed from point A to point B. I believe that if we take the view that there must be a national plan we might end up by deciding to run a pipeline from point X to point Y when we know full well that there will be very few people who will want to send oil or any other product through that pipeline at any time.
I think that the laying of a pipeline must be based on commercial practicability, on whether it is needed and whether it is going to be sufficiently economical to enable it to replace the present carrying capacity needed by the producer. Therefore, I believe that the Bill is the right sort of Bill and I give it my full support.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. William Small: The hon. Member for Tones (Mr. Mawby) was, together with myself, a

1515
member of the Select Committee and should, therefore, have some realisation of why we have this Bill before us now. To my mind, it is a most unsatisfactory Bill. The reason why the Private Bill procedure failed was almost exclusively because the basis of the willing seller and the willing buyer broke down. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that the reason why the Select Committee reported to the House that we should take new measures was because the basis of the willing seller and the willing buyer failed. The Esso Petroleum Company got the right to have a compulsory purchase order for three years. The company—I have checked this, and the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) drew my attention to it last night—had to indemnify all property above and below the line.
The weakness of this Bill lies in the fact that the Minister has failed to write these compensation features into it. The Minister takes powers under the Bill, and if he is satisfied he will grant a pipeline construction authorisation. What, in fact, will this mean? It will mean laying plans before a planning committee and drawing a line for 70 miles between point A and point B. Where a small person resists and says, You are not going through my small piece of land," the Minister will have to make up his mind whether to protect the owner of the small parcel of land against the oil company. One remembers Crichel Down and what happened in that case. I suggest that there has been insufficient discussion of the policy behind the Bill. The pressure for the Bill came, more or less, from Trunk Pipelines Ltd.
I am 100 per cent. in favour of technical change. I am one who wants to see the big tankers which carry oil taken off the roads as quickly as possible. If we can transport their load by pipeline, I am all for it. I have no objection, as I say, to technical change and to a better system of transport. The fact that there are compulsory rights and other elements without proper safeguards for the small man is the reason why the Bill does not have my full support.
5.40 p.m.
Mr. A. P. Costain: Having attended all the sittings in Committee on the Bill, I cannot help
1516
but share the disappointment of hon. Members opposite that we have not had the opportunity of discussing all the Clauses in detail. However, I would remind them that during the course of the Committee stage the report of our proceedings ran to 1,441 columns of HANSARD. Of that number, 132 columns were devoted to reporting our discussion about when we should discuss the Bill. In point of fact, the thunderstorm outside reminds me of the sort of chorus that we had in Committee to the effect, "We don't want to work no more, no more" which was always led by the Opposition. If one takes the trouble to read these voluminous reports, one soon sees from which quarter came the most filibustering. I recall that on one occasion in Committee an hon. Member said, "Yes", whereupon he was accused by hon. Members opposite of filibustering. I might add that that occurred long before the middle of the night.
Mr. Ross: What Clause is that in?
Mr. Costain: As a matter of fact, we were trying to discuss Clause 20 at the time.
We should congratulate the Minister on his extraordinarily good humour throughout our discussions on the Bill. I do not think that any other Bill with such political differences—and I have taken the trouble to read the Committee reports of some of the more contentious Measures—has been discussed with such good humour.
Hon. Members: The Gas Bill?
Mr. Costain: Despite the number of columns that the discussion on that Bill occupied in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I do not think that the proportionate number of Divisions took place. In Committee on the Pipe-lines Bill the Divisions took place one immediately after another, and frankly it was sometimes difficult to understand quite why we went through that procedure.
Much has been said in opposition to the Bill and, as a result, there has not been sufficient emphasis—although my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) covered some of the points— placed on the advantages which will accrue. Not sufficient has been made of the fact that local authorities will have the right to charge certain rates to pipeline operators. I support their getting

1517
these rates, and it must be encouraging for local authorities to know that they will not have to build new roads on which heavy tankers will travel. Instead of local authorities and the Ministry having to go to the expense of building such roads local authorities will be able to charge private enterprise rates and thereby gain revenue as a result of this Measure.
A great deal has been said about the Bill giving a greater monopoly to the oil companies. That point has been made on the basis that only oil will be carried through the pipes. I can foresee a great number of other commodities eventually being so carried. I do not even go so far as to say that only the big oil companies will benefit from the Bill. The smaller ones will also benefit. The big oil companies already have their own facilities and road tanker fleets and have already constructed a pipeline to London Airport.
Since all this will ease road congestion, more should have been made of the fact that a pipeline is the only form of transport by which one does not have to return empty lorries. It is a one-way traffic. I emphasised on Second Reading that oil pipelines must be run by experts with real experience of these matters. That is why I very much support my right hon. Friend in his efforts to ensure that oil pipelines will be run by experts. Before anyone obtains an authorisation to build a pipeline he must satisfy the Minister that he is an expert in this field. An authorisation would not be granted other than to an expert.
On Second Reading I expressed concern about the effect pipelines might have on the sterilisation of land. At that time I saw certain disadvantages, considering the shortage of building land, in pipelines being laid. We had the opportunity of discussing this in Committee, and I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances on this topic. Fears were also expressed about the rights a private landowner, big or small, regarding the depositing of plans. A great deal of one sitting in Committee was occupied discussing whether plans should be deposited. I remember hon. Members opposite giving the impression that all one had to do was to deposit plans with Tom, Dick or Harry—or all the authorities which might be interested,
1518
including the fire brigades—and the whole thing would be settled. They did not seem to realise that any pipeline operator, or prospective operator, before putting a proposition or plans before the Minister, would have to make some sort of preliminary survey. No one with experience would attempt to build or plan a new pipeline without first finding out what obstacles there would be in the way of his project. There is no doubt that he would consult the local water, sewerage and gas authorities to ascertain the levels at which the pipeline must be constructed.
We also discussed at length the question of what is a pipeline. This was accompanied by a long debate on the effect of different products in different pipelines.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: On a point of order. I appreciate that of necessity this debate must be rather wide, but surely it is a little out of order for an hon. Member constantly to refer to debates which took place in Committee?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I do not think so, not on Third Reading. We are concerned, in fact, with debating what is in the Bill. I understand that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) is debating the subject of what is a pipeline, and that seems to be in the Bill.
Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order. The reason I rose on a point of order was that in debate on Third Reading we are restricted to that which is in the Bill itself. Surely it is out of order for an hon. Member constantly— and I emphasise "constantly"—to refer to debates which took place in Committee?
Mr. Ross: Further to that point of order. Surely it is in order for the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) to try to find out, at this final stage, just what is a pipeline, bearing in mind that our discussion on the Bill has been so curtailed that we do not even know the meaning of the title of the Bill?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) was in order.
Mr. Costain: I was about to say that a pipeline is clearly defined in the Bill. One of the problems we were up against —and I admit that I did not fully understand this on Second Reading—was what was in the Minister's mind regarding the development of further pipelines.
Mr. Lubbock: What is not defined in the Bill is what is "a system of pipelines", because the Minister had said previously that he did not think that a system of pipelines was susceptible to accurate definition.
Mr. Costain: In taking that bait, I recall that during our discussions I referred to the fact that we were trying to decide whether a railway line was a railway track or a railway line. Exactly the same problem applies in the case of pipelines. One of the great objects of the Bill is to confine pipelines to areas where they will be most efficient, and I hope that a number of pipelines will be built on land adjoining railways because that will give access to areas where the greatest need exists.
There has been some reference by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) to pipelines between England and Scotland. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there are ports in Scotland which take a lot of tankers, and I cannot see much advantage in oil being taken into English ports instead of Scottish ports. I am sure the hon. Gentleman's friends on the Clyde would not welcome the construction of pipelines to convey oil from England to Scotland, though I can imagine that some Englishmen might like them to be used to convey from Scotland products other than oil.
In general, I believe this Measure will be am important factor in our transport system. I have been surprised that there has not been much public reference to this Measure as it has passed through the House. I do not think I have received one letter from a constituent in connection with a pipeline. I was tempted to find out what happened when the rail-way Bills were going through this House 100 and more years ago. I think they got considerably more publicity because the whole idea was very novel in those days. Nowadays new modes of transport do not hit the headlines because they do not have an atomic or stratospheric connection.
1520
I congratulate the Minister on the way he has handled this Bill, and I welcome it as a Measure which will help our transport system.
5.52 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I should have thought that if there were one thing on which both sides of the House agree it is that the definition of pipelines is certainly not clear and simple. More than forty lines in Clause 64 are used to define "pipeline", and I have the same feeling about pipelines as I have about sausages, which have been discussed at considerable length in the High Court. After years of effort no one has yet satisfactorily defined a sausage for the purposes of the Food and Drugs Acts.
I have had the privilege of serving on Committees dealing with long, complex and controversial Bills, but I cannot remember a Bill which has come to us, if I may put it crudely, in such a half-baked state as this. Apart from the evidence of one's own eyes, the other evidence for my statement is that the Minister himself has seen fit to put down more than 100 Amendments, many of which were very long indeed, consisting of thirty, forty and fifty lines. It is clear that he himself has had considerable second thoughts about the Bill as it came from another place.
I wish I could think that the Minister in moving his Amendments had been influenced by what had been said in the Committee stage. So far as I can remember, not more than about ten of his Amendments resulted from anything which was said in Standing Committee. The Opposition have been lucky if during the whole course of our discussions we had three Amendments accepted, and one of those was an Amendment to which the Minister added his name, an Amendment originally standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), who sought to insert "not" or to take out "not"—I forget which. We did have the support of the Government on that Amendment.
This is astonishing, particularly when one remembers that the Bill had already passed through the legislative machinery of another place. Despite that, the Minister has felt obliged to move more

1521
than 100 Amendments, some of them extremely long; the majority of which we have not had an opportunity to discuss. I can remember how at two o'clock in the morning, partly because of the Minister's stubbornness in not having indicated when the Committee would rise, we had to deal with an Amendment fifty lines long dealing with eleemosynary matters, long and complicated matters concerning compensation for Church property and the exclusion of the effect of the Land Clauses Acts from the compensation to be paid. It is fatuous to suggest that important legislation of that kind could be discussed properly at that time of night—new Clauses and Amendments which were inadequately prepared in the first place and which had to be modified, and then were moved extremely shortly and without adequate explanation by the Government in the middle of the night.
If anybody wants to see the result of this method, I suggest that he looks at Clause 50 (3), and if subsequently I could be told what the Clause now means, and particularly that subsection, I would be delighted. We are dealing with a Bill of sixty-nine Clauses, twenty-eight of which have never been discussed at any stage—vitally important Clauses like Clauses 15 to 19, which deal with placing pipelines in streets. This is a matter of considerable importance when one considers how the traffic flow and all that is associated with it is a vital factor in connection with the movement of population. There was no discussion on any one of those Clauses. We have no idea of the effect of the modification of the code in Part II of the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950, which is referred to in Clause 17.
Many of these Clauses are very long. Clause 15 runs to something like 150 lines. There has never been a word of explanation of it. Local authorities have very little idea of the effect of this Clause. Indeed, it is hardly to be wondered at if one reads Clause 15. I should like to draw attention to a "fringe" subsection (9), which again we have never discussed:
"For the purposes of this section a pipe-line shall be treated as placed along a line crossing a street if it is so placed that at either side of the street an angle, on a horizontal plane, of not more than forty-five degrees is formed between the line of the pipe-line inside the street and a line joining the point at which the
1522
line of the pipe-line crosses the side of the street with the point nearest to that point on the opposite side of the street."
If any hon. Member knows what that means I am sure we would all like to hear. I have not the faintest idea.
I am certain that there is a mistake in Clause 18, to which I had an Amendment on the Paper, but it was never called. According to subsection (2), the Minister of Transport may in certain circumstances give permission for the breaking up or opening of a highway on the understanding that work begins
"after eight o'clock in the evening and carried on without intermission."
If the words in the Clause say what is intended, this is clearly contrary to previous highway practice of the Ministry of Transport. It now means that work must not start until eight o'clock in the evening and that then the work shall go on without intermission during the night, all the next day and the next night, and so on, creating traffic dislocation which this provision, I presume, is designed to prevent. I have seen hundreds of Ministry of Transport consents, and normally the Minister of Transport says that the work must be conducted between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. If the Minister intends what the words in this subsection say, confusion will be created on the roads. I am sure this provision is wrongly worded. But we have never been allowed to discuss it, and unless something is done about it in another place there will be further headaches and more confusion for those who have to deal with these matters.
This is the sort of Bill where the Government have shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. There is to be no consultation with householders or their representatives before the laying of a pipeline. We are merely told that if any damage is suffered the aggrieved persons can go to the courts and seek redress. It would be much better to prevent these things.
There is no statutory right of consultation with the fire brigades. An important point arises even in connection with the notification of accidents. Under Clause 36, the fire brigades and the police have to be notified, and there is a subsection providing that the authorities mentioned may request maps if

1523
they want to. It may well be the intention that the authorities which think that they may be affected by accidents should have maps before accidents occur, but, as the Clause now stands, the only right given is to ask for maps after an accident. I raised this point earlier and I was told that I should foe informed about it. I have never been informed. Does the subsection really mean, as it seems to mean, that at the height of a raging fire someone can call round and say that he would like to have a map of the pipeline? This is absurd. I gave notice of the point, but I have had no answer. I should very much like to know.
There is no statutory protection for the sewerage authorities, in spite of all the risks which right arise. There is nothing to inform the ordinary householder that materials in a pipeline are being conveyed under pressure beneath his house. I should have thought that the householder certainly had the right to know. Provision could easily have been made. It is no use saying that the local planning authorities can give information about pipelines. A local planning authority has no machinery for communicating with every householder and, in any event, it is not qualified to deal with the safety and technical aspects of the matter.
This was a bad Bill when it first came to the House. It is a bad Bill now. We shall have to spend many hours in the future revising this piece of legislation.
6.2 p.m.
Mr. Jasper More: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having carried the Bill through, and I express my regret that I was not able to be in the Chamber this afternoon to hear my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary move its Third Reading.
As one who served on the Committee, I should prefer to draw a veil over our proceedings there rather than elaborate on them at this stage, but there are certain respects in which I should like to put the record straight. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), who is not now in his place, use words, even if they were not, perhaps, entirely seriously intended, to the effect that my right hon. Friend had
1524
contemptuously and arrogantly rejected Amendments throughout our proceedings. All of us who served on the Committee must have been impressed by one thing more than by any other, namely, by the continued patience and good humour which my right hon. Friend evinced throughout.
Mr. Willis: He still refused to accept Amendments and he still arrogantly refused to answer the arguments.
Mr. More: The hon. Member for Ashfield credited me with the intention or ambition to collar all the proceeds or profits of the enterprising oil companies for the benefit of the private landowner. I regard that as a great tribute, but, in fact, the modest effort which I made in Committee was merely to ensure that private landowners who might be affected by pipelines should remain in the same position as regards their rights and their compensation as though no pipelines at all had been put across their property.
At this stage, I offer one or two general observations on the situation which the Bill will create in regard to administration. I do not think that we want now to go into a discussion of doctrinaire ideas about nationalisation or anti-nationalisation. We all realise that it could have been left to private companies to drive these pipelines where they wished, as was done by the old railway companies, or we could have gone to the other extreme and allowed the development to be done under some nationalised scheme. Adopting a practical rather than a doctrinaire approach, I think that it is fair to say that this is something of a pioneering operation in both its practical and its legislative aspects. There are risks when nationalised concerns are allowed to decide the course of great new enterprises like this for which no practical precedent exists.
Even in the undertakings of nationalised industries long established, the coal mines and the railways, for instance, large sums of public money in quite recent years have, unfortunately, been devoted to enterprises which have not been successful. Whatever be our general political view in the matter, we must appreciate that the Bill as we pass it today will mean that the money which is to be risked in these enterprises will

1525
not be the taxpayers' money but will be the money of the corporations which will lay the pipelines down. I am sure that this is important.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) seemed to be impressed by the number of insoluble problems which he suggested we were leaving for the judges in interpreting the various provisions of the Bill. Looking at the Bill in general, the more remarkable feature of it, I suggest, is the extent to which the ordinary courts of law in this country are to be excluded from its operations. Throughout the Bill, the onus of decision and the onus of consideration are laid upon the Minister. Under Clause after Clause he has to exercise discretion and come to decisions. As we all know, this means that the decisions will, in large part, have to be made by members of his Department working as conscientious administrators and trying to decide in all these cases what is right in the public interest and how the various issues are to be determined.
In Clause 28, we find a surprising reference to the judges, but, in fact, they are merely given power to determine as between private owners how certain moneys shall be divided. In Clause 47 there is a provision by which questions of compensation are to be determined by the Lands Tribunal. In almost all other oases, decisions have to be made either by the Minister or by inspectors appointed by him. Clause 41 gives the Minister a general power to appoint these inspectors, and that, of course, will provide a more elaborate method which will help the Minister in making the decisions which will be so important in the working of the Bill.
This is really a four-cornered operation. First, there is the public interest. Second, there is the interest of landowners who may be physically affected by operations on the spot. Third, there is the position of the private or—whichever one may wish to call them—(public companies, the entrepreneurs, which will wish to drive these pipelines through. Fourth, there is the position of the administrators working under the jurisdiction of my right hon. Friend. In my view, the impressive feature of the Bill is the extent to which we leave the effect of it to depend upon administration and
1526
the way it is operated. I am sure we may have confidence that, as this is a pioneering Bill and as it is important that we should start right in what will be a new form of transport in this country, my right hon. Friend will ensure that these provisions, discretions and powers are exercised really and truly in the public interest. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and wish the Bill well.
6.10 p.m.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: When in moving the Third Reading the Parliamentary Secretary said that I considered the Bill to be very desirable, he, like his right hon. Friend in a previous debate on this matter, was dealing only in half-truths. The previous occasion was when I accused the Minister of being dishonest in his quotation in relation to myself. It is very desirable that we should have a Bill dealing with the development of pipelines as a future means of transportation, but to say that is a long chalk from saying that the Bill is desirable in its present form. I have said repeatedly in our discussions on the Bill that one of the tragedies with which we have been faced as that we had a Minister in charge of the Bill and a Parliamentary Secretary who, Heaven knows, did his best, but both of whom did not understand the Bill and had not sufficient knowledge to pilot it through its various stages.
It is true to say that one of the reasons why the provisions of the Bill have not been discussed as fully as they ought to have been, bearing in mind that it deals with the future transport system, is that both the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary were incapable of meeting the criticisms that were advanced from this side of the House because they had not the knowledge of the Bill that they ought to have had. I say that if this Bill is to initiate a revolutionary transport system in this country, it is, in its present form, a disastrous Bill. It is disastrous because, although we are being asked to give a Third Reading to a Measure which is supposed to be legislating for the future, we have never discussed a large part of it.
Clause after Clause dealing with the future work of the local authorities, a very important aspect of this problem, and to some extent with the whole question of property relationship and the

1527
rights of individuals have never been discussed. Yet the House of Commons is being asked to give a Third Reading to this Measure. It is not good enough for the Minister to expect the House of Commons to act in this way. We are supposed to be a responsible body and to pass legislation of which we have at least reasonable knowledge and after reasonable debate. The only difference between the Parliamentary system and the totalitarian system is that fine dictator cam govern by decree, but under the Parliamentary system legislation has to be exposed to the floodlight of debate.
Mr. Fare: Nonsense.
Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense". If there is any other fundamental difference between the two systems, I should like to know what it is. If the hon. Member wants to intervene—
Mr. Farr: I should like to suggest that a total of 80 hours' Committee time is quite sufficient to debate 52 Clauses.
Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member has changed his ground again. It is customary for hon. Members opposite, when one makes a statement, to say "Poppycock" and "Nonsense" and, when one allows them to proceed to elaborate what they have said, to change their ground and say that they were talking about something else. I am saying that, although a number of hours have been devoted to discussing some provisions of the Bill, there are many other provisions in it that have not been discussed at all.
Hon. Members opposite have said that this is not merely a Measure to deal with the transportation of oil but that other commodities will also be transported. That is true. We do not yet know precisely what will be transported in the pipeline system because no one can envisage the ultimate of that system. It is most remarkable that hon. Members opposite, while they have recognised that it is a pipeline system for future development, always manage to make reference to the oil companies. It is true to say that the pipeline system is the future method of transport and that the Bill, inadequate though it is, initiates that future method of transport. But the Bill is also a charter for the oil
1528
companies and speculators in the pipeline system.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) referred to the fact that the money of the oil companies would be used. Of course it will, but this will be a better "spec" than independent television; it will be a gold mine and the oil companies know it. It is not only a question of their putting in capital; they are being given great public utility powers, almost monopoly powers, from which they will extract the greatest proportion of the profit.
The Bill is necessary, but not in its present form. It is a disastrous Bill in that it has not been adequately discussed in this House. We are being asked to pass a Measure without full discussion, and I am totally opposed to it.
6.19 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Lee: Those of us who have been in the House for some time can remember serving on a great many Committee's dealing with important legislation. Whether we agreed with the legislation or not—in other words, whether we were on the Government side or on the Opposition side—we can remember the great satisfaction which we derived from striving to improve a Measure and from the general acceptance of the principles in it. As we get to the end of our discussions on this Bill, I wish to place on record the fact that I have never been a member of any Committee dealing with legislation which was as unsatisfactory as this Bill, despite the fact that we accept the need for a pipeline system in Britain.
The Bill has been ill considered in the way that it has been presented to us, in spite of the fact that it went through another place before it came here. Huge dollops of Government Amendments and new Clauses have been necessary, most of which we have not had the chance to debate, and as we get to the end of it we realise that much more of the Bill has not been discussed than has been discussed. I should have thought that, no matter how we viewed the working of the Guillotine in this House, it is something which we should consider most seriously when we reach the point that I have just mentioned about any piece of legislation.

1529
As I suggested in the debate on the guillotine Motion, democracy can become something of a mockery when important legislation leaves this House practically undiscussed, as has happened with this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) showed us that one or two of the Clauses, as they leave us, simply make nonsense. It is, therefore, a great tragedy that we are having the Third Reading while the Bill is in its present form.
A pipeline Bill is the genesis of a new transport system, and, therefore, we on this side have never disputed the need to ensure the orderly and systematic development of a pipeline system. Yet, as the Bill leaves us, neither the Minister nor any other member of the Government can even describe what a pipeline system is, apart from the fact that a pipeline system is a system of pipelines. Then we axe in worse trouble because that cannot be defined. It makes nonsense of our efforts to guide the development of this sort of transport system when we cannot even define the main purpose of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the need for encouraging the competitive power of our industries and went on to say that the State cannot be trusted with pipeline development. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) educated him a little by saying that the State has been building pipelines for over twenty years. Indeed, the war might not have gone so well for us if it had not.
But the Government's only criterion of success is profit, not the ability to produce pipelines. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) told us that large sums of money had been invested in industries which have not been successful. He spoke of nationalised industries. I thought that he was talking about agriculture, the Cunard Steam-ship Co., steel and cotton, but, apparently, those trifles escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention. We used to laugh in the old days at Robb Wilton, as fireman, asking people to fill in forms in triplicate before the brigade could function. Now we know that a map, not a form, is an essential prerequisite to obtaining assistance if one's house is on fire.
1530
We on this side are convinced of the need for a pipeline system, irrespective of whether there is profit to be made from it. The fact that pipeline development is to be left entirely to the oil companies and other sections of private enterprise presupposes that the Bill can be used as a vehicle for making profit, or there will be no pipeline system, irrespective of the fact that hon. Members opposite say that a pipeline system is essential to the well-being of the country. We are told that the public interest is to be safeguarded. How? What is the essential difference between a new transport system in pipelines and the old transport system in railways? There is just one small difference. Pipelines can still be used for profit-making and railways cannot. Therefore, the public has the railways and private enterprise has the pipelines. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs. If he can dispute what I am saying, I will give way to him.
Mr. Mawby: The reason I am laughing is that Dr. Beeching is engaged in making a reassessment of the need of railways and, therefore, we say that the criterion for laying a pipeline is whether there will be sufficient material to be carried through that pipeline.
Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the point. The great danger to the railway system is that if Dr. Beeching succeeds it will be denationalised, just as the steel industry and road transport were denationalised. The basis of the Bill is to ensure that the nation has a new transport system provided that the profit motive can be satisfied. If it cannot be satisfied, there will be no pipeline system, irrespective of what the public needs. That is enshrined in the Bill, and it is on this basic issue that we have argued about Clause 1.
The Parliamentary Secretary gave us the usual approach, namely, that if we advocate that the nation should own something we are doctrinaire, whereas if we advocate that private people should exploit something that is not doctrinaire but natural. We should have a new transport system because the nation requires it, irrespective of whether profits can be made from it. So great is the

1531
Government's concern about the public that they will not get one unless private people can make profits from it.
This is driving the Tory Party to some rather remarkable situations. Even the land-owning interests have been relegated to second place in the Government's consideration. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the British Transport Commission will be allowed to build pipelines on its own land. This is a great concession! We shall be accusing him of lining up with Mr. Khrushchev if this goes on. Who wants to lay a pipeline on land exclusively running along a railway track which is to be closed down because it goes in the wrong direction?
If we are to have a pipeline system which becomes the arteries of our industrial development—surely that is what we ail want—it will be successful only if it goes into the areas in which industry is required and to which industry should be channelled and, therefore, can act as the life blood of that industry. When my hon. Friends and I, in Committee, tried to bring about that revolution by Amendments, the Minister said that, although he wanted orderly development, the one thing that we should not do was to make sure that industry develops in an orderly way. This is one of the great shortcomings of the Bill and one of the reasons why it will not succeed.
We are told time and again in the Bill that we must ensure the orderly development of pipelines and that to do that we must make certain that there is not a proliferation of pipelines. In itself, that is an excellent suggestion. I dispute that the Minister can possibly do it without considering the kind of Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton moved last night and taking a complete picture of applications for authorisation before he even begins to look at the system itself. In any event, once it is decided to oppose a proliferation of pipelines the Government automatically preclude a large section of the community from ever hoping to get authorisation and they narrow the field of those who can. In itself, it is a good thing, but when we pass legislation which almost presupposes monopoly, the House has to decide as between private and public monopoly.
1532
In the Bill, we are told that people who fail to get an authorisation or who, perhaps, are not of sufficient financial standing to be able to apply for one, can arrange with those who have pipelines to get their commodities carried in them. Frankly, I do not believe that this is worth the paper on which it is written. How can the Minister tell me—perhaps he will try when he replies—the capacity of a pipeline which, first, ensures that the owner of the line can move his own commodities through it and, further, that there will be surplus capacity which other people can use? We hammered this point in Committee, but never got an answer. I ask the Minister again now.
On the theme of monopolies, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton has discussed, if the Government are saying that they will limit those who can get an authorisation—a proposition from which we do not dissent—unless there can be some way in which the Minister ensures that an authorisation does not become a monopoly right to those who get it, the Government are conniving at the creation of private monopoly.
That again, as my hon. Friends have shown at every stage of the Bill, is one of the important reasons why we do not believe that we can at one and the same time create conditions of private monopoly and look after the public interest. The two things are antagonistic. Therefore, I do not believe that that part of the Bill which gives the power theoretically to people who wish to use somebody else's pipelines to move their own commodities can work in the way that the Minister apparently expects.
I have just referred to Clause 11 as something which, under the Tories, will put the landowner in a secondary position as against the great oil companies. To discuss Clause 11 as we have done is nothing like sufficient. Not a word was said in Committee an either the Second or Third Schedules. Clause 11 is almost incapable of definition until we get to the conditions as laid down in the Schedules to the Bill, because they are the conditions which should have been discussed in justification of compulsory acquisition.
There again, I am not capable of saying whether the Schedules are capable

1533
of defining how Clause 11 will function. There has not been the slightest attempt by the Minister to interpret them to us. One remembers the position in which the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) found himself. He was a member of the Standing Committee and listened in—indeed, on one occasion he took part—to our deliberations. The hon. Member thought—I do not blame him for supposing this—that an ordinary householder would be protected within the Bill. He was horrified to find that no such protection was accorded and he fell back upon the argument that nobody could put a pipeline under his house without his knowing.
I shall not dispute that. Houses come to unfortunate ends when people begin to put pipelines under them. It is, however, a little late in the day to discover what to do about it if somebody is putting a pipeline under one's house.
Mr. Willis: What happens if the householder is on holiday?
Mr. Lee: That is an important point. As a layman, I would not attempt to answer. Perhaps the hon. Member for Totnes will tell us. I suppose that the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who asks what would happen if it were done while somebody was on holiday, is that there would toe no house to which to come back.
Is it not the case that we are being asked to accept a Measure of considerable importance undiscussed, undigested and certainly not understood? That is by no means an exaggeration, despite the fact that when the Bill came to us, we had the advantage that another place had already had a go at it and had defeated the Government on one or two occasions in discussing it.
Granted that we all wish to see a pipeline system developed, when we have a Measure of this kind, despite the differences between us concerning ownership, there could have been a great deal of mutuality. It is a great pity, however, that the Bill has been almost dragooned through the House. Before a single word was said in Committee, the Minister forced open-ended sittings upon us. Because of his attitude scarcely an Amendment of any principle or substance from the Opposition was accepted, although
1534
he was ready to adopt our principles and parade them as his own. The nation has the right to expect that this place, having fought out its differences of principle on ownership, will then co-operate together in trying to ensure that we get a proper system. Because of the way in which the Minister has handled the Bill, however, no such co-operation has been possible.
We know that the Bill was introduced far too late in the Session and that, rather than the Government blaming the Opposition for trying to analyse the Bill when it came to us, it is the Government who are culpable and who should be censured by the House for daring to introduce so late in the Session a Bill of the dimensions and importance of this one.
There is nothing further that we can do to stop the Bill going on to the Statute Book. The future may well reveal a different approach by incoming Governments to legislation of this nature. For our part, we have stated where we stand on the question of ownership. I think it very unlikely that our arguments in office as a Government would vary from those which we have used whilst in opposition. Therefore, the country can take heart in the thought that a pipeline system may well come into being irrespective of whether the profit motive can be satisfied. On that we stand. It is a great pity that we could not have had greater mutuality. Because of the disgraceful way in which the Opposition have been treated during the passage of the Bill, we shall divide against its Third Reading tonight.
6.39 p.m.
The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): We have now reached the final stage of the Bill and I am bound to admit that in time to come I shall look back on this moment with a feeling of intense nostalgia. As I look forward to the weeks and months ahead I really do not see how I shall occupy my time, when the Bill has received the Royal Assent.
Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman can consider the mistakes which are in it.
Mr. Wood: The suggestion has been made today that there has been insufficient time for discussion of the Bill.

1535
Whether or not that is so was debated at considerable length on the Allocation of Time Motion, when it was agreed earlier this month, but hon. Gentlemen have claimed this afternoon that the later stages of the Committee and other stages have been unduly hurried. They have claimed that a number of the Clauses did not get any attention. I must point out one thing. The fact that quite a number of Clauses were not reached did not preclude hon. Members in Committee from taking any chance they could to discuss them—
Mr. Willis: That is the object of a Committee.
Mr. Wood: —but the compression of our later debates was the inevitable result of the tactics which the Opposition employed on the earlier Clauses.
As I understand it, the obligation of the Government is to allow adequate time for a Bill's discussion. The Government cannot bear responsibility if the Opposition choose to use the time available in rather peculiar ways. Therefore, the question is whether the Government have allowed adequate time to debate the Bill. The Bill occupied 75 hours in the Standing Committee, which is the equivalent of nearly 12 full days' debating time on the Floor of the House —12 full days. Altogether, it has been discussed in the House of Commons for not far short of 100 hours. If we add to that the 29 hours—I think it was— which the Bill had already occupied in another place I really do not think that it is possible to suggest that insufficient time has been available for its examination.
But in spite of the uneven discussion which has been afforded to it because of the operations of the Opposition in the Committee, I would gratefully acknowledge the improvements which have been made to the Bill during its passage through both Houses. Many of the Amendments which were accepted both in Standing Committee and again yesterday, on Report, were put down to meet points raised in the Committee or in another place.
I have already taken the opportunity —and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) warmly supported me—to express my gratitude
1536
to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) for his conduct of our proceedings upstairs. I think that I shall be forgiven for expressing more appreciation of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works, for the magnificent and patient support which they gave me for so long, than for the apparent attempts—I must use my words very carefully, because I see the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) here; and, incidentally, having heard that he had been ill, I was delighted to find him in such vigorous health and in such good form this afternoon—of the Opposition to frustrate our progress.
Nevertheless, I should like to express my admiration for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton for the way in which he led his team, which was a team of quite remarkable versatility. If I may use cricketing metaphors, there was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who was always ready for a quick single. I fear that in an attempt for a quick single today he ran himself out badly, because he suggested that I had not consulted Scottish local authorities before the Bill. I did in fact, consult the Scottish local authorities. Here, the hon. Gentleman was well out of his ground this afternoon. Then there was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), who so frequently—
Mr. Ross rose—
Mr. Wood: I think that I really should get on, for I have a lot of things to say, but I will certainly give way in a moment if the hon. Gentleman really thinks that he must intervene.
The hon. Member for Ashfield was frequently performing the functions of what I think is called in first-class cricket, the night watchman—put in to bat for a few minutes before the drawing of stumps, to keep things going. And the rest of the side were certainly very often not averse from vociferous appeals to the umpire.
I cannot accept the charge made in debate on the Allocation of Time Motion that the Government have been rigidly resistant to all attempts to improve the Bill. If one makes a comparison of the

1537
Bill as it was when introduced and the Bill as it will finally appear I think that that suggestion is completely refuted, but I do not think that it is surprising that the Government have refused to accept the nationalising fervour of the Opposition on which many of the earlier Amendments were based, because we believe that such a philosophy, if it were to inspire future pipeline development, would frustrate and stultify what I am convinced will otherwise be an important new advance for industry and consumers.
The principles behind the Bill were fully debated on Second Reading and I do not wish to go over the ground again, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, anyhow, put the case most trenchantly and cogently at the beginning of the debate today. The Government appreciate that an unbridgeable difference exists on the fundamental basis of pipeline legislation. Hon. Members opposite believe that pipeline legislation should be based primarily on public ownership, that there should be a national plan, in the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) on Second Reading,
"shaped and guided by the intervention of public enterprise so as to serve best the public purposes to which it can be harnessed."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1962; Vol. 659, c. 462.]
In their view the Bill is misconceived in that it contains no positive planning.
We for our part believe with all our strength that this is the right approach. In our view legislation must primarily seek to provide conditions which will stimulate and encourage pipeline development and at the same time ensure that such development is subject, I use the words advisedly, having used them before, to a recognised pattern of public control.
I do not mind at all the suggestion the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton pointed at me that—I think it boiled down to the phrase for which I give credit to my hon. Friend—that my head is just showing out of the pocket of the Esso Petroleum Company. That is what, I think, the hon. Member was trying to suggest. I do not mind that, because I think that it will be treated with the scorn and derision which it deserves, but I do certainly resent the innuendoes
1538
of the hon. Member against my engineering staff when he says that they have a rather sinister connection with the oil companies.
I should like to point out that they have other duties to see to and may not be employed on this work. In fact, it is quite essential, if they are to do their job properly in future, that the inspectors who will be employed under the Bill must come from industries using pipelines, so that they will have the technical knowledge necessary for them to do their job.
During the debates which have taken place we have discussed a number of interesting and important topics. The question of amenities has been discussed and my hon. Friend the Member for Har-borough (Mr. Farr) mentioned it this afternoon. It was not possible to provide that pipelines should be laid underground, because it may be that some pipeline development may be desirable, as, I think, the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in Committee, at the bottom of disused canals, where it would be rather ridiculous to ask for under grounding and where there would be no offence at all to amenity. Certainly, amenity has figured very largely in the discussions both here and in another place. It is our determination that we should do what we possibly can to see that pipelines do not offend against that criterion.
The question of compulsory powers has been discussed at considerable length. The protection afforded now to those who own or occupy land corresponds with that which is provided by the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, with the important additional provision that when the Minister makes either a compulsory purchase order or a compulsory rights order it is subject in all cases—unlike the 1946 Act procedure—to confirmation by Parliament. I explained perfectly frankly to the Committee, and, I think, at considerable length, that I changed my mind between the debate on the Trunk Pipelines Bill and the introduction of this Bill about the need for parliamentary approval where compulsory rights orders or compulsory purchase orders were not necessary.
It is difficult to satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite when, most of the time, they are saying that I do not change my mind

1539
enough; and this afternoon they accuse me of having changed it once too often. I have explained that where compulsory rights ardors are not involved, or where rights are voluntarily granted, this provision for inquiry which is contained within the Bill affords much greater protection for local and other interests than ever existed before under the Private Bill procedure. The view has been expressed that a specific protection ought to be given in regard to the way in which pipeline works are carried out and it has been suggested that a mandatory code of practice for pipeline work should be laid down.
I think that the House will agree that the Government have gone a considerable way towards meeting this suggestion. Under Clause 13, introduced in Committee, where compulsory rights can be exercised over the operational land of statutory undertakers—for instance, railways—the Minister may impose conditions Which will prevent the operations of the undertakings concerned, either immediately or at any time in the future, from being adversely affected. He can also attach to ail compulsory rights orders certain conditions dealing, for instance, with the proper safeguarding of waiter supplies, reinstatement of land drains, ditches and fences, and, if I dare mention it in the presence of the hon. Member for Hamilton, also sporting rights.
By these means it is possible to Jay down proper safeguards which will meet any of the technical requirements of the undertakings concerned or in any individual case where they are necessary. The Bill embodies safeguards which are fully adequate to protect both agricultural interests and the interests of statutory undertakers Whose land may be subjected to a compulsory rights order.
We had a considerable discussion, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) took a prominent part, on the question of compensation and the proper liability of pipeline operators in this respect. The compensation arising from the exercise of rights granted by a compulsory rights order is covered by Clause 14, and the principles on which this is based follow the
1540
accepted code of compensation in regard to Government-owned pipelines. In general, the compensation provisions of the Bill seek to ensure that the owner and occupier of land to which a compulsory rights order applies is neither worse off nor better off financially than he would have been had such an order never been made.
Some property owners may regard this as ungenerous, particularly in view of the liberal compensation terms which have been voluntarily agreed by some of the major oil companies and the nationalised bodies for pipeline way-leaves. But the Government have had to consider the wider effects of extending the established compensation code and have decided, after very careful consideration, that the existing code should not be altered. Experience has shown that the existence of this code does not blind operators to the advantages of voluntary agreements wherever possible and of negotiating accordingly.
We had a long discussion, very necessarily, on safety. Some anxiety has been expressed about the potential danger of pipelines. It has been proposed that pipeline owners should be obliged to accept absolute liability for any damage which may be occasioned by their pipelines. There is no evidence to suggest that the building and operation of commercial pipelines will give rise to greater hazards than many other kinds of industrial process. The principle of absolute liability has been imposed only in very exceptional circumstances where unpredictable dangers are involved, and the Government see no reason why pipeline promoters should be placed in any different position from industry generally, where common law redress is always available to third parties whose interests may be injuriously affected.
A great deal was said both yesterday and in Committee when we debated the question of safety regulations. Indeed, a good deal has been said in general about the whole subject. The Government have taken the view, as I tried to explain yesterday, that safety requirements can best be imposed by notice in individual cases rather than by regulations for general application.

1541
It is thought that if one tried to frame regulations in the present state of knowledge—which, we argued among our-selves, is, at any rate, less complete than it will be in a few years' time—then it would be necessary for the regulations, if they were to mean anything, to be very much more restrictive and possibly less well-suited to the individual case than the kind of requirements which under the Bill can be imposed by notice in individual cases. There would be practical difficulties in attempting to draw up regulations which were both sufficiently comprehensive to be applicable to every type of pipeline likely to be laid and sufficiently precise to be capable of enforcement. Therefore, the Government believe that each case ought to be looked at on its merits, and it is felt that in this way the Minister will be able to impose the most suitable requirements in the light of the circumstances of each pipeline application.
During the Committee proceedings, as I explained yesterday, I was impressed by the view that, although regulations may not be desirable at present, they might be—as a number of horn. Members have suggested—desirable in the near future. Although, in my view, regulations would not be desirable in the very near future, it might well be that they would be desirable later, and, therefore, I agreed to include powers in the Bill to give the Minister the future option to impose a general set of regulations if these were felt to be desirable and would achieve the same ends.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) raised one or two points this afternoon. In particular, he quarrelled with the provision in Clause 18 (2) about the works having to be begun after eight o'clock in the evening and carried on without intermission. He thought we had made a mistake somehow and would have to put it right. If he had his way—I think this is his way—and the works had to come to an end at ten o'clock the following day or some such time, what would happen would be that there would be a big hole left in the road during the next day, and that would not be very conducive to the easy flow of traffic. Therefore, we suggest that the works should be begun after eight o'clock in the
1542
evening and carried on without intermission so that the obstruction to traffic will be as short as it possibly can be. I suggest that that is rather a sensible provision.
The hon. Member had great fun in suggesting that if there was an accident a map would have to be obtained at the last moment when the fire was raging. He has not done his usual very applied homework on this Clause. The maps will be supplied in advance when requested and not at the time of the accident. But the hon. Member was enjoying himself, and I should not like to spoil his fun.
I have explained on several occasions why the Bill had to be introduced during the Session. Contrary to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Hamilton, I am not expecting a flood of applications directly the Act is passed, but I am expecting to get some. After the Select Committee's Report on the Esso Petroleum Company Bill, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), it was perfectly clear that no future pipeline developments would be possible until public legislation was completed. That was the need for this Measure having to be introduced and put on the Statute Book as soon as possible.
I stated, on Second Reading, three main objectives. The first was to control the development of pipelines. The second was to facilitate the construction of pipelines by affording a procedure whereby pipeline operators could obtain compulsory powers and yet, at the same time, provide adequate safeguards to those who would be affected. The third was to ensure that adequate powers were available to the Government to control pipelines in the interests of safety. I believe that these are proper and desirable aims of the pipelines legislation which the Government undertook to introduce rather more than a year ago.
Pipeline development is a comparatively new field of enterprise in this country. I expect that it will develop very considerably in the future. The Government believe that this Measure will provide the best pattern of control in the national interest. I therefore ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 193.

Division No. 258.]

AYES

[6.59 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Gilmour, Sir John

Marten, Neil

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Glover, Sir Douglas

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Allason, James

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Mawby, Ray

Arbuthnot, John

Goodhart, Philip

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Atkins, Humphrey

Gough, Frederick

Mills, Stratton

Balniel, Lord

Gower, Raymond

Miscampbell, Norman

Barlow, Sir John

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

Barter, John

Green, Alan

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Batsford, Brian

Gresham Cooks, R.

Morgan, William

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Morrison, John

Bell, Ronald

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Berkeley, Humphry

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Nabarro, Gerald

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Neave, Alrey

Biffen, John

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Biggs-Davison, John

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

Bishop, F. P.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

Bossom, Clive

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Orr-Ewing, C. lan

Box, Donald

Hastings, Stephen

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Hay, John

Page Graham (Crosby)

Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Page, John (Harrow, west)

Braine, Bernard

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Brewis, John

Hendry, Forbes

Partridge, E.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Brooman-White, R.

Hiley, Joseph

Peel, John

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Percival, lan

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

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

Peyton, John

Buck, Antony

Hirst, Geoffrey

Pickthorn, John

Bullad, Denys

Hobson, Sir John

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Hocking, Philip N.

Butcher, sir Herbert

Holland, Philip

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Pitman, Sir James

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hopkins, Alan

Pitt, Dame Edith

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Hornby, R. P.

Pott, Percivall

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Cary, Sir Robert

Hughes-Young, Michael

Prior, J.M.L.

Channon, H. P. G.

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Chataway, Christopher

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Chichester-Clark, R.

Iremonger, T. L.

Pym, Francis

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Cleaver, Leonard

Jackson, John

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Co'e, Norman

James, David

Rees, Hugh

Collard, Richard

Jennings, J. C

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Cooke, Robert

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Renton, Rt. Hon. David

Cooper, A. E.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Ridley Hon. Nicholas

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

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

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Cordle, John

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Corfield, F. V.

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Russell, Ronald

Costain, A. P.

Kerby, Capt. Henry

St. Clair, M.

Coulson, Michael

Kershaw, Anthony

Scott-Hopkins, James

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Kimball, Marcus

Seymour, Leslie

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Kirk, Peter

Sharples, Richard

Crawley, Aidan

Lambton, Viscount

Shaw, M.

Critchley, Julian

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Shepherd, William

Cunningham, Knox

Leburn, Gilmour

Skeet, T. H. H.

Curran, Charles

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

Currie, G. B. H.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lilley, F. J. P.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

Lindsay, Sir Martin

Speir, Rupert

de Ferranti, Basil

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Stevens, Geoffrey

Doughty, Charles

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

Stodart, J. A.

Drayson, G. B.

Longbottom, Charles

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Duncan, Sir James

Longden, Gilbert

Eden John

Loveys, Walter H.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Summers, Sir Spencer

Emery, Peter

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Tapsell, Peter

Errington, Sir Eric

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Taylor, Sir Charles (Easthourne)

Farey-Jones, F. W.

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

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Farr, John

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

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

Fisher, Nigel

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

Temple, John M.

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Foster, John

McMaster, Stanley R.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Niall (Dumfries)

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Fraser, lan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Maginnis, John E.

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Freeth, Denzil

Maitland, Sir John

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Gardner, Edward

Marlowe, Anthony

Turner, Colin

Gibson-Watt, David

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Wall, Patrick

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Vane, W. M. F.

Ward, Dame Irene

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Webster, David

Woodhouse, C. M.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Woodnutt, Mark

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Whitelaw, William

Woollam, John

Wakefield, Sir Wavell

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Worsley, Marcus

Walder, David

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Walker, Peter

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Wise, A. R.

Mr. Finlay and Mr. McLaren.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Gunter, Ray

Owen, Will

Ainsley, William

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Padley, W. E.

Albu, Austen

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hannan, William

Pargiter, G. A.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Harper, Joseph

Parker, John

Awbery, Stan

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Pavitt, Laurence

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hayman, F. H.

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

Peart, Frederick

Bel enger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Pentland, Norman

Bence, Cyril

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Hilton, A. V.

Popplewell, Ernest

Benson, Sir George

Holman, Percy

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Blackburn, F.

Houghton, Douglas

Proctor, W. T.

Blyton, William

Hoy, James H.

Reid, William

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Reynolds, G. W.

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

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Bowles, Frank

Hunter, A. E.

Roberts, Goronwy (Gaernarvon)

Boyden, James

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

Bradley, Tom

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

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

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Ross, William

Brockway, A. Fenner

Janner, Sir Barnett

Short, Edward

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Skeffington, Arthur

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Slater, Mrs. Hariet (Stoke, N.)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, c.)

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

Small, William

Callaghan, James

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Sorensen, R. W.

Cliffe, Michael

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Soskice, Rt. Hon, Sir Frank

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Kelley, Richard

Spriggs, Leslie

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Kenyon, Clifford

Steele, Thomas

Crossman, R, H. S.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

King, Dr. Horace

Stones, William

Dalyell, Tam

Lawson, George

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

Darlling, George

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

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

Davies, G. Elfred (Rhondda, E.)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Swain, Thomas

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lipton, Marcus

Swingler, Stephen

Deer, George

Loughlin, Charles

Taverne, D.

Delargy, Hugh

Lubbock, Eric

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Dempsey, James

McCann, John

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Diamond, John

MacColl, James

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Dodds, Norman

McInnes, James

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Donnelly, Desmond

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Thornton, Ernest

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Thorpe, Jeremy

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

McLeavy, Frank

Timmons, John

Edelman, Maurice

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Tomney, Frank

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Warbey, William

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Manuel, Archie

Watkins, Tudor

Evans, Albert

Mapp, Charles

Weitzman, David

Fernyhough, E.

Marsh, Richard

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Finch, Harold

Mayhew, Christopher

White, Mrs. Eirene

Fletcher, Eric

Mellish, R. J.

Whitlock, William

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Mendelson, J. J.

Wilkins, W. A.

Forman, J. C.

Millan, Bruce

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Milne, Edward

Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Monslow, Walter

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Moody, A. S.

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

George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

Morris, John

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Gooch, E. G.

Moyle, Arthur

Winterbottom, R. E.

Gourlay, Harry

Mulley, Frederick

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Greenwood, Anthony

Neal, Harold

Woof, Robert

Grey, Charles

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby,S.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Oliver, G. H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Oram, A. E.

Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton.

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

Oswald, Thomas

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), further considered.
Clause 2.—(EVIDENCE ON CHARGE OF UNFITNESS TO DRIVE.)
7.10 p.m.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 1, line 25, at the end to insert:
(2) If it is proved that the accused at the time of his driving or attempting to drive or being in charge of a motor vehicle had more than such proportion or quantity of alcohol contained in his blood or present in his body as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister, such proof shall be conclusive evidence that the ability of the accused to drive properly was for the time being impaired.
Clause 2 provides for blood, urine or breath tests to ascertain the quantity of alcohol in the blood when a person has been accused of driving under the influence of drink. The test is to be voluntary and taken under safeguards. Nevertheless, if anyone refuses to undergo the test, that fact may be used by the prosecution during the court hearing of the case. This is the first time that any such provision has been embodied in the legislation of this country, although it is familiar in the road codes of other countries including the United States of America and Scandinavia. From evidence which has been collected there is little doubt that this provision, as it exists in other countries, helps to lessen the number of road accidents.
In this country there has been a remarkable change in the attitude of people towards drivers who drink. Only a few years ago, judging the police figures, the feeling was prevalent that the number of accidents due to people driving while under the influence of drink was not very large. In recent years we have come to realise, or most of us have, that this figure occupies a more prominent place than we had imagined in the statistics relating to drunkenness. The death toll on the roads, particularly at Christmas time —in 1959 the figure was astonishingly high and startled many people—has brought this home to us. Between closing time for public houses at night and midnight is the peak period for road accidents and it is not unreasonable to
1548
assume a connection between that and the accident figures.
At least three or four inquiries have been carried out into the cause of accidents and into the number of accidents due to drink. Dr. Spriggs, a Leicester police surgeon, and other doctors have carried out inquiries. Work has been done by the Road Research Laboratory. The British Medical Association has carried out extensive inquiries, and its findings have been published. The Home Office recently published figures which underline what I am now trying to emphasise.
I wish to refer to figures relating to driving while under the influence of drink taken from the result of an inquiry conducted by the Christian Economic and Social Research Foundation. Details were taken from 73 police districts. It was found that the figure for 1961 indicated an increase of 15 per cent. over that for the previous year. The figure for 1960 showed an increase of 40 per cent. over the previous year. The figure for 1959 was higher by nearly 20 per cent. than that for 1958 which, in turn, was 8 par cent. more than the figure for 1957. There has, therefore, been an increase in the number of convictions. I say "convictions" because it may well be that other drivers who were proceeded against were not convicted. These figures are very disturbing. They indicate that every five or six years the number of convictions doubles, whereas it takes nine to ten years for the number of licensed vehicles to double. We must take that into account when considering this problem.
7.15 p.m.
I have referred to the exhaustive and careful inquiry carried out by the British Medical Association, the report on which was published under the title "Relation of Alcohol to Road Accidents." The Association has been accepted by the Ministry as a worthwhile organisation whose evidence can be accepted. It is stated in the report:
"The Committee is satisfied that the official returns for accidents caused by drivers who have taken alcohol underestimate very considerably the number of accidents due to this cause."
I wish to emphasise that point, because it shows what many people now realise, the extent to which drink plays a part

1549
in road accidents. If we desire—as I know the Minister does—to try to lessen the astonishing and tragic number of road accidents, we cannot leave that factor out of account.
So far as possible, we must provide for it in legislation even—I say this deliberately—if that means the curtailment of some of the freedoms and liberties which we now enjoy. It is quite wrong that just a few people—I suppose that it is, relatively speaking, a few— should be so thoughtless about the welfare of others that they drive on the roads when they know that they are incapable of having proper control of the vehicle of which they have charge because they have been drinking. It would seem that it has been definitely established and accepted that a substantial proportion of road accidents are due to drivers being under the influence of drink, or pedestrians being under the influence of drink. I emphasise that because the more one examines the figures the more obvious it becomes that pedestrians who have been drinking are sometimes more to blame than drivers.
The Government have recognised this and provide for a test to be carried out to establish the percentage of alcohol in the blood of a person who is under the influence of drink. That is a good thing. But no percentage has been laid down to which reference may be made when judging whether an offence has been committed. There are, therefore, no "teeth" in this proposed legislation and I hope to persuade the Minister and the House that it is not sufficient unless something is done to provide the courts with a yardstick which may be employed in judging such matters.
It may well be that the Minister has a good reason for not including a toleration limit in the Clause and, if so, I shall be interested to hear it. Those who have considered this matter and are qualified to speak upon it are almost entirely in favour of a percentage figure appearing in the Clause. Practising barristers and solicitors have indicated that they are in favour of a percentage figure being stated. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) who is connected with it, that the Magistrates' Association is definitely of opinion that
1550
a figure should be inserted in the Clause. My hon. Friend gave assurances to this effect during the Committee proceedings. The Research Committee of the British Medical Association considers that a figure should be indicated. It says in one of the conclusions of the report at page 33:
"The Committee believes that a substantial reduction in the number of accidents caused by alcohol has been achieved where it has been made an offence to drive a motor vehicle when the concentration of alcohol in the tissues can be rapidly and accurately estimated."
I read into that, and I hope it is a fair paraphrase of the conclusion, that in the view of the Committee it is essential that figures should be in the Bill in order to judge accurately and to get a proper estimate on which the courts could act. The question arises as to what concentration the Medical Research Association's Committee suggests as reasonable. When we dealt with this matter in Committee upstairs a number of various views were expressed about the percentage which should go into the Bill if we could persuade the Minister to put in a figure. I would be very largely guided by him, but I think that some figure should go in, even if from experience later we find that we should alter it.
Another conclusion of the Research Committee is:
"The Committee considers that a concentration of 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres while driving a motor vehicle is the highest that can be accepted as entirely consistent with the safety of other road users."
That is 1 to 1½ pints of beer, or a double whisky. It does not seem much, but it is the Committee's conclusion. The Committee is composed of independent medical men who have no axe to grind and, so far as I know, none of them is a teetotaller. They have looked at this matter objectively and these are their conclusions. They say:
"While there may be circumstances in which an individual driver's ability will not depreciate significantly by the time this level is reached, the Commitee is impressed by the rapidity with which deterioration occurs at blood levels in excess of 100 mg/100 ml."
That is about 2½ pints of beer or two double whiskys. The report goes on:
"This is true even in the case of hardened drinkers and experienced drivers. The Committee cannot conceive of any circumstances in which it could be considered safe for a person to drive a motor vehicle on the public

1551
roads with an amount of alcohol in the blood greater than 150 mg/100 ml."
That is equal to four pints of beer or three double whiskies. Often one reads of cases in courts where individuals have confessed to drinking that much and more and yet have protested violently that they were still capable of driving a motor car and were not under the influence of drink.
As hon. Members will have noticed this Amendment does not put in any figure. We provide for the Minister to prescribe by regulation the percentage of alcohol which may normally be accepted as safe. We hope that a provision of this kind will avoid the criticism which undoubtedly would arise if figures were put in. Some hon. Members would think that the figures were too high while others would think that they were too low. We leave it to the Minister to decide. If the Amendment were accepted, the Minister would be left with elbow room to bring in the provision as and when he felt able so to do and also to prescribe by regulation what the percentage should be. It would also give him power to alter that percentage as experience demanded.
The proposal has other advantages. It would help to bring uniformity into the administration of our laws. As hon. Members know, courts vary in the way in which they treat the drinking driver. If a percentage were definitely laid down by the Minister in the Act it would provide for uniformity, which I think all of us regard as desirable. It would also help to solve the difficulty of a time lag between the arrest for an offence and examination by a police surgeon.
A couple of months ago I saw in the Sunday Times a report of a case which had been brought before one of the metropolitan magistrates. A constable had arrested an individual at 2.25 a.m. and the police surgeon did not see the person arrested for an hour, an hour and a quarter or an hour and a half afterwards. The police surgeon said that he was of the view that the man was not drunk, but the magistrate—rather un-sually perhaps because others do not take the same view of these cases— came to the conclusion that what he had to look at was the evidence of the police constable about the time when he
1552
arrested the man and not at the evidence of the police surgeon who saw him an hour or an hour and a half later. If we put a percentage into the Bill it would avoid that kind of difficulty.
It would also obviate the need for police surgeons' tests. Some people find some of those tests amusing, and undoubtedly they are. Some people find them somewhat out of date, and undoubtedly they are out of date. If the Amendment were accepted it would obviate the necessity for a test by a police surgeon some time after the arrest. In Committee we heard a great deal about the magistrate or the court having to rely on the word of the constable who arrested the individual. It was thought that sometimes a police constable might be rather unfair in what he said in his evidence. If a definite percentage of alcohol is laid down and the breathalyser is implemented or other tests visualised in the Clause are used, the evidence will be conclusive one way or the other. What the constable said would not be the final word on the matter.
I hope I carry the House with me in saying that the Amendment would meet the difficulties which arise, and which I know worry the Minister, about juries. Juries are human like the rest of us. They do not like to convict a man for drunken driving if they can help it. I have one or two cuttings with me and some of them are rather astonishing. I do not want to inflict all of them on the House, but I shall refer to some of them.
One is from the Daily Mail during June. It is about a very well-known champion snooker player who had drunk the equivalent of six large whiskies. He appeared before a quarter sessions court which, curiously enough, acquitted him. The nub of the report is that he was a champion snooker player and he told the court:
"One has to be accustomed to drink. It is part and parcel of my job. After a match I'm expected to drink and chat with people. But I do not drink before a game. Snooker requires clarity of eye and steadiness of hand."
It obviously never occurred to him that driving a motor car, particularly in dense traffic, requires the same attributes, namely, clarity of eye and steadiness of hand.

1553
7.30 p.m.
These cases can be multiplied. I have another here, the case of Dryden against Johnson, reported in The Times last year. Here, the divisional court allowed this appeal by the prosecutor from a decision of the Tunbridge Wells borough justices, who had dismissed a charge against the defendant. He was accused of driving while under the influence of drink and was acquitted by the borough magistrates, although the case obviously had been proved right up to the hilt.
The Lord Chief Justice said that he just did not understand the justices' decision, which was thoroughly perverse. The defendant was seen by a police officer driving into a car park at ten minutes past midnight. He got out of his car with some difficulty, was unsteady on his feet, his breath smelt of drink, he was swaying and his voice was slurred. He confessed that he had had a couple of pints and two whiskies. A police doctor examined him and found that he could not articulate properly, staggered, was unable to stand, wrote illegibly and could not walk in a straight line.
A test showed that he had had a minimum of five pints of beer and five double whiskies, and the concentration of alcohol was very high. At 3 a.m. he was asleep in his cell and could not be roused. Yet the Tunbridge Wells borough magistrates as I say acquitted him, and the case was taken to a higher court where the Lord Chief Justice and those sitting with him ordered that the case should be sent back and the man convicted.
These are cases which all of us could multiply, because we meet them very often. It is one indication of the humanity of juries. They feel as we say, "There but for the grace of God go I." If the proof were taken completely out of their hands and embodied in legislation, as has been done in other countries, I am sure that it would be all to the good.
I emphasise that we all look upon this Bill as a road safety measure. That being so, we cannot shut our eyes, with the vast increase of traffic and the rising number of convictions of drunken drivers, to the need for drastic action.
1554
As I have said more than once in the last twenty minutes, the facts cannot be disputed. I remember that a little while ago the ex-Minister of Housing, who was once well known as the Radio Doctor, said:
"No one drives better after a drink. He just thinks he does. The plain fact, long proved, is that alcohol even in moderate doses does two things. First, it lowers driving efficiency by lengthening the reaction time—the interval between seeing the danger and acting to avoid it. Secondly, it reduces one's capacity for self-criticism, so exaggerating one's satisfaction with oneself. It over-eggs the ego."
The Minister of Transport has gone on record more than once to indicate that he believes that these tests are useful. A year or two ago he visited America and, as one would expect of him, he paid a great dead of attention to what they did to avoid accidents on the road. When he came back at a Press Gallery lunch, as I well remember, he said that when he visited America he was impressed by the fact that in Chicago, although cars had doubled in ten years, deaths had been cut by half owing to stricter tactics. He said that in Detroit in three years deaths had been reduced by 90 per cent.—and there they had the breathalysers.
We are to have the breathalysers, and I ask the Minister to realise that a great responsibility rests on him. None of us wants to harry the ordinary moderate drinker, but people must realise—and the sooner all realise it the better—that one cannot drink, that is have a convivial evening—and then drive home afterwards. I believe that the Minister himself has said that when he and his wife go out, one drives and the other drinks. Friends of mine, who are well aware of the risks of driving when they have been drinking, always take it in turns to keep completely sober so as to drive the other without risk. We have to educate the public on this matter; to make it quite plain that Parliament means it when it says that drinking and driving do not go together.
Mr. Graham Page: I say right away that I wholeheartedly support the Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). I will support him to this extent—that if, after the end of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister is not utterly convinced that it

1555
is right to include this Amendment in the Bill, I will join the right hon. Gentleman in the Lobby in which he goes. I am convinced that this is the right thing to put into the Bill, and I base my argument, as did the right hon. Gentleman, on the B.M.A. report.
I remind my right hon. Friend that in Committee it was said on many occasions that the Government accepted this report—at least, accepted its scientific findings. It may be that the Government have not made up their mind how to apply this scientific evidence in law, but at least we have it on evidence that they accept the scientific findings of the report. I make no apology for referring in detail to this matter in the words as they are set out on the report:
"On the basis of the evidence examined in the preparation of this Report, the Committee is satisfied that a concentration of 50 mg./l00 ml. of alcohol in the blood of the driver of a motor vehicle is the highest that can be accepted as consistent with the safety of other road users."
To translate that into the normal results of drinking, it means 1½ pints of beer to a man of 11 stone As I weigh a good deal more than that, I suppose that I can have two pints. It varies with the weight of the individual, but on the average it is about 1½ pints.
The report continues:
"The Committee is aware that other considerations will have to be taken into account, not least the question of liberty of the subject, and it is here concerned only with the presentation of the scientific evidence."
It is the scientific evidence which the Government have stated that they accept.
"A compromise would appear to be inevitable between these considerations and the indisputable evidence of the danger to other road users when a car is driven by a person with more than 50 mg./100 ml. concentration of alcohol in the blood. The Committee wishes to emphasise that it is impressed by the evidence of the rapidity with which driving ability deteriorates, even in the most hardened drinkers and in the most experienced drivers, at concentrations of alcohol in the blood in excess of 100 mg./l00 ml."—
which is approximately three pints to an 11-stone man.
That raises a point which has arisen again and again in our discussion, whether the hardened drinker becomes immune to the effects of alcohol. On
1556
several occasions we have been asked to consider the teen-age girl who has a sherry as compared with the hardened drinker. There is a confusion of two points here. It is true that if food is taken with drink, particularly if fatty substances are eaten, not so much alcohol is absorbed into the tissues. That is irrelevant in the test of alcohol in the tissues. It has not been absorbed. It is the amount which has been absorbed into the tissues which affects the reactions, which makes a driver over-confident, which makes someone a bad driver. The taking of food does not matter.
As to the supposed immunity of the heavy drinker, it has been proved that there is very little difference between the effect of alcohol on someone who is used to drink and its effect on someone who is not used to drinking. Someone who is used to drinking, who is quite a hard drinker, may be able to carry it off a little better, but that does not mean that he is any better driver when he has had the drink. Professor Drew says:
"It had frequently been argued that the regular heavy drinker developed an immunity, but the evidence did not support this."
The argument of the teem-age girl with a sherry has befogged the issue to some extent.
So, I think, has the breathalyser. I rather wish the breathalyser had never been mentioned. We do not need to rely on the breathalyser as a test. Blood and urine tests have been used very successfully in the past. We shall probably get an efficient breathalyser in due course, and then we can use it. However, we ought not to wait until one is devised before giving the Minister power to lay down what I call a drink limit. That drink limit can be tested by blood or urine just as well as by breath.
In Committee the former Minister of State for the Home Department made great play of the difficulty of obtaining urine. I will not say that I do not believe the difficulties he mentioned, but I do not believe the strength of the argument. In Glasgow the urine test has been used over a period of years very successfully and hardly anyone has been unable to comply with it. Glasgow gets a high percentage of convictions for drunken driving, because there is then the definite fact of a quantity of alcohol

1557
in the tissues, as shown by the urine test.
I should have thought that most people when asked to provide urine are able to do so. We need not worry about compulsion. The Amendment does not make any compulsion. It merely provides that if this amount of alcohol is in a person's blood that person is deemed to be unfit to drive. I do not think that we need a compulsion Clause at all, because in the few cases in which there might be deliberate refusal to provide a sample of blood or urine we could use the rest of the Clause which has already been inserted into the Bill to the effect that a refusal to provide a specimen may be treated as supporting evidence. That is sufficient compulsion. We need in the Bill the power for the Minister to lay down a drink limit.
I do not see how my right hon. Friend can escape the logic of this. Clause 1 contains a now definition of "unfit to drive". The Clause says:
"a person shall be taken to be unfit to drive if his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired."
In view of what I have read from the B.M.A. report, how can it be argued that a man who has 50 mg. of alcohol per 100 ml. of his blood is fit to drive within this definition? How can at be argued that his ability to drive properly is not impaired?
7.45 p.m.
It may be that a higher limit should be specified in Regulations, but if there is a limit it will be a deterrent to those who drive. At present the law completely fails in laying down any deterrent to the drinking driver. It does not set any limit for him. If a limit were set it would act as a deterrent to drinking and driving. The law at present fails to prove impairment. Even with the new definition, I am sure that an efficient counsel will still be able to persuade a jury that a man whom the ordinary man in the street would call drunk in his driving is not drunk at all. Many quarter sessions do not know what it is to convict for drunken driving. Accused are always let off. If we lay down a drink limit, the drunken driver will receive his deserts.
Some people may say that the offending motorist is not a criminal and that if an accident occurs it is not wanton
1558
or wilful law breaking but just carelessness on the part of a driver. What is most likely to cause the driver to be careless? What is most likely to give him over-confidence, to cause him to be inattentive to his driving, to cause slowness in reacting and that sleepy feeling at the wheel? The answer is drinking before he drives. That is the most likely way to become inattentive on the road. Do let us give some lead in the Bill. Surely we owe it to those who have suffered from the drinking driver. Indeed, many have suffered.
The right hon. Member for Colne Valley gave some figures. This question has been studied, as reported by the B.M.A., by a number of scientists. The scientist, Miss Jeffcoate, demonstrates that after 10 p.m. 62 per cent. of deaths occurring on the roads are due to drunkenness. She shows that at other times 17 per cent. of all accidents are due to drunkenness.
Mr. John Hall: How many fatalities in the figure of 62 per cent. occurred to pedestrians who, having come out from public houses, were involved in accidents?
Mr. Page: That question is not quite worthy of my hon. Friend. I have said in the House on many occasions that I would have a Clause in a Bill of this sort penalising the drunken pedestrian just as much as the drunken motorist. I ask my hon. Friend to refer back to a Private Member's Bill which I introduced and which received a Second Reading, which contained a penalty for drunken pedestrians as well as for drunken drivers. An examination of the figures of pedestrians who are killed on the road shows that certainly after 10 p.m. the great majority of pedestrians who dies on the roads are suffering from drink at that time. I draw no distinction between the drunken pedestrian and the drunken motorist, except that if we can deal with the drunken motorist, who wields a lethal weapon, we are at least dealing with something which will immediately save lives on the roads.
Mr. John Hall: Will my hon. Friend tell me in what way the question I addressed to him, which was a perfectly proper question, was unworthy? I was not trying to score a point. I was asking for information.
Mr. Graham Page: I rather hoped that my hon. Friend knew of some of the debates which we have had in the House on road safety over the past ten years. On those occasions it has been frequently said that the drunken pedestrian is just as much to blame as the drunken motorist, and I say it again now. I do not think that it is too harsh to say, though, that if a man takes a car on the road he should know how much he can drink and it is no hardship to say that if he does not know that he drives at his own risk of committing crime on the road.
I again ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider this matter. We have debated it for a long time in Committee, when the right hon. Member for Colne Valley sought to fix the limit within the Bill. Now, he and I are ready to let the Minister fix the limit on the scientific facts—but a limit there ought to be. Unless we have a limit, we shall make no real progress in preventing deaths on the road caused by the drunken driver.
Mr. Charles Mapp: I do not for a moment wish to destroy the present harmony. I think that the Minister himself will recognise that the varying shades of thought on whether or not a limit should be written into the Bill has been finalised in this Amendment which, in principle, asks us to live in this era, legislatively, and to give the courts a Plimsoll line for the recognised test.
In ten years, the number of proved cases of drunkenness in general has risen from 15 per 10,000 people to over 20 per 10,000 people—a 33 per cent. increase. In narrower terms, Home Office figures show that in 1960 4,347 people were found guilty of driving under the influence of drink or drugs, and that in 1961 the figure was 4,940. Convictions increased by 14 per cent. in twelve months. I accept at once that there has been an increase in the number of motor vehicles on the road, but I hope that none of us will seek to argue that the number of offences should go up pro rata.
We are here directing our thoughts not only to vehicles that are here for our pleasures and our utilities but to the serious problem of driving under the
1560
influence of drink or drugs. In fairness, I should add that convictions of those in charge of a vehicle increased by only 4 per cent.
The heart of this Amendment is the work of the magistrates. An accused motorist has certain choices before him. The physical movements of the accused having led the police officer to think that there is a case of impairment, he asks the motorist whether he is willing to accept some form of test. Under the Bill the motorist has complete choice, and the Amendment does not seek to alter that. He can either accept the test, or, for his own special reasons, he cam refuse it.
Let us move now to the courts—an atmosphere with which, as a magistrate, I have known fairly intimately for ten or fifteen years. The bench will be faced with two propositions. The first is the evidence dealing with the movements of the individual, the motion of the car, and all the circumstances leading to the police officer thinking that there was some impairment due to drink or drugs. The second is that the man has refused to have a test. The magistrates will weigh the evidence of the physical movements of the car and of the individual, and will also have to take into account the fact that the defendant declined to take a test. In the absence of a convincing explanation of his refusal of a test the bench will draw certain conclusions.
That is all quite fair, but we now move to the real difficulty, which arises when the result of a test is brought in. It is in that area that the Bill is deficient. At present, the analyst or other professional man will either cause to be sent to the court, or will himself produce, evidence of the results of his examination. As the law is now likely to be drawn, the magistrate will not have any yardstick or Plimsoll line by which to assess the consequential effects of the quantity of alcohol found to be present in the blood.
There are hon. Members on both sides who know full well that, in that uncertain position, the courts will be addressed by the defendant or his counsel over the whole area of the credibility of the consequential figure. As instanced by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), it can be pointed out that as the defendant is of

1561
considerable physical size the quantity of alcohol found to be in his blood at the time is of less consequence than it would be to someone smaller.
A second argument could be that the defendant had not had a meal for a number of hours, resulting in the drink consumed having an undue and unexpected effect to the extent that there were reasons and circumstances why the line before the courts should not be accepted. Thirdly, it may be said that the man had had a worrying day, that he was mentally exhausted, and all the other kinds of argument to which magistrates have had to listen for so many years.
Further, there will be differing points of view among the magistrates themselves. I am myself a motorist, and I hope that I am sufficiently broadminded to see beyond my own personal interest, but it is not fair to put on magistrates this area of fact that the Bill will establish, namely, to arrange that the court shall be apprised of the result of the test, but fail to give it any guidance at all as to the assessment of the extent of the impairment of the average man. It is because of that that I ask the House to appreciate the unfair position in which the courts and magistrates are being placed. We should, in a liberal manner, cause a reasonable figure defining the proportion of alcohol in the blood to be written into the operation of the Bill.
8.0 p.m.
Throughout our discussions on the Bill hon. Members have appreciated that they cannot have the last word and that even the Minister—although in this field I would give him a large measure of my trust—cannot have the last word. Only by Regulation can we achieve our aim to enable the right hon. Gentleman to obtain such advice as is available to him, from other Government Departments and the professions. The right hon. Gentleman could write into the regulations even a very high figure if he wishes. The figure of 100 mg./100 ml. which has been suggested is, I suppose, travelling near to the danger mark. The figure of 50 mg./100 ml. appears to be preferred by the profession. I would be prepared to compromise at 70 mg./ 100 ml. or 80 mg./100 ml. and I am sure that the Minister, in his heart,
1562
knows that this is the right course to take.
I urge hon. Members to realise the difficulties in which the courts and magistrates find themselves. When adjudicating on this type of case they do not want to have to seek out precedents or discover what is happening in other courts. That is what will happen if we do not provide in the Bill the sort of proposal contained in the Amendment. The courts will, unless we act, wait to see the yardstick in operation elsewhere. The Minister should, therefore, begin with a figure which will result in a process of educating motorists so that deaths on our roads can be reduced. The Amendment provides the best kind of British compromise and I believe that every hon. Member supports it.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Wood-house): Without wishing to curtail the discussion or intending any discourtesy to hon. Members who feel strongly on this subject, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were at this point to indicate the Government's view on the Amendment. I do so apologetically because this is the first time I have intruded on the Bill. I apologise for introducing yet another Ministerial voice and I apologise also if I have to traverse again, because I have not been able to read the entire proceedings at the earlier stages, the ground which has been covered before.
I have mo desire whatever to minimise the gravity of the offence of drunken driving. This is common ground to us all. I agree with almost all the general arguments I have heard in the interesting speeches made by the mover and supporters of the Amendment. I agree with practically everything but their conclusions, and I hope that the House will allow me to explain briefly why this is so and to address myself to two points which are raised in my mind by the Amendment.
The first is the considerations which have led the Government in the past—and this is still the Government's view—to reject at the present stage of development any statutory limit to the concentration of alcohol in the blood, whether embodied in the Bill or by later Ministerial Regulation. The second is whether it would be

1563
right, in any case, to leave that level to be fixed by the Minister at a later date. Regarding the first, the Amendment resembles Amendments which were moved at earlier stages and, indeed, one which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) moved on Report, although it was not selected, in this important respect of incorporating the idea of a statutory level of alcoholic consumption.
I mention this to show that this idea has been fully canvassed. I have gone fairly extensively through the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings and it is clear that it has been fully considered, that it has been rejected by both Houses already and that it would be very late at this stage of the Bill for Parliament to change its mind on such a fundamental issue. Nevertheless, I think it right to say something on the general arguments concerning a statutory limit.
I think it would be convenient to take a specific figure although the Amendment does not specify one. The figure proposed by the hon. Member for Crosby could well be the sort of figure that would reasonably be written into a Regulation if one were to be made, so I will take his figure of 100mg. of alcohol in 100ml. of blood which, I am told, represents in the average case two-and-a-half to three pints of beer or five or six small whiskies. These observations will apply to other figures but I am sticking to this one at the moment and I will come later to the effect of my argument on either raising or lowering the figure.
The ability of some people to drive properly can be impaired even with a lesser proportion of alcohol in the blood. I think that this is common ground. If a particular proportion such as this is fixed by the Bill or the Minister it may become difficult afterwards to get convictions of anyone who is found to have a lesser concentration of alcohol in the blood. That is not the intention of the mover of the Amendment but both the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) and the hon. Member for Crosby have drawn attention to the fact that human nature does not always conform strictly to the intentions of the legislators.
Hence one of the troubles of fixing a statutory level is that once it is fixed and
1564
embodied in the law or in a regulation —whether as an absolute indication of fitness to drive or as strong supporting evidence one way or the other—the consequence may be that some courts will tend to take that particular concentration as the criterion of whether or not an offence has been committed.
This leads me to my second observation. As I have said, the proportion we are speaking of is equivalent to five or six small whiskies. Once it becomes known—and it is inevitable in the nature of things that it would become known— that a driver has a fair chance of getting off if it is shown that the proportion of alcohol in his blood is less than that, then the idea could very easily get around that it is all right to have two, three or even four whiskies, which is less than the average level, but that would certainly be far too great a consumption of alcohol in a large number of cases. This might lead, in some sectors of the population, to an actual increase in dangerous driving.
My third observation is that once the idea gets around that one will be convicted merely because one is shown to have a certain concentration of alcohol in one's blood, people will (refuse to take the tests because they will think that they have a better chance of acquittal— they may think it their only chance of acquittal—if they refuse to take the chemical tests. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby referred to only a few refusing to do that. I greatly fear that under this proposed Amendment the number of drivers who did refuse to do so might rise to a very high proportion of these cases. These tests are not compulsory under the Bill, and the only way to overcome these difficulties would be to make them compulsory.
My hon. and learned Friend the former Minister of State, Home Office, argued at considerable length in Committee that fixing a proportion of alcohol in the blood would necessarily lead to compulsory testing, and I am bound to say that I find has argument persuasive. I think it is corroborated, for what it is worth, by the experience of certain other countries to which reference has been made in debate. For instance, in the United States it is, I believe, in some of the States, though not all, conclusive evidence; that is to say, a given proportion of alcohol in the blood is taken

1565
in the courts as conclusive evidence. But in the United States testing is compulsory. When application is made for a driving licence in the United States one has to sign an undertaking that one will submit oneself to a test if required to do so.
Exactly the contrary is the case in Sweden. The proportion of alcohol in the blood is not conclusive in the courts and there is no compulsion to take a test. I think there is inevitably a connection between these two things. Either we make the proportion conclusive and the test compulsory, or we do not make the test compulsory and we do not make a given proportion of alcohol in the Wood conclusive.
I am not going to repeat all the arguments that my hon. and learned Friend marshalled in the Committee, but I have very carefully considered them, and two of them in particular have struck me as cogent. One is the argument about public opinion. Public opinion is different in every country. One cannot argue from the experience of one country to another in this context. There is a genuine doubt in this country whether the requirement that a suspected driver should be compelled to submit to a test would be acceptable to our public opinion. I think it can fairly be argued that this would be looked upon as an infringement of the traditional rights of the individual in this country.
Secondly, there is the practical problem to which attention has already been drawn. There are, in fact, three kinds of tests that could be applied—the blood test, the urine test and the breath test. I need not go over the details of how these things are done, but it is, I think, accepted that blood can only be taken from a suspected offender by a doctor. It is repugnant to many people, and I think it would be repugnant to many doctors, that it should be compulsory.
The urine test, I am told—I speak without experience—may present physical difficulties or even physical impossibility. Some say this is so; some say it is not. I can only speak on the best advice that I have received, which is that it may present physical impossibility and a suspect might very easily purport to be physically incapable of providing a specimen. There, therefore, remains only the breath test—
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, may I point out that I mentioned the tests in Glasgow where a very small proportion have refused or have been unable to participate in the urine test? I should like to have had the figures produced on that, because I am informed that in Glasgow a very high proportion have taken part in the urine test without any difficulty at all.
Mr. Woodhouse: I apologise for not having the figures for urine tests in Glasgow to present to the House, but it seems to me that if we were to make them compulsory we might merely increase the number of spontaneous and perhaps non-genuine refusals.
To come to the last of the three possible tests, which is the breath test, it is certainly common ground that the practical disadvantages would disappear if a wholly reliable and accurate device were available. It is commonly called a breathalyser which is, I think, a proprietary name. I do not like it very much, but it is the only name we have got to use. I saw one today and I am bound to say on first inspection that the model which I saw—which is obviously susceptible to improvement, although it may well be perfectly accurate—struck me as being very far from perfectly reliable. According to the best advice which the Government have received, there is no breath testing instrument yet that is sufficiently reliable to justify the Government in asking the courts to accept the results as wholly reliable evidence.
As was explained by the then Minister of State, the Government have asked the Medical Research Council to carry out an investigation into the reliability and accuracy of the available instruments. This investigation is not yet complete, but we shall be guided by it when it is. The Government, in fact, at this moment cannot regard it as established until the Medical Research Council investigation is completed that the accuracy of such machines can be accepted. The arguments that I have so far been using apply to one specific figure of 100 milligrammes an 100 millilitres of blood.
Mr. Norman Cole: Would my hon. Friend enlighten the House? He has been speaking

1567
against the advisability of laying down any kind of figure. I appreciate that argument. But would he say what happens at the moment? Presumably when a doctor suggests that urine or blood should be taken, there is some kind of datum line. Does that vary from county to county?
Mr. Woodhouse: I must apologise. I cannot answer that question without notice, but I will certainly communicate with my hon. Friend.
Mr. William Hannan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the City of Glasgow the chief medical officer to the police lays down a figure of ·2 per cent., which is even higher than in Sweden, and he makes the categorical statement that the percentage of convictions in such cases varied from 91 per cent. to 94 per cent. Surely the Glasgow experiment has got to be examined in the light of those figures?
Mr. Woodhouse: Certainly we shall always be glad to examine experiments in Glasgow. It does not come under the responsibility of the Home Office, but that is not the sort of evidence that would be overlooked.
The arguments I have so far been using apply to one specific figure, 100 mg./l00 ml. If one took a higher figure, most of these arguments would still apply, and some of them would apply even more strongly. If a much lower figure were fixed, say, 50 mg., the figure quoted in the B.M.A. report, it would follow, I think, that some people would be convicted on the basis of such a figure who were not really unfit to drive in the ordinary sense of the word at all I feel that this argument is inconsistent with the data given in the report by the B.M.A.
Mr. Dick Taverne: Surely the test is no longer simply whether someone is unfit to drive but whether someone's ability to drive is for the time being impaired, which is a different test from the one which the Minister has just enunciated.
Mr. Woodhouse: I accept the verbal correction, but I do not think that it alters the argument. It would certainly follow from the proposed Amendment
1568
that some people would be convicted although fit to drive because under the Amendment, once a concentration is so fixed, the chemical evidence would then be conclusive. This would make it very difficult for the Minister to take the risk of erring on the side of fixing a low proportion if he had the responsibility of deciding the figure himself. I think that this is one reason among several which makes it very questionable whether this responsibility should be left to the Minister to discharge at a later date.
The discussions in Committee and in the House now have shown that many very important considerations turn on the precise level fixed. Surely, if it ever comes, the creation of a new offence, which is what it comes to, or, at least, an important constituent part of an existing offence, ought to be debated in Parliament with knowledge of all the relevant facts including the accuracy of the instruments available, which is a subject on which we do not yet have precise information. Parliament, not the Minister, should then take the responsibility of deciding the proportion. Parliament should debate at one and the same time the nature of the offence, the evidence for the offence, the sanction behind the tests and the statutory level if one is to be fixed.
I must make the final point, which is not a mere quibble, that the Amendment would involve a radical redrafting of the opening Clauses of the Bill which are based on voluntary tests and do not treat the result of those tests as conclusive evidence. One cannot just keep Clause 2 as it stands, add these words to it and make sense of the result. These ate the reasons why the Government still oppose a statutory level, but I emphasise that, even without it, Clauses 1 and 2 represent a real step forward by improving the definition of the offence and by encouraging, though not imposing, the use of chemical tests. We believe that an experimental stage by stage approach is preferable to a ruthless and theoretical one. We believe that it is important that public opinion should be behind this law, and we do not believe that it would be behind the Amendment.
Recognising that many hon. Members disagree, I hope, nevertheless, that we can fairly quickly bring this matter to

1569
a decision in the hope of getting this very important Bill through the House in a reasonable time.
Mr. G. R. Strauss: I agree with the concluding words of the Undersecretary of State. We discussed this matter for, I think, two or three sittings in Committee. The arguments are well known. People feel very strongly about it, but I doubt that many new arguments will be produced on the Floor of the House which were not produced in Committee.
I am not surprised at the hon. Gentleman's speech. I realise that, although we have had a new voice this evening, we have had the same brief, the one which the Home Office gave to its Minister in Committee. The Department's case, though understandable, is not a strong one. The first thing which the House must appreciate in dealing with this matter is the seriousness of drunken driving. Hon. Members must appreciate that a very high proportion of the accidents on our roads arise because someone—in nine cases out of ten, I suggest, it is the driver—is drunk. I do not want to waste the time of the House in producing evidence to support that statement, but there is ample evidence in the report by the B.M.A. and the evidence of experience in the United States. All that evidence goes to the same conclusion, that of accidents which take place late at night, after ten o'clock, probably at least half arise because someone—in most cases, the driver of the car—has had too much to drink. The evidence for that is stated at some length in the report by the B.M.A.
Further, there is ample evidence to suggest—again, I do not wish to quote it, but I will if challenged—that probably about 10 per cent. of all accidents arise because someone concerned, usually the driver, has had too much to drink. Translated into terms of death and serious injury on the roads, that means that probably 700 people a year are killed and about 8,000 people are seriously injured because someone driving a car has had too much to drink.
What we are discussing here is the lives of 700 people a year and serious injury caused to 8,000. The question is whether we should take a very tiny step such as that proposed by the
1570
Minister in the Bill or do something admittedly much more drastic but, I think, effective while we have the Bill before us in order to tackle this serious social problem, a problem which is causing great distress every year among thousands of families, great loss of life and an appalling number of human tragedies throughout our community. If we accept these figures—I do not think that they are controvertible—the question is to what extent should we take steps which hitherto have been unorthodox in this country but which have been accepted and operated with great success in other countries to deal with this problem. That is not to say that I believe that we shall be able to eliminate all the accidents which arise because the people involved have been drinking, but a large proportion of them and, it may be, save seven hundred lives a year.
If we are to regard the problem from that point of view as serious, I think that we must come to the conclusion that something far more drastic must be done than is proposed in the Bill. Let us consider the case against this Amendment. I shall not repeat the arguments in favour, because they have been very well put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) and the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). The case against it is two-fold. Whatever limit we fix—this is the first leg of the case—it may be that some people who are drunk but the alcoholic content of whose blood does not reach that limit will successfully avoid conviction. I do not believe that should be so. If someone who cannot drink very much has one pint of beer and is then found driving a car under conditions which make it apparent to a number of witnesses that he is drunk, under the Bill he will be brought up and, if the case is proved against him, will be convicted.
It is said that many people can take a large amount of alcohol and their driving ability will not be impaired. That is perfectly true, but I am afraid that these people will have to suffer to the extent that they must not take more than, say, two pints of beer or two double whiskies before they drive. A number of people who are fortunate in being able to drink a lot more without having their driving capacity

1571
impaired will in future, if this Clause is agreed to, have to drink rather less before driving a car. I do not think that that would be very terrible. It would be for the general benefit of the country and many deaths might be avoided if such an imposition, which may bring a little hardship to some people, is legislated for in the Bill. What is being proposed is that if anybody drives a car or motor cycle and has more than a certain quantity of alcohol in his blood, that in itself is an offence. I think that is desirable.
Mr. A. Woodburn: Is it not also the case that this might help to prove the innocence of someone who has been accused of being drunk and having caused an accident? If the can prove that he has no alcohol in his blood, then he disproves the charge.
Mr. Strauss: I quite agree with my right hon. Friend.
I come to the serious and more important argument which the Minister put before the House. He said that if we fixed the limit of alcoholic content in the blood under a statutory regulation, compulsory testing of the person believed to have too high an alcoholic content must follow. I do not accept that at all. If the Minister says that public opinion is against compulsory testing, I am not sure that he is right. No one knows. The Bill says that if anyone who is asked by a police constable to undergo a test refuses to do so that fact can be brought in evidence against him in court. If someone is "had up" in court and it is said that he refused to give a blood test or urine test, that would be very strong evidence that the alcoholic content in his blood was more than was statutorily permitted.
8.30 p.m.
We can go further. The State of New York has got over this difficulty by a very simple proposal. In New York there is an alcohol limit. They do not have compulsory testing, but they provide that if anyone refuses to have a blood test when he is brought to the police station his driving licence is taken away for a certain period. That is not unreasonable, unless the person
1572
can prove, as he may be able to do, that there is good reason why he should not have a blood test. He may suffer from hæmophilia. If the Government wished to take the step proposed in the Amendment, the fact that compulsory testing is not attached to it would not be an insuperable argument against it.
I suggest that the Government's two arguments against this Amendment, although understandable, are not good. If they really wanted to take effective steps to deal with this danger on the roads, they would say, "We admit there are difficulties, but they are not insuperable." I do not doubt that the Minister the Parliamentary Secretary and every hon. Member want to do all that they can about the evil of drunken driving and the accidents which follow from it. Do hon. Members think that the very small step taken in the Bill will have any effect on that problem?
Mr. Richard Marsh: The argument which carries most weight with me is that if we write into the Bill a statutory figure of, say, six whiskies there may be a tendency for people to argue that they can, in fact, drink four or five.
Mr. Strauss: That may be. I agree that if we laid down a figure of, say, six whiskies, which I think would be ridiculous, that might happen. But I imagine that the Minister would have a certain amount of common sense in this matter and that the figure written into the Bill would more or less conform with the suggestions of the B.M.A., namely, two pints of beer, two double whiskies, or something of that sort.
People who on Saturday evenings drink in public houses or in private houses at pleasant social "get togethers" —a great deal of it is done; I do not criticise and I do not want to spoil people's pleasure—often do not know how much drink they can take. They always think that having drunk one they can drink another and another on top of that and that all will be well. But if it is generally known that if they have more than a certain quantity that fact alone may make them subject to the rigours of the law, it would stop a great deal of excessive drinking before driving. That is one of the great advantages of my right hon. Friend's proposal.

1573
As I say, public opinion may be against compulsory testing, but I do not believe that compulsory testing is a necessary condition for the acceptance of this proposal. I am sure that public opinion would be very much in favour of, and if a Gallup poll were taken there would be an overwhelming vote for, my right hon. Friend's general proposition that the drinking of more than a certain amount of alcohol should be an offence.
The evils and consequences of driving when people have rather too much drink in them are well known and there is strong public feeling about it. I suggest to the Minister, who cares about these things as much as anybody else but is being timid on this occasion, that if he will not accept the Amendment now, as probably he is unwilling to do after all the discussion we have had, he should think about it again and realise that there is strong support for this proposal from all sections of the House. Many hon. Members opposite have made an effective case in support of it.
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Two.
Mr. Strauss: There are others. I beg the Minister to take action on this matter as quickly as possible.
There are three points in road traffic matters where effective action would have the maximum effect. One is the compulsory wearing of helmets for motor cyclists, another is the wearing of safety belts and this present proposal is the third and probably the most important. If the principle incorporated in my right hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted and introduced into legislation, it might have more effect than any other legislative matter in reducing the appalling fatalities on the road. I hope that even at this late stage, we may be told by the Government that they are in favour of the principle and will introduce the necessary legislation at the earliest possible moment.
Dr. Alan Thompson rose—
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I think that the House is anxious to come to a decision.
Dr. Thompson: I rise to express the sense of shock and dismay on this side of the House at the Government's reply and the reaction of hon. Members opposite. The Minister describes our suggestion as ruthless and theoretical and as being against public opinion. I appeal to him to accept that the overwhelming volume of scientific evidence, the evidence of the doctors and of months of patient research, has substantiated objective alcoholic blood tests. International evidence from a whole group of countries and evidence of varying kinds from America, Norway, Sweden, Australia, Belgium and elsewhere has demonstrated that this system works and has been applied with complete success.
The Minister has criticised the breathalyser. I quote from a United Nations investigation of the operation of the breathalyser in Sweden, which describes this method as quick, efficacious and involving no invasion of privacy that any driver can resent. I appeal to the Government, even at this late stage, to reconsider our proposal. It is not wild and impracticable, but is based on a good deal of research and international experience. The system has operated since 1926 in Norway, which has stated that it would never dream of going back upon its present system of objective alcoholic blood tests.
The Amendment would achieve the very objectives that the Minister wants: that is, to reduce deaths and accidents from drunken driving. Even if we are a little afraid of public opinion on this matter, this House must take the lead. Even if sections of the public would look askance, we must be able to guide the social habits of the country. What is this House for if it is not, in the light of its experience and deliberations, to guide the social habits of the people?
I believe that the British people are intelligent enough, as a result of propaganda and information, to know that by imposing a definite system of alcoholic tests we can reduce the number of deaths and accidents from drunken driving. If it knows the penalties, the public will know what to expect. We will get people accustomed to using public transport instead of driving their own cars after nights out and the knowledge

1575
that testing will take place will be a disincentive to selfish or wilful drivers who might otherwise be tempted to take risks. This matter is so urgent and important and there is so much evidence on the side of the Amendment that the Government
should take a lead and carry public opinion with them.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —
The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 199.

Division No. 259.]

AYES

[8.40 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Hannan, William

Owen, Will

Ainsley, William

Harper, Joseph

Padley, W. E.

Albu, Austen

Hayman, F. H.

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Allen, Scholefield (Crowe)

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

Parker, John

Awbery, stan

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hilton, A. V.

Peart, Frederick

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Holman, Percy

Pentland, Norman

Beaney, Alan

Houghton, Douglas

Popplewell, Ernest

Bence, Cyril

Hoy, James H.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Benson, Sir George

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Redhead, E. C.

Blackburn, F.

Hunter, A. E.

Reynolds, G. W.

Blyton, William

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hynd, John (Atterclitle)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Bowles, Frank

Irvine, A. J. (Edge HI.I)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

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

Bradley, Tom

Janner, Sir Barnett

Ross, William

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Jeger, George

Short, Edward

Brockway, A. Fenner

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

Slater, Mrs. Hariet (stoke, N)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

small, William

Brawn, Thomas (Ince)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Smith, Eills (Stoke, N.)

Callaghan, James

Kenyon, Clifford

Sorensen, R. W.

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. sir Frank

Cliffe, Michael

King, Dr. Horace

Spriggs, Lesile

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Lawson, George

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Steele, Thomas

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannook)

Stones, Williams

Dalyell, Tarn

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

Darling, George

Loughlin, Charles

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

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lubbock, Eric

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

Deer, George

MacColl, James

Swain, Thomas

Delargy, Hugh

McInnes, James

Swingler, Stephen

Dempaey, James

McKay, John (Wailsend)

Taverne, D.

Diamond, John

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Dodds, Norman

McLeavy, Frank

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Edelman, Maurice

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Thornton, Ernest

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Manuel, Archie

Thorpe, Jeremy

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mapp, Charles

Timmons, John

Evans, Albert

Mason, Roy

Tomney, Frank

Fernyhough, E.

Mayhem, Christopher

Wade, Donald

Fletcher, Eric

Mellish, R. J.

Warbey, William

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

Mendelson, J. J.

Watkins, Tudor

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Millan, Bruce

Weitzman, David

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Milne, Edward

White, Mrs. Eirene

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Monslow, Walter

Whitlock, William

Galpern, Sir Myer

Moody, A. S.

Wilkins, W. A.

Gooch, E. G.

Morris, John

Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

Gourlay, Harry

Moyle, Arthur

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

Greenwood, Anthony

Mulley, Frederick

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Grey, Charles

Neal, Harold

Winterbottom, R. E.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phllip (Derby, S.)

Woof, Robert

Gunter, Ray

Oliver, G. H.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Oram, A. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. McCann.

NOES

Aitken, W. T.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Chataway, Christopher

Allason, James

Bishop, F. P.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Arbuthnot, John

Box, Donald

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Balniel, Lord

Braine, Bernard

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Barber, Anthony

Brewis, John

Cleaver, Leonard

Barlow, Sir John

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Collard, Richard

Barter, John

Buck, Antony

Cooke, Robert

Batsford, Brian

Bullard, Denys

Corfield, F. V.

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Costain, A. P.

Bell, Ronald

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Coulson, Michael

Berkeley, Humphry

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nalm)

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Bitten, John

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Crawley, Aldan

Biggs-Davison, John

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Cunningham, Knox

Bingham, R. M.

Cary, Sir Robert

Curran, Charles

Currie, G. B. H.

Lilley, F. J. P.

Russell, Ranald

Dance, James

Lindsay, Sir Martin

St. Clair, M.

Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Sharples, Richard

Doughty, Charles

Longbottom, Charles

Shaw, M.

du Cann, Edward

Longden, Gilbert

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

Duncan, Sir James

Loveys, Walter H.

Smithers, Peter

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

Emery, Peter

McLaren, Martin

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Errington, Sir Eric

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Stevens, Geoffrey

Farey-Jones, F. W.

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Stodart, J. A

Farr, John

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

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Fell, Anthony

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Finlay, Graeme

McMaster, Stanley R.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Gammans, Lady

Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Gardner, Edward

Maginnis, John E.

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Gibson-Watt, David

Maitland, Sir John

Glover, Sir Douglas

Marlowe, Anthony

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

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Teeling, Sir William

Gower, Raymond

Marten, Neil

Temple, John M.

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Green, Alan

Mawby, Ray

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Mills, Stratton

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Miscampbell, Norman

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

Turner, Colin

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Hastings, Stephen

Nabarro, Gerald

Van Strauenzee, W. R.

Hay, John

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Vane, W. M. F.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Hendry, Forbes

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Walder, David

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

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Walker, Peter

Hirst, Geoffrey

Partridge, E.

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Hobson, Sir John

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Wall, Patrick

Hornby, R. P.

Peel, John

Ward, Dame Irene

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Webster, David

Hughes-Young, Michael

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Plikington, Sir Richard

Whitelaw, William

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pott, Percivall

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

James, David

Prior, J. M. L.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Wise, A. R.

Jennings, J. C.

Pym, Francis

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Woodhouse, C. M.

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Rees, Hugh

Woodnutt, Mark

Kerans, Cdr J. S.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Woollam, John

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Renton, Rt. Hon. David

Worsley, Marcus

Kershaw, Anthony

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Kirk, Peter

Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

Leburn, Gilmour

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Mr. Michael Hamilton and

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Boyle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Mr. Ian Fraser.

Mr. Woodhouse: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, at the end to insert:
(6) Where, after the coming into operation of this subsection, a constable requests any person to provide a specimen of breath—

(a) subsection (4) of this section shall apply in relation to the specimen as it applies in relation to a specimen of urine; and

(b) the constable shall offer to supply to that person, in a suitable container, another specimen of breath which he may consent to provide.

This Amendment adds a new subsection to Clause 2, the effect of which will be—it will not come into force simultaneously with the rest of the Bill—that a police officer who asks someone for a specimen of breath must offer to supply a duplicate specimen to that person in a suitable container. If it is not supplied to the person concerned then, as
1578
in the case of subsection (4) of Clause 2, covering cases of urine and blood tests, evidence of the proportion of alcohol in the blood will not be admissible as evidence against the accused.
This Amendment arises from an undertaking given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton), when he was Minister of State, during the Committee stage. He agreed to consider an Amendment providing that if some method of preserving a breath sample could be devised and found adequate, the accused person should be entitled to have such a duplicate sample.
My right hon. and learned Friend explained that no such provision had been written into the Bill originally because it was thought at the time that there

1579
was no prospect of devising a suitable container, and I must inform the House that there is still no efficient system of preserving such samples. The most likely way is by a self-sealing plastic bag, but the technical examination is not yet completed and there are many questions to be answered before the Home Office could recommend it to the police for use in court proceedings.
Nevertheless, in Committee the general feeling was that if and when such a device were available it should be available for breath samples in the same way as samples of urine and blood are available to an accused person. Although it is not the intention to bring this sub-section into force unless and until an adequate device is obtainable, we thought it right to insert it in the Bill now.
It is not, however, the Government's intention to postpone the use of the breathalyser itself, on the lines indicated in Clause 2 (1), until methods of preserving samples of breath are available. We intend to introduce a breathalyser as soon as an adequate instrument of that kind exists, and this new subsection will come into force only when an adequate device for containing samples of breath is also available.
Mr. Cole: I have a number of questions about this Amendment. I am entirely in favour of its intention although perhaps not of its wording. How will the coming into operation of this subsection be regulated? I can find nothing about that in the Bill other than the fact that whilst there is no breathalyser one cannot do it. Will it be brought into operation by order of the Minister? And who is to lay down the proportions in the breath which will be sufficient to lead to a charge of driving while under the influence of drink or drugs?
I believe that sub-paragraph (b) of the subsection is not necessary. Subsection (4) of the Clause already says that a specimen taken at the same time shall be provided to the accused on request. Then, again, sub-paragraph (b) says that the sample shall be offered in a suitable container, but that is obvious. The same thing applies to blood. Presumably, an accused person will not be given a
1580
sample of blood in his hand. Nothing is added by (b). It says that the constable
"… shall offer to supply … another specimen of breath which he may consent to provide."
But if the person had not consented there would not be a specimen of breath in the first place. I cannot see the point of that sub-paragraph.
I think that the wording leaves much to be desired, and that is putting it politely. It states:
"the constable shall offer to supply to that person"—
presumably the accused—
"in a suitable container, another specimen of breath"—
From whom? Presumably from the person who is accused—
"which he may consent to provide."
I can very well see that this wording may lead to the lawyers having a field day. Incidentally, my attention was drawn to this matter by an eminent lawyer, who is an hon. Member of this House, and I told him that I should raise it because I do not like subsections which are not properly worded. I suggest that the words should be:
"another specimen of breath from that person which he may consent to provide."
I am delighted to see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is in the Chamber and I hope that my remarks may influence his thinking on this matter. There has, as yet, been no answer to these questions. There has been no haste over this. We have had ten days or so in which Amendments might be put down. I think that my hon. Friend should provide answers to my questions.
Mr. Marcus Worsley: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole), I welcome this alteration but I wish to ask a few questions. The alteration was made following a discussion during the Committee proceedings, in which I took part, regarding the method in which a breathalyser, or an equivalent instrument, should be used. I share the puzzlement of my hon. Friend as to what machinery is to be used to bring into effect the provisions in the new subsection.
But, that having been done—this is what worried hon. Members during the Committee stage—is it the intention of

1581
the Government that all other types of breathalyser which do not produce specimens for the use of the accused will no longer be used? Does the Minister intend to get rid of such instruments at the earliest possible moment? The Bill provides for careful safeguards in respect of other tests but it leaves completely open the matter of the breathalyser and that, to many of us, appears unfortunate.
I should like an assurance that as soon as an instrument is devised that will produce a specimen, all other breathalysers or similar instruments will be discarded by the provisions in this subsection being brought into operation.
Mr. Woodhouse: With the leave of the House, I will answer the questions put by my hon. Friends the Members for Bedfordshire (Mr. Cole), and Keighley (Mr. Worsley). The subsection will be brought into effect by Clause 43 (3), which provides for bringing the Measure into operation as the Minister may order by Statutory Instrument, and different days may be so appointed for different purposes. The answer to the drafting point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South is that subsection (4) refers only to blood and urine. It was, therefore, necessary to spell out the point again in the new subsection (6), referring to breath. I do not think that the question of whose is the specimen of breath referred to in the final line of the new subsection will cause serious trouble.
I must explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley that a breathalyser does not itself produce and seal up a specimen. It is a separate process of blowing into a container, in fact, blowing into two containers, one for the police and one for the accused. There is no sort of container built into the breathalyser, lit does, so to speak, develop an analysis on the spot. The preservation of samples is quite a separate process.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5.—(DISQUALIFICATION ON CONVICTION OF CERTAIN OFFENCES.)
9.0 p.m.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move in page 4, line 2, to leave out "for special reasons" and to insert:
1582
"is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that there are grounds for mitigating the normal consequences of the conviction and."
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): With this Amendment there can be discussed the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle), in page 3, line 31, to leave out "for special reasons" and to insert:
"having regard to all the circumstances."
and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), in page 3, line 31, after "reasons", insert:
"(whether arising out of the circumstances of the offence or otherwise)."
Mr. Marples: I wonder if it would be for the convenience of the House if we could discuss the seven Amendments in my name because they all relate to the argument about "special reasons". The first is the Amendment I have moved and the next is the Amendment in Clause 7, page 5, line 14, to leave out from "If" to "the" in line 15.
Then the Amendment in line 18, to leave out from "so" to end of line 22.
The fourth and fifth follow immediately, in Clause 9, page 6, line 39, to leave out "for special reasons".
In line 42 to leave out from "required" to "in" in line 1 on page 7 and to insert:
"it shall state the grounds for doing so."
The next Amendment which is tied up with this general series is in the First Schedule, page 27, line 30, column 2, at the end to insert:
"the words from 'if the court' to 'punishment for the offence' shall be omitted."
The last Amendment in my name which is consequential is in the Fourth Schedule, page 47, line 38, at the end to insert:
"In section one hundred and ten, the words from 'if the court' to 'punishment for the offence'."
If we could take all those Amendments together I think it would be for the convenience of the House.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is that agreeable to the House?
Mr. Robert Mellish: Yes.
Mr. Marples: I am grateful to, you Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish).
The Amendment I have moved is designed to give effect to the Government's decision, taken in the light of very strong views expressed in the Committee, to modify the safeguard of "special reasons" in relation to traffic offences. The last two Amendments referring to Section 110 of the 1960 Act deal with the words "special circumstances" which have a relation to "special reasons". I wish to make a few remarks on the main Amendment.
The chief criticism of the new system enshrined and embodied in the Bill was that "special reasons" was too limited a phrase to be an effective safeguard in relation to Clause 5 (3). Clause 5 (3) introduced the new principle of what is known as "totting up" where if three offences under Part I or Part II of the Bill are committed within three years an automatic disqualification of at least six months will take place. This is a new principle and is designed not to secure more convictions but to make a person who has endorsements on his licence, say two in a year, know that if he gets another in the next two years, automatic disqualification will follow and it will make him more careful. I think the provision will have that effect.
It was said that certain reasons might be brought forward as evidence in favour of the motorist—for example, that he was proceeding at 31-32 m.p.h. on a road clear of all traffic—and that this was a trivial offence in which certain mitigating circumstances should be taken into account. It was said that under the doctrine which has been built up in law—what is known as "special reasons "—these mitigating circum-stances could not be taken into account. It has been laid down by the courts that "special reasons" relate to the offence and not to the offender. It was therefore argued that the consequences would be too harsh and that in some trivial offences the magistrates would be unable to exercise their discretion. We had to see how we could get round this difficulty.
Under the Bill, the range of offences to which this doctrine of "special reasons" could apply has been greatly extended. I freely admit that it is the
1584
only ground on which the automatic disqualification for the six offences listed in Part I of the First Schedule and the "three in three years "penalty can be mitigated.
I announced the Government's decision about amending the provisions in Committee on 3rd July, as reported in c. 743 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, SO that the principle of these Amendments had been announced and was accepted by the Committee. Briefly, the effect of the decision embodied in these Amendments is, first, that "special reasons" will continue to apply in relation to the six most serious driving offences, which are in Part I of the First Schedule. That is provided for in Clause 5 (1). Secondly, "special reasons" will continue to apply in respect of endorsements as provided for in Clause 7. Next, a new formula, set out in the first Amendment on the Order Paper, the main Amendment, will take the place of "special reasons" in relation to what one calls the "three in three years" penalty in Clause 5 (3).
The reasons for taking this action are, first, that we wish to maintain "special reasons" in respect of the six most serious offences, which are the Part I offences. In my opinion, these offences are so serious—I call them the killer offences—that it is impossible to think of their being committed in any circumstances which could be called trivial. It is impossible to think of these as trivial offences. They are not. They are killer offences, and "special reasons" will still apply to them.
Secondly, we must maintain "special reasons" for endorsements, not because we want to pillory the motorist or to cause prosecutions but because we must have on a man's driving licence an accurate record of what took place so that the bench may judge what is the right penalty to impose. If a man committed an offence, it would be wrong if this were not recorded on his driving licence, because it might as a result not be taken into account by the magistrate.
I come to the "three in three years" penalty—the term which we have given it in the Miniistry—An Clause 5 (3). This can embrace a wide range of offences which, though important and embodying dangerous behaviour, are less serious than the six offences in Part I. The

1585
Government recognise that the courts should be given greater latitude in dealing with pleas of mitigation when the offences and the circumstances in which they occur are likely to be so varied. The new formula is meant to free the law of the limitations and pronouncements attaching to "special reasons". Hence the phrase
"having regard to all the circumstances".
At the same time, it should be observed that what is to be mitigated—I emphasise this—are
"the normal consequences of the conviction".
In other words,
"the normal consequences of the conviction"
must still be the paramount consideration in dealing with the sentence, and it is only in this light that the grounds for mitigation are to be found. In short, the new formula does not preclude any particular class of reasons from being taken into consideration, but at the same time it regards the automatic penalty as the normal consequence of committing three offences under Part I and Part II of the Schedule in the prescribed time, which is three years.
There is nothing in the formula which is likely to preclude consideration of circumstances special to the offender as well as to the offence. This was one of the objections raised about "special reasons". Before reaching this decision the Government considered many ways of dealing with the problem raised in Committee as a point of principle. Like many points of principle, it was not easy to boil it down to words which could go on the Statute Book. We dealt with the modification of Part II of the First Schedule. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) proposed that we should divide the offences in Part II into two categories. We considered that. We tried the other suggestions. One was the limitation by size of the earlier penalties so that the automatic disqualification should operate only if the penalty for the first two of the three offences was above a certain level. If the fine was £5 or over, it should count. If it was £4 19s. 6d. or under, it should not count. We tried that.
Another line of reasoning which we pursued was to extend the words "special reasons" to the offender as well as to the offence. This simple
1586
Amendment had its attractions, but we found that it might not remove the difficulties over "special reasons". We therefore did not decide in favour of that.
I have tried to meet the wishes of the Committee in this respect. I realise that it was not the feeling of all Members of the Standing Committee but I think it was the feeling of the majority. We have tried to meet it in the best way we could. It has not been easy. I hope that it will meet of the approval of those hon. Members of the Standing Committee who are present tonight. I also hope that it will meet with the approval of the House. It has been a genuine effort to meet the hard cases which may arise under the offences listed in Part II. In Part I there are the six killer offences and there "special reasons" must still apply. Part II lists twenty offences all of which mean accidents—leaving a car in a dangerous position, crossing the lights on red—but which, at the same time, are obviously not of the same serious nature as those in Part I. It is to the category in Part II that the new formula will apply.
I hope that hon. Members of the Standing Committee will feel that the Government have tried to meet their wishes. We have been as fair and as flexible as we possibly can. We hope that on this point of principle the House will agree with us. From time to time there are legal arguments in the House. If there are any legal arguments on this matter my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will deal with them. Now that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South has returned, I have no doubt that there will be legal arguments. I am reinforced in my determination by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who will buttress my arguments of principle with those with which he is very familiar in law. He will be able to show that the words in question mean what I have said in principle.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Mapp: The Minister has been fair with the Members of the Standing Committee. He acknowledged that some of us were unconvinced. I want to put the point of view of those of us who are unconvinced. The Minister has made it very dear that for killer offences

1587
the doctrine of special reasons will remain. However, he has not made it so abundantly clear to the House that two of the three in three years offences —the first two—can be killer offences. Because the third offence happens to be a Part II offence, by the very nature of the Amendment special reasons will no longer apply.
I very much regret this. I realise that the Minister has arrived at a compromise, but I am trying to put myself in the position of a magistrate doing his job conscientiously and trying not to be perverse. Following on this broadening of the definition, the magistrates will on all occasions have reasons advanced why the accused should not suffer the penalty prescribed. If I am a doctor, all the reasons one can think of will be advanced. If I am a Member of Parliament, the magistrates will be be told that it is, therefore, essential that my car should be available, and all the rest of it. There are all the commercial travellers—the list is quite interminable.
This broader definition will be available to any fairly competent legal representative pleading for a man merely going to his works or his office. The environment of the individual will be urged, and that is not possible now. The magistrates will be told of the hardship, if not the injustice, and the career-damaging effects of imposing the penalty at present available. The courts should not be exposed to that sort of thing. I have to accept the discipline of a car as a dangerous instrument, and we should all do the same.
This Amendment will open the door so wide that a man will be able to say, "I am not a weekend motorist, so there are overwhelming reasons why this temporary aberration on my part should not influence the court to the fullest extent". I fear the consequences of this Amendment. I acknowledge the strides that the Minister is making in these matters, but I regret that, here and there, for reasons that are, perhaps, indirect, he is stepping backwards. Here the reasons have not originated in his mind but have sprung from a background. I regret that among the twenty steps forward, he is stepping back in one or two cases. This is one of them, and I regret it.
Mr. Ronald Bell: It would be ungracious of me to allow this occasion to pass without thanking my right hon. Friend for the extent to which he has implemented an undertaking that he gave in Committee and for which I and other hon. Members pressed. We respect the views of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), but I do not believe that we are here opening a new door in the law. When a man has been found guilty of some offence, it is normal practice for him, or for those appearing for him, to advance to the court every reason that can be thought of for dealing gently with him. That is a normal process of the law, and it is perfectly right and proper.
Many hon. Members felt that it was wrong that when a minimum penalty was prescribed by law—and minimum penalties are very rare in the law and, in principle, are not desirable—there should be almost no scope at all for advancing, after conviction, the sort of arguments in mitigation that are considered appropriate in respect of every other crime except murder—including crimes very much more serious than the crime of driving a motor car badly. My right hon. Friend has very properly met us here, and we are grateful to him for it. It will improve the administration of the motoring law. I also believe that we can trust our courts, from the top to the bottom, to listen to the arguments which will be addressed to them, to apply great commonsense and to turn out the right answer.
We are, at the same time, debating two other Amendments, one in my name, and I will not say much about them at this stage since it is important that we should get on. Nevertheless, for the sake of the record, I will not say much more than I am sorry that my right hon. Friend could not have gone the whole way, as most of us had hoped when he gave his qualified undertaking in Committee. It is regrettable that he could not have reopened his consideration of the phrase "special reasons" in relation to motoring offences.
I realise that things are left in their former shape for those rather serious offences in the first part of the Schedule. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's case for doing that, but on the general

1589
principle involved I take the view that minimum penalties are not a good thing in the law. They imply a lack of trust in the courts, which is always regrettable. It may occasionally be justified, but it is, nevertheless, regrettable, because minimum penalties are bound, by their nature, occasionally to result in a misapplication of justice.
The only way to avoid that is to give to the courts a real discretion in what they regard as a special case to waive or mitigate the penalty. By a process of judiciary interpretation—which I shall not repeat tonight because it was thoroughly discussed in Committee— from about 1946 the discretion left to the courts was largely reduced, reduced many people would say to the point of disappearance.
In relation to the six offences in the first part of the Schedule, we have a minimum penalty with almost no discretion at all to the courts to mitigate in a special case which may come before them. I say "almost no discretion" because there still is a little discretion left. However, its ambit is a good deal less than was intended by Lord Morrison, Mir. Herbert Morrison as he then was, when he introduced the 1930 Aot. In Committee I quoted the speech he made on Standing Committee on the 1930 Act, to show that in almost every one's view the intention which Mr. Morrison then had does not correspond with the decision in the Whittall v. Kirby case of 1946.
I see no point in labouring this matter now, since the Amendment about which I speak is selected for debate only and there cannot be a vote on it, even if I were disposed to press it to a Division. For the sake of the record and the future, I have wished to express my view that it is regrettable that my right hon. Friend has not been prepared to go the whole way and to open the phrase "special reasons" over the whole range of motoring offences.
Mr. Mellish: The Minister was right when he said that the majority of hon. Members who had spoken about the definition of the words "special reasons" were unhappy about those words and the legal interpretation given to them. In Committee, it was said that the courts were able to take into account special
1590
reasons regarding the offence itself, but not the circumstances of the offender. That is the layman's way of putting it.
This was made clear despite the fact that a new departure was being made whereby if a driver committed certain offences a certain number of times in three years he would be automatically disqualified. This alarmed some hon. Members and, while my hon. Friend the Member for oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) felt that any departure from what was already in existence would be unwise, many of us felt that one could not just apply automatic disqualification without the courts having the power to take into account the circumstances of the driver concerned.
I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East to consider this question from the point of view of the man driving a public service vehicle, who could well be involved in three minor offences under Part II, and under the Bill as it now stands would automatically lose his licence. As a member of a union which is very much concerned with this matter, I can tell the House that the union was shocked at the possibility of what could happen to some of its members who, unlike the private motorist, drive heavy vehicles such as buses, stopping and starting 1,000 times a day, and who might well be expected to become involved in minor offences. If such a man were to lose his licence he would also lose his livelihood.
I thank the Minister very much for what the Government have done to meet us. I am very glad that they have kept the killer offences. We never wanted the argument smeared with the question of what was in Part I of the Schedule. Any man found guilty of such offences, irrespective of any plea in mitigation based on the conditions of his job, and so forth, deserves to lose his licence, and certainly if he were to commit three offences in three years.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I think that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has misunderstood the position. Of course, I would agree that three of those offences in three years would deserve disqualification, but I think that the position as it remains now is rather different from that. For example, a first offence of causing death by dangerous

1591
driving—not three in three years—involves automatic disqualification, with no discretion on the part of the court to say, "This is a special case and we ought not to disqualify."
Mr. Mellish: I was merely saying that there is all the difference in the world between a plea of mitigation with respect to Part II of the Schedule and Part I. Those for whom I speak and who are employed as public service vehicle drivers will be with me 100 per cent. when I say that anyone found guilty of these offences deserves to suffer the full measure of the law. I am glad that the Minister has found the necessary suitable words. They may not be ideal, but they are a genuine attempt to deal with the problem.
Mr. Cole: May I briefly add my tribute to my right hon. Friend and to the Law Officers and legal advisers for having found a reasonable way out of this complicated maze?
I should just like to enter this caveat. As we have heard, as the words appeared in the original Act which was in the charge of Mr. Herbert Morrison as he then was, it was never envisaged that "special reasons" would take on the connotation Which they since have under the former Lord Chief Justice. Since I have clearly in my mind the dictum that the courts do not accept as evidence our intentions as expressed in HANSARD, and as by the same token we do not read the dicta of the courts as they decide their cases—apparently the twain shall never meet—I hope that somebody will not give a stringent legal definition of the meaning intended by this House of the word "circumstances". We have many phrases much longer than "special reasons."
I hope that, having voiced this warning, as we have in this Bill, and having widened the phrase deliberately, the courts will recognise that our intention is to be a little more lenient than has been the case in the past. Frankly, I do not believe that motorists in recent years have had quite the square deal that Parliament intended them to have.
9.30 p.m.
On the technical point, I am a little concerned because I notice that the Amendments all have the effect of
1592
eliminating the words "special reasons". Clause 7 (2) refers to
"subsection (1) or subsection (3) of section five of this Act….
In line 18 are the words "special reasons". I can find no Amendment on the Notice Paper to eliminate those words, unless I have misunderstood, which I may well have done.
Mr. Marples: Perhaps I can help. I said that endorsement would still remain obligatory and special reasons would apply to it both in Part I and Part II. That applies to endorsement, but not to the punishment.
Mr. Cole: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, but that is not quite the point. My point is that if we have the words "special reasons" in here, there may be the somewhat anomalous situation that the court does not have to apply its mind to "special reasons", with the legal connotation which those words carry, to offences under Clause 5 (3), but when we come to the endorsement Clause, Clause 7, no longer do we have the new form of words and special reasons are applicable. We have the wider consideration open to the court under Clause 5 (3) but under Clause 7 (2) we go back to the original stringent term "special reasons".
Surely, if the endorsement flowing from Clause 7 has application to offences under Clause 5, there should be a point of mitigation available under Clause 7. I am not a lawyer, but I cannot see how that matter is clarified.
Mr. Thomas Steele: I think that we should put on record what we are doing here. In Committee, I supported the Parliamentary Secretary not only in his brief but in his belief that leaving the words "special reasons" in the Bill was the right thing to do. The hon. Gentleman advanced many good arguments with which I agreed.
Mr. Ronald Bell: He was persuaded as in the case of crash helmets, though at that time he was persuaded the wrong way.
Mr. Steele: The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) used up a good deal of the Committee's time in trying to persuade the

1593
Minister, or rather carrying on a filibuster and trying to create a good deal of pressure upon him. In this he succeeded. This is what I want to put on record.
Before the Bill came to this House, the Minister, his Parliamentary Secretary and the Department had obviously given a great deal of thought to the matter. In the other place, they maintained their view that "special reasons" should remain in the Bill. In Committee, pressure was brought to bear upon them, but at that time both the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary argued that "special reasons" should remain. I accepted their arguments at the time.
I understand what the Minister has done. He has given way, but he has gone just so far. I appreciate the position. Is the alteration made by the Amendment applied to all the items in the Second Schedule, or does it apply only to the totting up?
Mr. Marples indicated assent.
Mr. Steele: Then I congratulate the Minister on saving as much as he possibly could.
This brings me to my second point. In Committee there was, as there has been in the House tonight, an inclination to talk about the offences in the Second Schedule as trivial offences. I object very strongly to this attitude. We find that they refer to dangerous driving, careless driving, speeding, as well as while under the influence of drink or drugs. These are not trivial offences.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that driving under the influence of drink or drugs is item 4 of the First Schedule and not in the Second Schedule at all.
Mr. Steele: I may be wrong, but I am still able to read. Page 28, item 11, states:
"(b) being in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink or drugs)."
Mr. Gresham Cooke: This is the case that we discussed in Committee, where one could be in bed or in one's house with one's car standing outside and still be technically in charge.
Mr. Steele: In any case, I think that it is a serious offence.
1594
We listened to a great deal of this in Committee. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South, spent a great deal of time on the matter. I sympathise with the Minister. I think the Minister started with a very good objective, that after a man had committed two of these offences he knew that if on a third occasion he committed one of these offences he would lose his licence. The simple idea was that this would make him more careful in the future. I think that that was an admirable objective. Why I sympathise with the Minister is because the combination in Committee was too much for him. When we got the legal fraternity on his side of the House wanting to be able to save their clients when they go to court and my hon. Friends who represent the Transport and General Workers' Union wanting to prevent their friends from going to court, it was quite clear that the strength of the pressure was bound to be too much.
Mr. Mellish: The Transport and General Workers' Union does not want to prevent its members from going to court. All it wants to do is to make sure that when they get there they get a fair trial.
Mr. Steele: Perhaps my over-simplification was misunderstood. I think that my hon. Friend knows exactly what I mean. He wanted to protect the members of his union and hon. Members opposite who are lawyers wanted to find another method of making it easier to save their clients. I regret that the Minister has had to go so far as he has, but at least he has not been pushed the whole way and for that I am grateful.
The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): The Amendment has met with some opposition because it is said that it goes too wide; it has received a good deal of support from the Opposition Front Bench and it has met with some opposition for not having gone wide enough. In these circumstances, it probably represents a very fair settlement of the views of the House. It is almost entirely a matter of judgment on the extent to which one should rely on the discretion of the courts or fetter the discretion of the courts about what they can do, if there are three convictions in three years.

1595
This is not a legal matter. It is a matter entirely of policy and once the policy is decided then the lawyers can put it into appropriate shape. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that it will be found from experience that on this occasion they have put it in a satisfactory shape which will lead to proper consideration by justices of this difficult question of disqualification.
Only two legal points for me were raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) asked whether the relaxation proposed in this Amendment applies to totting up offences only under Clause 5 (3). It does, and it applies to nothing else. Only when a person has had two previous convictions and he is in peril of a third conviction in three years will this relaxation of the rules about special reasons apply.
The only other point which I need deal with was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole). He drew attention to the Amendment in page 5, line 18, but did not couple it with the Amendment above it in page 5, line 14.
Mr. Cole: I drew attention to the absence of an Amendment at the beginning of line 18. I am well aware that that line is the subject of Amendment.
The Attorney-General: If both Amendments are accepted, the Clause will read:
"If the court does not order the said person to be disqualified, the court need not order particulars of the conviction to be endorsed as aforesaid if for special reasons it thinks fit not to do so."
The circumstances in which a person may be not disqualified are, first, under subsection (2) where there are special reasons; secondly under subsection (3) for totting up where the new principle is applied, and thirdly in the Part II cases where the court has discretion about whether it should disqualify or not. In all those cases it may be that the court will not disqualify. If it does not disqualify, it must, nevertheless, order the conviction to be endorsed. unless there are special reasons for not endorsing it, even when the count has exercised the new power given by the Amendment not to disqualify under the totting up cases, or has a complete discretion.
Mr. Cole: Could the new definition on page 3508 of the Order Paper of giving discretion to the court in all circumstances apply to the man not being disqualified, and, however important those circumstances were and however sympathetic the court may be, it is nevertheless under a dictat by the Bill to endorse that conviction although it did not wish to disqualify him. But under subsection (2) it would still have to endorse the conviction on the man's licence.
The Attorney-General: I do not know that it would be a dictate. It would be a statutory obligation imposed by this subsection that, even though the count having exercised its discretion and having not disqualified, yet it would, nevertheless, have to consider whether there were special reasons for not ordering the endorsement to be written on the licence.
Mr. Cole: The previous relaxation would not apply?
The Attorney-General: No, it would not apply. Thus, for future occasions the count would have a record which was almost complete by endorsements of the number of previous convictions of the motorist.
Amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 4, line 11, at the end to insert:
(5) Where a person convicted of an offence under subsection (5) of section forty-six of the principal Act (contravention of pedestrian crossing regulations) committed while driving a motor vehicle has within two years immediately preceding the commission of the offence been convicted of such an offence, subsection (3) of this section shall apply in relation to him with the substitution of twelve months for six months.
It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if you have selected the following Amendment, also in lime 11, to discuss it at the same time.
Mr. Speaker: Prima facie the problem is different between contravention of pedestrian crossing regulations, on the one hand, and speeding, on the other. I am, however, prepared to allow the discussion to range over the overlap between the two and to call the second

1597
Amendment, should the hon. Member so desire, for a Division only.
Mr. Page: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. I take it, therefore, that I may range over both the contravention of pedestrian crossing regulations and speeding in my argument in favour of the Amendment which I am moving.
As this is an addition to Clause 5, perhaps I may briefly refer to the Clause in general and say that under subsection (1), when a person is convicted of an offence which is specified in Part I of the First Schedule, the court can order him to be disqualified for a period of not less than twelve months. Under subsection (4), there is an exception to that in the particular case of driving or attempting to drive while under the influence of drink or drugs. When that offence has occurred within the previous ten years, the possible period of disqualification is increased from twelve months to three years.
That spotlights one type of offence— driving or attempting to drive while under the influence of drink or drugs— and imposes a longer period of disqualification. What I desire to do, in connection with the automatic disqualification after three offences, is to spotlight two offences which, if repeated, seem to me to be of grave seriousness. The first is contravention of pedestrian crossing regulations. We owe a special responsibility to those using crossings to protect them, because with all the paraphernalia of the crossing we have invited those on foot to cross at a particular point and there is some duty to give them safety in crossing at that point. Furthermore, it is surely useless to provide pedestrian crossings unless pedestrians have confidence in their use.
It is at the crossing that perhaps the most tragic accidents occur, particularly to the young and the old. Therefore, I would single out a repetition of a contravention of pedestrian crossing regulations as a particularly serious offence and show, by increasing the disqualification period if that offence is repeated, that it is regarded by this House as of grave seriousness. That crossings can save lives is shown by the figures.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will, I think, agree that the risk of meeting an accident on pedestrian
1598
crossings is about half the risk in comparable traffic conditions elsewhere. I want to make crossings much safer than that. One good reason for spotlighting the offence of contravening pedestrian crossing regulations is that the proportion of casualties at crossings is increasing. There is not so much recognition of the rules of the pedestrian crossing by drivers as there was. Statistics show that accidents on crossings are increasing.
So I would not only spotlight that type of offence if repeated, but, in the second of these two Amendments, I would also spotlight the seriousness of a repeated speeding offence. This is not just a technical offence. Even if one called the first speeding offence technical, when a man has suffered a conviction for speeding that is surely a very severe warning to him, and if he goes on and commits a further speeding offence then I would treat that as something to be picked out and to suffer a greater period of disqualication than that for other offences.
My right hon. Friend the Minister is hoping to improve traffic flow by one way streets, by clearways, and so on, and by doing that he increases the opportunity for greater speeds. There is all the more urgency to impress upon people that speeding is not just a technical offence.
The real enforcement of speed limits has saved lives and saved limbs on the road. I have before me a paper by Mr. Newby, of the Road Research Laboratory, and it shows this so very clearly. He reaches the conclusion that as speeds increase there is
"a substantial deterioration in the principal factors making for safety."
Mr. Newby quotes the figures of the reductions in accidents when speed limits have been imposed. They really are rather astonishing. In 1935, when the 30 m.p.h. limit was imposed in built-up areas, the percentage reduction in all accidents was 6 per cent.; the reduction in fatal and serious accidents was 15 per cent. The figures were even more astonishing in 1956, when the 30 m.p.h. was imposed in Northern Ireland. There, there was a reduction overall of 24 per cent. in the accidents.
The figures work the other way as well. On sites where the 30 m.p.h. speed limit had been removed over the period

1599
from 1945 to 1953 there was a general increase in accidents of 45 per cent.— by reason of the removal of the 30 m.p.h. limit.
Quite rightly, Mr. Newby comes to this conclusion:
"The imposition of speed limits was followed in every case by a reduction in total injury rates and even greater reductions in fatal and serious accidents. On the other hand, there were more accidents after relaxation or removal of the limits."
I quote that to show that the offence of speeding is not merely a technical offence. It is something very directly related to road safety and to accidents on the road. If the speed limit is not observed and enforced it is absolutely certain that accidents increase; it is absolutely certain that the proportion of fatal and serious accidents will increase. Therefore, I would wish, by means of the subsection which I have suggested, to indicate that where a man repeats this offence, when he has had one speeding conviction, and yet goes on and breaks the speed limit, he should be subject to a greater period of disqualification than in the other case; and I suggest the same for repeated contravention of pedestrian crossing regulations.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has drawn attention to two of the offences which are set out in Part II of the Schedule and has said that they are offences, to use his own words, of grave seriousness. With that general proposition, frankly I would not quarrel. However, I beg leave to differ from him—I hope the House will also— about the treatment that we propose compared with that which he proposes.
The effect of the first Amendment is to modify the penalty which attaches if three offences are committed in three years. The modification is in two forms. First, the court has to take into special account a previous conviction of contravening the pedestrian crossing regulations. Secondly, the offence leading to the previous conviction has to be one which occurs within the previous two years, and not the previous three years, of the offence in question. To digress for a moment the second Amendment, dealing with speeding, relates to a pre-
1600
vious conviction in the preceding twelve months. If both of those conditions were satisfied, my hon. Friend would have it that the automatic penalty that the court must apply under subsection (3) should be a minimum of twelve months and not six months.
The issue that the House has to decide is fairly simple. Although a breach of the pedestrian crossing regulations is a serious offence, one has to decide whether it is sufficiently serious to justify our picking out that type of offence from all the offences in Part II of the Schedule for this special treatment. When we were discussing an earlier Amendment, the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) referred to the fact that there are a number of offences in that part of the Schedule which are of considerable seriousness, and I doubt whether one should pick out an offence against the pedestrian crossing regulations as being of greater seriousness than, for example, dangerous driving or careless driving.
I think my acid test applies even more strongly when one considers the second Amendment, in which, again, special treatment is proposed in respect of the offence of speeding. There can. of course, be cases—there frequently are, I am afraid—where speeding takes place in very serious and dangerous circumstances. Part of the reason for the Bill is to try to stamp that out. But I think we should be—
Mr. J. T. Price: In a sense, the two things are linked. I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be brief. I strongly agree with some of his remarks. Many of the serious accidents on pedestrian crossings—I have witnessed a number—are due to the fact that when a motorist is courteous enough and has the good sense to pull up for a pedestrian he is overtaken by someone travelling at a fast speed. Such a person is breaching the pedestrian crossing regulations and speeding at the same time. Many accidents are caused by overtaking at pedestrian crossings. Having seen one car pull up, the pedestrian thinks it is safe for him to cross, and then that car is passed by another. I should like the hon. Gentle-man to take that into consideration.
Mr. Hay: I do not dispute that that may be very true, but at the moment

1601
we are concerned with two Amendments which seek to select from all the offences in Part II of the Schedule these two offences for special treatment.
I was saying that although it is true that in many speeding cases the speed itself may be very dangerous in all the circumstances, it is equally true that the breach of the speed limit may not in all circumstances be very serious. Be that as it may the central proposition remains: do we wish to select out of this list of offences these two for special treatment? I suggest that, although they are serious, they are not sufficiently serious to justify this course of action. Moreover, if we were to do this, it would start to complicate what is on the face of it a reasonably straightforward system as it stands.
It will be perfectly clear to the courts what we are trying to do, and the drafting of the Bill as it stands is such as to make it clear that one looks at all these groups of offences in the first two parts of the Schedule and considers them in relation to the "totting-up" provision. I do not see why it should make a difference—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Proceedings on the Road Traffic Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Hay.]
Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
Mr. Hay: I do not see why it should make a difference that the previous conviction occurred within the previous two, rather than the previous three, years. I think that it would create an unnecessary complication if one introduced this provision.
I appreciate the sincerity with which my hon. Friend has put this proposition, but the automatic period of six months' disqualification provided in subsection (3) is a minimum period. It is not a maximum. It will be perfectly open to a court, in dealing with a breach of pedestrian crossing regulations or speeding to disqualify for a longer period of twelve months if it wishes. It would be far better to leave the matter to the sense of the courts in individual cases rather
1602
than to complicate the Bill with the provision my hon. Friend has in mind.
I believe that the mere threat of a six months' disqualification will act as a substantial deterrent, and I do not believe that if we were to double this minimum period it would have a directly proportional deterrent effect upon possible offenders. It is far better to leave the matter as we have it now in the Bill, and I hope that the House will agree with that view.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 7.—(ENDORSEMENT OF LICENCE.)
Amendments mode: In page, 5, line 14, leave out from "If" to "the" in line 15.
In page 5, line 18, leave out from "so", to end of line 22.—[Mr. Hay.]
Clause 9.—(STATEMENT OF SPECIAL REASONS, ETC.)
Amendments made: In page 6. line 39, leave out "for special reasons".
In page 6, line 42, leave out from "required" to "in" in line 1 on page 7 and insert
"it shall state the grounds for doing so".— [Mr. Hay.]
Clause 20.—(RELAXATION OF DUTY OF HOLDERS OF C LICENCES TO KEEP CURRENT RECORDS.)
Mr. Hay: I beg to move, in page 13, line 26, after "modification", to insert "(if any)".
I suggest that we discuss at the same time, Mr. Speaker, the following Amendment, in page 13, line 28, after "modification", to insert "(if any)".
Mr. Speaker: That would be convenient.
Mr. Hay: Both these are drafting Amendments. The intention is to make it clear that any extension after the end of the two year experimental period of the relaxation of the duty of holders of C licences to keep current records may be with or without modification as to distances or weight specified in subsections (1, a) and (2, b) respectively. The approval of each House of Parliament by resolution would, in any event, be necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 28, after "modification", insert "(if any)".—[Mr. Hay.]
Clause 23.—(MINIMUM AGE FOR DRIVING CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES.)
Mr. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 15, to leave out lines 16 to 21.
This Amendment deals with what may be considered a small point, but it is a matter about which the trade unions feel strongly. By the provisions of this Clause, it is proposed that in future boys of 16 shall be entitled to drive a tractor on the roads. Until now only boys of 17 who have a driving licence have been permitted to drive on the roads. The National Fanners' Union argue that a boy who drives a tractor in a field— at present boys are allowed to drive in fields even at the age of 13—may want to cross a road to get to a field on the opposite side to continue work with the tractor.
There are many workers' organisations who see great danger resulting from the acceptance of this proposal. A deputation to the Minister of Transport, which included representatives from the Trades Union Congress, the Transport and General Workers' Union, and the Agricultural Workers' Union, maintained that this would be dangerous; that it would be difficult to limit the scope of the operation of the regulations which the Minister is here seeking, and that there could be a considerable extension of the driving of agricultural tractors on roads by boys of 16 which would lead to danger.
That view is shared by hon. Members on this side of the House. Were it merely a question of driving the tractor across a road from one field to another it would be difficult to object. But the proposals here—within certain regulations formulated by the Minister affecting the type of tractor, the number of trailers and things of that sort—is that a boy of 16 shall be able to drive a tractor for an unlimited distance. He may travel miles. He may go to the nearest market town or railway station to collect or deliver produce. We consider that to be wholly wrong.
When this matter was raised during Committee stage discussions we were given no assurance that the distance
1604
would be limited. Admittedly such a concession as this would be a convenience to farmers but we do not think it should be granted because it might lead to grave abuses by boys of 16 who drive tractors.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I think that hon. Members opposite are making heavy weather of this matter. Boys of 16 will be starting regular employment on farms and they must be allowed to drive tractors which they will be trained to use. The tractors will be used mainly in rural areas. They are not lethal machines which are capable of attaining enormous speeds. I consider that at the age of 16, a boy will be able to drive a tractor in the way his employers would wish. It is only practicable that boys of that age should be allowed to do so and not have to wait until reaching the age of 17. I hope that the Government will resist the Amendment.
I do not think that farmers or their employees, including boys of 16, would support what the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) has suggested is the case advanced by the trade unions. I do not think this is a case on which the unions feel quite so strongly as the hon. Member would wish to make out. I hope that we shall find this provision acceptable.
Mr. A. V. Hilton: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) on this Amendment. This provision is one of the few things which will spoil the Bill. At a time when all the emphasis is on road safety, it seems an anachronism to reduce the age from 17 to 16 for boys to be set free on the roads to drive what actually are lethal weapons.
The hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) did not think that farmers would oppose the proposal in the Bill. Of course they would not oppose it, because the suggestion came from the farmers. He may take it from me, however, that the trade unions are 100 per cent. in opposition to it. I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that last year nearly 50 people were killed on farms by tractors. In two consecutive weeks a couple of months ago two experienced tractor drivers were killed

1605
when driving tractors on the road. This is no laughing matter. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) to sit grinning all over his face, but this is no laughing matter for the people concerned.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I was not laughing, I was observing that the hon. Member referred to two experienced tractor drivers. Does not that argument militate against his case?
Mr. Hilton: Not at all. The point I am making is that tractors are dangerous vehicles even in the hands of experienced, trained drivers. To set youngsters of 16, as soon as they leave school, free on the road with these dangerous vehicles and all sorts of implements behind them can lead to all sorts of accidents.
Mr. James Dance: Would the hon. Member not agree that young people drive about at 100 miles an hour on the roads, and not with tractors?
Mr. Hilton: Of course I agree, but two wrongs never make a right. We on this side of the House want road safety to be practised. We feel very strongly on this matter. Boys will be boys, and we have all been young. When one starts driving anything the temptation is to put one's toe down. With modern tractors that can be very dangerous. It has been the cause of many fatal accidents. It is a reflection on the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that they have bowed to this pressure which is being put upon them by farmers to include this provision in the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts on it. If not, we shall have no alternative but to vote for the Amendment and against the proposal in the Bill.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. John Mackie: As a farmer I should like to make a comment on this proposal. It is most annoying when one has a good tractor driver, a boy of 16, who is not permitted to drive the tractor across the road. But I am also a motorist, and I have had many narrow squeaks because of tractors slowly crossing the road, sometimes pulling a plough or some other long vehicle. The motorist comes round a corner and finds this tractor crossing the road.
1606
I feel that the Government should think very carefully about this before they change the law. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said, "If 16, why not 15?". But we must strike an age somewhere, and the older one is the more responsible one is. I have three boys, and they have all driven tractors in a field from the age of 14 upwards. It is a temptation to let them drive across the road, but we should think very carefully before permitting this, because it is dangerous. I know that many of my friends have had narrow escapes because of tractors being driven across the road. These are slow-moving vehicles, and they can be dangerous in country roads when one may not expert to meet them.
Mr. Rees-Davies: Does one cross the road more or less slowly at 16 than at 17? Will one be any more skilled at 17 than at 16 at taking a tractor slowly across the road?
Mr. Mackie: One can go from the sublime to the ridiculous and down to 15, 14 and so on. We have to strike a balance. We strike it at 21 for the age of responsibility and at 17 for driving. There are plenty of road accidents without lowering the age further. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's argument is valid. One can go to the other end of the scale—70, 75 and 80; and I would reduce that age, because one can grow more careless at that age. I appeal to the Minister to think carefully before making this change.
Mr. Hay: We have had a repetition of the debates in Standing Committee on these provisions. Before I ask the House to reach a decision I should make it clear that all we are doing in the Bill is to take power for the Minister to make regulations providing that
"the age under which a person may not drive on a road a tractor used primarily for work on land in connection with agriculture"
should be 16 instead of 17. In other words, we are taking power to lower the age but by the Bill itself we are not lowering the age.
This is pertinent, because, as I shall show in a few moments, we propose to have a number of safeguards if we make the change which the Bill would give us the power to make. I have not

1607
been particularly impressed by the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite. We think that this change is necessary principally in the interests of the efficiency of agriculture. It is possible for a boy as young as 13 to drive a tractor on a farm, but he cannot —and we should not want him to—drive it on a public road. We say that it would be a great convenience to agriculture if the age limit were lowered from 17 to 16, but I must emphasise that even if we took that step, the boy of 16 would not be able to drive a tractor on the road unless he had passed his driving test. We have that safeguard to start with.
Secondly, we have power to impose a number of conditions in the regulations about the type of tractor which can be driven by a person of 16, and the conditions under which he may drive it. I can give the House a little more information than I was able to give in Standing Committee about the sort of conditions which we have in mind.
First, we would apply the lower minimum age only to the driving of wheeled tractors and not to those with caterpillar tracks. This is an important point. Secondly, when a tractor was being driven by a 16-year old person the towing of trailers would be prohibited, except for two or four-wheeled trailers not exceeding 8 feet in width and which were, if they were of a four-wheeled type, what is called close-coupled.
The main difficulty we bad in Standing Committee—it was repeated this evening by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss)—was the question of distance. As I said in Committee, what we want is to give the power to have a 16-year-old boy droving a tractor for a limited distance in connection with farm work and not to go for long journeys over a vary great distance on the roads. We think that we have found a way in which we can dead with this and provide a distance limit. The Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1962, refers to agricultural machines and imposes a limitation of 15 miles upon the distance from the home farm within which such a vehicle may travel on roads. In our
regulations we could ensure that the reduction dm the age to 16 would apply only in the case of tractors taxed under that provision of the Vehicles (Excise) Act. The effect would be to limit the distance to 15 miles from the home farm. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is a limitation. We were asked in Committee to limit the distance, but so fax we have not heard from the Opposition a more practical way of limiting the distance.
Mr. Hilton: The hon. Gentleman mentioned 15 miles. Is he aware that in many areas it is the practice of farmers during the sugar beet season to take many tons of sugar beet to the factories for processing by tractor and trailer? Does this moan that a 16-year-old boy who has passed his driving test will now be able to take his place in the queue conveying sugar beet to factories for three, four or five months during the sugar beet season during the depth of the winter? If so, it will make the situation far more worse than we envisaged. This is very different from driving a tractor across the road from one field to another field.
Mr. Hay: We will take note of the hon. Gentleman's views. I have simply said that one of the ways—it may not be the final way, but it is a possible way— in which we can limit the distance, which is what the Opposition wanted us to do, is to make use of this provision in the Vehicles (Excise) Act. We are quite willing to consider any other proposition which may be advanced as to the way in which the distance may be limited if that is desired.
We want the power contained in the Bill, which the Amendment seeks to delete, to enable us to reduce the age limit and to apply the necessary, safeguards and conditions. This is what the Opposition want to delete. I must tell the House that this is a power that we do not think ought to be taken out of the Bill. I ask the House to resist the Amendment.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill: —
The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 140.

Division No. 260.]

AYES

[10.24 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Barber, Anthony

Batsford, Brian

Allason, James

Barlow, Sir John

Berkeley, Humphry

Atkins, Humphrey

Barter, John

Biffen, John

Biggs-Davison, John

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Bingham, R. M.

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Pitt, Dame Edith

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Hastings, Stephen

Pott, Percivall

Bishop, F. p.

Hay, John

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Black, sir Cyril

Heald, Rt, Hon. Sir Lionel

Prior, J. M. L.

Bottom, Clive

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Pym, Francis

Bourne-Arton, A.

Hiley, Joseph

Rees, Hugh

Box, Donald

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Braine, Bernard

Hirst, Geoffrey

Renton, Rt. Hon. David

Brewis, John

Hobson, Sir John

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Hocking, Philip N.

Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

Bryan, Paul

Hollingworth, John

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

Buck, Anthony

Hornby, R. P.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Bullard, Denys

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hughes-Young, Micheal

Sharples, Richard

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Shaw, M.

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Hutchison, Micheal Clark

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

Cary, Sir Robert

Iremonger, T. L.

Smithers, Peter

Chataway Christopher

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig, sir John

Chlcheste-clark, R.

James, David

Stodart, J. A.

Clark, William (Nottingham S)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Cleaver, Leonard

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Summers, Sir Spencer

Cole, Norman

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Collard, Richard

Kerthaw, Anthony

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Cooke, Robert

Kirk. Peter

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

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Leburn, Gilmour

Teeling, Sir William

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col J. K.

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Temple, John M.

Co field, F. V.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Costain, A. p.

Lilley, F. J. P.

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Coulson, Michael

Lindsay, Sir Martin

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Crawley, Aldan

Longbottom, Charles

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Curran, Charles

Longden, Gilbert

Turner, Colin

Currie, G. B. H.

Loveys, Walter H.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Dance, James

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Tweedsmuir, Lady

d'Avigclor Goldsmid, Sir Henry

McLaren, Martin

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

McLean, Neill (Inverness)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Drayson, G. B.

MacLeod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell

du Cann, Edward

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Walder, David

Duncan, Sir James

McMaster, Stanley R.

Walker, Peter

Elliot, Cant. Walter (Carshalton)

Maginnis, John E.

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)

Maitland, Sir John

Wall, Patrick

Emery, Peter

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Ward, Dame Irene

Errington, Sir Eric

Marten, Neil

Webster, David

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Mathew, Robert (Honlton)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Farr, John

Mawby, Ray

Whitelaw, William

Finlay, Graeme

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Williams, Dudey (Exeter)

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Mills, Stratum

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Gardner, Edward

Miscampbell, Norman

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Gilmour, Sir John

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Wise, A. R.

Glover, Sir Douglas

Neave, Airey

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Gower, Raymond

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Woodhouse, C. M.

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Woodnutt, Mark

Green, Alan

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Woollam, John

Gresham Cooke, R.

Partridge, E.

Worsley, Marcus

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Percival, Ian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Mr. J. E. B. Hill and

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Mr. Michael Hamilton.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Callaghan, James

Fernyhough, E.

Ainsley, William

Clliffe, Michael

Fletcher, Eric

Albu, Austen

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Awbery, Stan

Dalyell, Tam

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Beaney, Alan

Darling, George

Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Bence, Cyril

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Gourlay, Harry

Blackburn, F.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Greenwood, Anthony

Blyton, William

Deer, George

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Boardman, H.

Delargy, Hugh

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Dempsey, James

Hannan, William

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

Diamond, John

Harper, Joseph

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Dodds, Norman

Hayman, F. H.

Bradley, Tom

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Evans, Albert

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

1610

1611

Hilton, A. V.

Mackie, John (Enfieid, East)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Holman, Percy

MacMillan, Malcoim (Western Isles)

Spriggs, Leslie

Houghton, Douglas

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Steels, Thomas

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Manuel, Archie

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Hoy, James H.

Mapp, Charles

Stones, William

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Mellish, R. J.

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

Hunter, A. E.

Mendelson, J. J.

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

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Millan, Bruce

Swain, Thomas

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Milne, Edward

Swingler, Stephen

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Morris, John

Taverne, D.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Neal, Harold

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Janner, Sir Barnett

Oliver, G. H.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Jeger, George

Oram, A. E.

Thompson Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Timmons, John

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

Owen, Will

Thornton, Ernest

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Parker, John

Tomney Frank

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Warbey, William

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Peart, Frederick

Watkins, Tudor

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Pentland, Norman

White, Mrs. Eirene

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Popplewell, Ernest

Whitlock William

Kelley, Richard

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Wilkins, W. A.

Kenyon, Clifford

Redhead, E. C.

Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

King, Dr. Horace

Reynolds, G. W.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Lawson, George

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

wills, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

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

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Ross, William

Winterbottom, R. E.

Loughlin, Charles

Short, Edward

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

McCann, John

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Woof, Robert

MacColl, James

Small, William

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Mcinnes, James

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Sorensen, R. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Dr. Broughton and Mr. Grey.

Clause 37.—(Amendments as to aiding and abetting, etc., offences and as to INCLUSION IN INDICTMENT OF SUMMARY OFFENCES IN SCOTLAND.)

Amendment made: In page 22, line 29, leave out Clause 37.—[Mr. Marples.]

New Schedule.—(Offences in Scotland.)

(Provisions Replacing Sections 240 and 246 of Principal Act)

Penalty for aiding abetting, &c, commission of offences in Scotland.

240. As respects Scotland, a person who aids, abets, counsels, procures or incites any other person to commit an offence against the provisions of this Act or any regulations made there under shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on conviction to the same punishment as might be imposed on conviction of the first mentioned offence.

Inclusion in indictment in Scotland of certain summary offences.

246.—(1) A contravention occurring in Scotland of any of the provisions of this Act or of any regulations made thereunder, which is directed to be prosecuted summarily and which, if it had been triable on indictment, could competently have been libelled as an additional or alternative charge in an indictment charging a person with culpable homicide in respect of the driving or attempted driving or use of a motor vehicle, or with a contravention of section one, section two or section six of this Act, may, notwithstanding the direction aforesaid, be so libelled and may be tried accordingly.

(2) In this section any reference to a contravention of regulations includes a reference to a failure to comply with regulations.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time and added to the Bill.

First Schedule.—(DISQUALIFICATION AND PENALTIES.)
Amendment made: In page 27, line 30, column 2, at end insert "the words from ' if the court' to ' punishment for the offence' shall be omitted."—[Mr. Marples.]
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Hay: I beg to move, in page 31, line 22, column 1, at the beginning to insert:
25. An offence under section (driving with uncorrected defective eyesight) of this Act (driving with uncorrected defective eyesight or refusing to submit to test).
This Amendment is supplemantary to the Government new Clause—Driving with uncorrected defective eyesight. The addition of these offences to Part II of the First Schedule puts both offences under the new Clause—that is to say, driving without the ability to meet the required eyesight standards and refusal to comply with the request of a police constable to demonstrate that ability to see—auto the category of offences for which the courts will have the discretionary power to disqualify under subsection (2) of Clause 5. They will then count for the "totting-up three in three years" automatic penalty in subsection (3) of Clause 5.
Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule.—(Minor and Consequential Amendments.)
Mr. Woodhouse: I beg to move, in page 43, line 22, column 2, at the beginning to insert:
"in the proviso to subsection (1), for the words 'he produces the same in person ' there shall be substituted the words 'it is produced'".
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir W.Anstruther-Gray): This and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) in page 43, line 22, at the beginning insert:

Section two hundred and twenty-five.

In the proviso to subsection (4) for the words "he produces the licence in person "there shall be substituted the words "the licence is produced".

may be discussed together.
Mr. Woodhouse: This Amendment is in fulfilment of an undertaking given in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the then Minister of State, Home Department, to take care of a difficulty which is liable to arise in the case of certain commercial firms using large numbers of vehicles and holding block or master certificates covering the whole range of such vehicles, which one could not expect the individual driver would carry in each case.

1615
We are still unable to accept the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) to apply the same principle to driving licences, for reasons which I think were made sufficiently clear in Committee and with which I will not weary the House again. I hope this Amendment will be accetptable.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I am, of course, grateful that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and his colleagues on the Front Bench have been able to go as far as this in meeting the case which I put forward in Committee. The Amendment will, I am sure, come as a mitigation of the inconvenience which is suffered by many people who have to produce an insurance certificate when it is not on the vehicle at the time when they are asked for it.
I think this is a clear enough case. There is nothing that I need say now to add to the arguments which were deployed in Committee and which have found acceptance in the Amendment now moved. But inasmuch as the Amendment which I have on the Paper is in order for debate on this Government Amendment, I would just like to say—again I am afraid it can only be for the future and for the record—that it is still my view that this concession ought also to be extended to the requirement to produce a licence.
This is the second occasion that I have raised this matter. I raised it in 1956 when the Road Traffic Bill of that year was going through its stages. I do not consider that I was then given any reason why this should not be done. I argued the case again in Standing Committee and had, I think, the support of some hon. Members at any rate, and again I do not consider that I was given any reason why this should not be done. I completely fail to understand why a licence has to be produced within five days at the police station not just by anyone but by the driver in person.
The present rule is supposed to avoid some abuse, but just what the abuse thus avoided can be is beyond my comprehension. It was argued against me in Committee that what I suggest would
1616
impose an extra burden on the police, but, even though I and others asked what. that burden might be, no explanation was given.
Twice during this period of seven years there has been a total failure to put forward any reason why this considerable inconvenience should be inflicted upon a very large number of people. A man driving to London Airport, on his way to a conference or important engagement at the other end of the world, perhaps, may be asked for his driving licence, not because he has committed any traffic offence but because he happens to be a useful witness of something which has happened on the road. Why should he be required to cancel all his plans to go abroad so that within five days he may in person produce this miserable licence at the police station?
It is, of course, important that a driver should have a licence and that it should be produced to show that he has it, but I simply cannot understand why it should not be possible for someone else, perhaps his secretary, to do it. I have always been open to argument and conviction on this matter. One can be wrong. One can overlook something. But it is very odd that in two debates in the space of seven years no one has explained what it is that I have overlooked. I do not want to take up time. Part of what I want has been accepted. I cannot take it further now since my Amendment is not selected for a vote— not that a vote is any good on Report, as one knows only too well. I am grateful for what has been done so far. I say what I do now so that, in seven years from now when we have our next Road Traffic Bill, I may have a reasonable prospect of seeing the remainder of my reasonable request accepted.
Mr. James Dance: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). It is quite ridiculous that one's wife or one's friend may not produce one's driving licence in these circumstances. My hon. Friend gave the example of someone going abroad. I recall that in Committee one hon. Gentleman said that he could be in a very awkward position if, having left his driving licence in his coat pocket in Scotland, he was asked to produce it while on his way to the House. He has five days to

1617
produce it. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that his wife should be permitted to take his licence to the local police station in Scotland and produce it on his behalf.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). If one is going abroad and on one's way to London Airport one is unfortunate enough to be caught speeding—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—and one is asked for one's licence, one can be put to great inconvenience. Whenever I go abroad I leave things like my driving licence behind, because I do not like to take them with me about the world and risk losing them. A person going abroad, say to Japan, for a fortnight or so has five days in which to produce his licence. He cannot do so. There is a lot of sense in what my hon. Friend has said, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will note it for next time.
Mr. Robert Cooke: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who is so brilliant at cutting through red tape of all kinds, could find a way round this difficulty. I hope that he will give us an answer.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. Woodhouse: I did not argue the point when I spoke a few minutes ago because I thought Chat the House was anxious to make up time and get on with the Bill, and also because I had the impression that the arguments had been fully rehearsed in Committee. Since, however, the matter has been raised again, I should like to make one or two points in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), and particularly to take up one or two of the points of fact which the asserted in Committee and again tonight.
My hon. Friend asserted in Committee that the regulation was virtually a dead letter. I have taken the trouble to ascertain whether this is so. The fact is that it is not. I have had inquiries made among chief officers of police in many parts of the country and I find that almost all of them, particularly those in charge of the largest
1618
forces—the Metropolitan Police, Lancashire, Birmingham and the West Riding of Yorkshire, for example—say that they normally enforce the requirement that the holder of a licence should present it in person, and they clearly wish that it should remain so.
My hon. Friend said that it does not matter in practice who takes the licence so long as it is correctly associated with the driver. The fact is that this requirement not only enables the police to verify the identity of the driver and serves as a safeguard against impersonation—contempt has been poured on this idea, but it is a serious one—but enables the police to take up on the spot any irregularities associated with the licence itself. This is a convenient and not uncommon advantage.
If my hon. Friend looks at the 1961 return of offences relating to motor vehicles by the Metropolitan Police, he will find that a large number fall in this category, and they bring in a quite considerable sum of money in fines. The Metropolitan Police tell me that as a result of this requirement they have frequently been able to make inquiries on the spot into such offences as driving while disqualified or of learner drivers driving unaccompanied by another driver.
Mr. Dance: I do not follow the argument concerning identification. A motorist might be "had up" in Edinburgh, where he lives, but produce his licence at Chelsea police station. As I said in Committee, unless the person taking the licence is of different sex, no one is to know whether he was the driver. There are no photographs on a driving licence for identification. Anybody could produce the licence.
Mr. Woodhouse: The simple answer is that confirmation can be obtained by the signature. The licence must have a signature on it, and a person can be called upon at the police station to give a signature, when the two can be compared.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Is it not almost unknown for anyone to be asked for a signature? That is one of those metaphysical possibilities which does not happen. Is there the slightest reason

1619
why a matter like driving while disqualified, if it is revealed when a licence is produced, should not be taken up in the ordinary course of events? How is that helped by the actual driver producing the licence? I cannot follow the argument.
Mr. Woodhouse: I was coming to that. I should be grateful if I may be allowed to finish my argument before there are further interruptions.
There are also other offences which can be revealed on the occasion of production of licence, such as taking and driving away somebody else's motor car. The point is that in every such case where an offence is disclosed it is necessary sooner oar later to interview the driver personally. If it can be done sooner rather than Later, that is a convenience in administration and makes the task of the police much easier. These are the reasons why we have felt it necessary to resist my horn. Friend's Amendment, but I hope that the concession which we have made in the Government Amendment, which at least gives my hon. Friend half a loaf, will be welcome to him as better than no bread.
Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that on the last three occasions I have been asked to produce my licence at police stations I was not asked to sign anything at all?
Mr. Woodhouse: There was no reason in practice why my Friend should have been, unless there was any suspicion of impersonation. Quite clearly, my hon. Friend has not been brought to one of the police stations where they do normally require this production.
Mr. A. R. Wise: I have just checked back on my own licences. My current one is signed, but three have no signature.
Mr. Woodhouse: I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend is convicting himself of an offence under the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule.—(Enactments REPEALED.)
Amendments made: In page 47, line 38, at end insert:
"In section one hundred and ten, the words from 'if the court' to 'punishment for the offence'.".
In page 48, leave out lines 9 to 18.
In page 48, leave out lines 24 to 28.— [Mr. Marples.]
Order for Third Reading read.
[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
10.52 p.m.
Mr. Marples: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
At this late hour, and after some confessions from my hon. Friends on this side about not signing their licences and going to London Airport and on to Japan, with all the difficulties which are consequential upon that, there is very little time to go over the merits of this Bill, and I do not propose to do so. What I should like to do is however thank both sides of the House for the way in which they have discussed this Bill both on the Floor of the House and in Committee upstairs.
I think I can say quite honestly that the discussions have been full and comprehensive. Everybody has made his point of view crystal clear. We have not always agreed, but at any rate views have been expressed reasonably concisely. People have had strong views. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) had strong views. They have been opposed sometimes to those on the Front Bench —as have some expressed from this side. I do not complain about that. Everybody dealing with the Bill has, in my view, tried his best to make this a good Bill. Naturally, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, and as I have not got the whole of my own way, modestly I am sorry about that, because I think my own way would have been better than the way imposed upon me by various pressures from all sides. However, that is our democratic way of procedure.
I think, broadly speaking, this is a good Bill, and I would say to the House this, that politics is the art of the possible and we have to get through as much as we possibly can; but I do not want the House to understimate the importance of this Bill, because it does deal with road safety, and that is the most difficult problem every civilised country in this world faces today. We are killing nearly 7,000 people a year,

1621
and that is serious, and the more we can do as the legislative assembly to reduce those deaths and the accidents the better.
I think this House must not underestimate either the number of people who do not make their views known and who are intensely interested in reducing the deaths on the roads. I have a vast volume of correspondence which is analyses regularly, and I can assure the House that it is amazing how many people are interested but who do not make their views known as a pressure group because they are diffused over the country as a whole.
My correspondence shows this clearly. Only two days ago I got a letter from a man who wrote:
"I am sending you the enclosed driving licence to use if possible in your road safety campaign. My reason for giving up driving is that I am 58 and suffering a slight heart trouble. So after half a lifetime of driving to every corner of this land I do not want the very pleasant memories spoilt by hurting some one in an accident. Please do not publish my name in your endeavours but I am sure that my licence will help in some way."
I receive a vast correspondence from every Member's constituency. These people do not constitute a pressure group, but their views should not remain unheard.
I wanted to make a speech in commending the Bill to the House, but it is too late. I think we ought to part with the Bill now. We have discussed it exhaustively. I thank right hon. and hon. Members opposite for their assistance, and I thank my hon. Friends for the way in which they have received the Bill.
I earnestly hope that the Bill will help me in what I consider my most difficult task, one I find baffling and perplexing— that of reducing deaths on the road. The individual responsibility is there all the time, and no Minister of any party can really influence the individual driver. At this very moment there might be an accident in Newcastle, Sheffield or Sunder-land, and there is nothing that a Minister of the Crown can do about it.
But we have introduced one new principle, and that is the totting up of offences. I assure motorists that it is not the Government's intention to persecute them in any way. I hope there are fewer convictions, not more. What I particularly want is this. When a man
1622
has one or two endorsements on his licence, I want him to appreciate the implications of a third endorsement and say "My heaves, I must be careful because if I do this again my licence will be suspended automatically". I think that will be the deterrent; it will make him drive carefully. That is what we seek to do in the Bill, and so it is with great pleasure that I commend it for Third Reading.
10.57 p.m.
Mr. Strauss: We welcomed the Bill on Second Reading. We give it an even greater welcome now because it has been improved in Committee. The Minister has accepted several important proposals put forward by back benchers on both sides of the House, and, therefore, the Bill is better today than when it first appeared.
It is remarkable that a Bill dealing with road safety and a variety of traffic matters should have passed 'through Committee in two or three months. The previous Bill took well over six months. I Chink the fact that it went through so quickly shows that everybody was most anxious that legislation on this subject should be enacted as soon as possible. It was also a remarkable tribute to the self-denial of hon. Members in that they restrained themselves, sometimes with considerable difficulty, from making the contributions which they felt they could make. If there is one subject on which everybody is an expert, it is road safety, because everyone uses the roads and has his own special ideas about how to reduce accidents.
I said that the Bill had been improved in a number of ways. We wish that the Minister had been able to go further in certain directions where he has not, but we must now accept the Bill as it is. I believe—here I speak entirely for myself—that it errs in only two matters. I do not believe that the three-year totting up proposal will have any significant effect. It will have very little effect compared with a hundred and one other proposals which could be adopted.
My only other criticism of the Bill, as I said in Committee, is that the indiscriminate raising of penalties is

1623
ridiculous when we know that magistrates do not impose the maximum penalties which already exist and are not in the slightest influenced by what the House thinks the maximum penalties should be. To quote one example, the maximum penalty at the moment for careless driving is £40. The number of times that has been imposed is 0·001 per cent. of the whole. The Bill raises the £40 penalty to £100 for the first offence of careless driving. That is nonsense. There are very many proposals in the Bill which are good.
In conclusion I wish to say, and I am sure that the Minister will agree, that what we can do by legislation to bring about road safety is very limited. We can do certain things, and many have been done. But there are many other matters of greater importance, and therefore we urge the Minister when bringing in regulations to be active in other matters, too—in road improvements, in eliminating dangerous corners, in improving the surface of roads, in increasing enforcement, that is, by having bigger police forces so that they can catch the man exceeding the speed limit and who is driving dangerously; and, not least, in propaganda and education.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents is doing a good job, though not nearly as good a job as it could do. I think that the advertising campaigns are much too woolly. We need a new psychological approach to the matter in order to make people road-safety minded. It cannot be done by ordinary methods such as those used by people who want to sell detergents or an extra pint of milk a day.
All these matters are of the greatest importance, and we hope that the Minister will be successful in them. We believe that in this matter of road safety the right hon. Gentleman is serving the nation well, although it is the only direction in which we think that he is doing so. We wish him success and we on this side of the House shall do everything we can to ensure that success.
11.2 p.m.
Mr. Rees-Davies: One thing that is certain is that if my right hon. Friend the Minister were to be sent on to the Home Office we should be able to deal
1624
with home safety and that if he were sent on to the Ministry of Labour we might be able to get industrial safety. I would remind the House that though road accidents are extremely serious, industrial accidents are infinitely more serious and do far more harm and damage to the economy and to the life of the country. I hope that in due course my right hon. Friend—he is still a young man—will be able to deal with these problems which up to now these other Ministries have been unable to deal with.
The Minister said that the Bill made a contribution, as indeed it does, to one matter which was entirely novel. The Bill does something constitutional which has never been done before in the history of Parliament, and it is a bold man who can say that. The Amendment, now incorporated in Clause 13 of the Bill as reprinted, will produce the result that the very first order which imposes a minimum speed limit on a particular road will be subject to affirmative Resolution. But subsequent orders for different roads thereafter will not be subject to any proceedings, either affirmative or negative, and, indeed, will not be laid before Parliament at all under Clause 13 (5). But if any order is continued for more than four months by Clause 13 (2), it will be subject to negative Resolution. Thus, in the case of an extension of a second or subsequent order, the House will be asked to extend an order which it has never seen before.
This is very strange indeed. It is important, because these matters may arise again in the future with other Ministries. I have tried to find out whether their are any precedents. The first is the Financial Powers (U.S.A. Securities) Act, 1941. This gave the Treasury power to make regulations about placing United State securities at the Government's disposal. It provided that the first regulation should be subject to affirmative Resolution and subsequent regulations to negative Resolution. But in this Bail there is no provision for laying regulations before Parliament at all.
In the National Assistance Act, 1959, and the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, there is provision for negative Resolution for the first orders and thereafter for affirmative Resolution. This Bill, therefore, goes far beyond any constitutional precedent.

1625
The Bill does not provide specifically for these orders to be laid, and there is no obligation to do so under the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946. Thus, although Parliament is given power to annul an order extending another order, it will not have seen the original order at all. When we are asked to approve the extension order, we shall not be able to get copies of the original order being extended.
I am sorry to present this conundrum to the House. I hope that in future the Parliamentary draftsmen and the advisers of the Minister will be more careful. I am very much in favour of the introduction of a minimum speed limit, but this procedure is not satisfactory. It means that if the Minister wants to lay down a minimum speed limit through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. L. Thomas) so that I can get to my constituency more quickly, Ms order will never come before the House. Presumably my hon. Friend and I will have to abase permanent secretaries in order to find out about it. The method adopted by the Minister in this case is without constitutional precedent.
I congratulate the Minister on his forthright determination to push his Bill through while at the same time retaining his respect for doughty opponents. I had to fight him tooth and nail on one issue, but I believe that we should not by legislation take away the discretion of courts and force upon them an absolute statutory offence. Hon. Members tried to do it again today by moving an Amendment laying down the specific amount of alcohol which should constitute an offence. The country is against that sort of thing. I was determined to win through on the view that the courts must be given full discretion in these matters. I was delighted with the generous attitude of the Minister. I am sure that it will be proved right. I have no doubt that people like the courts to have the power to impose the sentences which they think fit, subject to a proper right of appeal for the accused person. The more this House tries to interfere, by writing in molecules and percentages of alcohol in the blood into a Bill of this kind, the more we shall bring ourselves into contempt. It is not the job of Parliament to
1626
administer the law but rather to give general guidance on principles and then to leave it to the courts.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) that we cannot create safety by legislation. The most important thing is to provide a first-class road system. Figures relating to the causes of accidents which have been bandied about are largely wrong. In 250 cases with which I have been associated I found that 80 per cent. were caused because people failed to keep a proper look-out or failed to concentrate sufficiently. In some cases the cause might have been drink, but they did not amount to 1 per cent.
The British Medical Association or the doctors do not understand about accidents. The men who know about accidents are the insurance managers and solicitors, the people who come into contact with them. The so-called evidence which is provided by reports is not really evidence. It is the opinion of doctors based on certain data. The real evidence can be obtained from the insurance men and the solicitors.
I believe that this Bill will prove useful and helpful, but the real need is for an improved road service. What will assist to reduce the accident rate more than anything else is the foresight and drive of the Minister and his advisers in improving the roads and the flow of traffic in London and other cities. The provisions in the Bill will be even more valuable when my right hon. Friend has completed his roads programme.
11.14 p.m.
Mr. Cole: The passage of this Bill has provided a perfect, if rare, example of the operation of this House at its best, when it is not bedevilled by political bias. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his Bill, and also on the fact that after two years of frustration he has managed to secure sufficient Parliamentary time to get it on to the Statute Book. I (hope that we shall not have to wait another six years before we have another Measure to deal with road traffic. I am certain Chat within two years there will be a need for another Bill and that within three years Parliament will be debating one. My right hon. Friend has incorporated a number of experiments

1627
into this Bill, and there have been other experiments introduced by other people. We shall have to see how they work. In three years there will probably be a breathalyser and legislation will be required. I give notice now that I hope that we shall have another Road Traffic Bill within three years. I do not mean a Consolidation Bill, but a proper Road Traffic Bill like the 1956 Measure and this Bill.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said that Road Traffic Bills and Road Safety Bills are not enough. I entirely agree. I commend whoever is responsible—I ought to know who is responsible, but I do not know—for this new campaign going on in the Press and on the television to the effect, "Accidents are caused by people like you". I know that that may be out of order, but that in conjunction with the Bill and side by side with this kind of legislation should produce positive results. I commend the simplicity and repetition of the slogan in the propaganda, because that is what gets over to the people. Legislation lays down the prohibitions and warns people what will happen to them if they do not obey the law. Propaganda educates them. The two together are having an effect.
I made speeches on transport in the House ten years ago. I have noticed a different attitude, especially amongst younger people, who are more susceptible to training and education than some older people. If we have enough patience, as we did with housing, to go on and on with education, with a dose of legislation every so often as necessary, we shall at last make an effect on reducing the high percentage of road deaths and serious injuries.
I commend my right hon. Friend for what he is doing. I am a great supporter and fan of his. I hope that he will get all the support he needs to implement this Measure and carry on with his propaganda campaign.
11.17 p.m.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on what has been a very considerable feat in this Parliamentary Session, namely, getting through two major Bills
1628
—the Transport Bill and the Road Traffic Bill. We are all very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the patient work he has done on many details.
With the passage of the Bill we have not by any means solved the traffic problem. Much remains to be done about road traffic in the next few years. When one is aware of the mighty motorways, under-passes, over-passes and closed circuit television for traffic control which are in existence overseas, one recognises what a lot there is still to do.
I am not sure that we have done quite enough in the Bill in respect of defective cars I know that we have the seven-year test. It will shortly be the six-year test. As I have pointed out during the passage of the Bill, there is an enormous number of defective cars on the roads. There are many logbooks relating to old cars floating around. The cars are built up into semi-new cars. It is strange that this country probably has about the oldest fleet of motor vehicles in the world. On the Continent one hardly ever sees an old vehicle, nothing over 5 or 6 years old. The reason is that the high Purchase Tax here gives cars a very high second-hand value. Cars are held on for years and years, much longer than vehicles are kept on the road in other countries.
This has been a useful Bill. I know that my right hon. Friend will go on thinking about traffic problems and acting on them and, I hope, reducing the number of accidents, as he has done already. I think that he is the first Minister of Transport for years and years actually to reduce the number of accidents. Knowing that he will go on in that way, I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.
11.20 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I also want to say how glad I am that the Bill has finally come to the end of its long journey. It was a traffic casualty itself in the previous Session. It got caught up in a traffic jam and never got through to this House. It has taken quite a long time having reached the House, though not as long as its predecessor in 1955–56.
I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) in his hope that we shall have another

1629
Road Traffic Brill in two years' time. I have vary much enjoyed our debates on this one but I do not know that I should like to chow all this over again within a spell of 24 months, and I am not quite sure that my right hon. Friend, if he is still occupying his present post two years hence, will want to repeat the experience.
The Bill has been improved during its progress, and while such a Measure may do some good, it would be the greatest mistake to think that it can make a really major contribution to the reduction of road accidents. Even if we were to have another Road Traffic Bill in two years' time, with more details and heavier penalties, it would be impossible for that operation to have a marked effect on road accidents—
Mr. Cole: When I spoke of another Bill, I meant that there would than be new matters to discuss—(hovercraifit on the roads, and so on. I did not mean going through the whole thing again.
Mr. Bell: I had today the agreeable experience of going in a hovercraft, but I do not see these vehicles coming on the roads in the next two years.
What we sometimes overlook in our debate on road safety and road legislation is the fact that we have in this country the most remarkably law-abiding set of motorists in the world. The contrary is constantly implied in our debates, as it has been this evening. We hear so much about the vast number of people killed and injured on our roads and about the heavy burden of guilt and the responsibility lying on my right hon. Friend's shoulders. Of course those people are killed and injured, and it is all very sad that it should be so, but let us not forget that our accident figures compare most favourably with those of any other country and that the number of accidents per vehicle mile have been steadily declining year by year for a long time. We cannot, of course, go too far in our efforts to reduce the accident rate, but our motorists are not the bloody, reckless, careless animals it is sometimes suggested in our discussions that they are. Our motorists, as I say, are the best in the world, and if we are to make really substantial progress in reducing road casualties it must be through our road programme, not through our legislation.
1630
Incidentally, we also have the best road system in the world, which we constantly denigrate. It is inadequate, and should be improved very quickly, but we forget that in Europe about 80 per cent. of the roads are mud surfaced. In one European country that I visited, about 82 per cent. of the roads were gravel surfaced—but we were not, of course, invited to see those roads. We are a little self-depreciatory. I should like to put it the other way round, and say that our motorists are wonderful by any world standards, and that our roads are jolly good.
But, being on top like that, let us do even better, because success leads to success. If that is the picture, it is not right that we should sometimes shape these rather blunt weapons for bludgeoning the motorist. I have sometimes regretted hearing hon. Members on both sides say that motorists who get involved in accidents are so outrageous that we should do all we can to get them convicted. This is a rather lawyer-like quibbling, when one looks into the details, drafting and exact consequences of the provisions.
I have detected almost impatience in certain quarters, an impatience leading one to believe that when a man is brought before a court for a motoring offence he deserves everything and that nothing is too bad. I do not believe that that is a justifiable approach, and many hon. Members have done everything they can to resist that sort of attitude. We have succeeded, while resisting it, in improving the Bill.
In my view, a lot of the accidents occurring after 10 p.m. are not, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said, caused largely by drink. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) pointed out, there is not the slightest evidence to support that argument. It is easy for a committee of doctors to write a pamphlet and circulate it, but their opinions are, after all, only opinions.
Mr. Graham Page: There is hospital evidence to support the argument that drink is responsible. The Cassie Report definitely stated so.
Mr. Bell: All the reports in the world, Cassie Report or otherwise, do not advance the matter one inch.
Mr. Graham Page: Of course they do.
Mr. Bell: Unless there is evidence to show that something is so, one cannot definitely say, "This is so."
Mr. Strauss: What better evidence can there be than the results of examining 500 people who were killed in road accidents? Such an examination was carried out and it was found that 50 per cent. of the corpses had alcohol in their blood to the extent of more than 50 mg. Is that not good enough?
Mr. Bell: I cannot, with great respect, see the relevance of that. There is an accident in which someone happens, because two motor vehicles or a motor vehicle and a pedestrian have come into contact, to be killed. The question is what caused the accident? The fact that alcohol was found in some of the corpses may or may not indicate that the cause was drink, and to try to erect from such indirect evidence a conclusion that more than 50 per cent. of all accidents occurring after 10 p.m. were due to someone being drunk is to carry scientific deduction into the realms of fairy tales.
I do not know what the right figure is, nor does anyone else. We know tine number of people convicted of being drunk while driving motor vehicles. That is a certain and exact statistic. The rest is speculation. I say that because, in my view—which is based on nothing but my own driving experience—a great many accidents which occur after 10 p.m. are caused in some degree by dazzle, which I regard as one of the major factors causing night accidents, a view shared by the late hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, Mr. Bevan, and a great many others.
I beg my right hon. Friend, when using the powers which the Bill gives him for the first time to prescribe the use of headlamps in built-up areas, to remember that if he uses those powers indiscriminately there may be a large increase in the number of deaths and injuries caused by dazzle. I say that because I know that he is under pressure from certain police authorities to use those powers. I shall be sorry if he
1632
increases the amount of headlamp dazzle on our roads.
I can envisage some difficulties arising from the provisions contained in Clause 13 concerning Statutory Instruments. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into this matter because, as a Member of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, I am not sure how we shall discharge our duty if we are asked to report on Statutory Instruments laid before the House continuing in force Ministerial orders which are not themselves Statutory Instruments, which have never been laid before the House and which may, I suppose, not be supplied before the Select Committee. I hope he will think this over. This is a novel procedure, and it could result in some difficulties in the mechanics of this House.
After those otherwise somewhat critical words, may I nevertheless say that this Bill has my wholehearted approval. I do not think we have wasted any time in debating it. All of the debate has bean entirely genuine and valuable, and this Bill when it goes through will make some contribution, even if not an enormous one, to safety on the roads.
11.31 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Several of my hon. Friends have already congratulated my right hon. Friend on the passage of this Bill. Several of them have also mentioned that this is not the last word in road safety. I do not think we should part with this Bill, however, without one further last word, which nobody has yet mentioned. This Bill has involved some very intricate drafting, particularly of Amendments. I think we should congratulate my right hon. Friend and his legal advisers on the skill with which they have dealt with some of these Amendments. I am sure that the Bill will be effective, but I do not think it will have the effects which my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) thinks and that some surprising results will emerge in the courts from its drafting. I am sure that it will have the results which are intended.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

NIGERIA (GIFT OF SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
Resolution reported,
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 House of Representatives of Nigeria, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
Resolution agreed to.
Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NORTHERN IRELAND)
11.33 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): I beg to move,
That the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1962, dated 6th July, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.
These Regulations concern a rather narrow point, and I shall try to be as brief as possible in my explanation of their purpose. I think they can best be described as consequential upon consolidation of the electoral law of Northern Ireland which has recently been carried out by the Parliament of Northern Ireland in the Electoral Law Act, Northern Ireland, 1962.
It has been found convenient for a number of years to combine together in the case of Northern Ireland the register of electors to this Parliament at Westminster, electors to the Parliament of Northern Ireland at Stormont and electors to local authorities in Northern Ireland. This practice is governed on the one side by legislation of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and on the other side by regulations made under our Representation of the People Act, 1949.
Our own regulations are the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1950, as amended by subsequent regulations. Regulation 5 of the 1950 Regulations provides that in every year in which the register of electors to the Northern Ireland Parliament and to local authorities in Northern Ireland is prepared under the provisions of Section 13 of the Elections and Franchise Act, Northern Ireland, 1946, which is, of course, an Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament, the register of electors for that year to the United Kingdom Parliament shall be combined with that Northern Ireland register. The 1946 Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament has, however, been largely repealed and the Northern Ireland law has been consolidated in the Act to which I referred, the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland), 1962.
Because of the repeal in large measure of the 1946 Act, we wish now to amend our 1950 Regulations in order

1635
that the registers of electors to the United Kingdom Parliament may continue to be combined with the Northern Ireland registers which will now be published each year under the new Northern Ireland Act of 1962.
Mr. John Diamond: The hon. Gentleman speaks of the 1962 Act as a consolidation Measure. Is he using that term in the same technical sense as we use it here, namely, to mean the grouping together of existing Acts without any variation in them?
Mr. Woodhouse: I believe that to be so in substance. I could not say that it is so verbally throughout, but I think that that is the fact.
For the sake of completeness, I should add that we wish to combine additionally the electors lists—which are, as it were, the preliminary draft of the electors registers—and also the corrupt and illegal practices list in respect of United Kingdom elections with those prepared and published annually under the Northern Ireland Act of 1962 to which I referred.
11.37 p.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: The Under-Secretary of State, on whose promotion the House congratulates him, has among his duties that of looking after Northern Ireland. We must, of course, bear with him if he has had so many matters on his mind that he has not been able to examine this part of his duties with the care which, I am sure, he has devoted to all the others in the time the has been in the Department.
The hon. Gentleman's introduction of these Regulations could be misleading. He said that we are dealing with a rather narrow point and that these Regulations are consequential upon an Act which had been passed in the Northern Ireland Parliament at the beginning of this year, the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland), 1962. When he was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), he said that, as far as he knew, this could be described generally as a consolidation Act. It would, therefore, be natural for hon. Members to take it from the hon. Gentleman that this was a purely formal matter and that the Regu-
1636
lations should go through without anyone paying very much attention to them. Also, of course, the time at which the Regulations are brought forward would add to that impression.
I take quite a different view of the Regulations. It is not my fault that they must be discussed at this hour of the night, nor is it your fault, Mr. Speaker. It is the Government's decision that we should discuss these Regulations at a very late hour, but they are very important Regulations nevertheless affecting, in one sense, the whole democratic structure in Northern Ireland. For the Under-Secretary of State to suggest—I do not blame him, for the reasons I explained—that the Measure which was passed through the Northern Ireland Parliament was nothing more than a consolidation Measure is to mislead us, albeit unintentionally, in a most monstrous fashion.
The Measure to which these Regulations refer was discussed at very great length in the Northern Ireland Parliament. I assume that every hon. Member present tonight, if not the hon. Gentleman at the Home Office, has read the debates. I have the reports of the debates. There are stacks of them. The Northern Ireland Parliament had long debates on the precise Measure to which these Regulations are related. It had all-night sittings and debates that went on night after night. It had a Guillotine imposed. Before the Guillotine was imposed, the closure was operated in a manner which would make the Patronage Secretary here green with envy. Indeed, I hardly like to reveal this part of my discoveries because it might put ideas in his mind.
If one reads what happened in the Northern Ireland Parliament in discussing the Clause to which these Regulations refer, one sees that very often the Government Chief Whip in the Northern Ireland Parliament would move the closure after a matter had been discussed for a matter of ten minutes.
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member be good enough to assist me in explanation of the ground upon which he urges that these matters arise on discussion of the Regulations?
Mr. Foot: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the direct question whether the Electoral

1637
Law Act (Northern Ireland), 1962, to which the Regulations in approximation apply, was a consolidation Measure.
Mr. Speaker: Two problems arise. One is whether we are discussing these Regulations applying in approximation to that law. The other is whether our rules of order are governed by questions asked of the Minister by an hon. Member. Neither of them appears to me to be right.
Mr. Foot: The spokesman for the Home Office said that the Regulations that we are discussing refer to the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland), 1962, which was a consolidation Measure. If the House accepted the view of the Home Office that the Act which was passed through the Northern Ireland Parliament was a purely consolidation measure, we would be ready to agree with the view of the Home Office. I was indicating, however, that it was a most controversial Measure and, therefore, the Regulations that we are asked to pass may also be controversial. Indeed, no other Measure passed through the Northern Ireland Parliament in recent years has been as controversial as the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland), 1962. to which the Regulations are directly related.
Mr. Speaker: It may have been a most heathenly controversial Measure, but what seems to me to arise on the Regulations—and I will hear the ban. Member on the subject—is two quite easy questions, namely, whether these electoral lists should continue to be combined and jointly published and whether the preparation of the corrupt and illegal practices list should be made under a single set of regulations. I do not see how any other issue arises.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: Surely, Mr. Speaker, we are entitled to consider whether the Regulations should be made; and in considering that, we must consider whether they are reasonable. Surely, in considering whether the Regulations are reasonable, to bring them into conformity with an Act passed in Northern Ireland, we are entitled to consider the circumstances in which the Northern Ireland Act was passed and the degree of controversy surrounding it.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think so. Of course, the House can consider whether the Regulations are reasonable or desirable. What seem to me to be the grounds on which we can discuss them are the two questions which I have already posed.
Mr. Foot: The question whether the Regulations are reasonable and appropriate is exactly the matter to which I was proposing to direct my remarks, but I was making what I considered to be a legitimate preliminary comment that when these matters were discussed in the Northern Ireland Parliament, so far from the Measure to which the Regulations relate being regarded as a consolidation Measure, it was regarded as a Measure which concerned the whole democratic structure of politics in Northern Ireland.
I understand that it is not right for us in this House to discuss the same matters which were discussed in the Northern Ireland Parliament, but I would draw attention to paragraph 1 of these Regulations. It says:
"The register shall, so far as practicable, be combined with the register of parliamentary electors or, as the case may be, the register of parliamentary and local electors prepared and published under section 28 of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) …
One of the matters I wish to discuss, and which I should have thought would have been exactly in order, is whether we should relate our Regulations here to the law under the Electoral Act in Northern Ireland, which was one of the matters which in fact aroused the greatest controversy when discussed in Northern Ireland. Nothing, I should have thought, could be more in order than discussion whether we should pass Regulations which accept in effect the decisions made by the Northern Ireland Pariament on the local electors, and the Minister said himself—
Mr. Stratton Mills: Perhaps I could help the hon. Gentleman, who, I think, has misread the Regulations. The idea is merely the same as that in this country, that the various electoral registers should be in the same document and that they should be made at the same time for purely administrative simplicity. There is no question, in accepting the Regulations,

1639
of making the local Government and Westminster Government electors identical. It is simply that the lists are put inside the same cover.
Mr. Foot: I am sure they are not identical. That is one of the greatest complaints. I am sure the hon. Member knows that. There is no identity at all between the register of local electors and of those voting to send the hon. Gentleman to this House. That is one of the biggest grounds of complaint. The hon. Gentleman knows that very well. I hope he is not going to use his position here to try to deceive innocent Members of this House who do not realise the facts. But some of us are aware of what does happen in Northern Ireland. Of course there is no identity. That is one of the main reasons why the debate went on in the Northern Ireland over a long time and the Guillotine was imposed.
As I said earlier, I should have thought it was a legitimate preliminary comment that what we are discussing here tonight is a matter regarded as of the gravest importance in Northern Ireland by a large number of people—shall we say? —one-third of the population. The hon. Gentleman does not deny that figure. It is a matter of great importance to them, and therefore I am thinking it would be quite wrong for this House to allow this question to go through without discussion, and if in fact the speech of the Under-Secretary had passed without comment, the speech in which he said we were just dealing with a consolidation Measure, and if that had been the news going across to Belfast tomorrow, we should have been laughed out of court. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not like that to happen. So I was just making a preliminary comment, as I said.
I must say that I have not studied the affairs of the Northern Ireland Parliament in such detail for quite a time, and I am absolutely shocked at the way in which the Measure dealing with the whole conduct of elections in Northern Ireland should have been debated—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In no conceivable fashion imaginable can what happened in the Northern Ireland Parliament in relation to that Measure as a
1640
matter of procedure be in order in discussion of these Regulations.
Mr. Foot: No. I have been led astray by what the hon. Gentleman said—that this was a purely consolidation Measure. I leave that at once.
As I said earlier, one part of the Regulations we should examine most carefully is that paragraph I have already quoted. This is one of the reasons why such strong objection is taken to the Electoral Law Act, with which we are supposed to co-ordinate these Regulations, because the local register, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) has indicated, is quite different from the national register in Northern Ireland. There are large numbers of people who are deprived of the right to vote in local elections in Northern Ireland even though they have the right to send Members of Parliament to this House.
Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I right in my understanding of what you have ruled as to the width of discussion on these Regulations? Is it correct that the only point arising for discussion is not the merits or otherwise of the electoral laws in Northern Ireland, but purely whether one should combine the list for the Westminster elections in the same book as for local government elections and the Stormont elections?
Mr. Speaker: What I have said, and I am sure it is right, is that the issue before the House is on—leaving out the "corrupt" and what-not list—whether two lists should be combined, and I do not regard as relevant to that the methods, or the alleged improper methods, by which a certain Statute was secured its passage through the Northern Ireland Parliament.
Mr. Archie Manuel: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), I see in the document the words:
"The register shall, so far as practicable."
Can we debate the meaning of those words or their limitation? It is very strange to us in that the reference is to its being "practicable" to combine

1641
the register. So it is not exactly a combination of the register but only "in so far as it is practicable to combine the register". This is a great limitation and should be probed thoroughly in order to discover why.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's view is interesting, but I do not feel that the practicability of combination of the two registers is in any way related to the procedure by which the Northern Ireland Statute came upon the Northern Ireland Statute Book.
Mr. Foot: Mr. Speaker, you rebuked me earlier for discussing the methods by which this Measure was passed through the Northern Ireland Parliament, and although I thought it was a perfectly legitimate point for me to make, as a result of your Ruling I have abandoned that part of my argument and I was proceeding to a further part of the argument.
I said that one of the major complaints about the whole situation in Northern Ireland—thus has nothing to do with what was discussed in the Northern Ireland Parliament—is the distinction between the registers for those who can vote in local elections in Northern Ireland and those who can vote in the elections either to the Stormont Parliament or to this House. Then the hon. Gentleman interrupted me. He and his hon. Friends may be able to stop debate in the Northern Ireland Parliament, but I hope they cannot do it here.
It is a fact, I am sure—the hon. Member did not interrupt me to deal with the facts—that only about two-thirds of the electorate in Northern Ireland are able to vote in local elections. In the City of Belfast there are 81,000 people who can vote for candidates for the Stormont Parliament or for this Parliament but cannot vote in local elections. In the City of Derry there are some 8,000 electors who are able to vote in national elections but are denied the right to vote in local elections. How can anybody defend such a principle?
Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be glad to discuss every aspect of partition between the North and the South of Ireland with the hon. Gentleman, but
1642
with regard to the limitation of debate on these Regulations, is not the hon. Gentleman going very much wider of the point in dealing with the merits once again?
Mr. Speaker: I thought that in that passage, exceptional as it may be, the hon Gentleman was legitimately arguing why there should not be a combination of the two lists, which is rather different from the note on which he started.
Mr. Foot: I am most grateful to you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I never mentioned anything about partition. I was discussing the situation of citizens of this country for whom we are responsible who are denied rights in Northern Ireland which they would have if they lived in this country. The hon. Gentleman, Who no doubt gets elected to this House by boasting of his allegiance to the British flag, ought to try to incorporate into
the laws of Northern Ireland more of the laws of this country.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member keeps putting me in a difficulty. The question of whether it should be incorporated into the law of Northern Ireland is another matter. We are discussing that the two lists, so far as practicable, shall be combined.
Mr. Foot: I have been led astray again by the hon. Gentleman, but I will now stick strictly to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.
I thought that when I was discussing the distinction between the two registers I was on very firm ground, and I could quote further examples of how, in fact, large numbers of people in Northern Ireland are denied rights which they would obviously have in this country. Moreover, at the same time as large numbers of people in Northern Ireland are denied the right to vote on these local registers there are other people there who are given plenty of votes on the register. In local elections, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, large numbers of people in Northern Ireland have seven or eight votes because they have a business vote, a company vote.
All the arrangements which we made under our laws for setting up new registers in 1946 and 1947 when we overhauled local government in this country

1643
and all the measures which we put through for establishing universal suffrage in local elections in this country have not been adopted in Northern Ireland. Domestic servants are excluded in Northern Ireland and people who are employed in many places do not have votes. That may astonish some hon. Members, but it is true. At the same time there are large numbers of people who have seven or eight votes. The hon. Gentleman does not deny that.
Lieut.-Colonel R. G. Grosvenor: Can the hon. Gentleman substantiate that fact?
Mr. Foot: Of course I can.
Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: The hon. Gentleman would do a great service if he could substantiate it categorically.
Mr. Foot: I will substantiate it only too gladly. I have here the report of the Parliamentary debates in which the whole of this law was discussed in Northern Ireland. Mr. Speaker would rule me out of order if I went into the details of that discussion. The facts were never denied. Statements were made by spokesmen in the Northern Ireland Parliament that many company voters, as they are called, had seven or eight votes, and that was never denied by the spokesmen of the Northern Ireland Government. If the hon. and gallant Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor) can produce to me from the report of the debates, which I am sure he will have studied, evidence that this fact was ever denied by spokesmen in the Northern Ireland Parliament I shall be glad to withdraw.
Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I am asking the question.
Mr. Hugh Delargy: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman deny this?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall get into difficulties if we have interventions upon interventions.
Mr. Delargy: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised a point. I merely ask whether he will deny that there are
1644
persons in Northern Ireland who have more than one vote.
Mr. Speaker: Here is the difficulty, and it is a perfectly sensible one. I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will speak and when he does he will be able to intervene upon him. What is the difficulty about the process of debate is the permitting of an intervention upon an intervention. I am sure that will be understood.
Mr. Foot: The hon. and gallant Member fox Fermanagh and South Tyrone challenged me, I am sure in good faith, to substantiate my statement. I have read the debates on this matter which took place in Northern Ireland—which is more than he has done—when this question of people having seven or eight votes was raised. The allegation was made time and again and never denied by the Government there. Indeed, Government spokesmen gloried in the fact. They argued that not only did this happen but that it was right to happen, because this was one way to attract industries to Northern Ireland.
Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for pressing you on this matter, but I feel that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) is going much beyond the bounds of these Regulations. I submit that the only point on which he can address the House is on the question of whether the registers should be combined. Yet he is discussing at great length the whole question of the composition of the Northern Ireland Parliament and of the local government side of the register. I submit that this is definitely not relevant.
Mr. Speaker: The question is whether the register should continue to be combined. I agree that the limits are delicate, but obviously criticism of the contents of one element of the to be combined list is just within the limits. Nothing would be more tedious or out of order than to discuss the debates in the Northern Irish Parliament underlying the Act which gives rise to the present contents of the register alleged to be defective. But the line is delicate. I hope that we can get on.
Mr. Stratton Mills: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit quite strongly that we cannot discuss the composition of Stormont and the local government side of the register. With respect, I suggest that you have given a slight edge by which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale can discuss these things.
Mr. Speaker: The question is Whether the lists should continue to be combined. If one of them is vicious, then that is an argument in flavour of not continuing the combination. That is the limit.
Mr. Foot: You have made my speech much more eloquently than I could have done, Mr. Speaker. You say that if the system of local registers is vicious then obviously that is a ground—
Mr. G. B. H. Currie: It would be interesting, in considering this matter, to know whether the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is expressing the official view of the Labour Party or merely a part of it.
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman should know that I am speaking for myself, and it would be a good thing if he did that for a change. It seems that the only object of interventions by hon. Members from Northern Ireland is to try to stop other people from speaking.
You said, Mr. Speaker, that if the system of local elections and the register of local electors was vicious, this was obviously ground for not continuing it. I would have thought it perfectly proper for me to cite, as evidence of why I thing it is indeed vicious, the fact that a large number of people in Northern Ireland, in debate on the electoral law Which were of such length that the guillotine was imposed and the closure was moved—
Mr. Speaker: Order, That is precisely what I said was out of order. I wish the hon. Member would remember that.
Mr. Foot: I understand that it would be proper for me to go over the arguments that took place in the Northern Ireland Parliament. But you said quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, that there is the question of whether the register of local
1646
electors in Northern Ireland is vicious, and surely that is a matter for argument. Some hon. Members disagree and say that it is a perfectly proper system. I am trying to sustain the view that it is vicious, to use your own word.
Mr. Speaker: I am not doing more than discharging my duty. Whatever happened in the Northern Ireland Parliament in relation to the passage of the Act which constituted the lists, the procedural matters, such as the Guillotine, cannot be relevant to this debate.
Mr. Foot: I do not wish to be over-persistent in the matter, but if the question is whether the way in which they register local electors is evidence or not, surely it is proper to cite the evidence on one side or the other. I should have thought that among the evidence which could be cited—even though you rebuke me for saying so, apparently, Mr. Speaker, I still think so—is what many people in Northern Ireland think, and particularly as other people from Northern Ireland who sit as Members of this House are not speaking for the people of Northern Ireland tonight.
A large number of people in Northern Ireland are very concerned about this matter. They think that they are being robbed of their rights. They are denied the right to vote in local elections. All these people—
Mr. Speaker: Order. All that may be perfectly right and true. But the Regulations which we are debating relate to whether the two existing lists shall continue to be combined.
Mr. Foot: I should have thought that when we are deciding whether to approve the Regulations and agree to combine them, and whether to vote on the matter, we are entitled to discuss and consider the views of the people in Northern Ireland on the subject. As is perfectly evident from what has happened in the debate, the spokesmen from Northern Ireland have come here eager to suppress debate rather than to engage in it. The Measure was passed through the Northern Ireland Parliament in circumstances which I will not describe, because to do so might cause me to become out of order. I should have thought it perfectly proper for hon.

1647
Members on this side of the House to say that we are going to vote on opinions held by a large number of people in Northern Ireland, including those who are disenfranchised, and will continue to be, if we give our approval to these Regulations. This House still retains a considerable responsibility for what happens in Northern Ireland. We have representatives from that country who sit in this House—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not following the hon. Gentleman and I am trying to do so. He will correct me if I am wrong. The alleged disfranahisement —I am trying to use a neutral expression —does not arise from the question, aye or no, should these lists continue to be combined. It arises, as I understand the argument of the hon. Gentleman, upon some Statute passed by the Northern Ireland Parliament. The issue on these Regulations is whether the existing lists shall continue to be combined.
Mr. Foot: Yes, Mr. Speaker. But this Act which was passed by the Northern Ireland Parliament a few months ago so far from being a consolidation Measure was one which perpetuated what had gone on before that time, and when many people in Northern Ireland are saying that the whole electoral law in Ireland should be reconsidered. They debated all these electoral matters, and therefore if, when we are asked to give our opinion on two registers which will conform to the Act which was passed in Ireland, we allowed this to go through and accepted the view of the Minister, the news which would go to Northern Ireland tomorrow would be that the British House of Commons approved what had been done. There is not the slightest doubt that the view of many people in Ireland, and of the newspapers, would be that, despite all the disturbance in the Stormont about this matter, the British Parliament had accepted it without anyone thinking that it was of importance. In that sense, we are deciding whether we shall approve the consolidation of the two registers, and therefore I think that we are entitled to discuss whether we approve of many of the items included in the Act which—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That really is not so, and the whole debate will get
1648
out of order unless I persist in interrupting the hon. Gentleman, although I regret the necessity for doing so. The point is, shall these two lists continue to be combined? Suppose the House decided that they should not be combined by disapproving these Regulations. Whatever the defect of disfranchisement of which the hon. Gentleman speaks, it would remain. The combination of the lists does not affect that factor. That is the difficulty.
Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, surely we must be able to contend that the Northern Ireland list is open to such objection, is so defective and so vicious, that our United Kingdom list ought not to be combined with it?
Mr. Speaker: Yes. I do not mind that in the least, but the idea that the merits or demerits of the disfranchisement can be discussed is wrong, because it will remain whether the House approves or disapproves of these Regulations. That is the distinction.
Mr. Foot: There are other grounds, to which I will turn now, on which I believe that we should not agree to the Regulations. We cannot pass these Regulations without giving in some measure approval to the form of the register which they have accepted in the Northern Ireland Parliament. There are other grounds of objection apart from the disfranchisement of people in local elections. Hon. Members may not be aware of the many differences in the electoral system which they have in Northern Ireland. They do have poll cards sent out by the Post Office, as we have in this country. This system was introduced in this part of the United Kingdom to ensure that more people would be able to vote at elections, which is very directly connected with the registers. They do not have that in Northern Ireland. Attempts were made there to try to get the system introduced. They were all rejected by the friends of hon. Members opposite who represent Northern Ireland in this House.
In many cases they are now allowed to use schools for public meetings in Northern Ireland. They introduced Measures that try to obtain that. That was also denied. There are many other differences. Under their rules they still

1649
have university votes. Queen's University returns Members representing 3,000 voters each, although the average for the whole country is about 18,000. Attempts were made to change that. It was changed in this country, but not in Northern Ireland, not even by those in Northern Ireland who boast of their efforts to maintain the British way of life. They talk about the British way of life, but they do not incorporate into their system the British electoral method.
There is another ground on which I object to the registers. This is more important than any of the other points which I have raised. These registers refer to particular boundaries of constituencies. In the Act to which these Regulations are related and to which the registers are related the boundaries of the different constituencies are laid out. The boundaries are such that in local elections and in national elections the will of the Irish people is grossly distorted. Numerous cases can be cited. Derry City has a two-thirds Nationalist population, but owing to the way in which the register is organised, which we are partly discussing, the Unionists are in control. The same applies in Omagh in Tyrone and in Eniskellen in Fermanagh. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Eniskellen. Hon. Members opposite have never heard of it. Perhaps I cannot pronounce the words right, but I have the facts correct. Hon. Members opposite want to suppress this. The facts, which they want to conceal, are that under this form of register— hon. Members opposite laugh about it— in great townships and cities in Northern Ireland, although the majority of people are Nationalist in their outlook, they can never get a majority in their own cities. This is an outrage, but hon. Member opposite laugh at it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be an outrage. It may not be. How will that be affected by approving or disapproving of these Regulations?
Mr. Foot: I think that I can answer that very simply, Mr. Speaker. If we were to throw out these Regulations tonight it would have a very big effect in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Speaker: Whatever they are, to change the constituents of the Northern Ireland register, they are wholly in-
1650
effective. I am not trying to be tiresome to the hon. Gentleman but trying to present to him the effect of the Regulations.
Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for being persistent, but I ask you once again to look at your Ruling that the alleged "viciousness" in the Northern Ireland electoral law gives an opportunity for this matter to be discussed under these Regulations, because if one does that the whole field can be discussed.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is night to that extent. It depends on the class of viciousness ome is discussing. If the lists were not in accordance with Northern Ireland law and were vicious in that respect, the argument would at once be valid. That is the difficulty. But the issue before the House is whether or mot we approve of these Regulations, and a state of affairs left unaffected by the approval or disapproval is a matter out of order. That is the difficulty about it all.
Mr. Delargy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You mentioned Northern Ireland law, but we are not here concerned with Northern Ireland law; we are here concerned with British law.
Mr. Speaker: I am so sorry—the hon. Gentleman corrects me with complete accuracy. I meant statute law enacted in the Northern Ireland Parliament.
Mr. William Ross: Perhaps you could help us, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the limitations under the Regulations which we are asked to approve. To take "Preparation of the register", we are asked to approve in paragraph 1 (1) these words:
"… All claims for registration and all objections to any person's registration shall be made within the time and in the manner prescribed by, and shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 1962 …"
To ask us to approve that without examining the provisions of that Act is Surely asking far too much.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think so. All these Regulations ask is whether or no the two lists shall continue to be combined, that is all.
Mr. Foot: Then I wonder why, in that case, Mr. Speaker, the matter should ever have arisen, if it was so purely technical as that. I am told that I raised it, but that is not the case. Why is it that these Regulations are brought before the House at all? It is because in Northern Ireland they have passed a new Act, which the Minister thought to be a purely consolidation Act until I informed him otherwise. He now learns that it is a much bigger affair. As a result, we are asked to pass these Regulations, so we are surely entitled to decide with some care whether or not we should give our approval. But if we find that the registration is conducted in a manner that we in this part of the United Kingdom would find deplorable, surely we are entitled to make our protest and, if we wanted to, say to the Minister, "Take back your Regulations and discuss the matter with the Northern Ireland Parliament," which is exactly the main point I shall try to press on the House.
I do not blame the Minister because, in particular, we know that there have been some rather drastic changes, but that is what happened, and it directly relates to the Regulations. Following the passage of the Act in Northern Ireland, representations were made to our own Home Office. The Nationalist members—and, I think, some others— presented a memorandum to the Home Office asking it to reconsider the Regulations under the Act. I do not know whether the Minister recalls that, or has been informed about it by his officials, but he should find out about it, because I am informed that soon after the passage of the Act, a month or two ago, prior to the introduction of these Regulations, representations were made by the minority in Northern Ireland to the Home Office, asking it to set up some form of inquiry, or to consider the whole question before proceeding to draft the Regulations to be presented to this House.
What did the Home Secretary, who is now the Deputy Prime Minister, do? According to my information—and I would be glad to have this confirmed or denied—no reply was sent to this memorandum. The Home Office merely referred the matter to the Stormont Parliament to deal with. It is just as if repre-
1652
sentations were made to the Home Office from, say, Leicester, Orpington, Bradford or Stockton saying that something was wrong with an election and the Home Office passed the matter on to the Conservative Central Office. About the same process would be involved. As I say, according to my information that is what happened.
Do hon. Members opposite feel strongly about this? They may do, but the people in Ireland feel even more anxious. Hon. Members opposite have the right to vote. Should not the people of Ireland have the same right? This anomalous position arises; a person in Northern Ireland may stand for Parliament in London if he is a member of the Sinn Fein Party, but he is not allowed to stand for the Stormont Parliament or even to vote. While hon. Members opposite may feel very strongly about this, I can assure them that the people of Ireland feel even more strongly. They have justice in saying that they should have some say, for although it is possible for a Catholic to be President of the United States, he could never be a leading citizen in Derry City.
Hon. Members opposite must not think that they feel so passionately about Ulster. The people there have rights. It is because their rights are not represented in this House and because no voice is raised from Ireland to speak for them on the benches opposite that some of us are acting in this way. After all, they have many other problems in Northern Ireland. There are many other distinctions between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. They have a much heavier rate of unemployment. They badly need their electoral rights.
We must, therefore, ask the Home Office to explain why no reply has been made to the representations made by the minority in Ireland, representations sent to the Home Office following the passage of the new law. We must also ask the Home Office to remove these Regulations in view of what has been said, in view of what others will say and in view of our deep concern over what is happening in Northern Ireland. The Home Office should reconsider the matter and discuss the whole question with the Northern Ireland Parliament,

1653
because there is no doubt that they would wish to be in on the discussions.
Some of us want these Regulations repealed tonight because we want the people of Ireland to know that we are dissatisfied with what is happening there. We must let them know that we are not content—certainly not content with a situation in which in a Parliament 20 out of the 39 Unionist Members in Northern Ireland are invariably elected unopposed. Why should they care about registers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is true. And they also arrange boundaries. The whole system is manipulated by a power which I do not say is dictatorial—I would not compare it with what happens in Spain, Portugal or some countries in the East—but which is bad enough.
Sir Harmer Nicholls: Mr. Herbert Morrison, now Lord Morrison, altered our boundaries.
Mr. Foot: If the hon. Member studies the matter he will find that as a result of him altering our boundaries the Labour Party lost the Election of 1951.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We seem to be getting a long way from the combination of these two electoral lists.
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman who interrupted me need not think that the operation and manipulation of boundaries in Northern Ireland is a laughing matter. Anybody who has studied the matter knows that the boundaries on the registers have been manipulated to sustain in power a single party rule. I ask the House and the Home Office to consider this matter very seriously, and I ask the people of Northern Ireland, including those who have almighty powers with their guillotines in the Stormont, to recognise that whatever they may do, there are some people who will raise these matters in this House, even though it is very rarely done by the so-called representatives of the Irishmen.
12.25 a.m.
Mr. John Diamond: I may have misunderstood the situation, but, as I read these Regulations, we are dealing with a simple point as to whether certain registers should continue to be combined—that is to say, either to be printed on one piece of paper and to
1654
have marks made against individual names to denote whether they shall be included for all three parties or, as the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) has indicated, combined by being bound together in one bound volume.
I seek to address arguments to demonstrate that the continuation of this procedure has led to difficulties. I would illustrate very shortly what those difficulties are, and I hope to convince the Government that it would be unwise to continue this system of combination because of the difficulties to which it has led. It is precisely because we are continuing the system that I think I am entitled to address these arguments.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) has made clear, the lists are different in the sense that some (people are entitled to vote on one list and those people are not entitled to vote on another list. On the first list of local elections the system might be described as less than democratic because any number of people do not have a vote at all. On the list for the Stormont Parliament the system may be described as something more than democratic because many people have more than one vote. Some of them, as my hon. Friend has demonstrated and proved, have eight.
Mr. Currie: Rot.
Mr. Diamond: I apologise for the noise which was being made as you were talking the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was pointing out that there are two separate lists on the first of which—the local authority list—many people do not have a vote at all, and on the second list —the Stormont Parliament list—many people have more than one vote, some as many as eight votes.
Mr. Currie: Would the hon. Gentleman be so kind as to give an illustration to the House? Can he cite some individual case where the elector has eight votes?
Mr. E. Fernyhough: Would my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Diamond: Perhaps it would be more convenient if I were to deal with one intervention at a time. The last thing I want to do is to cause difficulties

1655
with the Chair owing to the fact that there has been a slight misunderstanding as to the extent of this debate. However, as opposed to the hon. Member who just intervened, I take the view that considerable regard should be had for authoritative statements in the Stormont Parliament.
Mr. Currie rose—
Mr. Diamond: Might I finish my observations, or is the hon. Member seeking to delay the proceedings?
Mr. Currie: No.
Mr. Diamond: Since the hon. Gentleman has asked a question, perhaps I might answer it. I attach considerably mere weight than he does to the authoritative statements in the Stormont Parliament. In that Parliament the allegation is made and repeated that individuals have more than one vote. There are many examples in the Act, if I may be allowed to read the Act to which the Regulations refer. I can read the list of the different circumstances under which a person can have a vote. There are many instances. They are referred to in the Schedules to the Act and under Section 28. I am sure that the hon. Member is just as familiar as I am with the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland), 1962.
Mr. Currie: Eight votes?
Mr. Diamond: These statements having been repeatedly made in the Stormont Parliament and accepted, that is fairly good evidence, good enough for me. One can envisage under the law circumstances in which a person could have more than eight votes. That merely depends on how many different constituencies in which he has property.
Mr. Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give an example of an individual who, to his knowledge, has eight votes?
Mr. Diamond: No, I cannot give an example of an individual because I do not know of any particular individual by name who has eight votes. I am dealing with the matter in a much broader and more responsible way by referring to the number of votes which a person could have under the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland), 1962, and the number of votes which it is admitted in the Stormont Parliament he could have.
1656
I do not know why hon. Members opposite are so touchy about it and why they keep seeking to restrict the debate. It is an extremely important matter.
Mr. Currie: I merely want the truth to be stated.
Mr. Diamond: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has his chance to intervene. I noticed that when the opportunity came for him to intervene he did not seek to rise. Apparently, he has nothing to say but merely wants to interrupt other people's speeches.
Mr. Peter Walker: Who is being touchy now?
Mr. Diamond: Hon. Members apposite seem to regard this matter with more jocularity than same of us do. If the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie) seeks to catch your eye in due course, Mr. Speaker, no doubt he will be given his opportunity.
What we are concerned with is the fact that, by combining two registers, we have created difficulties in the past, and those difficulties are likely to continue if we go on with the same process. The argument is as simple as that. I shall illustrate it with one or two examples.
On one list a man may have a vote and on the other list he may not have a vote. Let us consider the position of an elector to the Stormont Parliament He wants to vote in a local authority election. If he had a separate list, he would examine that separate list and ascertain whether he had or had not a vote in the local authority ejection. However, because it is a combined list, he does not seek to do this. There are any number of people who are entitled to vote but who do not do so. I am not seeking to examine the grounds on which votes are granted but merely to consider whether such votes as are granted are, in fact, exercised. A mam who is entitled to vote does not exercise his right to vote because of the confusion arising from the combination of the lists.
What are some of the results of such a person refraining from exercising his right to vote? The local elector is unable to put pressure on his local representatives. Fundamentally, of

1657
course, that is the way in which one puts pressure on elected representatives. One does not do it merely by saying to a local councilor, "Will you please do this". One does it by asking him to do something and then adding, "If you do not, please remember that, when your time comes for re-election, I shall not vote for you". As a result of the combination of the lists, a man is denied the knowledge that he has a vote and he is denied the opportunity to put pressure on local councilors.
What are the consequences of this denial? Circumstances in Northern Ireland are not what they should be. Local councilors are not made as fully aware as they should be of, for instance, the state of unemployment in Northern Ireland. They acre not made as fully aware as they should be that, during the past ten years, unemployment there has averaged 8 per cent. The elector cannot bring pressure to bear upon his local authority representative because of the combination of the list.
Not sufficient activity takes place in order to encourage the economy of Northern Ireland. There is the further difficulty that the Under-Secretary of State well remembers from a previous incarnation, a difficulty which still exists and which is likely to continue for many subsequent incarnations unless something is done and every opportunity is taken to bring the matter to the notice of the Government. As a result of the circumstances Which I have described, local authority representatives are not made sufficiently aware of the critical situation in Northern Ireland in certain respects. In Belfast, for example, local councillors are not made sufficiently aware of the fact that there is a large firm there by the name of Short's which is on the point of folding up because the Government over there—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but I do not think that he is entitled to go into such detail as he appears to be doing.
Mr. Diamond: Of course, I accept immediately what you say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have given one example, and one only, of the general thesis I was propounding, which depended on the
1658
simple argument that we ware making a mistake by combining the lists, and it is about combining the lists that the Regulations exist. I hope, therefore, that I shall not offend unduly. I have quoted one example only and I turn immediately to the second point.
Mr. Peter Kirk: Before the hon. Member does so, can he explain to me, not knowing the details of the Northern Ireland position, how it differs from the position of people in this country who have local government votes in constituencies in which they do not reside and do not have Parliamentary votes? There are instances of that in a number of constituencies and it seems to be much the same thing.
Mr. Diamond: I am grateful for the hon. Member's intervention. He is asking me to explain the difference in Northern Ireland and here. The difference is that Northern Ireland has unemployment permanently at the rate of 8 per cent.—[Interruption.]—I have been asked a question and, presumably, I will be allowed to answer it as the question was allowed to be put.
The difference between Northern Ireland and here is that in Northern Ireland, as a result of the combination of the registers and the lack of expression, therefore, of voters to which they are entitled, there exists a state of affairs of unemployment at 8 per cent. which is accepted and continued year after year, whereas here, in any area such as Northern England or Scotland, if the unemployment gets to half that figure we spend days debating that topic. That is the difference between the two countries.
Mr. Carrie rose—
Mr. Diamond: I cannot give way.
Mr. Carrie: Give way.
Mr. Diamond: The hon. Member, who invites me to give way, has just come into the Chamber and is not aware of the interventions—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Only one hon. Member can address the House at once.
Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Could we have

1659
your assurance that if any hon. Member from Northern Ireland would like to speak in the debate, you will call him?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The House knows the rule perfectly well. Hon. Members rise and take their chance of catching the eye of the Chair.
Mr. Diamond: I take it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the rule still applies that if an hon. Member does not rise, you do not call his name and require him to speak. Northern Ireland Members opposite have not risen whilst there was an opportunity to speak. They have risen only so long as there was not opportunity to speak and another hon. Member was on his feet.
Mr. Currie: The hon. Member will not give way to them.
Mr. Diamond: I turn to the second leg of the argument, namely, that the combination of the two lists leads to difficulties for those on the other list and not on the first one—that is to say, those who would want to vote in a national election but are on the local authority's list and, because the lists are combined, do not go out and seek a separate list to see whether they are entitled to vote and, because they do not seek a separate list, know that they are not entitled to vote on the local authority's list and, therefore, deny themselves the right to vote on the major or nationalist. Indeed, they deny themselves once, twice, thrice, four, five, six, seven or even eight times according to the number of votes to which they are entitled under the Act, which it is not our province to discuss, but merely to take note of the results.
Therefore, we get the situation that there exists in Northern Ireland a lack of adequate political representation because people do not exercise their votes as a result of the combination of the lists. As a result of the combination of the lists and people not exercising their votes, they are not able to put proper pressure on their Parliamentary representatives. Every Member of Parliament here knows that when a constituent comes and asks a question and invites one's co-operation, he may finish by saying, "I hope you will do this for me. Remember that I am a
1660
constituent and have the power to vote for you. "But how does one react to a constituent who says," Will you please do this for me although it will be very awkward for you and land you in a lot of difficulty? Will you do it for me, bearing in mind that whether you do it or whether you do not do it it will make not the slightest difference to the voting at the next election because I, who am asking you to do this, have no vote"?
Therefore, we have the situation in Northern Ireland of continuing unemployment, which is continuing at a rate which is intolerable by any standard other than a Northern Ireland standard —utterly intolerable. We get the situation where hon. Members who are supposed to be looking after their constituents and the rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland are not subject to the proper—I repeat, proper: not an improper—proper pressure to which every Member of Parliament ought to be subject by the fact that if he does not look after his constituents properly and see they have work he will not be re-elected at the next election.
As a result of the compilation of these two registers and the lack of clarity which follows from their compilation and the continuation of the system as before, we get a continuation of the situation we have had over the last ten years, where anything up to 10 per cent. or more of those who are seeking work in Northern Ireland find themselves unable to get it and unable to exert appropriate political pressure which would result in their obtaining it. Therefore, these being the circumstances, the results flowing directly from the operation of the system of combing these lists, which I am sure is a proper thing to discuss in a debate limited by the Regulations before us, I hope very much that all of us are going to voice our opinions and do our best to see that these Regulations do not go through and do our best to see that the people of Northern Ireland have representatives who are prepared to see they do get work and that Short's, for example, does get more orders.
12.42 a.m.
Mr. Stratton Mills: We have listened to a pretty little series of sermons from Gloucester and Ebbw Vale this evening about these Regulations. As I tried to demonstrate on

1661
points of order when Mr. Speaker himself was in the Chair, the point here is a very narrow one indeed. Although I do not quarrel with the Chair's Ruling, I would be reluctant to follow the full width of debate taken by the two previous speakers on the whole subject of Northern Ireland electoral law, but I hope that by saying that I shall not debar myself from just one or two comments inside the rules of order.
In the Stormont election of 1953 I was an election agent, and I can testify to the very great complications which one had in dealing with the law spread over many Statutes and over many regulations. I can assure the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) that the 1962 Act was a Measure of codification. I think I am supported in my view by this, that though the hon. Gentleman had the Act with him this evening he was unable to point out one new point in the Act to demonstrate that it was not a Measure of codification. I will certainly give way if he or any other hon. Member wishes to oppose my point on that. No? It looks as though both sides of the House accept what I say.
Mr. Diamond: As I was invited to intervene I would ask the hon. Gentleman a question. If that Measure was, as he says, merely a matter of codification— which in this House under our rules we cannot debate at all—and if it was purely a consolidation Measure, as the Under-Secretary said it was, would the hon. Gentleman kindly explain why nevertheless the debate on it went on for a very long time and why it was so extremely controversial?
Mr. M. Foot: Since the Hon. Gentleman insists it was a consolidation Measure, would he comment on the statement of the Minister of Home Affairs, who, introducing the Bill on Second Reading, said at the conclusion of his speech, having gone through each part of the Bill,
"It will be quite clear to hon. Members that this is in very large measure"—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I understand that that is quoting from what the Minister said in another Parliament. Am I correct?
Mr. Delargy: That is surely what we are discussing.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Following Mr. Speaker's Ruling, I am anxious that our debate should be confined to citing arguments why, or not, these two electoral lists should continue to be combined, and it seems to me that we are in danger of going far beyond that quite simple argument.
Mr. Delargy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The very simple issue before us tonight is to approve of something which was done in another Parliament. Why, therefore, can we not discuss what was done in that Parliament?
Mr. Foot rose—
Mr. Delargy: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I put a point of order to you.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not reply because I did not think it was outside the proposition which I put forward as to what I believed to be in order. We are discussing whether or no two electoral lists should continue to be combined and published together in one bound volume.
Mr. Manuel: On another point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, arising from the position in which the House now finds itself. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) threw out a challenge, which you allowed, regarding codification. The challenge has been offered and now we cannot answer it. You ruled it out of order after the hon. Member had offered it.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It may be that I should have intervened a minute or two earlier. I accept responsibility for that. But let us get off that and back to what is in order.
Mr. Diamond: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I address an argument to you to illustrate that your Ruling was, as usual, exactly correct in allowing the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) to throw out a challenge? Before you came into the Chair—you would not be aware of this unless somebody told you —the Minister, in introducing them, made it clear that the Regulations referred to the Act, which he said once or twice he thought was a consolidating Measure. It is most material to the consideration of these Regulations

1663
whether the Act was a pure piece of codification, because that would rule out all sorts of arguments as to whether it was the sort of Measure one would imagine it to be having regard to the fact that it was fought, and fought very heatedly, in the Northern Ireland Parliament. With the greatest deference, I would say how wise I thought you were in allowing the challenge to be made by the hon. Gentleman as to whether this was or was not a consolidating Measure.
Mr. Currie: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Surely it is completely out of order for us to discuss in this Parliament what has taken place, or the manner in which a debate has been conducted, in the Parliament of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is what I believe to be so.
Mr. Stratton Mills rose—
Mr. B. T. Parkin: Will the hon. Member give way, since he issued a challenge?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: A point of order?
Mr. Parkin: Not a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I do not think a point of order arose out of what the hon. Gentleman said, for he did not seek to prove that this was a consolidation Measure but threw out a challenge to any hon. Member on the Opposition benches to say whether there was any new point in the Act which has just been passed. Surely it would be in order for some of us to take part in this discussion on the ground that we objected to the time of the House being taken to approve these Regulations issued by a British Home Secretary because there is no new point, on the ground that we are asked to spend the time of the House endorsing a Measure which makes no contribution whatever to the reform of the procedures for electing people to a Parliament in Northern Ireland which might contribute something to solving the economic problems of that area in respect of which we in this House have a great deal of responsibility but very little power?
Mr. Stratton Mills: With respect, I think that I can differentiate between a point of substance and a pure debating point under which category the last intervention would come.
I will deal with the point of substance made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). He suggested that if this was as I said, a consolidating Measure, then why was it in order to have it debated in Stormont. While risking your displeasure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would merely say that being a small Parliament one allows much wider degrees of latitude in procedure. If any hon. Member wished to discuss the codification of any Measure then it would be—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member is allowing himself to go out of order in discussing in detail how the Parliament of Stormont operates.
Mr. Stratton Mills: Yes, I confess, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I may be out of order, but I was tempted by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I repeat what I said, that this is in substance a codification Statute, and the fact that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale produced no evidence to dispute the point was, I think—
Mr. M. Foot: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way after he has challenged me three times to say that I could not produce the evidence. The Minister made it clear that it was a very large Measure and said that he would provide hon. Members with details about it. Likewise, he continued by saying that hon. Members might find points of detail in the Bill which could be amended and which would make the law more workable, upon which one hon. Member shouted out "You bet". That does not sound to me as if it were a codification Measure.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We shall got into difficulties if we proceed on those lines.
Mr. Stratton Mills: With respect, I do not think that the entertaining intervention of the hon. Gentleman has moved me from my essential paint, that this is in large measure a matter of consolidation. If the hon. Gentleman

1665
examines the Statute he will see that this is true. He has produced no con-orate example of any substantial alteration of the law as a result of this Measure.
Mr. M. Foot: When the hon. Gentleman says that there was no substantial change in the law, in many respects, of course, that is true, but the reason is that the majority in the Stormout voted down one Amendment after another.
Mr. Stratton Mills: I am very glad to see that the hon. Gentleman has at last changed his ground on this point.
Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman knows anything about consolidation Measures he will know that they can-not be amended. He will be aware that the Title to the Bill which he is discussing is:
"An Act to Consolidate with Amendments"
So it is an amended Bill and a new Bill.
Mr. Stratton Mills: I said earlier Chart it was in substance a consolidating Measure, and, if there are any major Amendments, not one of them has been brought out in the debate, and I still stick to my ground on that point.
I make one other point. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale attempted to prove that this was a major change in legislation by—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This is not the point. Gould the hon. Member direct his remarks to the Regulations that we are now debating?
Mr. Stratton Mills: I confess, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I am falling into my own trap. I am unable, therefore, to answer the point put earlier by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
The only other matter was one permitted by Mr. Speaker, when he said that the question could be mentioned as to whether the attachment to the list of —to use his phrase—of a "vicious" electoral law for the Stormont Parliament or local government tainted these Regulations. Interesting allegations have been thrown across the Floor of the House about electoral practice in Northern Ireland. Any statistician worth his keep can always prove what he wishes to. For example, during the war, an Australian Minister said that
1666
tank production there had increased during the previous six months by 100 per cent. An opposition member pointed out in reply that this statement was quite true, but that in the six months prior to that only one tank had been produced while in the current period two tanks were manufactured.
One can use figures to demonstrate virtually anything. The various examples which have been given across the Floor of the House can cancel each other out. The most powerful point of all, Which I ask the hon. Member to remember, is that in the 1959 elections for the Westminster Parliament, held under Statutes passed by this House with boundaries fixed by the Speaker's Conference, Ulster Unionist Members were returned for all twelve Northern Irish seats.
No matter what mathematical confusion the hon. Gentleman may raise, the election demonstrates the political allegiance of Northern Ireland. The continued combination of the electoral registers in one document is a useful administration measure merely continuing present practice, but owing to codification of the previous law it has been necessary to bring in these Regulations, which I welcome.
Mr. M. Foot: Since the hon. Member has paid such tribute to the way in which he and his colleagues are elected to this House, will he say why he does not advocate the same system of elections for local government in Northern Ireland? Why does no member of the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland advocate the same register for local government as there is for this Parliament? There are three registers—a residents' register, a company register and a property register. It is that we are objecting to. Why not one register?
Mr. Stratton Mills: In his constituency the local government register and the Parliamentary register are by no means identical. Admittedly, in Ireland, both North and South, we move at a slightly slower pace in these matters than does this side of St. George's Channel, but he will find that it was only in 1944 that the local government electoral law in this country was altered.
Mr. Foot: It was changed then, indeed. We in this part of the United Kingdom believe in universal suffrage. We believe that it is an extremely important matter. We want to know why the hon. Member, who is content that he should be elected by universal suffrage to this House, should not operate the same principle in local elections in Northern Ireland. Why does he not have the guts to advocate there what he is advocating here?
1.0 a.m.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: It was interesting to listen to what the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) had to say. Many of us know that under the present circumstances there will always be twelve Unionist Members returned for the twelve seats in this Parliament. We know that the results of the elections are a foregone conclusion, just as they are for the elections behind the Iron Curtain, because the results are manipulated in quite the same way—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. The hon. Member is going further than he is entitled to go in presenting his argument relating to these Regulations.
Mr. Fernyhough: But, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the hon. Member for Belfast North made great play with the fact that twelve Northern Ireland Unionist Members are returned for the twelve seats in this Parliament. Some of us happen to believe that there are special reasons for that. Quite frankly, we think that it is because the same kind of democracy does not prevail in Northern Ireland as prevails in this country. The reason why we are arguing against these Regulations is that they were forced through the Ulster Parliament by the use of the guillotine and the gag. The Ulster Government did not want them discussed or the voice of the minority heard. Some of us believe that that voice has a right to be heard and that if it cannot be heard in Ulster the only other place where it can be heard is in this Parliament which has to sanction Regulations which were bludgeoned through the Stormont
Mr. Walker: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that argument with
1668
the fact that in the recent Stormont elections the Labour Party took part and its candidates declared that they would win? There was no complaint then by the Labour Party.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not think that the debate should proceed further on that line. I do not see how the question of whether these two lists should continue to be combined can be affected by what the hon. Member is seeking to argue.
Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) was trying to enlighten me about what happened to the Labour Party candidates in the recent elections in Ulster—[Interruption] —I am sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you would call these muttering, unintelligent hon. Gentlemen opposite, if only they would rise from their seats in a courteous manner.
Lieut-Colonel Grosvenor: Will the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Femnyhough) tell the House whether he is referring to the Irish Labour Party or the British Labour Party?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot see how that makes any difference. The question is whether these two lists should continue to be combined. Arguments about the Labour Party in Ireland or the Labour Party in the United Kingdom seem to me to make no difference at all.
Mr. Fernyhough: They make this difference, that because of these electoral registers, because there are votes for property owners and for university people, because there are people whose names are on the registers when they should not be, because there are other people whose names are not on the registers when they should be, we get twelve Unionist Members in this House.
Mr. Stratton Mills: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that in the Westminster elections the Northern Ireland constituencies are governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1949, and have exactly the same sort of lists and registers as apply in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Fernyhough: We have one list—
Mr. Stratton Mills: So do we.
Mr. Fernyhough: No, the hon. Member does not. That is what all the argument is about. That is what these Regulations are about—whether the lists should be combined. All we want to ensure is that the same measure of democracy shall apply in Northern Ireland as in this country. Nobody believes, and nobody ever will believe, that there is the same measure of democracy. People have only to go there and witness what takes place in the elections, the intimidation and victimisation, to know full well that it would not be tolerated here.
Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: On a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Lady has not heard a word of the debate".] Is it in order for the hon. Member to make remarks about the way in which well governed and orderly elections in Northern Ireland are conducted?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There has been a tendency for the whole debate to get out of order. I hope that it will not continue in this vein.
Mr. Fernyhough: Never in my life have I seen hon. Members so touchy. What have they to hide? What is it they do not want revealed? Why should they be so anxious and concerned? Why do not they take part in the debate and give us the proper picture if the picture we are giving is not the true one? The truth is that they have something to hide. They want to maintain a system which is unfair to the vast majority of people in Ulster. Some of us are determined that, although hon. Members opposite never speak for the minority, we shall raise our voices on every possible occasion.
1.6 a.m.
Mr. Peter Kirk: I intervene in the debate as one who has not only not got a drop of Irish blood but no Scottish or Welsh blood either, I am glad to say. I speak as an Englishman and. therefore, with possibly a more detached view of the whole situation. I am drawn to my feet by the lack of ingenuity of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). I asked him why it was right to combine the local government and Parliamentary electoral lists in this country but apparently not right to do so in Northern Ireland. He
1670
replied to me that the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland stands at 8 per cent., but in this country it is a good dead less. That is not a very satisfactory answer.
Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman did not see the connection.
Mr. Diamond: What my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has said is probably the right answer. I was trying to make a very simple argument. Perhaps the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) did not hear the whole of it. Under these Regulations it is proposed to continue a certain practice. As this practice has in the past led to certain defects, if we continue it it is likely to lead to defects in the future
Mr. Kirk: That argument does not hold water. The system does not lead to any defects in this part of the United Kingdom. Here the two lists are combined, and the results as regards employment, which is apparently what worries the hon. Member for Gloucester, are excellent. If he is worried about the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland, he should look for a solution elsewhere. It does not lie in opposing the combination of the local government and Parliamentary electoral registers. That argument cannot be followed to any great degree.
Mr. Diamond: I am not aware of any other Regulation on the Order Paper which permits this discussion.
Mr. Kirk: That is why I suggest that the hon. Member is chasing a hare which does not exist. I have studied the Act with great care. When the hon. Member referred to Section 28 he was in fact calling in aid Section 30 and Part III of the First Schedule, relating to certain company qualifications in Northern Ireland. Company qualifications, though admittedly not as extensive as those set out in Part III of the First Schedule, exist under the British electoral law with regard to local government elections.
The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) made an impassioned plea about university votes, but the universities have votes in local government elections in this country. The University of

1671
Oxford returns twelve members to the Oxford City Council. The University of Cambridge returns ten members to the Cambridge City Council—two less, showing that it is a less important university, but otherwise the principle is the same.
I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite suggest that, although the principle which we adopt here of combining the lists is right, it is wrong in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Manuel: Do I take it that in his own constituency the hon. Gentleman would accede to a combined list that cut out a vast number of the people there who now have the right to vote in local elections? That is the crux of the whole question of the combined register.
Mr. Kirk: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied with great care Part III of the First Schedule of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland), 1962—I have. It does not cut out anyone—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy-Speaker, a lot of hon. Members opposite complain of those who interrupt them not standing up to do so, but that is what they are doing. I do not object because the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has a louder voice than I, but if he has studied Part III of the First Schedule of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland), 1962, as I am sure he has, he will have seen that it does not cut out anybody but includes a lot of people—that is all—and a lot of the people in the constituency of Gravesend are included in the local government register. The local government register includes peers of the realm, to which I object, because the only peer of the realm in Gravesend happens to vote for the Labour Party—
Mr. M. Foot: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent the situation. I understand his argument to be that the system of local elections is the same in Northern Ireland as it is here, according to his reading of the Act. I am sure that he would not wish a misrepresentation of that nature to go forward. There is no dispute in Northern Ireland that the system there is different from the system here. If he looks at the Act which he
1672
says he has studied so carefully, he will see that there there are three forms of registration, including company registration and registration on a residential qualification.
Those forms of registration are very different from those in this country, and they do exclude a number of people from voting who would be able to vote under British electoral law. That is not denied by anyone in the Northern Ireland Parliament, but it is defended on the ground that it is quite proper that there should be extra representation for business votes. If anyone reads the debates he will realise that there cannot be any dispute about this. Whether people think it right or wrong, on the facts there cannot be any dispute about that. What happened in this country was that at the end of the war we had our Local Government Act which established universal suffrage in local elections, but for some reason or other that was not done in Northern Ireland—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) to the fact that he has already exhausted his right to make a speech and that only a short intervention is not out of order. The hon. Member was going beyond what the length of an intervention should be.
Mr. Foot: I apologise for the length of the intervention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) will now agree Chat those are the facts.
Mr. Kirk: With the greatest possible respect to the hon. Member, I cannot see in Sections 28, 29 or 30 of the Act we are now discussing anything that excludes anybody. It is merely that Section 30 includes a lot of people to whom he objects. As I understand it, it is almost more liberal than ours. The primary qualifications in the First Schedule contain a number of things with which I would not necessarily agree—
Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman criticised me for not having read the First Schedule, which I have, but which I interpret differently and, with all deference, I think that my interpretation is the correct one. If the hon. Gentleman

1673
will look at Part III of the First Schedule he will read that:
"A person must …on the qualifying date be residing in the area as the occupier of a dwellinghouse, or as the spouse of such an occupier …"
That excludes anyone other than the husband and wife in the house. A servant is excluded. That is but one example.
Mr. Kirk: That is going back to the position in this country before the Local Government Act, 1948, but my point is that in England, Scotland Wales we have a number of electoral lists that are combined, and the objection here appears to be to combining lists. That is the only objection. The great plea of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) was that no one would go to the lists to see if he had a local government vote, but the same applies in this country to a peer of the realm. He is not going to know in which constituency he will vote. He may have seven or eight estates and must search the electoral registers to discover where he is registered—in exactly the same way as someone coming under Part III of the Act must search the registers.
For that reason I suggest that a lot of the arguments about unemployment in Northern Ireland, much as we all regret it—although we can be certain that our Northern Ireland colleagues are doing all they can to rectify the position—are beside the point. We are only concerned with the question of whether Northern Ireland should follow the practice operating in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the only point before us, and since the practice works well here I hope that Northern Ireland, in its wisdom, will see fit to follow us.
1.15 a.m.
Mr. Hugh Delargy: I had not intended to speak in this debate. There has been much laughter and frivolity on the part of hon. Members opposite, and we have just heard the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) deliver a cheap, fifth form speech. He is normally so serious. This is, after all, a serious debate, for there is a minority in Northern Ireland who are being badly treated. The Regulations under discussion concern them, and because there is no one here elected from that province to speak on their behalf we must feel indebted to my hon. Friend the
1674
Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) for having spoken up for them. Should the time ever come when no one in this House will stand up and speak on behalf of any minority we might as well pack up and go home.
Meanwhile, all we have had from hon. Members opposite who are supposed to represent these people are sneers and laughter. I can see one hon. Member opposite laughing now. I do not know which constituency he represents. In fact, I do not think I have seen him before. I realise that there are not sufficient hon. Members here tonight successfully to vote on behalf of the people about who I am speaking. If we voted we would be defeated, just as these people in Northern Ireland will be defeated. The result of our defeat would be laughter and sneers from hon. Members opposite. Are they satisfied with that? Are they satisfied, as the hon. Member for Gravesend did, merely to quote this or that Section of an Act? That hon. Member should be ashamed of himself.
How many true Ulster Unionists are in the House at present? I can see three, possibly a fourth—and one of them came in five minutes ago. Another of them sneered when my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale spoke about certain persons in Northern Ireland having more than one vote. Will one of the Ulster Unionists now present stand up and deny that there are people in Northern Ireland who have more than one vote?
Moments ago there was a lot of laughter and frivolity. Now that I have asked that question there is none. I am waiting for one of them to deny that some people have more than one vote. I will willingly give way if one of them will volunteer. There is no volunteer. They do not care about minorities. Surely I am asking a legitimate question? I should like an answer.
Mr. Stratton Mills: About which elections is the hon. Member speaking? Is he referring to the Westminster or Stormont elections.
Mr. Delargy: For any election; for Westminster or for your rotten rump of a Parliament.
Hon. Members Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is an improper remark.
Mr. Delargy: I did not understand you correctly, Mr. Speaker. What was improper in the remarks I have used in Parliament, in Westminster?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member used offensive language of another Parliament, and I am sure that he would not wish seriously to continue on that line.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Delargy: I have not been asked by the Chair to withdraw. If Mr. Deputy-Speaker asks me to withdraw, I shall do so. I do not want to.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be better if the hon. Member did withdraw.
Mr. Delargy: Simply and solely in response to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will withdraw. But I repeat, can any Ulster Unionist or anybody else tell me whether or not it is a fact that persons have more than one vote in any election in Northern Ireland? If not here, why should it be so in Ireland? There is great silence from the benches opposite.
1.21 a.m.
Mr. B. T. Parkin: The hon. Member for Graves-end (Mr. Kirk) sought to make a great point out of recommending my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) to look elsewhere for a remedy for the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland than in these Regulations. That struck me as about on a par with one of the more fatuous interjections from the benches opposite when an hon. Member asked if the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) represented the policy of the Labour Party.
What is important to say at the moment is that this document containing these Regulations represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government, presumably, since it has at the end a very important signature—"R. A. Butler, One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State." Since 6th July he has carried out a consolidation measure of his own, and that is a matter which was not debated at the time, although
1676
perhaps it will be debated tomorrow. He is now the First Secretary of State, but he still retains the general oversight of this problem. The Home Secretary has the responsibility for dealing on our behalf with matters concerning the affairs of Northern Ireland. It is the Home Secretary, not anybody on the other side of the Irish Channel, who has presented us tonight with this document for which he requires the affirmative Resolution of this House. That is why I think it is our duty to stay here and deny that affirmative Resolution, if we can, on the ground so ably indicated by the hon. Member for Gravesend that this is a waste of time.
Whenever I see Northern Ireland mentioned on the Order Paper of the House of Commons I say to myself, "This is it. Now they will introduce the Measure. Now Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State has devised something to deal with these dreadful problems of unemployment and imbalance of industry in Northern Ireland. Now Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State has begun to give to the problems of Northern Ireland some of the intelligent research and careful preparation that are given to the economy of the Common Market. Perhaps we are going to have as lengthy a debate, as substantial a Measure and as important a change in economic policy."
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. It would be better if the hon. Member would confine his speech to what is in fact before us now.
Mr. Parkin: I was about to say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that when I look more carefully I am disappointed. I find that all we are asked to do on this subject is to approve a Motion to implement a Measure which by general consent contains not one item of reform even in the electoral system, let alone in the rest of the matters on which Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State ought to have been exercising his mind. It is rather a long time since this debate started. It is a matter of considerable regret to us all on these benches that the time which is available now under this heading could not have been devoted to something more practical and constructive, and if it were possible I should like to stay here to move

1677
that this Motion be read this day six months. That is the way to treat it. That is how we should treat a trivial piece of legislation introduced on Second Reading which we thought did not meet the situation and was unworthy of Her Majesty's Government. I regard these Regulations as unworthy. I am sorry that the time of the House has been wasted in discussing them. I wish that it were possible to postpone their adoption for six months to give the Government time to introduce a useful and constructive Measure concerned with Northern Ireland. It is for that reason that I have stayed here tonight to oppose these Regulations.
1.25 a.m.
Mr. Archie Manuel: I did not intend to enter the debate, but I feel that I must try to correct the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) who deliberately tried grossly to mislead the House. The hon. Gentleman said that he was familiar with the Act and with the Regulations relating to it, and, in answer to the point which I put to him, he claimed that the same electoral freedom for local government electors obtained in Northern Ireland as obtained in his constituency. The hon. Gentleman regaled the House with his knowledge of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland), 1962, but does he know what is provided in Section 29 (5) of it? That subsection gives the lead to what governs certain aspects of voting in local government elections in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) knows. I see the hon. Member for Gravesend looking it up now, although he is supposed to know all about it.
We should not tolerate in this country any such provision as is contained in Section 29 (5). I am speaking of local government elections only, and I am not dealing with Parliamentary elections at this point. The subsection provides:
"A person registered as a local elector in two or more local government electoral areas may vote at the election of the local authority for each such area notwithstanding that such elections are synchronised."
If a man has property in ten or twelve places, not just eight, he could, despite the synchronising of polling arrangements, vote in all ten or twelve elections. This is a property right of voting which we have discarded.
Mr. Currie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it relevant to discuss these matters relating to local government in Northern Ireland on the issue before the House?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, so far as it is relevant to the argument as to whether or not the two lists should continue to be combined.
Mr. Manuel: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was trying to keep in order and refer to the combination of the lists. I could have brought in the position of companies and so on, tout I was dealing just with the two lists. I accept what the hon. Member for Bedfast, North said about the registration of Parliamentary electors, and I am dealing only with the combination of the lists.
There is no hon. Member opposite, no matter where he comes from or what constituency he represents, who would justify such a state of affairs as is permitted by the subsection which I have read out. I am gravely disturbed that the hon. Member for Gravesend should have tried so grossly to mislead the House, saying that he had knowledge of the Act and asserting that the situation in his own constituency was the same as is provided therein.
Mr. Kirk: What I said was that the lists in my constituency have been combined as they are in Northern Ireland. That is so. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny it. It is true in his constituency, too.
Mr. Manuel: I do not want to be unkind about this, but I intervened during hon. Member's speech and asked whether he suggested that the provisions governing local elections in his constituency were the same as those in Northern Ireland. He replied to that question, and that is what he must answer for now.
Mr. Kirk: HANSARD will show.
Mr. Stratton Mills: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could help me on this question. In England, if one has property in one town and property in another town, can one vote in both?
Mr. Delargy: Of course not.
Mr. Manuel: The 1948 Act, passed by the Labour Government, altered all that. Advantage used to be taken of

1679
that position. A person now has to declare in which local government area he will record his vote. Surely, everybody knows this.
Mr. Delargy: The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) does not.
Mr. Manuel: Therefore, a person has only one vote.
1.30 a.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: I do not think that when the Minister moved the adoption of the Regulations he could have imagined that they would lead to such a prolonged and interesting debate, lasting over two hours. I cannot help feeling that if the debate has taken far longer than the Minister expected and has proved more controversial, to some extent he has only himself to blame.
The Minister was at fault when, in his opening remarks, he referred to the Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament as being a consolidating Measure. Quite obviously, it was much more than a consolidating Measure in the sense in which we understand that term here. It was an Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament which probably codified the law and made a number of amendments and changes in the existing law and, as we have heard, involved a great deal of controversy. Part of this debate has been due to the fact that the Minister rather suggested to the House that the Statutory Instrument that we are considering was merely the result of a consolidating Measure in Northern Ireland, which it is not.
The debate has at least shown to the Minister what depth of feeling there is in this House with regard to affairs in Northern Ireland which has enabled the House, when an opportunity arises within the rules of order, to give vent to its dissatisfaction with so many things that are occurring in Northern Ireland. It has also been significant that we have had such noisy interjections from those Members from Northern Ireland who sit on the benches opposite.
On the merits of the Regulations, the Minister will now probably realise that he has not made a very convincing case for them. Looking back, I hope he will realise that he has not said anything to
1680
convince the House that there is any merit in our agreeing that there should be a combined list with regard to the franchise both for the Northern Ireland Parliament and for this Parliament.
It appears that there are such wide discrepancies between our ideas of what a proper franchise and a proper democratic system should be and the ideas that prevail in Northern Ireland that there are considerable objections and inconveniences in having a combined list. On reflection, therefore, the Minister may well come to the conclusion that it would be much better, in the interests of ail concerned, that there should be a separate list for the electoral roll under which Members are elected to Parliament at Westminster under a system of franchise which we recognise and know and have evolved over the centuries into a basis of universal franchise as compared with what appears to us to be a totally different franchise system operating in Northern Ireland, where, it would appear, for various reasons some people have no votes and others may have six, seven or even eight votes. If this is the fact—and it has not been seriously disputed—I cannot for the life of me see what is the advantage in continuing to combine the registers.
I should have thought it, in those circumstances, a most inconvenient arrangement, and if there is objection to that in this House, not having what we would regard as the normal democratic register based on a sensible franchise, but mixed up with some other register, which may suit Northern Ireland—or the majority in Northern Ireland; it does not suit the minority who are not represented here, and so cannot speak for themselves—I would think that the Minister might well think, in view of the attacks made in this debate on the Electoral Law Act of Northern Ireland—which attacks are as nothing to the attacks made on the Act in the Parliament of Northern Ireland— that it is not very sensible to ask this House to allow a register on which Members are sent here to be mixed up with some other register which we do not understand and which, apparently, the Minister did not understand when he proposed this Motion to the House. He thought that it was based upon some consolidating Measure in Northern

1681
Ireland and was merely restating the existing law without any controversy or any objection.
Now we know the facts are so totally different, and as I understand there cannot be any urgency about the matter, I would suggest to the Minister that he may think it worth while to withdraw this Motion so that he and the Principal Secretary of State—as he was: he is even more so now, I understand—can consider what action should be taken.
1.37 a.m.
Mr. Woodhouse: With the leave of the House to reply briefly to the debate, I can assure the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that the course of the debate was by no means so different from what I had imagined. Although this is the first time I had appeared at this Dispatch Box on matters affecting Northern Ireland, I am not a complete novice in the affairs of Northern Ireland, and I have listened to the discussion with the same profound interest with which I listen to all discussions on all matters concerned with Ireland whether North or South. Having for the last seventeen years now had my second home on the Border—and at the risk of being accused of gerrymandering I will not say on which side of the Border—the affairs of Ireland have occupied my mind a good deal of time, and I did not come to this debate so entirely unprepared as hon. Members may have thought.
I do not think it true to suggest I misled the House in referring to the Act in question as a consolidating Measure. I did not, of course, mean that it was a purely scissors and paste document in Which every single word came directly out of a previous Act. It is a consolidating Measure with amendments, and that is how it is described in the Preamble to the Act. In this debate a vast and fascinating range of subjects has been dealt with—fascinating to me and, I hope, fascinating to other Members—but I do not think the House would seriously wish me by way of reply to re-enact the debates in Stormont at
1682
an earlier date, or to venture into a debate on what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) called the whole democratic structure of Northern Ireland. I think that that would certainly be ruled out of Order.
So far as this House is concerned, it is true, as I said at the beginning, that we are concerned with a narrow point. It has been widened in debate, but fundamentally it is a narrow issue, and that is whether or not we are to continue with the practice which was in use before the 1962 Act—in other words, since 1950—of combining these registers about which we have been debating. I feel bound to say that nothing I have heard in the debate, interesting though it was, has persuaded me that the defects of the registers, if any—
Mr. Manuel: If any?
Mr. Woodhouse: I leave that an open question—follow in any way from the practice of combining them, or that those defects would be removed by separating them. I would therefore ask the House to approve the Regulations.
Mr. Fernyhough: Would the hon. Gentleman just comment on Regulation 24?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will require the leave of the House to speak again.
Mr. Fernyhough: I should like the hon. Gentleman to comment on Regulation 24, which deals with illegal practices.
Question put:—
The House proceeded to a Division:— Mr. CHICHESTER-CLARK and Mr. MCLAREN were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
Resolved,
That the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1962, dated 6th July 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.

GAS AND ELECTRICITY BOARDS (RATING AND VALUATION)
1.48 a.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I beg to move,
That the Gas Boards (Rateable Values) Order, 1962, dated 20th July 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd July, be approved.
I should perhaps explain that an Order relating to Gas Boards was made on 9th July, but, unfortunately, a printing error was discovered and it had to be withdrawn. Hence the new Order laid on 20th July. I regret that the error was overlooked and hope that this late substitution of a new Order has not caused hon. Members any inconvenience. I sincerely apologise, particularly to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), if that has been the case.
This Order and the following Order are made necessary by the general revaluation for rating purposes which takes effect next April. The basis of rating of the electricity and gas undertakings is somewhat involved, and I do not imagine that the House would wish me to go into great detail at this time of night. But the starting point is the basic totals of rateable values which were based on the total rateable values before nationalisation. There is a statutory formula by which the rateable values are adjusted annually on the basis of production and consumption. However, this only takes account of the sort of increase in rateable values which is equivalent to the increase which occurs in a factory when it is extended. It does not make any provision for the increase of rents taken into account by the quinquennial or other periodical reviews of the rating assessments of the country as a whole.
For other types of property, of course, these changes in rental levels are reflected in the new values determined by these reviews. Without an increase in their basic totals, the level of the rateable values for electricity and gas would progressively fall behind the rateable value of other property and would bear a steadily decreasing share of the rate burden throughout the country. These Orders have the effect in both cases of increasing the valuation by about 87·6
1684
per cent. This figure is taken because this is the expected rate of increase in the net annual values for the most comparable property, that is, the commercial class—shops, offices and the like.
The reason why houses have been excluded from the factor is that they are being raised from 1939 values to current values whereas gas and electricity were brought up to 1956 levels in 1957. Industry and freight-transport have been excluded because it is thought that the fact that they are to lose their 50 per cent. derating may result in a lot of appeals on the ground that this will reduce rental value. It is felt in the case of gas and electricity that it would be wise to tie them to something more certain than to industry, which may have a large number of appeals. If these resulted in reductions of rateable value it would be necessary to provide in the Orders, out of fairness to the industries, for a review of the rate of increase for electricity and gas.
I would add that consultations have taken place with the associations of local authorities, with the London County Council and with the Gas Council and the Electricity Council. I think it fair to claim that a broad measure of agreement has been reached. Perhaps not unnaturally the associations of local authorities have taken the view that the basic totals should be higher and the Gas and Electricity Councils have taken the view that they should be lower. But, broadly speaking, this is a compromise and I think that both sides are now reasonably reconciled to the Government's conclusion as to the basis on which the present adjustments are made.
Therefore, I commend the Orders to the House. The adjustment is calculated from the same range of property as is the adjustment in 1963 of water rateable values for which the House made specific statutory provision last year in the Rating and Valuation Act, 1961. I invite the House to approve the two Orders.
1.50 a.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: I am sure the House will be glad to accept the Government's apologies for the misprint in the first version of the Order concerning the gas industry, and I think that we may safely assume that few, if

1685
any, hon. Members were seriously inconvenienced by it. I think that we must also say that the result achieved in these Orders, the figure arrived at, is presumably a just figure.
It is an extremely complicated matter. To get this result, no doubt people have laboured very diligently and probably got very little thanks for it. One may well ask, "Is there much in this except transferring money from one public pocket to another?" If we charge the gas and electricity undertakings more rates than they really ought to be charged, that may result in the consumers of gas, and electricity having to pay more for gas and electricity than they would otherwise pay. On the other hand, the consumers pay less rates. The reason that it maters, of course, is that gas and electricity undertakings vary greatly from one local authority to another and if we did not get this matter right we might inflict a measurable injustice on certain local authorities.
I expect that hon. Members will have noted that they have not received in their post abundant representations either from the local authorities or from the gas or electricity undertakings either for or against these Orders. I think we may conclude from that silence that the compromise has produced at least an equality of dissatisfaction between the bodies concerned. So I do not think we need spend any great period of time in arguing about the actual amounts involved. We may conclude that the Orders embody a reasonable judgment as to what is fair.
But there is one question I want to raise. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the actual amounts of the basic rateable value of the gas and electricity undertakings are being increased by 87·6 per cent., and that that is based on a calculation of what will happen to like properties as a result of revaluation. A calculation of that kind has a great many unknowns in it. How one can be so sure that that it is going to be 87·6 per cent. and not the crude approximate of seven-eights, I do not know. I do not see how one can possibly foretell that with a degree of certaintly. However, that is the figure which has been arrived at.
We were given in the White Paper on Revaluation for Rates a calculation
1686
about what would happen to various classes of ratepayers, and we were told that domestic ratepayers would find that their properties would be revalued at a figure four times their present value. Thus, if one had a house property which before revaluation was rated at £100, after revaluation it would be rated at £400.
We were further told that, despite that, the amount that the domestic ratepayer would actually have to pay to the local authority would be substantially the same. His assessment would be quadrupled, but the actual amount he would have to pay would remain the same. I think it follows, if this is so, that the total value of all rateable property surely must also be quadrupled. The domestic ratepayer's property is quadrupled in value, but his share of the total to be paid remains the same. That must mean, therefore, that all rateable property of all kinds, taken as a lump, will have their values quadrupled.
Rateable properties fall for this purpose into three groups: domestic, industrial, and the rest. Domestic is being quadrupled while the rest, of which these gas and electricity undertakings are part, is being almost doubled, at one-and-seven-eighths. It would seem to follow that the share of industry must go up considerably. It is a little difficult to reconcile this figure of 87·6 per cent. as an index for commercial, etc., properties with the figures earlier given in the White Paper. Therefore, it might be wise if, when we know a little more exactly what is going to happen, the Government publish a statement telling us what has happened, both in percentages and in figures, to domestic properties, industrial properties, and commercial properties. On the evidence which we have at the moment, it looks as if the share of the total rate burden which will fall on industry will be markedly increased. The domestic ratepayer is not to pay a larger share as a whole, and the kind of properties with which we are now concerned will pay a substantially lesser share. The increase in the industrial share would appear to be larger than anyone had previously predicted. I hope therefore that at a convenient time the Government will be able

1687
to give further and more precise information about how the rate burden is to be shared by the different classes of ratepayer.
1.56 a.m.
Mr. Corfield: With the permission of the House, I will reply to the hon. Gentleman who is, I think, a little out with his arithmetic, although I should hate to become involved in an argument with him at this time of night. We are up against the problem that the four times factor came from the comparison in the White Paper of the gross value of houses in the 1934 lists and not their 1939 values. This complicates the issue in one sense. The industrial figure is complicated by industrial rerating so that there is not an exact parallel. The commercial figures are complicated by the loss of the 20 per cent. derating. I am advised that the expected increase in house assessments is 166 per cent., which is not quite as far from the figure we are discussing with regard to the Gas Board. I will see what can be done about a statement of what actually happens rather than a forecast. No doubt the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the table in the White Paper which forecasts that industry's share of rates will be up by about 43 per cent.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Gas Boards (Rateable Values) Order, 1962, dated 20th July, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd July, be approved.
Electricity Boards (Rateable Values) Order, 1962, dated 9th July, 1962 [copy laid before the House 12th July], approved.—[Mr. Corfield.]

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (SOUTH AFRICA)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South Africa) Order, 1962, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 27th June.—[Mr. Barber.]
1.58 a.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) who, as the House knows, takes a great interest in these matters, has asked me to say that, unfortunately and unexpectedly, he has had to leave the Chamber before this Motion came up for discussion.
As I understand it, this Agreement flows from the fact that South Africa has withdrawn from the Commonwealth and broadly follows the pattern of double taxation relief Agreements made in respect of other countries. There is only one point which my right hon. and learned Friend asked me to raise. It relates to Article 20 the terms of which would seem to call for some explanation. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to explain the precise intention of the Article.
1.59 a.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): As the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has explained, this Agreement arises from the fact that South Africa has left the Commonwealth. In many respects it is similar to other Agreements which we have previously negotiated. Article XX, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is one of the most important articles in the Agreement. Perhaps I may take it, as it were, line by line, and explain exactly how it works. Paragraph (1) is concerned with the provision of relief for a resident in the United Kingdom in respect of South African tax which is paid on South African shares. Paragraph (2) deals with the converse case where United Kingdom Income Tax is suffered by a resident of South Africa in respect of income derived from United Kingdom sources and provides for relief from South African tax, which is given by way of credit.

1689
Paragraph (1) begins in this way:
"Subject to the provisions of the law of the United Kingdom regarding the allowance as a credit against United Kingdom tax of tax payable in a territory outside the United Kingdom".
This proviso refers simply to the Sixteenth Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1952, which sets out the way any credit which is due is to be calculated.
Paragraph (1) continues:
"South African tax payable, whether directly or by deduction"—
I think that we all understand the two ways in which the tax is levied—
"in respect of income from sources within South Africa shall be allowed as a credit against any United Kingdom tax payable in respect of that income."
This means that credit will be given in the United Kingdom in respect of South African tax which is paid in connection with the dividend; in other words, South African tax which is levied either by deduction or which is assessed directly and which is directly concerned with the dividend itself, as opposed to what is known as underlying tax, which is tax payable in respect of the profits of a company which is not directly related to the payment of a dividend.
The relief for underlying tax is provided for in the second part of paragraph (1), which reads:
"Where such income is an ordinary dividend paid by a company which is a resident of South Africa, the credit shall take into account (in addition to any South African tax appropriate to the dividend) the South African tax payable by the company in respect of its profits".
In other words, if the South African company has paid tax in respect of its profits and later pays a dividend to a United Kingdom shareholder, the United Kingdom shareholder will get relief, not only in respect of the tax paid directly because he has received a dividend, but he will also receive relief in respect of the tax paid by the company, paid perhaps regardless of the fact that a dividend is being paid.
Then there is provision to deal with participating preference shares and,
1690
broadly speaking, that provision is simply to the effect that, where there is a participating preference share and, in addition to that fixed rate of interest, a share of profits is paid, any additional interest in respect of the share of profits is to be treated in the same way as a dividend paid on an ordinary share.
In paragraph (2), which deals with the converse case where United Kingdom tax is payable in respect of a dividend, provision is made for relief from South African tax. I should mention in passing that, as I understand it, at present South Africa does not levy tax on a dividend accruing to a resident in South Africa from a source outside South Africa. Consequently, at present this paragraph will not be of any great value, but it could be of value in the future because, if South Africa were to change her law and levy tax in respect of income accruing from a source outside South Africa, relief would be given, and would have to be given, by virtue of this paragraph.
The only other point that perhaps I should mention is the proviso at the end of the paragraph, which refers to what is known as "third country" tax; in other words, to the case where the United Kingdom company has already had relief from United Kingdom tax in respect of tax paid in a third country. The proviso simply says that if South Africa has to give relief from tax in respect of the tax paid on a United Kingdom dividend, that South African relief is to be limited by reference to the net United Kingdom rate borne by the company. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable way of proceeding. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman does not wish me to refer to the third paragraph which, although it all comes under Article 20, really refers to another matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South Africa) Order, 1962, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 27th June.

MILK (PRICE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Batsford.]
2.6 a.m.
Mr. John Brewis: I suppose that in my constituency I represent as many milk producers as does any other hon. Member. Galloway produces about one-fifth of all the milk produced in the Scottish Milk Marketing Board area, but the number of those interested in the price of milk is far greater, as sales of milk represent a quarter of the income of the British agricultural community.
In 1939, before the war, the price of milk in (the United Kingdom was 3⅜d. a pint. If everything has since gone up in general by three times, the price should now be at least 10d. a pint, compared with the present actual price of 8½d. Let me at once say that there may be valid social reasons why the price should be kept down for the needy— milk is a valuable food—but Britain is an affluent society and not living in a sort of soup kitchen economy. Before the war, it took the average worker 11¾ minutes of work to pay for a pint of milk; today it takes him only 6¼ minutes.
From the producers' point of view, controlling the price of milk at an artificially low price is unfair. There are two main reasons quoted against raising the price of milk. The first is that consumption would fall. There is, however, no evidence that this is correct. The Report of the National Food Survey Committee in 1958 stated:
"During the five years 1954–58 domestic consumption of liquid milk was remarkably stable. Increases of ½d. per pint in the maximum retail price in July, 1956, and January, 1957, had little effect on consumption. Indeed. when the retail price of milk was at its highest during the early months of 1957, purchases were also high."
The second reason is that dairy farmers would increase their milking herd. Again, there is no evidence of this. The increased flow of milk is due, in the main, to increased efficiency. Milk yields went up from 689 gallons per cow in 1955 to 762 gallons in 1961—of course, the yields in Galloway are far higher than this—while the number of
1692
cows decreased from 303,990 to 300,859. The increase last year was mainly due to poor grading prices for old cows and the dairy farmers' fear of the Government introducing a quota system which would require, in the farmers' own interests, a big output of milk in 1961. I can hazard a guess that milk production in the first half of 1962 is well below the Government forecast at the time of the Price Review.
There is also a debating point; that the price of milk in the Common Market is likely to be lower than the present price in Britain. Does the Under-Secretary agree that milk in Britain is produced under different conditions to the Continent of Europe? We produce high grade milk all the year round for liquid consumption, while most of the Six produce seasonal milk for cheese and butter making. There is no importation of liquid milk, and it seems probable that the domestic price of liquid milk will be unaffected whether or not we enter the Common Market. If there were importation of liquid or frozen milk, Denmark would be our competitor and the Danes, who are our partners in E.F.T.A., could at present send us milk at any time they liked if that were technically possible.
I return to the effect of the low price of milk on dairy farmers. If we take 1955 as the base year, agricultural wages have gone up from 100 to 138, rent to 137—and both are still rising—the cost of living to 122, while the producers' price of milk has gone down to 91. If, so to speak, we stop the moving staircase of inflation and call the cost of living 100, the price of milk is, in comparison, 74 in real terms today or, in other words, the dairy farmer has had a drop in his returns of over a quarter.
The requirement of the Agriculture Act, 1957, that no review commodity price will sink more than 9 per cent. in three years has been met technically, but can the Under-Secretary justify this quotation from the 1960 White Paper on Agriculture:
"The Government and the Unions agree that as the industry strengthens its competitive power and so advances towards its declared objective of reducing Exchequer support to the minimum, it is right and proper that it should have the incentive and reward of an increase in its living standards."

1693
Let me put it on record that as from September the dairy industry has so increased its competitive power that no Exchequer subsidy will be required. In the countries of the Six there is an Exchequer subsidy varying from 3d. to 7d. a gallon.
In a recent debate I gave some figures foam the National Farmers' Union accounts scheme of a cross-section of 478 dairy farms of between 50 and 150 acres. The profit for a 100 acre family farm, after deducting interest on capital, was about only £8 a week for a 7-day a week all the year round job. If the Undersecretary is going to remove the £7 an acre ploughing grant the profit will be reduced by £100 a year to an utterly absurd figure. How does the Undersecretary square this treatment with this quotation from the 1960 White Paper:
"The Government and the Unions agree that the essential point is to ensure a reasonable return for the labour of the farmer and his wife and for his management and interest on the capital he has invested."
Let me leave the Under-Secretary in no doubt that the dairy farmers in my constituency are extremely dissatisfied with the Government's policy. We expect him, to do something to improve the position of the dairy farmer, particularly the small one. If he does not I predict that there will be one result; farmers will give up the laborious job of milking cows and the Government will have to consider ways of restricting barley production because both the guaranteed price and the Common Market target price for barley are a far better proposition for these farmers.
It would be a great pity if our milk production was restricted. Milk is one of the key commodities for feeding the world's hungry millions. Some must have rice rather than corn, others will not eat beef—but milk is in universal demand and can be produced commercially only in the temperate zones of the world. I was glad to see exports of dried milk up in 1961, by over 25 per cent. in the last five years, but the total of just over £2 million is disappointing. Is enough being done to encourage exports and the distribution of milk products? I am told that our efforts do not compare favourably with those of 1ihe Danes.
2.15 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Lebura): My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) has argued persuasively tonight the case for improving the lot of the dairy farmer. I think we would all agree with him that milk production plays a most important part in our agricultural economy and one which particularly affects (the man on the small farm and the medium sized farm.
These are facts which the Government have always kept in mind in dealing with the question of milk production and my hon. Emend has put forward the case tonight very clearly. But I would suggest to town that the solution that he proposes for this difficult problem is not really the right one and that if adapted it would only make matters worse.
My hon. Friend was good enough to forewarn me that he intended to take this opportunity of developing the arguments which he was able to touch on only briefly in his speech during the Scottish Estimates debate. I have listened carefully to the arguments which he has put forward tonight and I shall answer as best I can the points which he has raised.
First, I should like to say a word or two on the profitability of dairy forms. It is, of course, rather difficult to deal with the current level of profitability since adequate data on net income is normally available only for the preceding year. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that in considering the question of profitability the Government can only readily look at the results of the industry as a whole.
Net income from dairy farms in general appears to have been fairly well maintained in 1960–61 and indeed has been relatively stable over the last few years. This is true both for the United Kingdom and also for Scotland where, as my hon. Friend knows, the average size of the herd tends to be somewhat larger. That is the broad picture.
I would, however, take the point made by my hon. Friend that what concerns him is that in real terms the return to dairy farmers, and particularly the small producer, has not kept stop with other values. But it seems to me that the root cause of this lies in the very nature of

1695
the problem that we are here discussing this evening.
What is the basic problem facing the dairy farmer? In the words of the 1962 White Paper, it is that
"output of milk continues to increase both because of the increasing size of the dairy herd and the upward trend of milk yields."
This fact, as the White Paper points out, is leading to
"a continued reduction in the pool price per gallon actually received by farmers so long as milk producers taken as a whole continue to increase production above the standard quantity."
The fact is that about two-thirds of the milk produced in this country goes for liquid consumption and one-third into the manufacturing market. In the Government's view, therefore, the scope for expansion of milk production, as with some other commodities, must be directly related to the ability of producers to expand the size of these markets and to do so profitably. This is what the Government have tried to impress on producers for a number of years past. At present, milk production is increasing at the remarkable rate of about 100 million gallons a year.
In normal circumstances, this would, no doubt, be a matter for considerable satisfaction; but we cannot really take credit for a situation where only about one-fifth of this additional gallonage is being absorbed by the liquid market, and this only after much energetic salesmanship by the Boards. The remaining four-fifths must, of course, be diverted to the lower-priced manufacturing market.
We have to face the fact that, in the four years up to 1962–63 alone, the increase in the amount of milk going for manufacturing as opposed to liquid consumption will have been about 300 million gallons. This presents increasing difficulties for the manufacturing industry in finding the capacity for processing the surplus and, perhaps more important, it tends to aggravate the problems arising in the markets for milk products.
Much more significant from the producer's point of view is the effect of this surplus production on the pool price paid to individual producers by the Boards. Milk which has to be sent for manufacture normally realises an average price to the Boards of about 1s. 5d.
1696
to 1s. 6d. per gallon. There are not many producers who can produce milk for this sort of market and at the same time hope to show a profit. This harsh fact tends to be concealed from the producer who manages to maintain or increase the amount of his monthly milk cheque by increasing production so as to offset the reduction in the pool price, but it is all too apparent in the economy of the industry as a whole. I doubt that it is fully realised that, while there has been a small net increase of 0·15d. per gallon in the guaranteed price since 1958–59, the pool price paid to the producers has fallen by about 3½d. a gallon over the same period. I think that this demonstrates quite clearly that the factors affecting the producer's return are largely outside the Government's field of action.
I can readily sympathise with the producer who sees no future in this sort of policy of ever-expanding production without regard to the overall consequences for the industry. I can well understand his reaction to this situation. He must feel, quite naturally, that the extra gallonage is being produced largely at his expense; and, if I read my farming Press aright, there are many producers who think that the time has come to call a halt.
It is often argued, of course, that a reduction in the producer's return, whether as a result of a lower guaranteed price or some other cause, tends to induce farmers to step up production either by adding more cows to the herd or by giving extra feeding in order to increase the yield of milk and so maintain the same level of gross income. That may to some extent be true. Nevertheless, in my opinion, it would be a highly fallacious deduction to suggest that this trend would be reversed by giving the producer a higher price. My own view is that there cannot be the slightest doubt that an increase in the guaranteed price would lead very quickly to a further upsurge of production. The result of this could well be that any benefit which the producer would supposedly get from the higher guaranteed price would be nullified. Certainly, the economy and well being of the industry as a whole would derive no benefit from such a policy.
There are, however, other considerations to be taken into account apart

1697
from the effect that an increase in the guaranteed price would have on production. My hon. Friend suggests that the improvement in the producer's position would be brought about by increasing the price of milk to the consumer. Perhaps I should explain very briefly the basis on which the retail price of milk is determined. Until this year, the consumer was expected to bear the cost of the milk supplied to the liquid market, at the guaranteed price plus the cost of distribution, and also the loss entailed in manufacturing a reserve of milk, equal to about 20 per cent. of Liquid consumption, that has to be maintained to ensure that the liquid market is kept adequately supplied throughout the year.
Mr. Brewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that the remuneration of a milk distributor has gone up by something like 50 per cent. in the last six years?
Mr. Leburn: That may well be, but the distributor is not responsible for the increase in production of milk.
The House will recall, however, that earlier this year my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when announcing the Government's determinations after the 1962 Price Review, also announced that in future the retail price could be so fixed as to cover the full cost of the guarantee to the producer. The effect, taking one year with another, would be that no charge for this would fall on the Exchequer.
These new arrangements mean, therefore, that from this year the consumer is being asked to pay rather more for a pint of milk than previously in order that the guarantee to the producer should be met in whole from the retail price. In paying this 'higher price, the consumer is already having to bear what some people might regard as an undue share of the manufacturing element. It would surely, therefore, be most unfair to go beyond that and expect the consumer not merely to meet the guarantee, but to pay a still higher price for milk in order to cushion the producer against the consequences of producing yet more milk than the market can absorb at anything like the present level of production costs.
In that connection, might I make clear, in view of what my hon. Friend has said,
1698
that the absence of any Exchequer subsidy on milk from this year is solely due to this adjustment of the method of fixing the retail price and not to any other factor. As I have indicated, I do not think that an increase in the guaranteed price would stabilise or reverse the present continuing trend towards greater milk production. To maintain the milk producers' returns over a period, the process would have to be repeated and would, as I see it, be self-defeating. In view of what I have said, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's view that the price of milk As being controlled at an artificially low level, nor do I think that consumption would remain stable if the prices were to go on increasing in this way. The boards are doing an excellent job, with the full encouragement of the Government, in seeking to increase liquid sales. It would be unfortunate if these efforts were to be nullified by increasing consumer resistance that would be likely to follow from the adoption of the policy which my hon. Friend has in mind.
The Government recognise that this is a complex and difficult problem. I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been said from time to time about the difficulties of running a dairy farm. Few farmers in other sectors of the agricultural community have to put in the same long hours and be so tied to their holdings as has the small dairy farmer. In these days when most people value their spare time, this becomes an increasingly heavy burden. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to these difficulties. I have tried to show that their solution must be found from within the industry itself.
Last year, the Government suggested to the representatives of the industry that thought should be given to devising a modification of the pool price arrangements, which undoubtedly tend to obscure from producers the consequences of over-production. Although their examination of these difficulties did not, unfortunately, throw up any satisfactory or workable alternative arrangement, the unions and the boards have agreed with the Government that the general problems require continuing attention. I hope that continuing attention will be given.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Two o'clock, a.m.

ROYAL NAVY
  Royal Research Ship "Discovery"
  Royal Research Ship "Discovery"
  Worcester-Kidderminster Road (Traffic Congestion)
  Worcester-Kidderminster Road (Traffic Congestion)
  Lung Cancer
  Lung Cancer
BRITISH ARMY
  Infantry Regiments (Report)
  Infantry Regiments (Report)
  B.A.O.R. (Maltese Newspapers)
  B.A.O.R. (Maltese Newspapers)
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Swynnerton
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Swynnerton
  Soldiers (Military Escort)
  Soldiers (Military Escort)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  National Service
  National Service
  Lung Cancer
  Lung Cancer
SCOTLAND
  Highlands and Islands Film Guild
  Highlands and Islands Film Guild
  Nine wells Hospital
  Nine wells Hospital
  Aberdeen-London Sea Service
  Aberdeen-London Sea Service
  Glasgow Sheriff Courts (Motoring Cases)
  Glasgow Sheriff Courts (Motoring Cases)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Water Supplies (Fluoridation)
  Water Supplies (Fluoridation)
  A.74 Tourist Signs (Crawford)
  A.74 Tourist Signs (Crawford)
  Industrial Re-rating
  Industrial Re-rating
  Tourists
  Tourists
  Football Matches (Disturbances)
  Football Matches (Disturbances)
  National Museum of Antiquities
  National Museum of Antiquities
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Pay and Marriage Allowances
  Pay and Marriage Allowances
  Lung Cancer
  Lung Cancer
ROADS
  Road Safety (Cyclists and Pedestrians)
  Road Safety (Cyclists and Pedestrians)
  Barking
  Barking
  Parking Meters
  Parking Meters
  Liverpool-Manchester Motorway
  Liverpool-Manchester Motorway
  Footbridges and Subways
  Footbridges and Subways
  Bewdley Bypass
  Bewdley Bypass
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Great West Road
  Great West Road
  Woodford Avenue, Ilford
  Woodford Avenue, Ilford
  King's Lynn
  King's Lynn
  Junction, Wembley (Accidents)
  Junction, Wembley (Accidents)
  London Traffic Survey
  London Traffic Survey
  Lancashire-Yorkshire Motorway (Hull)
  Lancashire-Yorkshire Motorway (Hull)
  Wantz Corner, Dagenham
  Wantz Corner, Dagenham
TRANSPORT
  Diesel Vehicles (Smoke)
  Diesel Vehicles (Smoke)
  Safety Belts
  Safety Belts
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Small Boats
  Small Boats
  24-hour Clock
  24-hour Clock
  UNITED NATIONS (WORLD COMMODITY PRICES)
  UNITED NATIONS (WORLD COMMODITY PRICES)
  KATANGA (UNITED NATIONS FORCES)
  KATANGA (UNITED NATIONS FORCES)
  FISHING VESSEL "RED CRUSADER" (REPORT)
  FISHING VESSEL "RED CRUSADER" (REPORT)
NYASALAND
  Financial Assistance
  Financial Assistance
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Warble Fly
  Warble Fly
  Foot-and-Month Disease
  Foot-and-Month Disease
  New Drugs
  New Drugs
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Pay Claims
  Pay Claims
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Ballistic Missiles
  Ballistic Missiles
HOUSING
  Almshouses
  Almshouses
MINISTRY OF POWER
  South-Eastern Consultative Council (Chairman)
  South-Eastern Consultative Council (Chairman)
  National Electricity Consumers Council
  National Electricity Consumers Council
  Electricity Board Officers
  Electricity Board Officers
EMPLOYMENT
  Dental Technicians
  Dental Technicians
  Skilled Workers
  Skilled Workers
  Bexhill, Hailsham and Rye
  Bexhill, Hailsham and Rye
SCIENCE
  Uranium
  Uranium
  Monazite and Thorite
  Monazite and Thorite
  Atomic Energy Contracts (Fissile Materials)
  Atomic Energy Contracts (Fissile Materials)
  4 GeV Electron Synchrotron (Laboratory)
  4 GeV Electron Synchrotron (Laboratory)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  G.A.T.T. (British Customs Tariff)
  G.A.T.T. (British Customs Tariff)
  Powdered Milk, Cheese and Batter
  Powdered Milk, Cheese and Batter

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

THE EARL OF KILMUIR
The Right Honourable David Patrick Maxwell Viscount Kilmuir, G.C.V.O., Honorary Major in the Army, and lately Chancellor of Great Britain, having been created Baron Fyfe of Dornoch, of Dornoch in the County of Sutherland, and Earl of Kilmuir—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
VISCOUNT RADCLIFFE
The Right Honourable Cyril John Baron Radcliffe, C.B.E., a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, having been created Viscount Radcliffe, of Hampton Lucy in the County of Warwick—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

VEHICLE TESTING SCHEME AND ROAD ACCIDENTS
2.26 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any notable reduction of accidents has been noted since the inspection of cars over ten years old has been in force; whether it is intended to reduce the inspection period, and, if so, why and when.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, as recorded in the annual report on road accidents, there were nearly 1,500 fewer accidents in 1961 than in the preceding year. In the first five months of this year there was a reduction of between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. compared with the corresponding period in 1961.
1006
I think this can be regarded as a notable reduction, because for the first time the annual increase in the road accident rate was halted despite the fact that motor traffic, measured in terms of vehicle mileage, is estimated to have increased by 8 per cent. between 1960 and 1961. To what extent the vehicle testing scheme contributed to this it is, of course, not possible to estimate. That it played a part there can be no doubt. As to the last part of the Question, there are no present plans for reducing the inspection period. We are satisfied that as a general policy extension of the testing scheme to include vehicles in lower age groups will better serve the interests of road safety.
EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Lord.

HOMICIDE ACT AND MURDER STATISTICS
2.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can estimate the approximate number of murders that have been committed since the Homicide Act, 1957, was passed; and whether they can give a similar estimate for the number of murders that occurred in the corresponding period before the passing of that Act.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, from March 21, 1957, when the Homicide Act came into force, until the end of 1961, 661 murders became known to the police in England and Wales. The figure far the corresponding period before the Act was 671. The figures exclude cases originally recorded as murder but later found not to be murder. The figures for the two periods are not strictly comparable because the Act changed the definition of murder. The principal change was the introduction of the special defence of diminished responsibility. One hundred and twenty-eight offences originally recorded as murder during the period from March 21, 1957, to the end of 1961 have been reduced to manslaughter on that ground.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, do not those figures show that 180 people have been murdered who would not have been murdered if the Act had not been passed?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am afraid I did not quite catch the noble Earl's supplementary; I apologise.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, do not these figures show that about 180 people have been murdered since the Act was passed who would not have been murdered if that Act had not been passed?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think that that is the case.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, is the noble Earl able to give figures which distinguish between capital and non-capital murder after the passing of the Act?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, of the 661 murders to which I referred, 111 have been recorded as capital and 550 as non-capital murders.

LABORATORY FOR 4 GeV ELECTRON SYNCHROTRON
2.31 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as folows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a decision has yet been reached on the provision of a new laboratory to house a 4GeV electron synchrotron, as recommended by the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am happy to tell my noble friend that approval has now been given for this project. The capital cost is expected to be about £3½ million. The new laboratory will be set up in the North of England and will be particularly associated with the Universities of Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow. A number of sites in the Liverpool-Manchester area are being investigated.
1008
The first Director of the laboratory will be Professor A. W. Merrison, and he is to be seconded from Liverpool University for a period of five years to take up the post.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I welcome most warmly the statement of the noble Viscount, and say how much satisfaction it will give to all those who are interested in maintaining the supremacy—or pre-eminence, at any rate—of this country in this particular branch of science?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee's Report was as follows:

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO STANDING ORDER 44 (COMMONS BILLS)
The Committee have considered Standing Order No. 44 which is as follows:—
"When a Bill brought from the House of Commons shall have remained on the Table of this House for twelve sitting days without any Lord giving notice of the Second Reading thereof, such Bill shall not any longer appear among the Bills in Progress, and shall not be further proceeded with in the same session, except after eight days' notice given by a Lord of the Second Reading thereof."
and recommend that a Bill which is subject to this Standing Order should not be removed from the Bills in Progress as it may cause confusion when a Bill which has been removed reappears in the Minutes of Proceedings. The Committee propose, therefore, that the Standing Order should be amended by leaving out the words "shall not any longer appear among the Bills in Progress and". If this amendment were made the Bill would appear in the Bills in Progress as "waiting for Second Reading subject to Standing Order 44".
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to. I do not think there are any particular points in it to which I need draw your Lordships' attention, but, as usual, I will try to answer any questions that may be raised.
Moved, that the Report be now agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1.—LIBRARY
A report from the Sub-Committee on the Library was laid before the Committee and agreed to.
2.—PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee authorised the regrading of one post of Chief Clerk to Principal Clerk of Private Bills and Committees. The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the following appointments:—

(a) Mr. Euan Douglas Graham, Chief Clerk in the Office of the Chairman of Committees, to be Principal Clerk of Private Bills and Committees as from 1st November, 1961.

(b) Mr. Peter Gordon Henderson, to be Chief Clerk in the place of Mr. P. Stuart-Heaton from 1st November, 1961. Mr. Henderson will continue to act as Secretary to Leader of the House and Chief Whip for the present.

(c) Mr. David Dewar as a Clerk in the Parliament Office to fill the consequential vacancy from 5th March, 1962.

3.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee authorised revised scales of salary for the Assistant Librarian and the Accountant as from 1st May, 1962.
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishments Circulars:—
E.C. 8/62 Supervising of Cleaners' Allowance;
E.C. 17/62 Central pay increase;
E.C. 18/62 Principals, etc., Revised scales to pay;
to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
4.—SERJEANT-AT-ARMS
The Committee were informed of the appointment by H.M. the Queen of Captain Kenneth Lachlan Mackintosh as Serjeant-at-Arms on the resignation of Air Vice-Marshal Sir Paul Copeland Maltby and authorised the payment of additional remuneration to Captain Mackintosh, and also to the Principal Doorkeeper for delegated work, from the 17th March, 1962.
5.—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE 1961–62
The Committee approved a Supplementary Estimate for the year 1961–62 submitted to meet expected excess due mainly to the further provision required for travelling and other expenses of Peers, revised rates of pay, six new posts and retired allowances, partly offset by staff vacancies and changes, and an increase in Appropriations-in-Aid.
6.—DOORKEEPERS
The Committee sanctioned additional provision for dress clothes for two doorkeepers on Judicial duties.
7.—GARTER'S ROLL OF THE PEERS
The Committee recommend that the Garter's Roll of the Lords Temporal be required to be laid on the Table at the beginning of each Parliament, instead of at the beginning of each session as at present.
8.—ELECTRICAL RECORDING
The Clerk of the Parliaments reported on experiments in assisting the official reporters by the electrical recording of debates in the House. The Committee authorised the payment of the cost of the installation and hire of the apparatus during the experimental stages.
9.—WAR MEMORIAL FUND AND WINDOWS OF THE HOUSE FUND
The Committees recommend that the balance of these Funds should be placed at the disposal of the Lord Great Chamberlain for the improvement of the amenities of the House.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to. Again, I do not think that there are any special points to which I need draw attention, but I shall be ready to answer any questions, if I am able to do so.
Moved, that the Report be agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION
2.33 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON rose LORD HENDERSON rose to call attention to the international situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Foreign Secretary has just returned from Geneva. While he was there, he signed, together with the other members of the Conference on Laos, the agreement which, we hope, will bring peace, security and neutrality to that country, which has for so long been ravaged both by civil war and by the pressures of the cold war. I think the whole House would want to congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the part which he has personally played in bringing this agreement to a successful conclusion and at the same time to express appreciation to Mr. Malcolm Macdonald, who has been our chief negotiator. We are all thankful that, in spite of the division of the world and the acuteness of the controversy, both sides in this cold war struggle have seen reason and have been prepared to negotiate rather than prolong the fighting.
No doubt we all wish, too, that the same could be said for the situation in Vietnam. The situation in this divided country is as dangerous as it has been at any time since the Geneva agreements were signed in July, 1954. In the case of Vietnam, the agreement would appear to be almost null and void. The final declaration made clear that the 17th Parallel
"should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary".
The hostility on this frontier is as acute as almost any inter-State boundary in the world. Neither can the blame for the situation be put at the door only of one side. There is no doubt whatsoever, as the Indian and Canadian representatives on the International Control Commission have made clear, that the insurrection in South Vietnam has been inspired and encouraged from the North. Yet it is equally clear—and it is the unanimous view of the International Control Commission—that the Government of South Vietnam have refused to abide by the provisions of the 1954 Treaty. The responsibility falls heavily upon the British Government together
1012
with the Soviet Government, as co-chairmen of the Geneva Conference, to take an initiative which might lead to a settlement in Vietnam now that a solution seems to have been found to the problems in Laos.
It is also my hope that the ending of the conflict in Laos will soon lead to a situation in which the British and other foreign forces can be withdrawn from Thailand. We sent a token force there at the request of the Thai Government, because of their stated fears of aggression from Laos. Those fears must have now been put at rest, and I hope the Foreign Secretary can assure us that he is in consultation with the Governments of Thailand and of the United States to ensure an early withdrawal of all the foreign contingents.
There are two other areas in Asia and South East Asia which might easily become areas of conflict. Communist China seems to have become somewhat jittery about a suspected attack from Formosa by the Chinese Nationalists. I do not know what foundation there is for China's fears, which have led her to mass large forces opposite to the offshore islands and Formosa. But if Chiang Kai-shek is contemplating any attack against the China mainland, the sooner he is bluntly told by the United States, with the full support of the United Kingdom, not to indulge in any such aggressive folly, the better it will be for the peace and stability of the Far East.
Then there is the series of clashes on the Sino-Indian border, which must be giving some cause for concern. It may be that the Chinese are simply "trying it on" and have no intention of creating an uncontrolled crisis in its relations with India. I note, however, that Mr. Nehru has said that "it's a serious situation". Serious situations sometimes become grave situations, and grave situations can become open conflict. One cannot help becoming anxious at these border troubles, especially having regard to the economic disasters which have been, and still are, afflicting Communist China and which might lead her into diversionary actions. One can only hope that China's participation in the Laos settlement is an indication that she has no intention of pursuing a reckless policy on the Sino-Indian frontier and

1013
thereby endangering the peace in Asia. As a member of the Commonwealth is involved in this trouble, I am sure the House would welcome a statement from the Foreign Secretary on the situation.
The Foreign Secretary's visit to Geneva also gave him the opportunity of reviewing with Mr. Gromyko the developments in the Disarmament Conference. In view of the debate on disarmament earlier this month I do not propose to deal with this subject in detail, but there are one or two points that I think must be mentioned. In the first place, we welcome the fact that the Soviet Union has at last made some concessions to the Western point of view as presented during the first stage of this Conference. In particular, it is encouraging that the Soviet Government has now accepted the United States proposal of a 30 per cent. reduction in conventional armaments in Stage 1. But Mr. Zorin's continued insistence that the first stage must also include the abolition of all nuclear weapon delivery vehicles and the dismantling of all foreign bases is quite dearly in violation of the basic principle that during the course of disarmament the balance of security should not be disturbed to the advantage of either side. It is, therefore, unacceptable. But surely a distinction should be drawn between troop bases and bases for the delivery of nuclear weapons. As I have said before, the Thor missiles and some of the strategic air command bases might well be withdrawn in Stage 1; but to withdraw all the troop bases would mean the virtual disbanding of NATO while the process of general disarmament had only just begun.
I must also say that I was disappointed that neither side has yet made any significant move to bring about a test ban treaty. It has always been my view—and I have said this to the House many times—that the first step to general disarmament was the ending of nuclear tests. It really does seem to me that when the United States has completed its present series, With a series of tests by the Russians to follow, both sides should be prepared to call it a day. If Soviet Russia wishes to have the satisfaction of being able to say, "Since the United States made the first test, we, Russia, insist on making the last one", does it really matter very much? What
1014
does matter is that tests are ended and that a start is made in saving the world from nuclear disaster. I must say, speaking for myself, that I am attracted by the suggestion made earlier this year by the Mexican delegate, that a date should be set—and not too far off, either—after which no tests should be conducted by any country.
On the question of inspecting such a test agreement, it seems to me that the statesmen are lagging behind the scientists. The Americans are apparently now prepared to agree that there need be no permanent inspection posts on Soviet territories. But they have made no new offer concerning on-site inspections—our present demands stand, I believe, at between twelve and twenty a year. Surely we could tie in the neutral plan for the establishment of an international commission, and the original concession by the Soviet Union that three on-site inspections a year could be accepted. We should be prepared to reduce to a minimum our demands for verification concerning "suspicious" events, in view of the greatly increased sensitivity of the existing seismological instruments. Scientists in Britain and the United States now seem more than ever convinced of the efficiency of the present means of detection. It is, in my view, time for a new initiative by the West, not designed to prevent a new Russian series, tout to bring tests finally to an end within the near future.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will also have something to say about the situation in Berlin. Diplomatic probings have been taking place over some months. Has there been any progress, or is there still deadlock? On this side of the House we welcomed the proposal that there should be immediate talks between representatives of the Commanders of the four Powers in Berlin to reduce the tension at the Wall. It has been sickening to read time and time again of the East German Police firing at their own people attempting to rejoin their families in the West. Mothers, fathers and children have all been shot down; and I think we must ail warmly endorse the remarks made by Mr. Harold Wilson in another place commending the restraint of the people of West Berlin and the West Berlin police, who have been subjected to such provocation.
There can be no excuse for the Russian refusal to take part in talks which might ease tension at the Wall in Berlin. But, of course, the real solutions must be bigger ones, and it was our hope that the direct talks between Mr. Rusk and the Soviet Ambassador in Washington would lead to some results. For our part, we have, with the Government, insisted that there are three essential provisions of any interim agreement, and as the House is quite familiar with them I will not stop to restate them. We welcomed the proposals putt forward by the United States in the spring that an international authority should be established to control the access routes to Berlin. At first, it looked as if this American proposal might have some chance of success. On April 27 the West German Foreign Minister agreed that an international body to control access was "a basically good idea"; and Herr Ulbricht, the East German leader, had said that his Government might accept a Four-Power Arbitration Board for safeguarding peaceful traffic to and from West Berlin.
What I wish to ask the Foreign Secretary is whether this proposal has been dropped following Dr. Adenauer's critical references to this American initiative. What is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government? I hope we can be assured that a constructive initiative like this, which seeks to break the Berlin deadlock by means which should ensure one of the basic Western conditions—namely, a guarantee of free access between Berlin and the Federal Republic—will not depend entirely on the whims and mood of Dr. Adenauer. I hope it is being kept to the forefront in the American-Russian talks.
I want to put forward another idea which seems to follow naturally on the American proposal. As the House well knows, it has been for five years the view of the Labour Party that the best way of reducing tension in Central Europe was to negotiate an agreement for the reduction and control of all armaments, including the total exclusion of nuclear weapons, and the reduction of all foreign forces in the area, covering East and West Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and, if possible, Hungary. This concept has now been embodied in the most recent version of the Rapacki Plan presented
1016
to the Geneva Conference on March 28.
In their new memorandum, the Poles proposed that a special control organisation should be set up to supervise the implementation of the regional Disarmament Agreement. Such a control organisation should include not only the countries in the area but the four Powers responsible for Berlin and, possibly, a number of neutral countries in the world. Such a control organisation would be almost identical with the composition proposed by the Americans in May this year for controlling access routes to Berlin. They suggested a 13-member control authority, including representatives of the four Powers, East and West Germany, East and West Berlin, two Communist states and three neutrals.
My Lords, I want to say, quite clearly, that in my view the time is now ripe for a major attempt to secure agreement on the lines which the Labour Party have for so long been advocating, and which has now been put in more constructive terms by the Polish Foreign Minister. Here is a case Where we both have much to gain. Is it not likely that the Russians would be prepared to pay a big price to get nuclear weapons out of Western Germany? And is it not equally true that we should be prepared to pay a price for getting a major reduction in the size of Soviet and satellite forces in East Germany? It is in line with much of the tactical thinking in the West today to get nuclear weapons out of the front lines, and to get our forces in Europe able to resist without immediate recourse to nuclear weapons. Surely these arguments cannot be totally dismissed by the Western Governments.
These are two sets of practical proposals for helping to get agreement on Berlin, both involving giving partial recognition to East Germany. Other useful ingredients would be the recognition of the Oder-Neisse line and a non-aggression pact between NATO and the Warsaw Pact Powers. I hope that these matters are being discussed in the present talks, and that there is some prospect of finding a basis for negotiation'; otherwise tensions will deepen, and we may have the Berlin issue brought to the boil again. As we ail know, Mr. Khrushchev can turn on the heat to suit his purpose, but it is hardly likely that

1017
he would do so while talks continue with any prospect of progress.
Earlier, I paid tribute to the Foreign Secretary for his rôle in the Laos negotiations, and in the recent disarmament debate I praised him for some of the things he had said at the opening of that Conference. He will understand if I do not continue to embarrass him, or myself, with too much praise. I felt that some of the comments that he had to make to the Annual Conference of the United Nations Association on Friday, July 13, ware most unfortunate. As will be recalled, some of my colleagues in another place were very critical of some of the Foreign Secretary's statements in a speech he made at Berwick on December 28. He then accused the uncommitted nations of being "reckless and Careless to peace" by supporting a resolution condemning colonialism; of adopting a double standard of behaviour, and even "of playing the Communist game". In view of the rôle played in the United Nations by many of the uncommitted countries, these allegations were deeply resented.
I do not think that anyone can deny that this country has a remarkable record in its policy of decolonisation—it is something of which we can all be proud. Because of it, we ought to be able more readily than most to understand the desires of the newly independent States of Asia and Africa to see the progress to independence speeded up for territories which have still to reach that goal. The British Government may strongly disapprove of some of their efforts in this respect at the Assembly, but it would be a grave mistake to impute dubious motives to them as a whole and to develop a lack of confidence in the Assembly itself, which it seems to me the Government are in danger of doing.
In his speech on July 13, the Foreign Secretary said:
"Because some members of the Assembly have allowed themselves to sit in judgment while their own imperfections are so apparent, grave doubts are beginning to be felt by many whether the Assembly can ever be trusted to be impartial."
The Assembly is not an impartial tribunal, any more than the British Parliament. It is, in fact, a gathering of representatives of Governments, and these Governments are concerned with the conflicting interests and international
1018
problems which make the world such an uneasy place. Not only have views to be harmonised, but also actions, in the light of the Charter. The Assembly had defects and difficulties before the large accession of newly independent States. It did not wholly satisfy every member State then, and it does not wholly satisfy every member State now. It is a human institution, and I do not think we can expect it to be an impartial tribunal. But what we should be able to expect is that it will operate in a fair-minded manner.
To my mind, its record of achievement shows that it has, on the whole, been fair-minded and constructive. It has its imperfections—and let me interpolate here that so have many of the Governments their imperfections, and I do not exclude our own Government in this respect. But to deduce from this that there are grave doubts whether the Assembly can ever be trusted to be impartial is a counsel of despair, and plays into the hands of those who wish to by-pass the United Nations and to disregard its recommendations.
The Foreign Secretary may argue that he did not himself say that he had grave doubts about the rôle of the Assembly, but the repetition in Berwick, and more recently of doubts which may have been expressed by others, can only give weight to these doubts. It certainly gives the impression that Britain does not believe that the Assembly can be trusted. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take the opportunity to-day to deny this implication. It was on the same theme that the noble Earl later asked, "Who could agree to put an international force under the command of a United Nations inspired by bias and prejudice?". Is he thus condemning the newly independent countries, including those who have loyally provided troops for the United Nations operations in the Middle East and in the Congo?
We all respect the Foreign Secretary for his courage in speaking his mind, but he surely ought to limit his criticisms, as he did in one section of his speech, to the small minority who
"subscribe to what they know to be wrong and dangerous and ally themselves with the Communists to do us maximum harm".
This is indeed a small minority. The vast majority of the new nations, small

1019
and inexperienced though many of them may be, are, in my view, making a great contribution to the work of the United Nations, and they should be encouraged and not condemned.
Finally, in recent weeks we have welcomed to Britain the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant. He is, himself, a citizen of one of the uncommitted nations, and, in a sense, his presence in the principal executive office of the United Nations is an indication of the importance of the uncommitted countries to-day. There are two points made by U Thant in his visit to London to which I should like to draw attention. On July 5 at a luncheon given in his honour by the United Nations Association he said as follows:
"From time to time remarks and accusations have been made in various quarters, including some with strong vested interests in the Congo, which have hardly been suitable either to the dignity of the World Organisation or to the gravity of the task it faces in the Congo."
I am afraid there has been another example of this in the Press and radio reporting of the tragic events which occurred on July 17, when a Katangese mob launched an unprovoked attack on United Nations troops at a road block position. The Rhodesian Herald, which has often been highly critical of the United Nations, reports, according to the Guardian of July 20
"that its correspondent saw the bodies of the supposed victims (one adult and two children) an hour before the troops opened fire above the heads of the demonstrators".
This statement was confirmed by the United Nations spokesman at United Nations Headquarters on July 18. My Lords, it is difficult to escape from the conclusion that Mr. Tshombe is again trying to stir up anger and animosity against the United Nations and to provoke acts of violence such as led to the fighting in December last year. It is vital that there should be an impartial inquiry into the events in Elisabethville on July 13, and that the Government should not accept at its face value the reports put out by Mr. Tshombe's representatives, who, as we know, were responsible for so many unfounded allegations concerning the events last December.
Secondly, U Thant emphasised the dependence of Mr. Tshombe on financial
1020
payments from Union Minière. It seems to me that it is now time that the Union Minière ceased to pay its taxes to Mr. Tshombe. So long as he receives these financial resources he is able to persist in his non-co-operative policy and to drag out indefinitely the discussions to bring about a political settlement of the Congo dispute. Could there not be some system whereby revenues from Union Minière are, for a period, frozen so that they are paid neither to the Provincial Government of Katanga nor to the Central Government pending the achievement of a political settlement? It is reported from Washington that the United States Government is now anxious to bring international economic pressure to bear upon Mr. Tshombe, and there seem to be, once again, differences between the British Government and the American Government on this question. That is information I have taken from the Press. I hope that this is not the case. There is surely complete agreement on the desirability of tying Katanga's wealth into the structure of the Congo, and Britain should be prepared to act with her Allies and the United Nations to see that the present unhappy situation is not further prolonged, with all the dangers that it offers not only in the Congo but for the peace of the world. My Lords, what we must all be wanting to see is conflict in the Congo finally ended, an agreed settlement reached, and the Congo put on the road to peaceful reconstruction and growing prosperity. All efforts should be directed to that end. I beg to move for Papers.
3.5 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, on the last occasion on which we debated the international situation I managed to bring down on my head the reproaches of the Front Benches of both the major Parties for suggesting that the image which we present to the world should be, broadly, more of a Liberal image rather than a purely Tory-cum-Socialist image. Indeed, the charge against me then was, in effect, that I was driving under the influence of Orpington, but I fear that I have neither remorse nor repentence, nor even a hangover. For I still consider that no country can take a place of really respected influence among the nations of the world unless its foreign policy genuinely reflects its own national

1021
opinion in a general way; or, in some special cases, a reasonable majority opinion, since, of course, unanimity seldom obtains in this imperfect world, and not even in a British Government. I am sure many of your Lordships will know of parish churches called St. Michael and All Angels, which might be called St. Michael and a working majority of angels—the Chief Whip might take note of that.
My Lords, I shall refrain this time from inflicting again in your Lordships' House in a Foreign Affairs debate my own views on our British electoral system, beyond saying that the system does make it, of course, extremely difficult for any British Government to live up to such a counsel of perfection as I have suggested, bearing in mind, as I personally do, the dictum of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who some years ago said:
"The rules of the game may be unfair; but as we are winning by them, you can hardly expect us to change them in the middle of the game."
If we take this jocular philosophy at all seriously it is not very conducive to great confidence either within this country or, probably more important, in foreign countries, whose analysis of our domestic and internal affairs might thereby be most incorrect and most misleading.
But it As in connection with this general principle of representation that I consider the present unsatisfactory state of our internal and domestic affairs, as revealed by public opinion in every by-election for some time, is very pertinent and very relevant to our standing in the international field, where I, for my part, think it is realised, with some embarrassment, and doubtless with regret, that Great Britain's Government and policies do not now enjoy the support and the backing of the British people. But, of course, I admit the picture is not entirely black—if it were it would not be a picture—and I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in congratulating the Foreign Secretary with regard to the great sensitivity and ability with which he has been handling things lately, particularly the Laos situation.
I rather differ from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, about his attitude towards the League of Nations. After the noble Earl's speech in Berwick earlier
1022
this year I confess I was not quite clear about which way he was facing, but I think his more recent utterances have given reassurance to many of us who sincerely believe that the United Nations Organisation, imperfect as it must be on occasions, is vitally important in this age when no nation can stand back in isolation, and when the choice is inevitably between international cooperation with some reduction of sovereignty, or international war and international destruction. I hope that the Foreign Secretary can perhaps tell us to-day whether he has been able to consider and discuss the proposal frequently put forward by my Party, that a permanent unit of the United Nations should be established in Germany, if not in Berlin itself, where there are depressing indications of possibly more trouble to come. And in that connection, might I say that it is rather disheartening for all of us and particularly for the inhabitants of Western Germany that almost every new suggested move in that troubled area seems to originate from Mr. Khrushchev, so that we in the West are continuously put in a position of answering and defending, instead of initiating and pressing forward. Could we not somehow more often get in first? Could we not make some imaginative suggestions perhaps about coming to some sort of modified or compromise agreement for the recognition of East Germany, which, after all, nobody can deny does in fact exist, or perhaps about some fresh examination of the Oder-Neisse line or some alternative in parallel which might relieve tension in that uneasy and unnatural area. If we could only take a little more creative initiative, instead of continually having to be on the defensive, the peoples of the West, I think, would surely, from the access of greater confidence which would result, be stronger, more coordinated and more single-minded.
It will be, I think, tempting for some speakers in this debate to refer to the Common Market, but for myself I propose to leave it alone, as we are, as your Lordships know, to have a debate on that subject a week from now. But I think the question of the independent nuclear weapon is bound to arise, quite naturally, once more in a debate of this sort. At the time of our last discussion there were very positive indications, as

1023
your Lordships may remember, that America would welcome a change of British policy, a switch of our nuclear contribution from the limitations of a narrow national concept, which so many of us consider to be wasteful, and not only wasteful but ineffectual, to a joint Western Powers authority where it could be blended with much more value into the great machine of some Western armament authority. Those of us who wish to see this sort of thing come about are very oddly sometimes called unilateral disarmers. That is the very reverse of what we are. We are multilateral armers, wishing to see strength through unity and wishing to see this country of ours specialising more in the rôle of conventional armament, Where we are unsurpassed and have proved over and over again we are unsurpassed.
I do not wish to press the Foreign Secretary beyond discretion—I am sure he would not let me do so—but it would be very welcome indeed if he could indicate to-day, or at least decline to deny, that some such consultations with America, and possibly with other Allies, are in the air. If it is asked why there should be such a modification in British defence policy, I think there are two answers which would seem to carry weight. First, as I have said, America has hinted that such a move would be welcome and might well lead to much more co-ordination and pooling and strength, particularly if, as a result, our other Western Allies followed suit. Secondly, there is undoubted evidence in this country that a majority of people have become opposed to the courses which the Government are pursuing. That is no British secret; I think it is known in every part of the world, and if there be any doubt about it the Government can obtain proof of it by holding a General Election.
Talking about disarmament in this way, I am not referring to the pacifists, whose views I greatly admire but cannot subscribe to; I am not talking about odd "groups of One Hundred", who base their basis on their own bases. I am talking of ordinary men and women of peaceful instincts who regretfully acknowledge the need for a deterrent and so wish for the strongest possible Western international deterrent, and not
1024
a weakening of deterrence by pursuing a nationalistic and dissipating course. I ask this because to any reasonable person I think it would seem that a major change such as we have just witnessed in the composition of this Government must indicate some intended alteration of course; and as I think we are given to understand that the fiscal and economic programme of the Government is to remain much the same, despite the removal of some of the chief supporters of that programme, it is not unnatural to speculate upon a change of course in some other field. I hope it may be in the field of national defence, in order not to weaken but to strengthen our national position. But, of course, the Government's new policy, if it has one, is not yet revealed. Indeed, last week it was obviously not ready to be revealed. The Prime Minister made rather a notable utterance on July 17 when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 633 (No. 146), col. 228]:
"We have to see what we have to consider and then we can make up our minds."
I agree, but I hope we shall see it soon.
3.16 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I know the noble Lord's speeches are always short and to the point, but I was hoping to hear a little more. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for the kind things they have said about my part in the Laotian agreement, and if I may I will, as I go through the various subjects they have both raised, comment on some of the suggestions they have made. I should like to stress this: I must decline, for the second Foreign Affairs debate running, very politely, to engage in a talk with Lord Rea about the virtues of an alternative vote or proportional representation. I cannot do that. But, apart from that, I hope to comment on some of the things he said and certainly to illustrate as I go along some of the points Which the noble Lords have made.
When we debated international affairs almost exactly a year ago to-day, I described the international situation as one of international anarchy. I do not think I need remind your Lordships that there was trouble in Laos, in South Vietnam, in Indonesia, in Cuba, in Algeria, in the

1025
Congo, in Kuwait and An Berlin. I had to confess that I could see no universal cure for this universal ferment and unrest, and I then had to advise your Lordships that the way in which Great Britain could best proceed in international affairs was by quiet and patient conciliation against a background of firmness of principle; not the kind of principle which degenerates into the rigidity of dogma, but the principles Which are embodied in the Convention on Human Rights and in a code of international conduct, which must be devised if the world is to move steadily towards a condition of interdependence.
So, my Lords, to-day, in response to the noble Lord, I should like to do a stocktaking so that the House may know and the country may know where I believe we stand on the issues of the hour and may be able to measure the prospects of peace. So I think I can say to your Lordships now that, with some obstinate exceptions, there is some improvement on the position as it was when I spoke to your Lordships a year ago.
As the noble Lord reminded you, I have just come back from Geneva, where fourteen nations spent fourteen months agreeing upon a Laotian settlement—a settlement which in due time will be recorded and come before Parliament. I believe that we can welcome this, both in substance and in form—in substance because it represents a real agreement between East and West. In this particular case both the East and the West, who were in danger of meeting in a clash of rivalries in this area, have decided that the will of neither will prevail and that they will both live with neutrality We may welcome it in form because it demonstrates that, by patient negotiation and with the will to do so, we can arrive at sensible solutions to our problems.
The nations who were represented in the Laotian Conference, you will remember, contained the Great Powers—United States, China, Russia, United Kingdom and France—and, of course, the South-East Asian countries. They sat together with something practical to do, with a problem to be solved, for fourteen months; and I must say that the contrast I noticed between the atmosphere when I was there on Monday for the signature of the Treaty and the
1026
atmosphere of fourteen months ago was quite extraordinary. These fourteen countries who had sat together for all that time had certainly gained a greater understanding of the others' paints of view, by reason of the fact that they had been at this Conference and had been exchanging views, not only in the official sessions but also between each other on the sidelines.
I cannot say whether the Laotians will have the skill to make this settlement a reality on the ground—I profoundly hope so; but they will want assistance. As your Lordships know, if I have had a complaint against the Communists it is that they have talked co-existence but never practised it. Here is an area in which it can be practised, and where it will have the chance of proof. But in this Conference fourteen nations have sunk their national selfish aims for the greater international good. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, singled out Mr. Macdonald for his praise. Both Mr. Pushkin and Mr. Macdonald have done good work for their respective countries in this matter; but if we single out Mr. Macdonald I am sure that the thirteen other countries will not begrudge us our pride, because I am certain that when the history of this Conference comes to be written, his personal contribution will be found and judged to have been decisive.
My Lords, I hope that the House will allow me one reflection on the attitude of our own people in these days to events in other Continents, events which often hold within them the seeds of peace and war. I trust that our people are not getting the feeling that, because we have shed an Empire, they can be insulated from danger or absolved from exerting influence and taking action on the world stage. I should like to say now that which I could not say eighteen months ago: that when I went to the SEATO Conference at that time, war (and it would not have been war only between North Viet-Nam and Laos; it would have been war between the SEATO Alliance, including the United States, and the Communist Alliance, including China and Russia) was so near that it could have turned on the spin of a coin; and had that happened, Britain would once more have been engaged in a world war, no less a world war because

1027
it happened to be in the Continent of Asia.
I hope that the British people realise that situations of this kind are not resolved by luck. Nor can we pretend that we do not see them and just hope for the best. They depend for their solution on deliberate policies being adopted by the British Government, and by the British Government's determination to see those policies through. My noble friend Lord Avon, who I am very glad to see here to-day, had experience of this some years ago in the same continent. We are a small country, and it would be extremely foolish to overstretch our resources—that is true. But the lesson that I have myself learned from the Laotian Conference is that our people must be willing to equip this country with enough strength to play our part in the collective security arrangements adopted by the other free countries of the world; and it is really on that that our influence in international councils depends. I dare to say that it is possible that in these situations the peace of the world may depend upon Britain's voice being heard everywhere where these matters, peace and war, are under discussion.
I hope, therefore, my Lords, that our people will not be so preoccupied with affairs at home that they will leave foreign affairs to the Government of the day. There are many tough prospects ahead, and I shall talk about some of them in a moment. But if the Government's voice is to carry authority in world affairs, then it must be supported by an interested and an informed public opinion. I have no hesitation in saying that the Laos Agreement is a clear victory for the forces of order in international affairs, and it is my ambition to make it the first of a series.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, drew our attention next to the problems which are involved and under discussion in the Disarmament Conference at Geneva. Progress is slow. I think that is inevitable. The points of difference are acute, and, after all, as I tried to say in Geneva yesterday in a speech I made to the Disarmament Conference, if you are to achieve total disarmament, general and complete disarmament, you have to go very near to changing the
1028
nature of man—and that is a pretty ambitious programme. Nevertheless, though they are acute, the points of difference have been clarified in the Conference, and now we are arriving at a new stage and the Conference is getting down to a new debate in which, at the suggestion of the British delegation, they have isolated the points on which they are in difficulty, and they are going to discuss and debate them in depth. Of course we have had many propaganda speeches, but once again (and this was true of the Laos Conference) the fundamental point is emerging—namely, that while it is legitimate to get the best terms you can in a bargain, there will be no success if the object of the negotiator is to get a victory over the fellows who are sitting around him at the table.
It is clear that the only proposals in the disarmament field which stand a chance of being accepted are proposals that are, first, balanced and, secondly, verified: balanced in that neither side at any point in the process of disarmament is to be put at a disadvantage in arms (Lord Henderson has always made that point); and verified, because unless you give confidence to each side, and each side plays by the rules, you are in fact going to make no progress. So yesterday, at the Geneva Conference, I took the chance of putting the focus and the spotlight on the central problem of general and complete disarmament, which is verification; and it is becoming clear, I think, to all those who are in the Conference—and I think that when it comes to the United Nations it will be clear to the other countries of the world—that the Communist countries are now the only countries who are not willing to pay the price of inspection in order to achieve disarmament. It is a most serious position in which the Communist countries find themselves, because, so far as I know, every other country in the world is willing to open its borders to the degree of inspection that is necessary in order to achieve a nuclear test ban and to make progress on disarmament.
I think I can report some progress in the field of nuclear tests. I have recalled to your Lordships that some time ago, at the last Geneva Conference (indeed, we have done this before), I invited the Russians to join with us in scientific

1029
research on the problems of detection and on-site inspection. In the event the United States and Great Britain had to do research for themselves; and I find it quite incredible that the Russians continue to refuse, but they have done so. It is a little early to say, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson—although I hope I may be able to give some information to the House on this matter, possibly before we rise—that because of the new scientific information which has just come our way we can make a substantial modification to the proposals on nuclear tests which we have put forward. But if, as I hope, the new scientific information means that detection is easier and more accurate, and if it means it will assist us to identify the nature of noises more surely, then there can be a diminution of the on-site inspection which is necessary and required.
I should be quite misleading your Lordships if I did not say now that, even with the most perfect system of detection and even with an international organisation of scientists—a commission, it might be—to assemble the information, to analyse it and pronounce upon it, it is almost certain that there would be a residue of noises about which an international commission would not be able to say, with certainty, whether they were an earthquake or a nuclear explosion. So there would be some need, although I hope it will be much reduced, for on-site inspection. My Lords, I hope that the need will be, and I believe it is likely to be, almost infinitesimal in comparison with the size of the Russian territory; it is, after all, a question only of a few men moving only to places which have been carefully located. But, again, so far, the Russians have said that they are unwilling to pay even this price, but I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that our object must be to put forward a proposal which will give them a chance to accept because it is so patently reasonable to all the rest of the world.
My Lords, the third main topic of our discussions in Geneva in the last few days has been Berlin. This is the part of the world which gives the most anxiety when we are thinking in terms of East—West relations, because it is here that the interests of the Great Powers
1030
are most directly and immediately engaged.
There are three possibilities, as it seems to me, of a settlement of the Berlin problem. The first, and best, is that the Germans should be given the chance to settle their own destiny by free elections, and that within the context of the whole of Germany, Berlin should be treated as one city. That is the best, but, I am bound to say to your Lordships, it is the least likely, at least for the time being. Then, again, there is the possibility of an agreement with Russia which would include the three essentials I have mentioned time and again to your Lordships, on which the free life of the city of West Berlin depends: the presence of Western troops, the guarantee of access, and the right to run their own affairs without interference. In return for these guarantees to the people of West Germany it would be possible to meet the Russians on some of the things in which they are really interested, and I agree with Lord Henderson that the internationalisation of the access route in some form is a proposal which merits much more study than the Russians have been willing to give it. It certainly was not dropped by the Western Allies. There are other matters on which I think we could make progress. I think that there ought to be joint negotiations between East and West Germany to study matters of common concern, not only in Berlin but in East and West Germany. There are other suggestions which we could make if the Russians were willing to do one thing—and that is to renew the Four-Power responsibility for the city.
The third possibility is that we should live with disagreement, without imperilling the peace of the world and the safety of mankind. I told Mr. Gromyko over the last two days that this would not be a solution. That is clear. But it would make clear to the world that where there is a clash of interests which is direct, the Great Powers should agree that they can live with disagreement and try to solve it by negotiation, however long that negotiation might take. My Lords, we are in a situation of this kind now—and do not let us forget it—that the nuclear power at the disposal of the great countries of the world is so great

1031
that we face this straight choice: are we to fight and be blown to pieces; or are we to negotiate and continue to negotiate, however stubborn the particular problem may be, until a solution is found? There is no use thinking, as the Laotian situation proves, that you can isolate war these days into local war. The chances are that they will escalate.
This Geneva Conference has been very interesting not only in the context of Laos, but also in the context of Berlin. It has been interesting to see, the Great Powers having looked over the brink at world war and drawn back in the case of Laos, whether the Russians will now look over the brink and see the consequences of facing the West with demands which they know from the start that the West cannot concede; and whether, having looked over the brink, they will then take the advice which Mr. Rusk and myself have been giving to Mr. Gromyko over the last few years, and work round the edges of the problem, negotiating about things in which the Russians are vitally interested from the point of view of their own security. Such things as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, indicated—the non-dissemination of nuclear weapons to third parties; declarations that frontiers would not be changed by force; the possibility of a NATO-Warsaw pact, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has said, of a possible United Nations presence in the city of West Berlin. If the Russians will once decide it is useless to go on pressing the West to take their troops out of West Berlin, then there are many, many other avenues open to them for negotiation which would prove profitable both to them and to us. I profoundly hope that Mr. Gromyko will be willing to take this advice, because the Russians must understand that the Western interests in the freedom of the people in the city of West Berlin are not selfish interests. They are concerned with human rights, with the right of people to determine their own way of life, and with the important question I have mentioned of the maintenance of peace by negotiation. Therefore, no great Power in these days should face another great Power with demands which are frankly expansionist and which it knows that other Power cannot accent, because, as the consequence of war is the
1032
obliteration of both, then neither side should try to put the other side to that test.
My Lords, there is a connecting theme between Laos and disarmament, and disarmament and Berlin. Since even the greatest Powers cannot impose their wills by force, we must seek the best terms we can get around the conference table. And the Geneva Conference has encouraged me—although I am anxious on Berlin—to hope that the forces of international anarchy may at last be in retreat. The nuclear balance of power is a restraining influence, whether it is held at a high level or a lower level. I hope that the unilateral disarmers and the "Ban-the-bombers" will ponder the fact as to whether the world would be more peaceful if the nuclear balance were discarded. I am sure it would not.
My Lords, parallel to the ban on fighting imposed by fear there are, I think, more positive influences at work, both in the Soviet Union and in the West, which may mean that we are able to approach a newer and more fruitful phase in East—West relations; something more creative in content than simply the freezing of contact which we have known over the last fifteen years. I drew attention to the fact that there are more liberal influences at work in the Soviet Union. I am depressed to see that the number of Russian tourists has fallen very steeply this year, but I think that that is due to economic causes; but there is no doubt at all that the Russians are enabling contact to be made in a larger way than has taken place before with the outside world. Surely, my Lords, this must result in a questioning of the doctrine which has for so many years been responsible for isolating Russia from external influences. They have held away their people, and held them back from the amenities of life which are commonplace in the homes of Western Europe, and the lives of the American people.
My Lords, it cannot be just a coincidence that the capitalist societies are groaning under surpluses of food, while the increase of agricultural production right across the Communist world has been an almost total failure. Certainly, the much vaunted image of Communism as inspiring the workers to greater endeavour, the image of Communism as

1033
a giver of abundance, has been very badly tarnished, and there are Russians in high places who to-day are advocating remedies far removed from anything the Communist doctrine has taught them. Then, again, I think there must be much questioning going on in Russia as to whether there is not something fundamentally wrong with a system which gives such poor results. The system is proving itself far from flawless, and I think it is almost impossible that the Russians will find the same enthusiasm in commending it to other people, and certainly it will be less easy to sell.
But, my Lards, parallel with the apparent weakness of the Communist societies to-day is the fact that the Western countries are showing a disconcerting vigour. An enormous Communist effort has been put into dividing Europe. Yet Europe is not divided. On the contrary, it has repented of strife, and it seams to he trying to redeem its character by an example in unity and interdependence. In the process it is demonstrating the falsity of the Communist picture of the inevitable decline of the capitalist countries—and by "the capitalist countries", the Russians mean, I suppose, the infinite aspects that freedom wears in the free societies of the West.
I do not want to be too fanciful, hut if I were a Communist now I think I should be taking a fresh look at the principles of the doctrine, and at their practice. If I was a Russian, I think I should be asking myself whether their nineteenth-century philosophy has any bearing at all and any relation to the needs of Russia in the twentieth century. I drew attention to the fact that the post-revolutionary Russian has a split personality. There is the Russian who is the patriot, there is the Russian who is the international Communist; and I think that if I were a Russian who was a patriot I should now be wondering whether I would not be better employed in basing my view of life on observation of the facts, rather than in the reactionary process of banding the facts to fit the theories. Of course, that would mean that one would have to allow that the facts and the truth had a certain validity of their own; and that in itself is an incursion into Communist doctrine.
So there are, I think, certain signs of a loosening up of the pure Communist
1034
doctrine, although do not let us delude ourselves: it is almost impossible for anybody high up in the Communist hierarchy to depart from it vary far. That being so, I have said time and again in this House—and I think it is right—that we must patiently seek out areas of agreement with Russia, though we must not delude ourselves that these will be vary extensive.
The countries of European origin are, by and large, Christian countries. The Communist countries—at least those who rule them—are, by and large, materialist countries, and it is not very easy to find common ground between Christian communities and communities that are purely materialist. Nevertheless, we must try, and, given the modification of pure doctrine which I think is beginning in the Soviet Union, and given the overwhelming interest of both sides, East and West, in keeping alive, I believe there is a chance that we may be able to negotiate beyond the Laos agreement, and we ought to be able to find plenty of work to do at the conference table for years to come. I have suggested to Mr. Gromyko that in the particular case of Berlin, with so many other problems connected with it which could usefully be discussed between our two countries, we ought to set up some machinery to do so.
My Lords, Mr. Khrushchev makes speeches which always give food for thought, although not all of them are particularly palatable, but two months ago he made a speech which I read with considerable interest. He said:
"The construction of Communism in our country is tantamount of the fulfilment of our international duty to all the revolutionary forces of the world."
If his deeds were consistent with these words we should have little objection to them, because we cannot deny the Communist countries the right to see their ideas triumph through example, in fair competition with ours. We would never deny that. But too often, in fact, the Russian objective seems to be not to confine themselves to example, and converting people by example, but to stir up bad blood everywhere.
I have in mind, in particular, the Soviet performance in the United Nations on colonialism. Like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I am not one of those who apologise for the British

1035
colonial record. The arrival in Africa and Asia of Europeans was the consequence of an irrepressible outburst of energy from Europe, which transformed the societies of Asia and Africa, who had been completely static for many hundreds of years before that—transformed them into modern, lively nations, fit to take their part in a 20th century expanding world. I will never apologise for British colonialism, or for the structure, shape and aim of the British Commonwealth. I think it has served the world very well. There is no place in which we have exerted our influence in the colonial field which has not been, on our departure, healthier and wealthier and better able to play its part in the world, as a result of our activities in that territory.
But the Soviet representative at the United Nations conducts his activities with the sole purpose of promoting disorder and bad blood between Africans, Asians and Europeans, the older nations and the new. Every spark of racialism or nationalism is deliberately fanned into flame until that most reasonable, patient and liberal of men, Sir Hugh Foot, the other day said that the Russian delegate in the United Nations was the Pied Piper of the Kremlin leading the world to chaos. My Lords, this is a very serious indictment, and it is too near the truth. It is this deliberate fanning of the flames which makes it so difficult for us and for the other countries, to fulfil all the purposes of the Charter. The purposes of the Charter—and I hope I shall not clash with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, here—are, I insist, first peace, and then peaceful change; and all our remaining Colonies, which we are bringing to emancipation, must be brought to their independence as a result of orderly change.
Now I anticipate from the list of speakers (and I hope your Lordships will allow me a few moments more) that there will be some people who are interested in the Congo, and I must say at once that it was the ruthless opportunism of the Russians, taking advantage of the internal confusion in the Congo, which brought us into our present trouble. It was only the intervention of the United Nations which prevented a Communist take-over; it has been
1036
only the most patient influence exerted by the friends of the Congolese people which has kept some sort of order and prevented complete chaos. My Lords, things are not very good, but they might have been infinitely worse than they are. Once more, difficulties are arising, for two reasons: partly because (and for this the Communist countries are to blame) the United Nations is approaching bankruptcy early next year; and partly because of the genuine difficulties of reconciliation of the political views between Africans who have very little experience of working modern constitutions.
Several of your Lordships will, I have no doubt, when you speak, put forward different points of view and useful points of view. I want to give one or two reflections on the present situation in the Congo. The aim, on which I think everybody agrees, is a united Congo within the old frontiers as they existed in the time of the Belgian sovereignty, and I think it will be agreed that that is the only shape in which the Congo will really have a worthwhile future. But, my Lords, no one can settle the Congo's political future except the Congolese themselves. We can help them to do so, but the responsibility is theirs, and theirs alone. My Lords, no other country, nor the United Nations, should or could impose a political pattern. We can help the Congolese to find one, but we cannot dictate it, and we must not try.
I could name with reasonable assurance the conditions and ingredients of a settlement. There should be a genuinely federal constitution—and that is Mr. Adoula's contribution; there should be a fair division of revenues—and that is very largely (but not entirely, because there are other Provinces) Mr. Tshombe's contribution. And, because there is going to be a very large deficit in the total Congolese budget for many years to come, there must be third factor: a scheme of financial and technical assistance—and that must be the United Nations' contribution. But the essence of this matter—and I cannot emphasise this too strongly—is that these must be simultaneously agreed. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, used the word "agreement", and I emphasise this: that they must be simultaneously agreed and

1037
simultaneously applied. My Lords, we may be of assistance. It may be that there are skilled persons, skilled Africans, in constitutional law and in finance who could help these people to come to an agreement and to conclude a constitutional and financial settlement.
But because the world has poured out an enormous amount of treasure in money and life for the future of the Congo, I want to say two things about the attitudes of the two principal actors, upon whom the world waits for agreement. I hope that Mr. Adoula will not just sit back and rely on the United Nations subduing the Katanga by force. The United Nations is not empowered to do so; and, if it tried, it would fight a colonial war. The United Nations cannot be a colonial Power administering another country year after year. Again, Mr. Tshombe must not sit back and imagine that the de facto autonomy which he at present serves is likely to serve him well. The future of the Katanga really lies in playing a very large and influential part in a united Congo. There has been talk of economic pressures. All I can say on that is to emphasise once again that the political settlement and the financial settlement must be simultaneous, and that if pressures are to be applied they must be applied equally and fairly to both. Therefore, my Lords, our influence in this matter is not very great. I have said, time and again, that our investment interest is equally divided between the two parts of the Congo. We have only one interest in this: to see a fair constitutional settlement. If we can help we will, but I hope I have made my view crystal clear about the form that a settlement should take.
My Lords, my review has necessarily been rather scrappy, but I would sum up in this way. I hope that in the speeches that I have made in your Lordships' House during the last two years you have detected a theme which has been constant. It is the overriding need for international order, against the background, of which I have talked, of the strength of the nuclear Power; and against the background, too, of a world which for many years to come, because of the emancipation of new nations, will have all over its surface outbreaks of nationalism and racialism and stubborn problems to be solved. By "order",
1038
I do not mean—and I hope no one will ever Chink I do—that there should be no change. Order does not preclude change. That is clear from the history of the British Commonwealth. Indeed, change may be a prerequisite of order, as it is of progress. I am not, and the British Government are not, therefore, opponents of change. What we are opponents of is chaos, because chaos brings misery to ordinary men and women everywhere.
Therefore there is a need to ensure orderly change; and if this is the standard—and it is—which I apply, not only to the conduct of our own colonial policies with regard to those countries which remain, but to the conduct of the United Nations and to the actions of the Commonwealth, everything must be tested as to whether or not it increases the chances of orderly change. It is in that sense that I have talked to the Russians on Laos, on Berlin and on other matters in conference; and it is in that sense, and in that sense only, that I have talked (although I know some people do not like some of the things I have said, or the emphasis with which I have said them) about the United Nations. Because unless the United Nations is identified with orderly change, peaceful change, then we are not going to have a United Nations at all in a very few years. Therefore, my Lords, I insist that nothing can be solved by force and that everything is soluble by negotiation. If this message comes from Britain and is consistent and insistent, and if it is applied to every situation of international difficulty, then, my Lords, there is a chance that we may be able to help the world to turn away from the destruction and waste of war towards more creative activities and the life-giving tasks of peace.
3.59 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I should like this afternoon to examine certain trends in the activities of the United Nations, with particular reference to Africa, which appear to me to be leading in dangerous directions, and which certainly are giving rise to wide-spead disillusionment among many sections of the public in this country. I make no apology for doing so, because I had wished to put down a separate Motion on this subject but found that no day was available. The most recent

1039
event in our minds is, of course, the resolution of the Assembly of the United Nations of June 28, calling upon the British Government to introduce a new constitution for Southern Rhodesia.
My Lords, at this point I should like to take the opportunity of paying a tribute to the late Lord Robins, whose name is so intimately connected with the growth of modern Rhodesia. From his early youth, when he came to this country as an American Rhodes scholar at Oxford, Lord Robins was deeply imbued with the traditions of Cecil Rhodes, and, with the exception of the two wars and a brief period in London, he dedicated his whole life's work to Rhodesia and the welfare of its people. Until quite recently he contributed regularly to your Lordships' debates on African affairs, and I fed sure that I am speaking for all sections of the House when I say how greatly we shall miss him.
My Lords, I should like to make it clear at the outset that I am not approaching this question of the United Nations in any spirit of hostility, either to the Organisation itself or to the basic principles of the Charter. I have always been a staunch supporter of the United Nations, and I had the honour to serve for four years as a member of the British delegation to the United Nations Assembly when I acted as our representative on the Trusteeship Committee. Although we became at times irritated and frustrated, and even indignant, I believe that much valuable work was accomplished there. Nor, my Lords, I suggest, can anyone claim that Britain has not conscientiously supported the United Nations, even at the time of Suez, when we accepted their decisions in full and the arrangements which they set up to preserve peace in the Middle East.
Where it seems to me that the United Nations have gone wrong is in the increasing tendency, both of the Security Council and of the General Assembly, to interfere in the internal affairs of member States, and thus to violate a basic principle of the Charter. Article 2 (7) of the Charter lays down in terms that:
"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, or shall require the Members to submit such matters for settlement under the present Charter."
1040
This cardinal principle, designed to prevent the interference of other nations in the affairs of an individual State, whether large or small, was from the beginning vigorously supported by successive Labour and Conservative Governments and their representatives at the United Nations. It was first violated—and this violation was, indeed, strongly resisted by ourselves—when the United Nations passed resolutions about the domestic affairs of South Africa. However much we may dislike the internal policy of a Government, it gives us no right to interfere with their business. We all hate the dictatorial system of Soviet Russia, and the suppression of sovereign rights of States such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, who are still recognised by the British Government and whose representatives appear in the Foreign Office list. But that does not give us the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of the Soviet Union.
In recent years, countries such as India, which had encouraged intervention in the affairs of other States though, of course, indignantly rejecting it when it concerned themselves, have sought to differentiate between metropolitan countries and so-called non-self-governing territories. Here, again, the provisions of the Charter are perfectly clear. The United Nations were given certain rights and duties in connection with the Trust Territories such as Tanganyika and Ruanda-Urundi; and they also claim to have the right to intervene in South-West Africa, though the South African Government themselves maintain that this territory is still under mandate to them from the old League of Nations.
But, my Lords, for all other non-self-governing territories the only obligation of the responsible Power, apart from general duties of economic and political advancement, is, under Article 73 (e):
"to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitations as security and constitutional consideration may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible."
The wording is perfectly clear: it gives the United Nations no right to interfere in any colonial territories other than the Trust Territories, and no power to call for information on political matters. It is the flagrant and increasingly frequent

1041
breach of this principle, only recently exemplified in the case of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Zanzibar, which I believe is causing great anxiety among many people in this country. It must inevitably detract to some extent from their respect, and indeed their support, for the United Nations when they are called upon to deal with the real issues for which they were created, such as the elimination of war, the establishment of international justice, and the respect for treaties.
In the case of Southern Rhodesia, we have seen the open interference in the internal constitutional affairs of a territory which, since 1923, has enjoyed full internal self-government. No British Government of any Party has since that date passed any legislation affecting Southern Rhodesia without the full consent of the Southern Rhodesian Government. No information has ever been communicated on Southern Rhodesia to the United Nations under Article 73 (e) for precisely these reasons, and until recently the Assembly has never questioned the fact. The present action is being ostensibly carried out under the Assembly "Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial territories and peoples" passed on December 14, 1960; but that resolution, on which Britain abstained, is not legally binding on member States, and could not by itself alter the Charter of the United Nations. This can be changed only by a two-thirds vote of the Assembly, ratified by two-thirds of their Governments, including all the permanent members of the Security Council, of which Britain is one.
Not only that, but the established rules of procedure of the United Nations, which call for a two-thirds majority of the Steering Committee for the inscription of an item on the Agenda of the Assembly, was blatantly violated on June 16, on a proposal, if you please, of Ghana, in order to get Southern Rhodesia put down on the Agenda at all. I must say that when we think of the fact that, at that time, the Lord Privy Seal was doing his best to fight for the interests of these Commonwealth countries at Brussels, it is a little ironic that we should find them behaving in this rather discreditable fashion with no fewer than eight members of the Com-
1042
monwealth voting for the alteration in the rules of procedure.
When it came to the speeches of the delegates, the proceedings became even more farcical. Support for the resolution was, of course, to be expected from members of the Afro-Asian bloc; but criticism of Southern Rhodesia, which is making steady constitutional advance, from countries, many of which are under civil or military dictatorship, or, indeed, have never held any elections at all, is really rather incongruous. The speeches of the members of the Soviet bloc in defence of "representative democracy", and self-determination, and condemning "repressive measures", really make nauseating reading. To have the representative of Hungary, whose Government, with the assistance of Russian tanks and at the cost of thousands of Hungarian lives, trampled underfoot a movement for democratic government and freedom, now calling for more democratic government in Southern Rhodesia is an example of cynicism which is hard to beat.
My Lords, I must say that I was glad to see, from what I thought was a very notable speech by my noble friend the other day—the speech to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred—that he had made it quite clear that Her Majesty's Government had no intention of allowing irresponsible actions by some members of the United Nations to divert us from orderly and peaceable constitutional progress in our overseas territories. He very rightly and clearly drew attention to the tendencies of racialism and aggressive nationalism, which have, as he has pointed out this afternoon, been exploited by Communism and which have motivated the attitude of many Afro-Asian members. I think it is, as he said in his speech, quite understandable that in these newly independent nations these tendencies could occur; but my noble friend also pointed out how dangerous and how short-sighted this was. For, after all, it is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which intervention by the United Nations in the internal affairs of a sovereign State could be turned against the newly independent countries themselves.
I do not know how, for instance, India would react to a resolution calling for

1043
the examination of the demands of the Nagas for self-determination. How would they feel about that? And what would the Soviet bloc do if there were a resolution calling for self-determination or intervention in the affairs of the Baltic States? I really believe that in forcing such issues as Rhodesia the members of the General Assembly are playing with dangerous weapons, which could one day be turned against them.
It seems to me that so long as the Charter of the United Nations remains unchanged it is essential that we should continue to emphasise the sanctity of Article 2 (7), by which, as I say, both Labour and Conservative Governments have felt themselves bound. I myself regretted—and I think that it was a serious breach in our position—that on January 31 last the British delegate voted in favour of the adoption by the General Assembly of the conclusions of the Report of the Sub-Committee on Angola. Up till then we had contented ourselves with abstaining. I say to your Lordships frankly that no issue has been the subject of more misrepresentation during the past two years than that of the Portuguese territories in Africa. An all-out campaign, instigated, I fear, by Ghana, and fully supported, of course, by the Communists, and, I regret to say, encouraged by certain extreme Left-Wing writers in this country, has been conducted to denigrate the conduct of affairs in Portuguese Africa. Mozambique, Guinea and, of course, Angola have been the subject of constant accusations and misrepresentation.
I will give your Lordships one example. The complaint filed by the Government of Ghana to the International Labour Organisation on the subject of forced labour, which I think is still widely believed to exist in the Portuguese territories, has been completely demolished by the report of the International Labour Organisation Commission. Forced labour has long since been abolished in Portuguese Africa, and to-day so-called contract labour or penal labour, which exists in many other countries—and not only in colonial territories—has also been abolished.
Then in March, when the United Nations were going to examine the question of Portuguese Africa, came the
1044
attack in Angola from the Congo, which brought the Portuguese management of African affairs into the full glare of publicity. The attack was organised from over the border by Holden Roberto, an exile who had sat at the feet of Dr. Nkrumah and had been established, with his headquarters at Leopoldville, by the late Mr. Lumumba. As your Lordships know, the most appalling atrocities occurred. In the three weeks which followed March 16, 1961, 1,300 Europeans were massacred and at least 6,000 Africans, and possibly a great many more.
Inevitably accusations of reprisals by the Portuguese authorities were put forward. These were thoroughly investigated by Her Majesty's Consul-General at Luanda and by our Military Attaché in Lisbon. No doubt there were individual cases of arbitrary and repressive conduct, but the main allegations were flatly denied in the Consul-General's report. Since then, peace has been largely restored and widespread rehabilitation has gone on. But how much of this is known to the general public in this country, or to the representatives seated in judgment at the United Nations in New York? There is a conspiracy of silence on this matter, which unfailingly seeks to conceal the views of the Portuguese Government and of their representatives and of any person, or any report which is favourable to them.
The fact is, my Lords, that Portuguese rule in Africa, though in some respects backward, and handicapped by lack of financial resources, has consistently been in the direction of steady economic and social progress. Above all, the Portuguese have deliberately adopted a policy of complete non-racialism. I myself marvelled, during the course of a recent visit to Mozambique, at the complete social equality which exists among the Africans and the 200,000 Portuguese of European origin. On the political side, I do not suppose that any of us would expect that a State having a metropolitan Government based on a one-Party system would encourage a fully democratic system in their overseas provinces; but the fact remains that elected African representatives from Angola and from Mozambique are seated in the National Assembly in

1045
Lisbon, while in the territories themselves African deputies are elected on a basis of complete equality with Europeans to the Legislative Council and local councils. Furthermore, under the enlightened policy of the present Minister for Overseas Territories, Senhor Moreira, the old system, which discriminated between the assimilated—the assimilados—and the natives, has been abolished, and all the people are now on an equal footing. But how much of this is known in this country?
I have not visited Angola, but travelling through Mozambique, I was amazed to find what a high level of economic and social advance has been achieved. I went everywhere I wished and, speaking some Portuguese, I was able to question a large number of Africans. I found that their wages were equal to those of white workers and, so far as I could judge, in many cases higher than those in the mother country. Again, within the limits of their financial resources, the number of schools and hospitals is high, though of course more are needed. What the Portuguese are seeking to do in these territories, as I understand it, irrespective of the political system under which they are living, is, first of all to teach the inhabitants all to become citizens of one country and then to advance in the same direction as Brazil, where they have constructed a society of men and women of all races, working side by side without discrimination. I feel it to be necessary to say these things to your Lordships because of the gross misrepresentations which exist with regard to the Portuguese African territories. I only hope that, as a result of these things being said, a greater understanding of the position may filter through to the delegates at the United Nations when they come to address themselves, as they will in September, to future resolutions on the Portuguese territories.
My Lords, before I conclude I should like to say one word about the situation in the Congo. During his visit earlier this month, U Thant, the Acting Secretary-General, described some of the activities of the United Nations in the Congo. He admitted that some mistakes had been made. He also referred, quite fairly, to the achievements which had been made in technical reconstruction and in bringing food and medicine to
1046
large sections of the population. On the question of Katanga, he publicly stated that the United Nations had no intention or mandate to impose a political solution by force. Whilst, of course, we ail welcome that assurance, it was not encouraging to see it almost immediately followed up by military action, when there were no disorders of any kind. This military action led to the complete severance of free road communication between Elisabethville and the outside world. The attack of the women on the road block, to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has referred, occurred after the United Nations military action had taken place and the road block had been set up.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, was the road block not established following the introduction of 2,000 troops into Elisabathville, when they had given an assurance to the United Nations that they would have only 300?
LORD COLYTON: That is certainly true. But my point is that there were no disorders, and, so far as I know, the troops had already been withdrawn. They went in for Independence Day and came out again. But that was used as an excuse for taking this action.
Then there are dark hints of sending troops to Jadoville, Kolwezi, Kipushi and elsewhere. It seems that all these activities are part of the plan to extract from the Katanga Government some contribution to the finances of the central Government. So far as I know, President Tshombe has never refused in principle to contribute towards a central Government, provided that he and his people—and I emphasise his people—can be satisfied on the terms of a Constitution which would enable Katanga to play her full part in a federal or confederal State. It is because he has never been able to get satisfaction on these matters that Katanga's share of the national revenue has been withheld; but I believe it is a fact that this money has been set aside for payment when, as we hope, agreement is finally reached. Meanwhile, U Thant has not improved the situation by publicly referring to President Tshombe and his Ministers as "a bunch of clowns". What effect is this likely to produce on people who are 100 per cent. behind their Government? For, believe me, my Lords

1047
President Tshombe is not a stooge of the Belgians, of the Union Minière or anyone else, but is supported by all his people. His gravest fault, in the eyes of many members of the United Nations, I fear, is that he is also 100 per cent. anti-Communist and 100 per cent. multiracial.
From one report I saw this morning, U Thant yesterday submitted to hisCongo Advisory Committee a programme of economic pressure on Katanga under which he hopes to be able to compel President Tshombe to accept the authority of the Central Government. How does he square this with his assurance that the United Nations have no intention of imposing a solution by force? I would ask Her Majesty's Government for a positive assurance that, if and when any proposal comes before the Security Council which is calculated to lead to hostilities, they will unhesitatingly exercise their veto. It is true that the matter could then be taken to the Assembly, but, as I pointed out earlier, under the Charter no United Nations Resolution is binding upon its members.
In The Times to-day there is an excellent leading article drawing attention to the divergencies of policy between Britain and the United States on the problems of Central Africa. The policy of the United States was said, as I thought, quite rightly, to be inspired by fears of Communism and a desire to stand well with the members of the Afro-Asian bloc and therefore to back the United Nations, right or wrong. I believe this policy to be wrong. It is not the policy, as I understand it, which Her Majesty's Government have sought to pursue. I fear that there will be little satisfaction to the United States Government if the result of their efforts is to lead to further fighting in the Congo, and, above all, to the total disruption of the economy in Katanga. No one could feel more strongly than I do about the vital need for collaboration with the United States Government over the great range of world politics, but I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not allow themselves to be diverted from their present path by any arguments of expediency or of sentiment. I remember before the establishment of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland being
1048
told by a Nyasa Chief that the reason he opposed Federation was that he was afraid he would be tied to the tail of a British South African policeman's horse. Such fears, fortunately, proved to be quite unjustified. But I have no desire to see Britain, in dealing with the affairs of the Congo and Central Africa, tied to the tail of the horse of the United States Administration, or of Mr. E. Mennen Williams.
My Lords, I have attempted to cover a rather wide field of United Nations activities in Africa. I feel that in these matters plain speaking is essential. I cannot believe that either the prestige or the value of the United Nations, itself so vital to the cause of peace, will be enhanced by pursuing a policy of intervention in the affairs of overseas territories in Africa or elsewhere in violation of the Charter. Nor do I believe that the success of the Congo operation, which we all desire—and I emphasise that—will be accomplished by resorting to questionable methods, involving the use of force to bring Katanga to heel. I realise very well the difficulties with Which the Foreign Secretary is confronted, and I congratulate him on the courageous stand he has taken. I hope that the course of events in the Congo, which since last September, and even before, have fully justified my noble friend's fears and warnings (which I trust will not fall on deaf ears in New York) will cause the United Nations to hesitate before they embark on any further dangerous adventures in the Congo or elsewhere.
4.15 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as we all know, it has been the custom for a good many years now in your Lordships' House, towards the end of July, to have a general debate on Foreign Affairs, which enables us to take a good look at the international scene before we go away for the long Summer Recess. The opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and, if I may say so, the characteristically admirable stock-taking by the Foreign Secretary, to which we listened a few minutes ago, have certainly enabled us to do that to-day. Usually there is a tendency in these difficult days—I thought there was a faint indication of it in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson—to

1049
take, on the whole, a rather sombre view of the international position. That perhaps is not very surprising, for we have all of us lived since the war under the shadow of an unremitting conflict of ideas—a struggle for power over the minds of men—between the rival ideologies of the Communist and the Free World; and there are at present, I am afraid, no definite signs that that conflict is coming to an end.
Certain new elements, indeed, there are since the war, which I think we may count as blessings. And chief among them I should put, oddly enough (and I have a feeling that the Foreign Secretary feels rather the same, though he did not put it in so many words), the existence of the atomic bomb. I realise that some people, perhaps a great many people, would regard this as a very shocking statement: and, indeed, I must confess that, having been in touch with atomic energy while I was in the Government, and knowing what the bomb can do, I find my blood curdle in horror every time I think of it. But I think it is a great mistake to suppose that it is only our blood that curdles at thoughts of the atomic bomb. Everybody else's blood curdles too, the Russian blood just as much as our own.
And if, in spite of all the problems which are confronting us, we can, at any rate, register satisfaction that we are not apparently getting any nearer to a hot war (and I think that was confirmed by what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon), I believe that this is mainly, if not entirely, due to the existence of the atomic bomb. Indeed, sometimes, when I read about all those idealistic, high-minded young men and women and boys and girls (and they are both idealistic and high-minded), who go marching about the country shouting "Ban the bomb !", I cannot help thinking, rather sadly, that what they are really saying, though they do not know it, and though it is the last thing they want, is: "Let us have a nice hot war" For if the bomb were done away with, we should be back just where we were between the wars, with just the same deterrents as we had then. And those of us who are old enough to remember the inter-war years will remember, too, that the deterrents then at the disposal of peace-loving nations were not suf
1050
ficient to avert another war. Nor would they be sufficient to avert yet a third war, and a still more terrible one, if we put ourselves back in the same position we were in then.
There is a great deal to be said for banning further tests of the bomb. Personality, I should be strongly in favour of it; the bomb is quite destructive enough as it is. But J believe that the existence of this weapon, horrible though it may be, is at present the principal safeguard to peace, and I very much hope that it wild he a cardinal principle of all Parties alike, whatever Government may he in power, to keep it in existence until there is a much greater change in human nature than is at present visible above the international horizon. Till that great day, however awkward the situations that may arise in Berlin, Laos or anywhere else, I do not personally believe that they will blow up into world wars such as some of us have know twice in our lifetime. It would be far too dangerous for everybody concerned.
The Foreign Secretary, if I understood him aright, indicated this afternoo that he seemed to see at any rate some faint indications of a modification in the practice, if not the theory, of Communism in Russia itself. Of course, we all hope that that may be so, and if there were any genuine evidence of this I am sure that we shall all be very ready to meet the Russians halfway. But do not let us live in a fool's paradise. At present, so far as I know, there is no indication that they have abandoned their main aim of world domination. It is in that spirit that I feed we must face—and shall probably have to face for many years to come—the perils of both a hot and a cold war.
That brings me for a few moments—and I am not going to trouble your Lordships for long—to the cold war, the war of propaganda and ideas. It would clearly take far too long to-day to try to tackle the whole of this vast subject. I should, however, like to say just one word about one individual facet of it, to which Lord Colyton has already referred, the facet of Katanga. It is a subject that has already been dealt with both by the Foreign Secretary and by Lord Colyton, and I propose to say only this. It seems to me that there

1051
is a tendency in this country, in some quarters—I believe, too great a tendency,—to regard the problem of Katanga (where the situation, I am afraid, appears again to be deteriorating) as an independent issue all on its own, which can be looked at, faced and solved without reference to the wider problems of the day; something quite detached from what is happening in other parts of the world. I wish it were. It would make it very much easier to solve. But, alas!, it is not. It is, in fact, just one episode in the cold war between the two Power blocs of East and West, in which every nation in the world, ourselves and everyone else, has to take its stand on one side or the other—a war which permeates the United Nations itself from top to bottom; which permeates even the inner shrine of the Security Council and the office of the Secretary-General himself.
We had a remarkable example of this (to which Lord Colyton has already referred) and about which I am sure we were all sorry to read, only a day or two ago, when that distinguished official U Thant, who is supposed to set. by virtue of his position, the highest example of impartiality, made a speech in which he castigated President Tshombe and his Government as "a bunch of clowns". Of course they are not clowns. No men who have run their country as they have for the last two years, under the conditions they have had to face, could possibly be regarded as clowns: and no doubt the Secretary-General himself did not intend those words to be taken quite literally. I am sure he is far too intelligent for that. What, clearly, he meant was that they were men who held a viewpoint utterly repugnant to him; that he regarded them as altogether reprehensible and people to whom he, as Secretary-General, felt that he was bound to be opposed. I do not think it is an exaggeration to put that interpretation on his words. I do not say, I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that either the United Nations or the Secretary-General himself are never impartial. That would obviously be a dreadful overstatement. But I must say, in view of the words which the Secretary-General used on this particular occasion, that he shows no sign of being impartial over
1052
Katanga. Actually I do not think that we in this country need altogether regret the speech that he made. It is far better that we should know where we stand over a matter of this kind. But what conclusions are we bound to draw from his words? Surely that he will do his utmost to secure the defeat of President Tshombe and all that he stands for. How far he will go, I do not know. Will he go to violence? Time alone will show. We hope not. Indeed, he indicated that when he was here the other day. But that he will be impartially minded over the problem of Katanga is too much, I am afraid, to hope.
In these circumstances, what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to be? Up to now, if I may say so, if they have not actually sat on the fence they have remained within very easy reach of it. They have declared that they were opposed to the use of force in Katanga—and I am sure that is true—but they have made a considerable financial contribution to the cost of the military operations against her. One can well understand why they have done this. They were placed, as Governments often are, in a position of great difficulty and delicacy. They could not, with any honesty, pretend to be enthusiastic about the Katanga operations. But they did not want to antagonise, to alienate, what are known euphemistically as the moderate Afro-Asians—those States which, however embarrassing they may be on this particular issue, could not be regarded in general as definitely in the Eastern camp: they did not want to push them there. So they did not support President Tshombe, who was, in fact, pursuing that policy of multiracialism in which we have always believed, and they definitely, as Lord Colyton has just said, turned against our Portuguese Allies over Angola. It was, as I said just now, an understandable policy, if not a very heroic one. But, unhappily, it did not work; for the Afro-Asian bloc, having done their worst against President Tshombe and Portugal, turned round and bit us over Rhodesia.
What is the moral of this sad story? It is surely this. Whatever their views may be on other questions, we must recognise that, over Africa, there are no moderate Afro-Asians—they do not exist. The Afro-Asian States have all

1053
the same object. That policy is to get the white man out of Africa. This is the true explanation of their policy towards Belgium, Portugal and now ourselves. It is not because they dislike Belgian, Portuguese or British colonial policies, as such. They do mot really care whether those policies are good or bad, whether retrograde or progressive. They have only one aim—they want to get the white man out, and that will be their object in Kenya, Rhodesia and everywhere else: and unless Her Majesty's Government make it clear that they will not abandon the white man, and that our policy remains multiracialist, as it has always been, that is just what will happen—the white man will be pushed out of Africa.
I suppose there is none of us here who has not welcomed during the last few weeks and months the firm, wise words of Mr. Butler, since he took over his responsibilities in Central Africa. They have already led to a notable relaxation of tension in that part of the world. And there is none of us equally who has not welcomed the firm, wise words, if I may say so in his presence, of the Foreign Secretary on some aspects of United Nations policy. But there is one man, so far as I know, who has not yet made such forthright statements as the Ministers I have mentioned, and that is the Prime Minister himself. Is it too much to hope that to-morrow, when he speaks in another place, he will show himself, like Mr. Butler, a convinced multiracialist; that he will declare himself as a leader who regards multiracialism, with all that that implies for Rhodesia and Katanga, as the immutable basis of our colonial policy? I hope, most profoundly, that he will, for nothing, I believe, would help more both to consolidate his own Party and to restore his country's position to its former splendour in the world.
4.40 p.m.
EARL BALDWIN OF BEWDLEY: My Lords, I apologise for having to leave before the end of this most important and interesting debate, but I have to catch a train home to attend a meeting in the mourning that I cannot miss. In this field of the international situation I am not going to range very far or very particularly; I am going only to dig down among the roots for a few minutes
1054
and come up with something that I hope your Lordships will not find too repellent. I want to examine some of the factors in peace and war, and for that I need to go back to the years between the First and the Second World Wars. I was very glad that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, referred to the inter-war years, because I think they have a great bearing on the situation to-day.
It is a common occurrence in history, my Lords, that when bad times come to a nation there is a general wish to punish those who have been in power at the time; and, in the name of patriotism, their successors are pleased to proclaim the guilt of those who went before them. Abroad, of course, the fallen leader is not infrequently put to death, and the record of his words and deeds is modified to suit the verdict; but in this kindlier land of ours, if the occasion is grim enough we are content merely to destroy his public reputation—and his private character, too, if that is at all possible. Something of this sort happened to the political leaders in the inter-war years, and history has been compiled to crystallise that emotion. It is not so much the men as the history being misrepresented that matters, and for very obvious reasons.
On the whole, a thoroughly false view has been accepted by the Western world, and we have become convinced that there were no insoluble problems between the Wars, and that all we lacked were statesmen with wider knowledge, greater courage and higher moral values than those we had to put up with. But it is a pretty dangerous belief, because in that way we are bound to ignore the underlying causes of the War which are so similar in some ways to those which prevail to-day. Because if these causes of the last War were in fact, as I believe, an unwise peace treaty; victims aggrieved and victors insecure; an incomplete League of Nations; a pledge of general disarmament disregarded by most; the relative weakness of a democracy in dealing with a dictatorship—all these factors interacting, well, what then? But it seems to me that because we have taken the easy and not the difficult view of the inter-war period we are setting our course towards those same rocks on

1055
which we foundered a generation ago. If we continue to steer by the two inconstant stars of a so-called United Nations and a Treaty of Disarmament, expecting, as so many seem to do, to find thereby the solution to the problem of war between the nations, we are likely to come to the same crash.
I do not think that all the Governments before the last War were inferior to those we have had since, but if we really believe, as we are told, that they were composed of boobies and slackers, then the lessons of the twenties and the thirties will have passed us by; and those lessons are nothing more than the ancient tribal ones of selfishness overcoming the common weal and patriotism overcoming universal brotherhood; and so it will always be. In international affairs there is never a shore where one can rest and be at peace. There is only an endless voyage of adventure and misadventure, and when we arrive at what we think is a haven—a solution by treaty—all that we can be sure of is that an even dirtier-looking horizon opens up before us towards which we have to struggle on.
I mention this because I think a great many people have got it into their heads that if only all the great nations of the world would sign a disarmament treaty and leave the rest to the United Nations, then the danger of war would be removed from the earth. Bearing in mind the pacts that have been solemnly agreed to in our lifetime, the signing of such an agreement as that should really make us shake in our shoes. In my view it would no more solve the problem of war than does the marriage ceremony solve the problem of sex. Treaties can be signed, my Lords, but Governments come and go; and an appeal to patriotism, to national pride, never fails. What did the patriots of Japan, Italy and Germany in the 1930s care for the Kellogg Pact, which, your Lordships will remember. renounced war as an instrument of policy? What did they care for that Pact when the drums began to beat, when their leaders saw the chance of profit or revenge?
The United States was built upon the belief that all men are created equal, and the United Nations seems to hold that all nations are also created equal. So
1056
far so good, on paper. But in the practical enforcement of peace, is it not evident that neither men nor nations are equal? I want to say no more about the United Nations now but I want to say just a word about disarmament.
As to disarmament, you get one profound thinker declaring that the only way to secure it is, first of all, to create confidence; and then you get another equally profound thinker declaring that you must first secure disarmament before you can create the confidence that is vital to the cause of peace. Both may be right, but they do not get us very far forward. We have been through all this before: this dual pursuit of an overriding community of nations and an agreed Disarmament Conference. We have been through it for 43 years, less six interrupted by the war that the whole thing was designed to prevent. Let us take care that we do not reproduce and fail to recognise the same situation that we were in a generation ago, only with knobs on. And your Lordships will not fail to recognise that by "knobs" I mean nuclear missiles.
I know that all I have said seems to be purely negative, but I will try to end more positively. I have indicated my conviction that we are "no better than our fathers were"; and, having quoted from the Prophet Elijah—I almost always verify my references, but I did not look up whether it was Elijah. though I am pretty sure it was he who said: "I am no better than my fathers were"—I might as well go on to prophesy, not what I necessarily think that we ought to do, but what I think might happen, despite ourselves and all our policies.
My Lords, nothing to the minds of most persons is more certain than that we are, of all creeds and colours, all in the hands of God, though one occasionally hears powerful arguments against such an assumption; and, however arrogantly we may talk about shaping our own destinies and being masters of the event, it is, after all, no better than the boasting of little schoolboys. Whether our acts are voluntary or pre-determined we shall never be permitted to know. Nor do I pretend to any Divine knowledge. But from what I have observed during my lifetime, I should say that evil is just as likely to result from what we

1057
think good, as good is from what we think evil. We know only that His ways are not our ways, and the narrow limits of our intelligence are bounded by walls of paradox.
Arms and bombs, in my view, are not the evilest things in the world. Whether the slaughter of the innocent should rather be by bayonets, by famine or by poisonous radiation is an unfair moral question. Therefore I think we should do well not to get the higher Christianity mixed up too closely with international affairs so that we try to put a futile ban upon one weapon as being more disgusting than another. It may even turn out that disarmament is not the wisest road to peace—if, indeed, peace can ever be attained.
There was a book written about 100 years ago by Bulwer Lytton, not a very well-known book, called The Coming Race, which told of a Utopian land where strife was unknown, not because its inhabitants were saintlier than we but because everyone possessed a kind of electrical means of instantly destroying his fellows. That being so, perpetual peace was assured. Those who believe in the Millennium on earth may perhaps find some comfort there. But could it not be that through further nuclear research a similar power will one day be placed in all men's hands, and thus bring about the physical salvation of the human race, and in a more likely manner, too, more suited to what we know of human nature, which nationally has proved itself quite incapable of keeping its word under temptation except through dread of the consequences?
Might not the colossal cost of such research, added to the cost of travel in space, bring the nations to ransom so that they lay down their arms and pool their resources in a way that has never been possible by the old national catchwords of good will and good faith? Such an insurance premium would be worth the money, if all else fails. It is from that direction that I see more hope for our children than from any treaties that may come out of United Nations or disarmament conferences. Meanwhile, of course, so long as the wind blows from the opposite direction, we must follow the will of the people; but they ought to be warned that treaties are not
1058
the cure-alls which they seem to think they are.
I thank your Lordships for listening to what may be considered irresponsible views. For all that I have said, I am full of hope, so long as we do not suppress scientific knowledge. I am full of hope for the supreme reason that I gave earlier in my speech; and I am also hopeful, if I may say so, because statesmen of the stamp of the two noble Lords, the Leader of the House and the Foreign Secretary, occupy the vitally important posts they do.
4.55 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I I hesitated a great deal before I decided to participate in this debate to-day. I must apologise to your Lordships for deflecting it from the general theme that it has taken up to the present moment. I do not claim to be an expert in foreign affairs: it has taken all my time and energy to secure improved wages, salaries and conditions of employment in this country, together with an improvement in our social services. I must say that sometimes I have envied colleagues who have concentrated on foreign affairs the ease with which they have been able to solve problems 6,000 or 10,000 miles away from home, particularly when they were not likely to have the responsibility of giving effect to the solution. But I participate to-day only because last November and December, through the auspices of the Ariel Foundation, I had the opportunity of visiting many countries in Latin America. Arising from my experiences during that tour I should like, not to express views on what ought to be Government policy but to ask the Government if they could indicate their policy towards Latin America and on assistance to those Latin American countries.
The purpose of my visit was mainly to discuss with trade unionists, presidents, general secretaries or executive committees, their problems, and to talk to them generally on the structure and foundation of the British trade union movement, its relation to Government, Government Departments, and the rest; to give some information, too, on the progress which we in this country have made in our social services. Although the visit was, as I have said, facilitated

1059
by the Ariel Foundation, I must express my appreciation of the very great assistance that was rendered to me throughout the tour by the Ambassador and the Embassy staff, and in particular by all the labour attachés in every one of the countries that it was my privilege to visit.
I must say, too, that I received very great assistance from the various British chambers of commerce, and through them I was able to discuss a multitude of matters with British industrial and commercial interests in those countries. It was for me a unique experience to meet, in a continent I had never previously visited, a continent of which I knew very little, if anything, a cross-section of the people—governmental, the ordinary worker, industrialists and those associated with commerce. I should like to say a few words under each of those headings, but before I do that I must say that I was greatly impressed by the high regard and esteem in which Britain and British institutions are held throughout the whole of Latin America. They thirst for knowledge: they are anxious to know how we do things, and why we do them; and they are anxious to have the benefit of our experience—not interference, but our guidance. I think it would be as well (and it is one of the reasons why I decided to participate in this debate) to secure, if possible, the views of Her Majesty's Government.
There are two great influences at work in Latin America. First of all, there is the American influence. One does not want to criticise foreign Governments, but in fact some of the assistance rendered by America in Latin America is "ham-fisted" and is resented by the people. There is, too, among the ordinary working people of Latin America a distrust of America, not based on any great foundation, apart from the American attitude to Cuba, and the general sympathy which the Latin American worker has for the Cuban revolution.
The other great influence is that of Russia and the general Communist influence. Here I have to admit from my experience of those countries that their propaganda is very skilful. It is well-directed, and, of course, it is effective because of the extreme range of poverty and riches, which provides a very fruitful
1060
ground for Communist propaganda, particularly among the peasants and the lower-paid workers in industry, who, from their point of view, have nothing to lose. I believe that Britain's prestige, our knowledge, our experience and adaptability, give us a great opportunity to render assistance to Latin-American countries in their development, and in the great struggle which is taking place in the ideology of those countries. I do not want to be, nor am I, despondent, but I think it would be foolish not to face the fact that the way Latin America will go, democratic or Communist, rests on a knife-edge. We can play a part in saving that Continent for democracy.
I will not say a great deal on the Governmental side, because the Ambassador and the Embassy staff keep Her Majesty's Government wall informed as to political trends, the actions of Governments and the rest of it, in those countries. But I have been delighted to note in the last few weeks that, in association with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, there has been formed the British-Latin America Parliamentary Group. I hope Her Majesty's Government will grant every facility, and help and encouragement, to that new Parliamentary Group in the work which they can and, I hope, will undertake in assisting these countries to understand a little more our democratic ways of Government, and how they can adapt them to circumstances within their own countries.
When I turn to the trade union movement, I am on much firmer ground in regard to knowledge of that movement in this country. But I think every one of your Lordships will agree that a solid, well-led trade union movement is essential for the development of social conditions within a country, and it can be a vital factor in creating stability within a country and, in fact, being a bulwark against revolutionary tendencies. Therefore, I hold the view, biased perhaps because of my own background, that one of the most vital factors in Latin America, in that rising, industrial Continent, is the correct growth and development of the trade union movement. It is true that industry is young in the whole of Latin America. It had an impetus arising from two World Wars, but largely the whole Continent is a feudal society. The trade union movement there is weak and it lacks

1061
experience. It has lacked direction, and it has lacked adequate training for the function that it has to undertake.
Again, one hesitates to speak in certain ways, but I think it is only right to face the problem, as I see it, in these countries. Perhaps largely through the influence of the large landowners, the Catholic Church was actively opposed to the development of the trade union movement throughout Latin America. I am pleased to say that that attitude has largely changed—in my view, not on a fundamental basis, but because of a greater fear by the Church of the development of Communism within these countries, and the change is due much more to its anti-Communist attitude than to its love for the trade union movement. But I have to admit that, throughout the whole of Latin America, the Catholic Church is really the only effective anti-Communist instrument within the trade union movement, and it is, in fact, doing good work in training the ordinary worker throughout industry for responsibility within the movement, in order that he can resist the Communist propaganda which, as I mentioned before, is effectively spread throughout the whole of the Continent. I think that one of the reasons why we can play a big part is that there are also a considerable number of important trade unionists who, though Catholics, have a dislike or a mistrust of the Church's entering trade union activities, and who look with envy to a country such as ours where the political and religious affiliations of a worker make little, if any, difference to his trade union activities.
I must say that the labour attachés in these countries are doing excellent work in the scope within which they can operate. They are civil servants. The field of activity in Which they can operate is limited by the fact that they are civil servants. The Foreign Office, the Ministry of Labour and the Central Office of Information in this country do a good job in bringing prominent trade unionists, one or two at a time, from all countries in Latin America to this country, and in facilitating their movement among trade unionists and Government Departments so that they can see the British way of life and in particular how the British trade union movement works
1062
here. That is most valuable. It is greatly appreciated, as one would expect, by those who have the opportunity of taking advantage of it and of coming to this country.
However, I believe that there is a far greater field of activity which we can undertake from this country. It may be said that surely that is a function for the trade union movement of this country, but I believe that the greater need is for, I will not say the training, but the mixing of folk from this country who have trade union, local government and perhaps political experience with the ordinary workers in those countries, to give them a general background of the activities in Britain, perhaps staying with them for some time, and setting the scene for guidance in their development of democratic government. I would hope that the Government, through some agency in this country, could arrange for such persons to go to Latin America, and to be able to make a contribution to them in the difficult time through which they are now passing.
My last point is that of industry and commerce. Here, again, because of the new development there is great scope, and there is great need for capital because, as I said, they are developing countries. The only complaint against Her Majesty's Government which I met with throughout the Continent was that which came from British industrialists and commercial interests who rather felt that the British Government were not doing as much as they might to help them in the job they were doing there. Well, my Lords, complaints about Governments not doing as much as they might are not uncommon even in circles other than those in which British industrialists operate in foreign parts. I was impressed by the industrial and commercial interests in those countries, but they face great difficulties and need all the encouragement that Her Majesty's Government can give them.
Perhaps one ought not to mention names, but there was one interest in Brazil which had established a factory in a newly developing industry in that country, the maintenance of aircraft engines. That company was servicing its sales from this country to the Latin-American countries, developing local

1063
labour, creating a great impression and doing a great service for the exports of this country in view of the immediate service they were able to give after purchase in the South American country concerned. I feel that there is very great scope in this field if British industrialists and commercial interests grasp the opportunities. One has to admit, of course, that there are risks. These countries are not as stable as investors would like, but, if we play our part in developing their stability, I think that investment is worth while. My Lords, I apologise again for diverting the debate from the line it had taken up to my intervention, but I believe that the Latin American Continent is of great importance. It is concerned in the matter of world peace, because the way it goes, whichever way it is, can have its effect in that hemisphere. I hope that, as a result of the inadequate contribution I have made, Her Majesty's Government will be able to state, in general outline, their policy towards this great Continent.
5.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for introducing this Motion at this time. It gives some of us an opportunity to draw attention to matters in certain parts of the world which possibly escape our attention, due to the spotlight being turned on elsewhere.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, who has just resumed his seat, I should like to say a few words this afternoon about the continent of South America. Before I do so, I know that your Lordships would wish to join with me in expressing our most grateful thanks to his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh for undertaking the strenuous tour he made round the whole of that continent earlier this year. Many of us were upset that the reporting of this most important trip was not presented more fully in this country, particularly in the daily Press. This had an adverse effect in those countries in which the movements of His Royal Highness were well covered and reported. Frequently some time elapsed—many days, on some occasions—before there was any mention in our daily Press of what His Royal Highness was doing. Visitors
1064
from the South American continent mentioned this point to me while they were over here, and asked: "Is our country not important enough for the British Press to record what Prince Philip is doing in our country to-day?" However, those of us who were following His Royal Highness's movements and who have some knowledge of the Continent know what a magnificent job he did as a special Ambassador from this country, particularly in the business sphere.
My Lords, in dealing with South America one must look beyond the day-to-day ups and downs—in fact, I think this is in the vein of Lord Lindgren's speech before me. One must view the continent in a time scale of years, if not of decades. All these countries gained their independence from their outside masters a relatively short time ago—in fact at varying dates during the nineteenth century. For 250 years before that they were ruled by Spain and Portugal by appointed administrators. Spain and Portugal looked upon these countries solely as a source of wealth, and young men went out there, not to settle, but to get rich and then return to the mother country. With the vacuum which was left after the departure of the original owners—due to the complete lack in those countries of people trained in government and administration—it is remarkable that the countries have evolved as rapidly as they have; but it is still going to take some time before some of them can take their place in an orderly manner in the world.
When I last spoke in your Lordships' Chamber about South America I stressed the seriousness of Communist infiltration—a matter that has been well covered this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren. During that debate I suggested the need for improvement covering the direct exchange of news between this country and that continent. I mentioned that frequently news about this country was relayed to South America via the United States, and vice versa, and in the process often became distorted. It is very heartening now to learn that Reuters, in spite of many difficulties, are managing to extend their services and representation in South America from the one office they had in

1065
Brazil when I last mentioned this subject. Their economic news service is being operated now in Chile and Argentina, and they are slowly developing their direct news service again. They are rightly taking the long view.
I also mentioned that I felt that the British Council should adjust their allocation of scholarships in order to give certain countries there a larger slice of the cake. According to the statistics issued by the Standing Committee of the London Conference of Overseas Students in October, 1960, the total number of students in Great Britain during the beginning of the academic year, 1959–60, from all countries in South America, was 323, out of a total of 16,440 from foreign countries and an overall total of 47,520 from all countries including the Commonwealth and United Kingdom dependencies. These figures cover all types of student, whether sponsored or paying their own fees. This means that the percentage from the whole of the South American continent studying in this country, in relation to other foreign countries, was only 1·9 per cent. of the total; whereas, to take three examples only, the percentage from Israel was the same;1·9, from Egypt, 2·3, and from Western Germany, 11 per cent.
My Lords, I feel that these priorities are wrong, and that this continent of South America, which by the end of this century, if calculations are correct, will contain 600 million people—which is equal to the combined populations of North America and the whole of Europe—should have a larger share of the cake in regard to overseas students studying in this country. I am not in any way casting any reflection on the British Council, who are doing an excellent job within a limited budget. But I do feel that the British Council should be authorised, or enabled, to allocate more sponsored scholarships in this country for students from South America.
Now, my Lords, a few words about the present and the future. Everybody is naturally extremely distressed and disturbed about the recent turn of events in Peru, where the armed forces have taken over control of the country and have taken President Prado into custody in a warship off Callao. I understand that the result of the election was indecisive, and that the armed forces intend
1066
to run things until new elections are held next year. This is indeed an unfortunate state of affairs.
No one who is concerned with doing business with countries in South America finds it easy, but the rewards can be great, provided, as I have said, that a long-term view is taken. His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh put the matter very simply and clearly when addressing the governing body of the Federation of British Industries on his return from South America earlier this year. He said that they wanted "know-how". Bit by bit, as factories for the local manufacture of products are set up in those countries, tariffs are automatically imposed, discriminating against the importation of a particular product. A shining example of what is wanted in that continent is the £30 million Mantaro hydro-electric project in Peru, announced in the Press here on July 7, in which this country will participate and benefit to the extent of about £14 million. This project will surely survive the present state of affairs in that country, as Peru has always honoured her engagements in the past. The English Electric Company and George Wimpey are the two British firms concerned in this project, in association with the German firm of Siemens Schuckert; and the long-term credit financing for the British participation is being arranged by a remarkable syndicate under Lazard Brothers, consisting of 38 other British banks, insurance companies and pension funds.
Here, my Lords, is a remarkable achievement for the mutual benefit of Peru and this country, which I understand took a very long time to conclude. Apart from the financial aspect of this contract, it is vital to ourselves and other countries of the Western world to help these countries in South America to raise their standards of living and to catch up with the more advanced standards of ourselves and others in the West. As the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has mentioned, all these countries have, to a greater or lesser extent, vast raw material resources like oil, iron ore and other metals, apart from, and quite undeveloped in relation to, the development of their existing products such as coffee and beef; and it is vital to ourselves in the West that in the future

1067
these vast raw materials should not go into the wrong hands.
Before concluding I should like, to add just a few remarks on a subject covered by the previous speaker. Our relations with these countries have always been friendly, and in some cases the bond of friendship is very strong, so we have good will. It has been mentioned that the various Government agencies in this country, such as the Central Office of Information, the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade, do their job of looking after official visitors to this country very well. I agree with that, but I feel that, in addition to what those agencies do, supplemented by Canning House who do an excellent job, and the various Latin American societies who play their part, there is a gap. Businessmen coming over here are usually well looked after by industry, but this gap, in my view, includes influential people in these countries, who are not able to visit us and learn of our ways. They include trade union leaders, certain professional people and, sometimes, newspaper editors, particularly of the local provincial papers. They cannot come over here as members of Parliamentary or business delegations, or as students.
I should like to ask her Majesty's Government to consider whether the labour and commercial attachés in those countries could be instructed, or could be asked, to endeavour to facilitate and encourage visits of that sort to this country, having first ascertained from the counterpart organisations here—the newspapers or the trade unions—that they can receive visitors of this type. I personally have been told by several provincial editors in South America, when I have been there, that they would very much like to come over here, learn about our ways, and report well of us, but they were anxious to know that when they arrived here they would be looked after, and would be able to find somebody who could speak Spanish or Portuguese.
5.26 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I agree very much with all that has been said about Latin America by both the last two speakers. I, too, was recently there—not on a wide trip; simply in Chile—and was very much struck by the decline
1068
there had been, in the contacts of all kinds between our country and theirs, over the last lifetime or couple of lifetimes. I very much hope that anything that can be done to increase contacts between ourselves and Latin America will be done. But it will not be a one-way job only. While they probably have more to learn from us than we have from them, there are things that we could learn from them, particularly of Brazilian architecture.
I want to speak generally this evening about NATO. It is generally accepted that NATO is the foundation of our Whole foreign policy; but if the foundation is split or is laid crooked the house will not stand. My Lords, I believe that this in the case. It seems to me that NATO is crooked, and lit is certainly split. No more blame attaches to our Government for this than to any of the others, and less than to some. But I should like to see our Government do what it can to take the European arms situation in hand before it is too late. And by "before it is too late" I do mot mean before a generalised turn for the worse, but before the very concrete danger of nuclear war, which we can all imagine all too clearly, and which I believe is at present being made more likely by NATO'S courses.
First of all, we should master the two dangers of economic drift and what I call pipe-line inertia. By "economic drift" I mean doing something, not because it will make the world safer, not even because it will make NATO stronger, but because it will save us foreign exchange. We have, for instance, the story that last year we asked the Americans to keep the B.47s in England because we wanted the dollars spent by their crews, and that this year the Americans are insisting on withdrawing them because they want to save those dollars. I think it is generally known that our Government is concerned by the way the Americans are "hogging" the European arms market, to our exclusion. The Americans have induced the Germans to buy 15 hundred million dollars' worth of arms in two years; this more nearly covers the costs of keeping American troops in Germany than earlier levels did. Secretary McNamara has recently raised from 25 to 50 per cent. the differential which the American Defence

1069
Department is prepared to pay in order to have components of weapons systems made in America and not abroad. Are these the best decisions which could have been taken? I do not know, but it makes one uneasy. We are talking here of the life and death of millions. Is our Alliance so superficial, that we must compete with each other on an exchange control level?
By "pipe-line inertia", I mean the tendency to accept automatically the weapons and the deployment of weapons which was arranged five years ago, perhaps by a predecessor Government which may not have foreseen how the world was going to be in five years' time. There was the recent complaint from the head of Rolls Royce, that the British Government is not prompt enough to cancel misconceived defence contracts but may drag on at the mercy of an outdated decision. Industry does not lightly complain of contracts not being cancelled.
Then I have asked a number of Americans who ought to know the answer what really lay behind Mr. McNamara's cloudy speech of last month, with all its implications of an American first strike. I am convinced, or nearly convinced, that it was this. He ordered the colossal number of 900 Minutemen because they were ready to come out of the pipe-line. They were cheap, simple and efficient. Then he had to find a strategic doctrine to justify them, so he abandoned the better strategy of finite deterrence based on the Polaris submarine and adopted the counterforce strategy which he defined in his speech. That is the way NATO is conducted, but it is not the way it should be conducted. A Government worthy of its people does not order or deploy weapons merely because they are available: it does so because they are needed.
Let us look now for a moment at the threat in response to which NATO grew up. No doubt there is a threat; the Soviet Union is armed and is antidemocratic. But how strong is the threat? Do we really feel threatened? Are we in urgent need of the greatest possible military strength and coherence? We have only to look at what happens. For five years and more France has not in fact contributed more
1070
than a token strength to NATO: the might of that State has been used against the Algerians. Yet Russia has not attacked. There is at present open, almost clamorous disagreement about what NATO strategy should be; the Alliance is all over the place. Yet Russia has not attacked. The mere existence of the present disagreement and disarray is proof, I think, that we do not really feel threatened. If we did, we should close the ranks quickly enough. We talk as if we were besieged and harried by an implacable enemy, but we show by our actions that we know we are not.
It is in times of relative East—West calm like the present that we can learn most about ourselves, that we can see our differences most clearly, and thus lay the bases of useful policies. Because differences there are, permanent and inevitable ones, and they underlie most of the day-to-day political bickering and haggling which distinguishes NATO at the moment. We should not be dismayed by this. We shall get nowhere if we pretend that the interests of all NATO countries are identical or coterminous. They are not: they are overlapping. They overlap more when the pressure is on from the East and less when it is off.
To name only a few of these inevitable differences, which must be recognised and allowed for, West European countries can always think of neutralism; the United States cannot—there would be no-one for her to be neutral between. Again, the United States can contemplate defeat in a Western European theatre of war; the Western European countries cannot. Again, we in Britain look like "Anglo-Saxons" to continental Europeans, but we look like Europeans to the Americans. Because of our position and history, we shall always lean towards the maritime, far-flung type of strategy; and, because of theirs, Germany and France will always lean towards a massive, monolithic forward strategy. Again, when an American says to a European, in the context of NATO, "You must be flexible", he means, "You must play your part in a graduated deterrent posture within the Alliance". But when a European hears the word "flexibility", he reaches for

1071
his independent deterrent. And, looming over all the differences, there is the different way of regarding the mammoth weapons of our time. America, and Russia, too, with their great unpopulated spaces, may distinguish between the counterforce strike which takes out a missile and the retaliatory strike which burns a megalopolis; between the strategic strike which lobs 5,000 miles and the tactical strike which lobs 300 miles. In the huddled antheap of Europe, counterforce means the suburbs of Leicester, and tactical means the city centre of Hanover. We cannot compose these differences between the NATO countries, which are part of the geography and the history of the world: we can only allow for them.
Against this background, my Lords, we talk a lot about preventing a spread of nuclear weapons, but so far as I can see it has already happened. Every country in NATO, according to SHAPE, holds weapons capable of delivering nuclear shells or bombs. Some of them—one thinks of Norway, Denmark and Canada—have so far refused to have the actual bombs on their territories; they reckon they could be brought in quickly enough in a crisis. Others, including the central bloc of Italy, Germany and this country, already have the nuclear weapons on. the spot.
Take Germany. There is a joint German-American weapons development programme, which includes categories of weapons with a nuclear capability. Germany holds the nuclear rocket called "Mace" which has a range of 600 miles—well into Poland. The Luftwaffe is changing over from F.84's to F.104's. Both of these are dual-purpose planes—in other words, they are, if one wants them to be, atom bombers. The Lockheed F.104 is built under licence in Germany by a Canadian-German-Italian-Japanese consortium. The Luftwaffe is building up from the present level of about 200 planes to a target of 600. The first unit to convert to the F.104 is commanded by an East Prussian officer—that is, a refugee from the Eastern territories. I am not saying that he is going to start a nuclear war tomorrow, but what a choice, politically speaking!
The German Army also holds the "Honest John" missile, a nuclear means
1072
of delivery. I am not sure whether it yet holds the nuclear mortar called "Davy Crockett", but if it does not there is not much doubt that it soon will. It is two years now since Adenauer said:
"We must give all the NATO forces the same arms as the Russians have, or we might as well give them bows and arrows."
Now all these weapons are kept separate from the warheads and bombs and shells by the famous American sentry and his key. But I have yet to talk to a soldier—British, German, Italian or whoever he may be—who has not worked out for himself how easy it would be, if occasion arose, to overpower that sentry and fire. It would be rather easy. The Americans know this, and that is why, eight years after the Act of Congress which instituted this sentry arrangement, President Kennedy has gone back to Congress for 23 million dollars to develop a remote control electronic lock for nuclear weapons. There are also in Germany, of course, the American and British Armies, both armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. I believe that, in order to buy German support for their policy of not helping de Gaulle to build his own nuclear weapons, the Americans have put more nuclear weapons on German soil than the French could have made in about fifteen years.
Then, France herself. In order to force America to give him the "know-how" and the control he wants, de Gaulle has refused to go along with the Berlin negotiations; has boycotted the disarmament talks; has kicked the NATO Tactical Air Force out of France, has removed his own air force and his Mediterranean navy from NATO control, has refused to accept I.R.B.M.'s on French soil, and has even refused to permit the completion of a chain of defensive NATO radar stations on French soil. In order not to seem by so much as a wink to countenance his independent nuclear force, the Americans have refused to sell him bits and pieces for it which they have agreed to sell even to the Belgians.
My Lords, it is too easy simply to remark that de Gaulle is holding the Western World up to ransom; that he is neglecting his duties and demanding more than his rights, and so on. He has one thought, and one only: to keep

1073
France in existence—and he is not the I only one with that thought among European statesmen. He was called in to preside over a nation in complete disintegration—and that is not too strong a word for it. France, at the moment, does not really exist as a country. Its Government is not even capable of making peace with a victorious enemy: the decision had to be endorsed months later, by the O.A.S., before it could take effect. France plays no part in NATO: it cannot. It is hardly there, politically. De Gaulle knows how much this is due to the two and a half German occupations France has suffered in the last century. If I interpret him aright, he is determined that, whatever else may happen, France shall not again be occupied. Way back in 1948 he was already blaming United States and British strategists in the Western Union for planning to defend Europe from across the Channel and behind the Pyrenees. Ever since that time he has made French NATO bases and communication systems dependent on forward strategy.
He also has an obscure fear that the United States and the Soviet Union may destroy Europe and partition the rubble. He has done some calculations—and I would not conclude that the "through the pores" calculations of a wily and stiff-necked elder statesman were automatically less good than those of the computers which the Americans use—and has come to the answer that the right continuation of this policy is to have an independent nuclear deterrent. This gives him not only the power to fire if the Americans do not fire, but also the power conspicuously not to fire if the Americans do. De Gaulle is the product of a vanquished continental power in extremis, just as Mr. Duncan Sandys as Defence Minister was the product of a victorious island power intent on an easy way of life; but the result is very much the same.
So, my Lords, what happens if we do nothing? De Gaulle or his successors get their independent strike force. They get Mirages, which are the medium-range bombers, they get Polaris-type submarines by 1969; and they get tactical nuclear weapons which they deploy in Alsace, as Mr. Messmer said in a recent interview. We may really take it for
1074
granted that the Germans will follow suit. It is true that they are prevented from doing so by an old treaty; but would we hold them to it in a new situation? I doubt it. We should not forget that the industrial plan of Euratom is based on dual-purpose reactors—that is, reactors which produce weapons, grade fissile material—that it includes gaseous diffusion plants, and that there is nothing in it to prevent the Germans from learning what they can from the operation of these plants. After the Germans, the Italians, who are already producing weapons grade fissile materials from the reactors they have. Then Benelux. And then East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, India (who may be doing it already), Israel, Brazil, and so on and so on, until mankind reaches the condition I once described as that of catatonic porcupines: so many defensive pincushions paralysed with fear glaring at each other across every frontier in the world. Egypt has already bought a German scientist and developed I.R.B.M.s.
It is the justified fear of this ridiculous and dangerous future which has given rise to the present crisis in NATO At the Athens meeting, the Americans agreed to tell NATO Governments where on their soil American nuclear warheads were kept, and offered six Polaris submarines to NATO The first measure does not go very far. The second has turned out to mean no more than the transfer of six out of the proposed 40 Polaris submarines from one American admiral to another; they are already fighting about it in Washington. So the idea of a joint European nuclear deterrent has arisen. How seductive it sounds; how full of all the good democratic values of "mucking in", of internationalism, of sacrifice for the common cause! Herr Strauss, the German Defence Minister, is for it.
"If atoms and sovereignty belong together",
he has said, using his own particular shorthand,
"then why should countries be prepared to give up one without the other?"
A large sector of American administration opinion is for it, provided it does not escape a good measure of American control. President Kennedy's recent speech about a Declaration of Interdependence, following up the American Declaration of Independence, can be

1075
read to favour it. Short-sighted, staunch Press columnists are all for it. Let us take a recent formulation from the New York Times:
"A combined European force that would include the British and be linked with the American within a reconstituted North Atlantic alliance".
Include, linked, reconstituted—they give one a good feeling over the breakfast coffee, but what do they mean? What could they mean?
A NATO or European deterrent—and the objections are common to both, though the advantages are not—could be any combination of three things. It could be the international "fire brigade" armed with tactical nuclear weapons which General Norstad proposed in 1960. It could be the land-based system of I.R.B.M.s which Secretary Gates proposed the same year. Or it could be a system of Polaris submarines under joint American control. The first two failed to run in 1960; but the pressure of de Gaulle's independent national force was not then so great, and they might run now. The third has yet to be tried as a concrete proposal.
The use of nuclear weapons fired from dry land means escalation if they are small, and retaliation whether they are small or large. A joint international land-based strike force thus requires the Government of country "X" to accept retaliation against its own soil for weapons launched in defence of country "Y". If it does not require this, if the weapons are to be launched only from the soil of the attacked country, then there is no need for a combined force. National forces would do just as well. Can we expect a British or French Government, let alone a remoter one like the Turkish or Greek Government, to accept the destruction of its cities for the defence of Hamburg or Hanover? If we can, then we can equally well expect the American Government to accept the destruction of its cities for the same purpose. But it is precisely the fear that the Americans would not do so, or that the Russians might think they would not, which is leading to the development of independent national deterrents, starting with our own.
All right, one may say, then let us have a European or NATO Polaris force; that will not invite retaliation because
1076
the Russians will not know what to retaliate on. But this is open to another grave objection, which also applies to land-based forces, incidentally. If there is to be real international control, there must be a prearranged plan. There cannot be consultation between 15 Governments, or six, at the last moment; it must come earlier. But just think of the political difficulties of getting this agreement, perhaps especially in a time of low tension like the present. Although the Russians would not know what to retaliate on, as wall as they would know in the case of a land-based force, yet they might very well decide to retaliate on the most convenient bit of the land theatre to them, probably Germany. And the fifteen, or six, Governments will know that as soon as they sit down to arrange the plan. Advance planning only brings on the difficulties sooner; it does not remove them.
Again, let us suppose that by a miracle there was an agreement when to fire, how many rockets would be fired, and what they would be fired at. It would have to be a document as long as the Rome Treaty, or longer. Is it conceivable that the Soviet intelligence service should not get hold of a copy? Is it conceivable that the Russians should not then be tempted to do the things it says will not lead to the firing of Polaris missiles, and stop short only of those which it says will? A deterrent posture must combine credibility with vagueness. It must be credible that the things will be fired, but vague about what will provoke the firing. It is difficult for one nation even now to achieve this combination; it would be impossible for many acting in concert.
There is talk now in Washington of the precedent of the Marshall Plan. Then, as the House well remembers, Secretary Marshal said that the United States would send great civil aid to Europe if the European countries clubbed together in return and made a combined indent. Mr. Bevin and Monsieur Spaak and others at the time saw what this "most unsordid act" would mean, and took up the invitation. Therefrom flowed great good. But it does not follow that proposals bearing a superficial resemblance to that good plan are necessarily therefore good. Great military aid from America in the form of nuclear warheads issued against a

1077
common European indent would run head on into the contradictions I have been outlining. We try in NATO to behave as if we had a common strategic interest, but, as I have said, we have not. We have a common hope: that is, not to be overrun by Communism. But our fears are distinct. They are: if we are German, that Germany might be overrun; if we are Turkish, that Turkey might be overrun; and so on. When it is not happening, we regard our common hope. But when it is !?
My Lords, we cannot yet agree even to a common tariff. We cannot agree to the abolition of passports. We are working on it, but we cannot agree yet. We cannot yet agree to a common Parliament to determine the political facets of our day-to-day life, and although we are working on that one, it is not getting very far. How can we possibly agree to a common death? The Frenchman or the German will not believe me when I tell him my name; he must have a piece of paper to prove it. How can he believe me when I tell him that I am willing to see my family, my friends, my city and my country utterly destroyed for his sake? We shall not agree on this joint deterrent force and I hope it is not long before we stop fiddling around trying to.
The contradiction is inherent in the development of nuclear weapons themselves. There is a plain logic here, and I believe it is only a traditional momentum which stops our seeing it. The unabated proliferation of independent nuclear forces increases the danger of war, and the most discussed means of checking it, a European or a NATO deterrent, cannot be achieved. What, then, is the answer? It is disarmament—disarmament by all nations in all categories of weapons. This will be very hard to get and it will raise as many problems as it solves. Changes always do. But they will be problems which do not threaten the lives of hundreds of millions of people minute after minute every day, as the dissemination of nuclear weapons throughout the Northern hemisphere does.
Although I have already detained the House too long, I should like to speak for a moment about three particular facets of the disarmament negotiations. Before I do so, I would welcome the
1078
hopeful words which the Foreign Secretary spoke about the test ban at the beginning of this debate. We in this country, and perhaps in this House especially, tend to believe that it is the Russians who are holding up progress on disarmament. I believe that just about half the holding up is being done by the Russians, perhaps a little more—not, I would say, so much as two-thirds. We applaud the Foreign Secretary and the British Government when they ask the Russians to stop holding things up and get on with it. I do not need to go through this, because it has the solid support of all Parties and of all sections of opinion in this country. But, for myself, I should applaud him even more if he were sometimes to ask the Americans to stop holding things up and get on with it. He has told us himself what good opportunities he has of talking to the Americans about this, on the basis of our special position in Washington.
I refer to three things in particular. America can land more megatons on the Soviet Union than the Soviet Union can land on America. The American proposals for a 30 per cent. reduction of means of delivery of nuclear weapons at each stage would thus take the Russians below their minimum intercontinental deterrent level early in the process of disarmament, and keep them there for several years, while the Americans remained above. I would ask the Foreign Secretary whether he would accept such a thing with regard to our own V-bomber force, which operates on keeping a minimum deterrent level. If not, can he expect the Russians to accept it? And if not, is he urging the Americans to change that proposal?
Secondly, inspection. We in the West rightly insist that we must have knowledge of what arms are left at each stage of disarmament as well as of what are destroyed. One article of the Soviet draft treaty provides that from the very beginning of disarmament, from the very first day, from the signature of the treaty, warships may not be sailed beyond territorial waters, military planes may not fly beyond national frontiers and vehicles having a military application may not be put into space. Of course, it is all part of the proposal for withdrawing bases and we

1079
tend automatically to dislike it, but it also—and here is the point—provides that the inspectorate shall ensure the compliance of parties to the treaty with these prohibitions. How can inspectors do this without being present at ports, on airfields and at missile launching sites? And if they are present in those places, how can they avoid getting a pretty good idea of what arms levels are at any moment in existence? I would ask the Foreign Secretary whether the Government have had studies made of what level of inspection at ports, airfields and missile sites would give us the certainty we need about retained arms levels at every stage of disarmament. If not, have they asked the Americans to make these studies? Because I believe that until such studies are made, we in Britain cannot honestly claim that we are doing all we can to get disarmament.
Lastly, about the West's whole strategic posture and its relation with disarmament, Secretary McNamara has abandoned the counter-city retaliatory strategy in favour of a counter-force strategy. Counter-city strategy demands no intelligence; we all know where Moscow is. But counter-force strategy does. We shall have to find out where the troop concentration or rocket base is before we can hit it. Will this new strategy not make the Russians more reluctant than ever to permit general inspection during disarmament? And have the Government pointed this out to the Americans?
Well, NATO exists for our security. It is not providing that security. Indeed, our security is visibly diminishing month by month. The moral is not to dissolve NATO in despair, nor, on the other hand, to keep thoughtlessly plastering over its inevitable cracks. The moral is to set NATO on the right path to increasing our security by giving it, for a start, a disarmament committee at a high level. It is interesting that this proposal—a NATO disarmament committee—was the only thing which could be agreed in the military committee at this year's Konigswinter Conference, to which British and German people of experience and judgment went. If disarmament is the only way out of this deadlock, we must start by equipping existing structures to face that new situation.
5.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I will not attempt to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken, in his complicated but extremely interesting venture into the realms of nuclear disarmament, though I think that the arguments that he has pronounced show that until things become clearer, we have to hang on to our own independent nuclear deterrent. I agree that General de Gaulle's attitude is rather annoying and that over Berlin Dr. Adenauer is rather obstructive, but I do not wish to talk about the nuclear deterrent.
Any debate on foreign affairs at this time is rather a venture into the unknown, because until we know on what terms we are going to join the Common Market we cannot say how things will shape. If we become full-blooded members of the Common Market, presumably we shall abide by the Treaty of Rome, and that is bound to alter our foreign policy to some extent. I agree that this is not a debate on the Common Market, but I was interested in what President Kennedy said the other day, in his address at Philadelphia. He envisaged extremely close association with the Common Market and appeared to think that America could be a member of the Common Market. That is a very attractive idea and I only hope that it could come about, although it appears to me to be impracticable. But if there is any such possibility, surely there is a far stronger case for having our own Commonwealth closely associated with the Common Market. What I am afraid of is that if we join the Common Market and it does not go according to plan, there is not going to be any jobbing back; we shall have lost our protected Commonwealth markets, because they will have reorientated themselves with America and perhaps Japan.
I shall not be here on Wednesday. I hope the Government will approach this whole matter of the Common Market, as I am sure they will, with the gravest caution. I personally am all for it economically; I think it offers most scintillating possibilities. What I am afraid of is that, if the people of this country do not accept the challenge of and the competition from Continental labour, we many get great unemployment, with its

1081
social consequences. But we cannot job backwards; and I hope that the Government, through their information services, will explain the position to the country.
Other noble Lords have covered Europe and the Berlin question, with which I am sure the majority of the public are becoming rather tired, and I should think that Mr. Khrushchev is rather sick of it, too. But Mr. Khrushchev has other fish to fry at the moment. He must be very worried by the rather primitive approach' of China to world revolution. He is also at the moment rather concerned in the South-East of Europe. He made a speech at Varna the other day from which it would appear that Yugoslavia is going to enter the Moscow fold again. I do not think Marshal Tito's Communism has been a great success. His return to Moscow will be camouflaged, and I do not think it will foe reported in the Press from either side.
But I see one danger there. Marshall Tito, as the Communist leader of the neutralist bloc, has gainer footholds in Africa and Asia which can now be placed at Mr. Khrushchev's feet. It is in Africa and the underdeveloped countries generally that we have to meat the greatest challenge from the Soviet, and the return of the prodigal son in the form of Yugoslavia will be a great help to Soviet policy in these areas. It appears on the surface that the Soviet nations in the underdeveloped areas have had a setback lately. We should be particularly vigilant as to this, because one can always foe sure that if international Communism has a setback, or appears to have one, it will redouble its efforts to keep the Soviet pot boiling. African nationalism is now running strongly, and probably Marxism does not make much strong appeal to the average African at the moment. But there is always Russian money, which is readily available, to make up for any lack in Marxist fervour; and money, from whatever quarter, is always popular in Africa.
Mr. Khrushchev is frequently stating that while capitalism and Communism exist in the world there can be no quarter between the two systems. In Bulgaria, on May 17, Mr. Khrushchev stated that as long as both capitalism and Socialism
1082
exist, as long as we do not have a uniform society, which means a Socialist Communist Society, we shall go on having struggles. That is a rather depressing outlook; but we have to base our foreign policy regarding Russia on that outlook. While there is this attitude of mind running through the leaders of Soviet Russia, there is no area of the world where we can relax for one moment; and especially is this so in Africa and the underdeveloped countries.
To succeed in Africa, I think the first essential is for the United States and us to pursue the same policy. This, of course, has not always been so. The bonds between us and America are so strong—they are bonds of Mood, tradition and history—that they can. never be torn asunder. Therefore, I think we should sometimes do some straight speaking to America, and remind them that, after all, we are really in the position of brothers: we the older brother and America the younger one. If you have straight speaking between brothers it should really make the relationship stronger.
It appears to me that often the United Nations and America do not act according to our code or our experience. I do not say this is always so, by any means, with America, but it appears to have been so up to date with the United Nations. Every nation stands or falls on its morality. We are in danger of doing a disservice in the sphere of international affairs by being too diffident in pressing our own ideas and ideals. I hope, most fervently, as I am sure we all do, for the ultimate success of the United Nations, the development of its outlook and its ultimate achievements. But we must realise that at the moment it does not stand for any clear policy, and seems to be making little serious attempt to do so.
We have heard several speakers to-day. We have heard the Foreign Secretary and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. We have heard the noble Marquess say how U Thant described the members of another State as clowns, and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who said that he did not think the Foreign Secretary gave the United Nations great dignity by his speech at Berwick-on-Tweed. But it is not for us to give the United Nations a sham dignity. The only organisation which

1083
can give the United Nations dignity is the United Nations itself. It would be extremely wrong to bolster it up by lies.
The great trouble with the United Nations is that it has been playing politics, and by doing so it has been indulging in acts of the worst type of colonialism. It astounds me. One can speak about that subject for a long time. I was extremely pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary saying a word for our colonial record. Our record has always been based on non-interference in internal affairs. After all, it was handed down to us from the Roman Empire. If we take our record in India, it probably stands as one of the wonders of the world in administration within that vast subcontinent of nearly 400 million people. We governed it with 100,000 white men, or perhaps 120,000, if you count the officers of the armed forces. But if you had had the United Nations there, imagine the chaos!
I say that by far the most important thing in international affairs is to try to make the United Nations work. We have been doing our best to do so, but the United Nations will have to be basically reorganised. Of course, there again we come up against Russia. For instance, if we had a rule that members who had not paid their subscriptions could not vote, surely Russia could not object to that. I also think that voting in the General Assembly ought to be altered. It could be on the basis of population, which I quite agree would probably put us at a disadvantage; but we are at a disadvantage anyway with all these small Afro-Asian nations having an equal vote.
The other aspect, as I see it, is that any nation joining the United Nations ought to have a period of apprenticeship. It degrades the whole system, to have this buffoonery and partisanship which goes on. I think the greatest need of the United Nations is to build up a corps of experienced administrators for underdeveloped countries. We have unlimited talent in this country. We have district commissioners from Africa, and other colonial administrators who have retired, but owing to the anti-colonial basis, I do not suppose the United Nations can employ them. But if only the United Nations could get over that and build up a corps of these men, who, with their fine records, could be as devoted to the
1084
United Nations as they have been to the United Kingdom, I think it would be an excellent thing.
I am always saying that I think it is quite absurd that China is not a member of the United Nations. One keeps on saying that. America will not have it, and so that is that; but it is honestly perfectly absurd. I also find the attitude of America extremely odd on the question of Communism, because if you go to America and put a big label on yourself saying, "I am a Communist" and proclaim it to the world, it acts like a red rag to a bull. On the other hand, if you are a Communist and you go under another label, they do not appear to see through the façade, and they take you at your own worth. In the United Nations in the Congo there were several officials there who were backed up by America but who, of course, were fellow travellers of the Communists and who were Communists. I cannot understand this attitude of America. Perhaps it is stupidity, but it seems to me extraordinary.
Before I end, I should like to say something—perhaps it does not quite come into foreign affairs—about this great craving for education in Africa. Our universities here are of course full to overflowing. We can therefore take only a limited number of Africans. To come to a university here, an African must have a certain standard, but I wonder whether it would be possible one day to have a university in this country entirely for Africans. You could then have the barest minimum standard of entry. There are now a great number of Africans going behind the Iron Curtain for their education, which is not a very healthy thing.
I should like to pay a tribute to our Foreign Secretary. We are most fortunate in having a Foreign Secretary who has the merit and the drive to say what he really believes is true. I do not believe we have had such a fine Foreign Secretary for a very long time, and I do not think words can express my appreciation of him. I should just like to quote, as this rather expresses the attitude of the Foreign Secretary, what Coleridge said:
"The strength of England is in the morality of England".
And thank God that we have a Foreign Secretary who appreciates that.
6.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I should like first to say that I owe the House an apology, as I was down to speak earlier but an unfortunate event prevented my getting here; and I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, for allowing me to speak before her. It was my loss that I also missed the speech of the Foreign Secretary which I should have liked to hear.
I should like to say a few words on three points, the first of which is China. As we all know, China has had a succession of bad harvests. They are suffering terribly from famine and other disasters internally; but bad harvests, famines and floods are no new thing in the history of China. They have survived before, and I have no doubt that they will survive again. A nation of over 600 million population, industrious, hardworking, ingenious and united, is, in my opinion, bound to be one of the leading countries in the world, if not the leading one, within a very short space of time. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said, the idea of trying to keep China out of the United Nations, of the West turning her into an outcast, is so ridiculous that one really cannot imagine how this state of affairs has continued.
It has been suggested that the reason is that the United States backed the wrong horse—and it is very difficult to admit your mistakes. They have lost millions of money, and millions have been put into propaganda for the Chiang Kai-shek dictatorship in Formosa. But I am sorry that this country has not long ago publicly taken up the cause of China and tried to obtain for her her rights; to get her as a member of the United Nations and give her her rightful seat on the Security Council. I read in a newspaper recently that we are going to do some public action about this at the United Nations. I am very glad of this, but it is very late because I fervently believe that a great deal of the Chinese aggression, which we all deplore, against India and Tibet, arises partly from two causes.
One is the internal difficulties brought about by bad harvests and famine; and the other is the general hostility of the Western World. History has shown us
1086
only too well how a Government, faced by difficulties at home and frightened by foreign aggression, commits acts which are alien to its real character and often embarks on aggressive adventures, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. The French Revolution is a very good example of this; of people who were suffering tremendous hardship, difficulties, and hunger; who were threatened by foreign enemies all round; who committed terrible atrocities at home and started on military adventures abroad which threatened the Whole of the then civilised world of Europe.
I think, my Lords, that if we were to show less hostility towards China we might have a less aggressive attitude on their part. But I am going to propose something that goes slightly further than the normal idea of helping her to her rightful place in the United Nations. Could not the West, or this Government—and I hope other Governments, too—offer a great gift of help to the Chinese people? This not only would be humane, ethical and Christian but, I think, might, in the long run, reap a great dividend. I think that some friendship in their great misfortunes might well repay us in the years to come. Certainly we cannot ignore China, and no problem of the East can be settled without Chinese help.
The second of my three points is briefly to say a word about the other great trouble spot of Germany. I do not wish to say anything which might make negotiations more difficult in coming conferences. At the same time, I think that, for our own safety and from our own point of view, we should be foolish to close our eyes to what is happening around us. The situation in Berlin is a very complicated one which has many more facets perhaps than we always realise. There is, for instance, the religious facet. The Chancellor, Dr. Adenauer, is continually stressing the importance of the unification of Germany—that Eastern and Western Germany should be one. I wonder whether he really wants the mass of Protestant votes that would come over from East Germany if that were actually brought about? I wonder whether the West German citizen in Berlin would be altogether happy if the wall were removed to-morrow. I do not

1087
know. It certainly is a source of friction and puts us in an impossible situation.
I was talking to an observer—not an Englishman—who has been living in Berlin for some time, and I am glad to say that he was very much struck by the extraordinary correctness and discipline of the English occupying troops there, and also of the French, and, strangely enough, the East German troops. I gather that very few Russian troops are seen over there. He said that the American troops, for whatever reasons, were continually going up to the wall and being as provocative as they could; singing the "Star Spangled Banner", throwing things and so forth. He wondered whether this is just exuberance or policy. If it is policy, what do they want to gain by it? He was interested in it; but it is a source of a very difficult situation.
The Germans have always been, from earliest times, hardworking, efficient and, one must confess, extremely warlike. In fact, I think I am right in saying that the only period when this has not been the case was the Thirty Years War, when all the nations of Europe made what is now Germany into a desert, and for a short time Germany did not threaten her neighbours. We have protected ourselves for a long time by a balance of power in Europe. We have always seen that, whichever was the predominant nation, we at least had an alliance which would be effective to protect us. That has always been the British policy, and I am very surprised that people have not taken particular note of the recent development of the Grand Alliance being formed by France and Germany.
It is extraordinary that these old hereditary enemies, who have apparently hated each other for centuries, should now be getting together. Very soon we shall see the skill and wealth of West Germany developing the German and French military forces, and, no doubt, developing the French nuclear weapon. Is that a thing, my Lords, that we can look on with comfort? Have we any reply? Have we the guarantee of the Americans? Perhaps the noble Earl who is to answer this debate will tell us whether we are relying on America if
1088
anything goes wrong; and, if so, what guarantees we have. Because I believe that possibly in the future we may find ourselves in a very difficult position. What can we do about this? I suggest there are only two things we can do: either we ourselves have to get into the Grand Alliance, and hope that we can play the game so that we are not threatened, or we must build up another alliance ourselves. We cannot sit, an isolated island, and watch these great Powers become the most formidable power that Europe has produced for many hundreds of years.
As for Berlin, what can we do about that? I suggest that the answer here, which has been promoted on several occasions, is to make it a free and independent city. It is the only thing we can do to solve our problem. We are in an impossible situation in this beleaguered town with the Russians owning all the territory round about, and able at any moment to threaten us and make things uncomfortable. Yet we cannot withdraw without letting down the Germans and losing face. If, however, we were to make it a free city, guaranteed by all sides; if, as someone has suggested, it should become the headquarters of the United Nations, in one stroke that would solve the Berlin problem. I would ask her Majesty's Government whether they would consider those possibilities rather more closely than they have done so far.
My last little point, my Lord, is the Congo. I think there is here a very difficult problem, as many noble Lords have mentioned already. It is a dreadful situation. It may well be that parts of the Congo and other parts of Africa may go back to bush; that it may resume the old tribal life, which I agree had its points, though it also had its disadvantages. Some people, perhaps, would like that. But I believe that, so long as Africans are sincerely trying to build up a society which is at once organised, civilised and relatively humane, we must help them to the best of our ability. That is, I think, the one debt the white man can repay to the African. The African leaders are sometimes rather difficult. They are so buoyed up with the feeling of nationalism, of freedom obtained when they do obtain it, that they are very apt to get rid of

1089
the white advisers who could help them, and I think they are perhaps relying very largely on playing off East and West and getting enough funds to run their country.
It is possible the East and West will not play the rôles allotted to them. But in this particular case of the Congo we all know the real difficulty which is that Katanga, that Province, has all the mineral wealth, and unfortunately this wealth has been developed, promoted, and enjoyed by foreigners. That really is the basis of the whole trouble. I read in the paper, I think it was this rooming, that Mr. Tshombe has said that it is all very well but the wealth of Katanga, even if it were used for the Congo, would not be enough to support and make viable the Congo State. That may be true, but surely it is more true that without the wealth of Katanga the Congo has not a Chance. It cannot begin to be a country.
It seems to me if you are going to do anything at all about this, you must ensure that this wealth of the Katanga Province is available to the Central Government to help the development of the whole Congo. That is the whole crux. What can we do about it? It is a difficult situation. I can understand the difficulty of Her Majesty's Government with a great many British interests in Katanga; a lot of the wealth is owned here. The last thing the Government would want to see would be those assets dwindling or destroyed, which is very understandable. But unfortunately, of course, this puts Mr. Tshombe in a very strong position. He can use tremendous blackmail if he wishes to. If anything is done against him he can say, "All right. I will destroy the wealth of Katanga"—and I think that blackmail must be resisted. The building up of the Congo is so much more important that it must be done, and without that wealth Katanga would not exist overnight. Mr. Tshombe knows as well as anybody else that the people who would suffer the most from any destruction would be Katanga itself. That is why I think that we must in future not be blackmailed into halfhearted support of the United Nations. Because one might say that this is the worst thing that has happened in the whole Congo debacle.
1090
The United Nations has often made mistakes and it has had failures, but it has had successes too. As many speakers have said, it certainly is the one hope of the world now. It is the only universal organisation for which all nations have respect. If that goes down, the world will go back into a very bad condition. To me the worst aspect of the whole Congo affair is that the view has gained ground abroad, however justified or unjustified, that the British Government have not been behind the United Nations in the Congo; that when British interests are threatened the United Nations is not to be supported. I beg of Her Majesty's Government that they will alter their outlook on that, because I think that if this is not done, if the United Nations is not supported, it will be not only a disaster for the Congo but a disaster for us. And it could be effected now, because you could economically blockade Katanga very easily; there are many methods. One which has been suggested has been to block the two railways. If necessary this must be done. If necessary the United Nations must be supported with force. I believe that, if we do not, there will be chaos not only in the Congo but ultimately in a large part of Africa and the world.
6.38 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise at this late hour not to make a long speech but to make a small contribution to the debate which has been so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. How fortunate we are in this House to have on both sides of the House, both the Opposition side and the Government side, two speakers to whom we listen always with tremendous interest! I cannot say that I always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, but I should never not listen to him or fail to give his speech great attention and thought.
Up to now we have had a most interesting debate which has roamed far and wide. I think the speech of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary was a great encouragement to us. Everyone, I think, has congratulated him on the splendid way in which he has been conducting negotiations on our behalf now for two years. His great patience, and his transparent honesty and straightforward way of putting our case, have

1091
added tremendously to the influence which we have in the foreign affairs of the world to-day. But I believe that we are also indebted to the Prime Minister. His patience, his refusal to be put off by even the most unfortunate behaviour of Mr. Khruschev on occasions, has been of great use and value to the Foreign Secretary in his work. Furthermore, his knowledge of General de Gaulle, his friendship with him in the war and afterwards, and his knowledge of President Kennedy, are assets which add tremendously to the influence and value of the Government in the world to-day. I think we are very much indebted to the Prime Minister for what he contributes to the discussions on Foreign Affairs.
If the European situation seems to press us most immediately, that is not to say that other matters referred to by other noble Lords are not equally important. I have had some opportunity in recent years, as a delegate to the NATO Parliamentarians' Conference to meet many of the Members of Parliament of the NATO countries and also to listen to General Norstad addressing those Parliamentarians. His devotion to the Fifteen-nation defence force and his belief in the NATO Alliance have been an inspiration to those of us who have had the good fortune to hear him many times, and I personally deeply regret his resignation as Supreme Commander. No doubt his successor will be very good. The United States have produced some very remarkable Generals in the last years, but it would be hard to find a man who is both a great American and a great leader of Europeans. It must be most frustrating for someone with such single-minded belief in a united force to have to deal with fifteen nations, one of which at present is proving most difficult.
Nevertheless, this Alliance, the most effective that has come out of post-war diplomacy, is still the strongest bulwark against Communism. I do not share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon (I think it was), who thought the NATO Alliance was perhaps less valuable and less important. In fact, I believe that it is just as important as ever it was. It has achieved not only a united defence, but, among other things, the keeping of the American forces in Europe in peace time, something which has never
1092
happened in any other period of our history, and the bringing into the Alliance of the new forces of the West German Federal Government. I think it is probably the latter which is the most significant at the moment.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, spoke about the period between the two wars. If in the years before 1914, or in the years immediately after the First World War, an alliance such as Dr. Adenauer and General de Gaulle have brought about, could have been established, the twentieth century might have been utterly different. I do not share the fear of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, that this alliance may be a great danger. It will only be a great danger if it is not part of the NATO Alliance. But it is, in fact, part of the NATO Alliance, and this strengthened and new relationship between the French and German nations, enemies for so long but now allies in rebuilding Europe, is, I am sure, an asset to the Free World. The rebuilding of Europe has, of course, also been helped by the establishment of the European Economic Community, which your Lordships are to discuss next week and which I shall not talk about to-day.
Nevertheless, here in Britain it has been most difficult, I think, for the ordinary people of the country to understand What this new Europe is really like, as quite often one hears Germany referred to simply in terms of the horrors of war, and of Nazis, ail of which we know quite well and recall vividly in our memories. But those of us who have the opportunity of going to Germany, and of meeting the people of the new Federal Republic, know that there is something quite different in the West German Republic to-day. Many Members of another place, and some Members of your Lordships' House, have had the opportunity of attending annually an Anglo-German Conference held at Konigswinter on the Rhine, attended by leading Members of Parliament, economists, industrialists and journalists, both German and British. I believe that this Conference, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet briefly referred, has done a great deal to bring about a new understanding between leading people in our two countries.
This Conference started immediately after the war, and I was a member of

1093
it in those days. I well remember how difficult it was to find a level of discussion between the two sides which could lead to any kind of mutual understanding. The Germans were either utterly miserable and unable to look up, or sullen and difficult, and we on our side could not establish a genuine relationship to discuss the future. Gradually this suspicion has been overcome, and we now meet every year, and we discuss in the friendliest and most straightforward terms the ways in which we can mutually improve relationships and find ways to help to lay the foundations of a new Europe. It is not always the same people who meet, but different people from much the same groups. On our side no fewer than fifty Members of Parliament from all Parties who have become Ministers or members of the Opposition Shadow Cabinet have all been taking part in the Konigswinter Conference; and on the German side, equally important men and women have taken part. These meetings have been, and still are, most valuable in bringing about good will and greater understanding, and we are much indebted to the German organisation which makes these meetings possible.
I have felt on occasions that the ordinary people in this country get a wrong impression of what the Federal Republic is like, and exaggerated reports appear in the Press of hostility to German NATO forces in training here, and of troubles with young British soldiers in Germany, troubles which would occur anywhere if soldiers were bored. These reports encourage a wrong attitude to the Federal Republic, suspicion rather than acceptance of an Ally in the NATO Alliance. It is to the future that we must look, for the past we cannot alter. In the future the defence of the Free World is against Communism, whether it is trying to influence us peacefully or by force.
Many noble Lords have referred to the problem of Berlin. The defence of Berlin is a defence against Communism, a defence of freedom. It is not because it is a German city, but because, beyond the horrible wall, lies a captive country under Communist domination; and to allow that type of Government to advance is to allow the Free World to be defeated. I have heard people say that they would not fight for Berlin.
1094
But that is not the point. Berlin happens to be one of the places exposed to Communist attack. It might be another city in another part of the world. In fact, often it has been in a different part of the world: in the Far East, for instance. At this moment it happens to be Berlin. Wherever it is, I believe that we must stand firm and refuse to be pushed out by force. Even though there appears to be a complete stalemate at the present moment, things never remain completely static. We have heard from the Foreign Secretary, and also we read in the newspapers this morning, of the discussions at Geneva that are going on at this moment between Mr. Rusk and Mr Gromyko, and that may well bring some influence to bear upon Mr. Gromyko. The Foreign Secretary has told us this afternoon of three possibilities which might take place in Berlin. I am sure we are right not to weaken in our present position, but to endeavour to get some permanent solution to this almost insoluble problem.
One of the other points which has been raised is the question of the United Nations and the Congo. I have no firsthand knowledge of the Congo, but I have first-hand experience of the United Nations. I think it is a mistake to think of the United Nations as a supranational Power with independent force. It is, in fact, nothing of the kind; it is a vast gathering of independent nations, and its strength must be the strength of agreement and good will. It cannot be the strength of armed force. To me that is a contradiction in terms. That is why I do not agree with the way in which the Congo policy is at the present moment carried out in the United Nations. I do not agree with what Lord Huntingdon said just now about this. I do not believe that it is possible to force a situation on that country, and I do not think that the United Nations is in a position to deal with the situation by force. It can be done only by agreement; it can be done only by discussion. If we do condone the use of force, even though that force may be called United Nations force, we are doing something we shall bitterly regret. Looking back on the years when I was in New York, I know that the success of the United Nations intervention between Israel and Jordan and other Arab States, for instance, was achieved

1095
by world opinion persuading both sides to agree to an international force to police the frontier—not by force but by agreement. I myself have seen the small group of national soldiers, Scandinavian, Indian and others, wearing their own uniforms, but identified by the blue beret of the United Nations, keeping a watch on the frontier between Arab States and Israel. They carry arms but never shoot, and for many years the border has been comparatively peaceful.
This kind of force, which operates by good will, is the only force the United Nations can operate. The fact that in the Congo neither side is prepared for interference by the United Nations seems to me to make this operation of force impossible; and if one side or the other starts firing it will do great harm and injure the influence of the United Nations as a mediator in world affairs. Much prestige was lost by the United Nations' vote on Goa; it is only too easy to foresee what will happen if armed intervention is encouraged anywhere. Nobody could be a stronger believer than myself in the United Nations, in its Charter and in the methods by which we can bring about the influence of the United Nations. Despite its many defects, its operation must be through discussion, through talking, through peaceful persuasion and not by shooting. Talking is sometimes a valuable method of letting off steam; it gets rid of many quarrels, if the parties go on long enough and do not resort to force. If, however, force is to replace discussion, and patience is to be overruled by action on ill-designed resolutions, then the influence of world opinion and of the United Nations will get less and less and all our hopes of a new order will be destroyed.
The United Nations is the great meeting place of East and West, of Communist as well as of non-Communist States. It has an immensely valuable part to play, but it is a part that has to be played without, rather than with, the use of force. I think the Foreign Secretary is right to draw the attention of the nations to the shortcomings of member States, particularly Communist States, who neither pay for nor support many of the activities of the United Nations. We helped to draw up the Charter (I think that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was himself in San
1096
Francisco helping to draw up that Charter); we support the United Nations Agencies and their work; we pay our share of the finances, and we have the right to say when we think the decisions they are making are unwise.
My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate this afternoon. The Foreign Secretary ended on an optimistic note; and, with him, I feel confident that, with the will to succeed and the patience to carry on, we shall get somewhere—which we shall never do if we embark on any kind of United Nations military action.
6.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we have had quite a long debate, and I do not think I shall be too long in putting over what I have to say. First of all, I want to thank my noble friend Lord Henderson for the manner in which he introduced this debate. As the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, it is exceedingly convenient for your Lordships to have a debate at this moment in our Session. I think Lord Salisbury was probably right when he said that the manner of the message we got from the Foreign Secretary to-day was, on the whole, encouraging to us as we go away to our vacation in these difficult world circumstances. I should like to thank the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary for his speech, and to say that I agreed with him fundamentally on several points he made. I have never hidden either from the House or from my own side that when one comes to discuss peace and to try to arrange for negotiations, it is always a very great mistake to ask for a policy which you cannot support with the strength which has been given you by your country. I thoroughly agree with the actual words which were used by the Foreign Secretary when he asked for that proper strength to be accorded. I did not feel very sure that the defence policy of the last eleven years has actually left him with the particular strength which is useful and right in the circumstances—certainly not, having regard to the amount of money we are spending upon it.
The Foreign Secretary is indeed to be congratulated on the settlement which was obtained in the Laotian difficulty. I was not quite sure, as I listened to other

1097
parts of has speech, whether we do not perhaps make a little too much of the impossibility of ever getting the Russians to make a move on towards the goals we want to reach. I liked the part of his speech where he said he thought his further talks with Mr. Gromyko and those which Mr. Rusk has had give a little more promise here and there, and certainly it was a very good policy to have patience and to pursue these endeavours for as long and as far as possible. But I think that perhaps I myself have been guilty at times in the old days, when we were trying to build up something like a defence of the Free World, of falling into the trap of perhaps putting all the blame all the time upon the Communist side. I thought that the mixture of the two things by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon, if we study it carefully, will perhaps show itself to be about the right mixture. I hope he Will have another look at his language on one or two points on that matter to see whether he does not, on the whole, agree with me. The attitude he took with regard to our colonial position was, I thought, about right.
I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, this afternoon. If I may say so, he gave a most excellent introduction, during the first five or ten minutes of his speech, to the rules of the United Nations Organisation. I wanted him to get on more with his attack. Perhaps he is going to circularise his speech somewhere for his own purposes; anyway, it would be very good. But looking at the whole difficulty in the Congo, I must say I felt that he had perhaps been won over a little too much from the point of view of those who back Tshombe in Katanga. I think so. I may not be in regular receipt of the whole of the information the noble Lord receives from that particular side of the controversy, but certainly if we look at the actual needs of this great country of the Congo and at the fundamental necessity for the wealth and the resources of Katanga to be available in the resettlement of the whole territory, then I must say it appears right for us to support any operations agreed upon by a majority of the United Nations Organisation to achieve a peaceful solution. If both he and I read to-morrow What the Foreign Secretary said upon that par-
1098
ticular point, I do not think we shall disagree.
Certainly we ought not sometimes to be uttering an unnecessary criticism—and I support my noble friend Lord Henderson on this—in regard to the operations of the United Nations if, in the meantime, we have to make progress with all of them in getting the kind of peaceful settlement we want. The actual actions they took must, of course, be checked and corrected when they can be corrected, but we should be in a very much poorer position than we are now if any action—or perhaps lack of action—taken meant we were in danger of breaking up the United Nations altogether. I am very anxious for that Organisation to be maintained, and to be maintained with the proper strength to be able, at some time or other, to have some means of defence against aggression, so that that power will not necessarily be in the hands of great and powerful nations but in the hands of an Organisation which, over the years, has been built up with patience and is likely to have right judgments in defending world peace. At times I do not think they have reached that situation at present.
May I say a word or two about the question of arriving at peace in these matters, which was mentioned by the Foreign Secretary, whose remarks seemed to come in two pieces, one after the other straight away: first peace, and then peaceful change. I have thought a lot about that in my fairly long political life, and I have seen a number of changes. We often said in the old days, when we were very powerful, controlling great territories and hundreds of millions of people in countries other than our own native country, "You stop this and you stop that. Peace first and then we will talk about things". Yet we have come to this stage in the development of the Commonwealth; in fact, we have had to do a lot of things before we got peace. So I would ask the Foreign Secretary, in as nice a way as I can, to have a look at a bit of our own Commonwealth history, and see whether that is not the case.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, for convenience I think I said "First peace and then peaceful change", but I would agree that they are almost inseparable:

1099
that peaceful change must run along the whole time. I think I did add a sentence, which the noble Lord will see, if tomorrow he reads what I said, that, really, peaceful change was a prerequisite of progress. I think it will be clear in the Report. But I agree with him.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it seemed to me, in my long life, that sometimes, because we could not get exactly the peace we wanted with some recalcitrants, we left for too long the opportunity of making real progress towards the kind of freedom that we want to see in the world. If you can get that kind of freedom, usually you can get peace in another way.
Another thing I want to say is this. We have heard a great deal about the North Atlantic Treaty Oranisation, and its position in Europe for the defence of the Free World. We cannot very well turn a debate on foreign affairs in general almost into a specific Defence debate. I noted what was said by the noble Baroness who has just resumed her seat, about the present feelings and opinions expressed about General de Gaulle and Dr. Adenauer and the like. I think myself that there are at least dangers in the situation, which seemed to be revealed by these conversations. The noble Baroness is so charming and always so well disposed to other people that she might easily be mistaken about the actual result of this situation. I know that between 1933 and 1939 many people thought it was not a bad thing to have Mussolini in Ethiopia, and Hitler rising to power in Germany. So one must not be too easy about these things.
I listened this evening with great interest to my noble friend Lord Kennet, too. It was a most learned speech upon the up-to-date position of NATO, far more learned than I could hope to make because I do not have time, in this busy life here, to cover all the details and technicalities that he dealt with—and, if I may say so to him, at a speed so immense as to be remarkable. I will read his speech in detail, but I should like at once to say this to him. As we in the Labour Government found the position at the conclusion of the Paris Peace Conference in 1946, there was
1100
nothing in Europe to stop Communism as a world Power progressing through Europe, and probably without firing a shot. Because America was disarming hand over fist, and we were working for demobilisation much more slowly to an ordered plan agreed by all Parties, we could have held on for the time being, but we had nothing with us. Therefore the land mass position of Europe would have gone by default, by blackmail, if some Power had appeared suddenly at the Paris Peace Conference with what we now call satellites, but which clearly were indicated to us as having been acquired during the war as a new extension of the Communist empire. That was the situation, and we had to gather people, to set up means of both political and, if necessary, military defence of a situation which would otherwise have been impossible.
So when I come to study the words—and very clever words many of them were—this afternoon about the situation and exactly what is likely to happen, I would merely say to the noble Lord: remember that many hypotheses, cleverly thought out, which you put forward in a speech like that, may not be the ones that will, in fact, appear in the future. It may sometimes help to avoid the dangers foreseen, but on other occasions it may mean spending all the wrong money, all the wrong effort, in trying to prevent (I expect the noble Lord agrees with that, from one point of view) these hypotheses from becoming a real danger. I shall read the noble Lord's speech with very great interest, but I would just ask the noble Lord to be careful and steady about how he forms his final views when putting forward proposals.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I, for a second, seek to reassure my noble Leader that it was not in the least my purpose to say that it was wrong to set up NATO at that time; only to question whether NATO was at present on the right course.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I only just wanted to say how things may happen.
The noble Baroness was discussing the possible great goodness of General de Gaulle, and the great goodness of Dr. Adenauer—both very old men like myself, by the way, so that their particular influence may not be there very long, and

1101
I would not rely too much upon this. But when we come to look at the possibilities we have to guard against, we must also think of past experience. If it is said that NATO is essential for the defence of the Free World, why does General de Gaulle insist now that his navy must not be under the orders of NATO, must not join NATO, in the general defence? Why have so many of the troops, upon which we depended for our NATO strength, been withdrawn? Why was there this special meeting, with a great display of armaments, and parades of military, and German and other tanks, in France? Why have General de Gaulle's dicta been laid down, with regard to what he can allow and what he cannot allow in a collective NATO defence? I think there was something in what my noble friend Lord Huntingdon said upon that point: that this is a position that we shall have to watch very carefully in the future. Having lived through 1939 in the other House, I think we need to take very great care indeed.
I was very interested in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, and I am sorry that he has had to go. But I must say that his words sounded to me vary human. After all, in a debate such as this, when we are thinking of what steps ought to be taken to maintain peace, whether the right weapon is a nuclear bomb, gas, or powerful armaments and so on, we make great judgments about sin and the like. But, certainly, I thoroughly agreed with him about the people who think that, somehow, we are going by human effort to build up a world feeling; by human effort we are going to have a World Church; by human effort we are going to bring in a Millennium. We have not quite measured the standards by which we really ought to be working under the law that we get. from the Moses Room, with Moses coming down with the law and all the rest of the fulfilment of the scriptures upon which we base our free and Christian life. We had better take the whole of it, and not just the bits we think we want to build upon. So I agree very much with the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, on that. If it were the nation which was going to be punished, I do not think it would be found any less guilty of national sin because it determined to
1102
starve a nation out, as the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, said, instead of using a nuclear bomb on them. We want, therefore, to look at our real desires in these matters very carefully indeed.
I was very interested in the points that were made by my noble friend Lord Lindgren and by the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald (which I did not hear, but which I had reported to me), in respect to the position in South America and the Latin countries. I have had a good deal of information in the past ten years or so about South America. I was very worried about it in certain parts. There was a great deal of intolerance, partly based upon religion, and a great many divisions between the Christian faiths out there; but in Colombia and in other places now there is a much improved situation, so far as I can gather, in that respect. My noble friend Lord Lindgren spoke about the trade union position, and I thoroughly agree that you are not going to get a successful build-up of strong States, growing in both agricultural and in industrial production, without having a successful trade union organisation.
Then I should like to say a word to my noble friend Lord Huntingdon about his speech. I was intensely interested in his reference to China. We as a Party, since the time when the late Ernest Bevin, have recognised the Communist Government in China from the first, have recognised it as a fact, and have always pleaded for China to be admitted to the United Nations Organisation. It is particularly significant at the present time, when we are thinking of judging ourselves and judging other people in regard to international affairs, to consider the fact that, when China is aggressive against Tibet and on the borders of India, we could actually be taking her before her fellow judges in the United Nations Organisation, if only the people had been willing to have her in. We have pressed all the time for China—the real China, the factual China, the majority China—to be in the United Nations. If she had been, we could then have taken this position before the United Nations, for it to be dealt with there.
But it is unfortunate, of course, that India herself is still in default of the

1103
decision of the United Nations with regard to Kashmir: and there is the situation. I do not know what the Foreign Secretary proposes to do—I do not know that he can do very much at the moment—to get this matter running into a proper channel, but it would be a very good thing, in my judgment, if India were to agree to support very strongly, as I hope she would, any resolution that we might propose for the admission of China to the United Nations. Then, if she were also to put herself right with the United Nations in carrying out the suggestions made to her about Kashmir, I think we might get a better feeling all the way round.
I just wanted to say a word or two about the remarks of my noble friend Lord Huntingdon concerning the Commonwealth. It sounded, in a way, almost fantastic, and yet the old truth is absolutely right: if you do not grow flowers, fruits and beautiful things, you soon grow weeds and a desert. If we cannot keep the Commonwealth in a good relationship and in contact with us, so that they feel they can come to us when they want advice and all the possible help we can give them, and if we cannot have unity between us, then there may be a very different state of affairs in the Commonwealth. But that may apply also to contain other countries who are in the same need of development and strengthening as even members of the Commonwealth themselves. However, I hope that When we come to discuss the Common Market next week, for example, we shall still be thinking of the need for maintaining our Commonwealth; and if the noble Earl is then able to speak from the point of view that I hold rather strongly on it, I shall greatly welcome his assistance.
I should have liked to say a great many more things, but I am quite sure that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, would much rather that I finished on that note. I would say that, generally speaking, we have been pleased with the presentation of the position in foreign affairs made by the Foreign Secretary to-day; we hope that he will take note of the other matters that my noble friend Lord Henderson put before him, and perhaps will let us know if there is anything more that can be done.
7.17 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary, who I hope will join us again before many minutes, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for the very generous tribute which he has just paid to the Foreign Secretary's policy—or at least to his presentation of it to your Lordships in this debate. The debate which we have had on this Motion, which was moved with his usual ability and charm by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has been very wide and disconnected, but to me, and I think to most of your Lordships, it has also been very interesting. I think your Lordships usually like, a little before the Summer Recess begins, to have a debate on foreign affairs which covers nearly the entire area of the globe and a great multiplicity of subjects which are too numerous to be embraced within the compass of a single speech.
Two of the subjects which your Lordships have discussed this afternoon might, although we must all hope that they will not, develop into a serious crisis before Parliament reassembles in the Autumn. One is Berlin, the other is the Congo. I propose to conclude my remarks, which I hope will be very short, with a few words about both of them, but before I do so I should like to try to answer one or two of the perhaps less urgent but not necessarily less important questions which various of your Lordships have raised. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asked one question which my noble friend did not have time to answer: about the possible time of withdrawal of our troops from Thailand. Our forces, as your Lordships I think will all recognise, were sent to Thailand in response to a direct request from the Thai Government, who felt themselves threatened—and, my Lords, there is no doubt at all that they, together with the forces of our SEATO Allies, have been a stabilising influence in that area.
I think we must see how things develop before we can make any decision about a withdrawal. The Laos Agreement is only two days old, but no one will be happier than Her Majesty's Government to see things quieting down in this area, and to reach the point when the Thais will no longer feel that they need the

1105
support of our Forces. We do not want them to stay there a moment longer than is necessary. We are in consultation on this question with the Government of Thailand, and also, of course, with our own Allies.
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, and others of your Lordships, including the noble Viscount who has just spoken, referred to the question of China. Lord Huntingdon said chat the exclusion of China from the United Nations was so ridiculous that he could not understand how it was allowed to go on. The noble Earl is no doubt aware that the Resolution last December to introduce China was defeated in the Assembly at the United Nations by 48 votes to 36, with 20 abstentions; and I am glad to see that the noble Earl admits the possibility that some acts and resolutions of the United Nations Assembly may be so ridiculous that we cannot understand how they are allowed to go on and how they are allowed to take place. I hope the noble Earl will admit that occasionally the United Nations Assembly, which we all desire to support, may be capable of doing equally ridiculous things in other parts of the world as well as in China.
The Government's view is that the facts of international life require that the Peking Government should be seated in the United Nations, and on December 15 last year our delegate at the United Nations voted in favour of the resolution, Which incidentally was a Soviet resolution, to seat the Peking Government, which resolution was defeated. In explaining his vote, our delegate made it clear that, in our view, this vote did not compromise the sovereignty of the Island of Formosa, which we regard as undetermined, and therefore it follows that the question as to who should represent Formosa in the United Nations is also undetermined in the event of the Peking Government's being admitted. The question of Chinese representation will no doubt be raised again at the next session of the General Assembly later this year, and the United Kingdom Government will continue to seek a solution as fair as possible, in the circumstances, to all parties. We think, as I have said, that China ought to be admitted.
1106
I should like to mention one consideration which might make exclusion a little less ridiculous than it might otherwise be: that China has, so far as we know, not abandoned the doctrine that war is inevitable; and we should like to know, when she demands entry to the United Nations, whether she is making that demand entirely on her own terms, or whether she is prepared to make concessions to the rights of others. Does China agree that membership of the United Nations must be based on mutual respect and on the principle of peaceful co-existence? And, does China really seek the good will of those who are prepared to extend it to her?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is it proposed to put all those questions to her again before a further vote is taken?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords; I think these are questions on which we shall have to decide without making a direct diplomatic démarche of the kind envisaged by the noble Viscount. They are questions, at the moment, which in the long run only China can answer.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, may I ask whether the vote of Her Majesty's Government would still be in favour of China's being admitted to the United Nations?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords; I thought that was implicit in what I have just said.
The noble Viscount, in his remarks, commended those of your Lordships who have raised the subject of South America in this debate. I am very glad he did. I was most interested by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, who has explained his inability to remain until the end of the debate. I was particularly interested to hear about his recent visit, on behalf of the trade unions, to various South American countries. And my noble friend Lord Dundonald also focused his speech on Latin America, which I thought was a very fitting thing, for his family name of Cochrane is one which is known and admired in all the Latin American Republics, and has been for something like 140 years.

1107
The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, spoke about Communist influence in South America and of the need for help to develop the underdeveloped parts of South America so that they might become prosperous and able to enjoy the four freedoms. I very strongly agree with the noble Lord's line of argument on this subject. I do not think it is realised that this subcontinent of between 200 and 300 million people is probably more important in the war of ideas which is now going on in the world than, perhaps, either Africa or Asia. There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said, a great gap between the rich and the poor which all friends of Latin American countries must seek to help them diminish. Incidentally, I am glad that the noble Lord, who evidently observed matters very closely when he was there, mentioned the part which the Church in South America is playing in the direction of social reform. It is, I believe, one of the strongest influences on the side of social progress.
My noble friend Lord Dundonald deplored, I think rightly, the failure of the Press not only to cover the recent visit of His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh as well as one would have liked, but also to pay much attention to South American affairs at any time. One hundred years ago we were all greatly interested in South America, and had a great many investments and commercial interests there. And we still have, although, of course, they have been depleted by our having to realise nearly all our foreign investments in two world wars. Still, our interests in South America are very great indeed, economic as well as political; and the possibilities of increasing trade there are also bright. We are one of the biggest markets in the world for some Latin American products, such as minerals from Chile and certain temperate agricultural products from the Argentine. We have strong traditional ties with the Latin American countries, dating back to the beginning of the last century, and they need continual maintenance and repair if they are to survive in a thriving condition. I need not remind your Lordships that nearly all Latin American countries are at present in a state of rapid change and development. There
1108
would be no greater mistake than to regard these Latin American countries across the Atlantic as being in any way insulated from the main currents of international politics.
My Lords, we want to help; and although the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, criticised, perhaps with some justification, certain features of the execution of American aid in Latin America, I think that one of the greatest and most imaginative projects of this century is President Kennedy's plan, which is called "The Alliance for Progress", of massive American aid to help South American countries towards economic progress with liberty. As those noble Lords who have spoken about it this afternoon have urged, we should like to help as much as we can. It is true that our balance of payments at present is not great enough to enable us to do much in quantity, but we are anxious to do what we can. In recent years, we have expanded greatly our cultural and information efforts in Latin America. Lately we have also started a plan for technical assistance, costing between £70,000 and £80,000 a year at the moment; but, as my noble friend Lord Dundonald pointed out, what the South Americans need perhaps more than anything else is the know-how to use their resources, and I am glad that we have now been able to make this initial effort in the field of technical assistance. Together with the University Grants Committee, we have also been considering ways and means of expanding the scope of Latin American studies in British universities. I hope that we may be able to make an announcement this autumn about a practical first step towards this end.
The noble Lord, Lord Colyton, began his observations with certain criticisms of the United Nations which I will not pursue at any great length. I agree with my noble friend when he said that Article 73 of the Charter is being violated, at least in spirit, by the activities not only of the Assembly, who have altered their own rules in order to suit the momentary wishes of the majority, but also of the Committee of Seventeen, who in our view, are trying to interfere with matters which under the Charter are really ultra vires.
LORD COLYTON: Article 2 (7) and article 73 (e).
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have written them down, but may have got them mixed up ! But I agree with what my noble friend said on this subject, in particular with his statement that they had no right to interfere. I am afraid that they have done a lot of harm in their efforts to interfere with a country like Southern Rhodesia, which has been fully self-governing since 1923.
My noble friend went on to deal with the question of the Congo and was supported in this by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and other noble Lords. The noble Marquess said that we were within easy reach of the fence, if not actually sitting on it. I was not clear about who was on one side of the fence and who was on the other, but certainly our intention is to try to reconcile those in the Congo and our own friends, whose views about what should be done are not completely in harmony. I think that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary made plain what our objectives are. We want a real Federation in the Congo. We think that the Leopoldville Government ought to agree to a genuine Federation. We also think that Tshombe's Katanga Government ought to agree to a fair distribution of the revenues. We do not say that this would make all the difference that it is represented as making, but we think that Mr. Tshombe ought to agree to an equitable division of the proceeds of taxation from Union Minière and the other Katangan industries between the Provincial and the Federal Governments when the new constitution is worked out.
We also think that there will have to be some international plan through the United Nations for giving economic and technical aid to the Congo as a whole. How right my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood was when she said that the greatest successes of the United Nations had been when they acted without using force. I think that that is very true here: We have never concealed from Parliament that our appraisal of the situation in the Congo does not always coincide with that of some of our friends and allies in the United Nations, but I think that our objective is the same: our objective is a peaceful solution. We are doing our best, though I must repeat what my noble friend said: that our influence in the Congo is not great and is often apt to be exaggerated by our
1110
critics. We are doing our best to persuade both parties, particularly the Government of Katanga, through the mediation of our Consul there, to do what we believe is the best thing for the sake of Katanga itself, for the sake of peace and for the sake of the Congo as a whole.
Our Consul has seen Mr. Tshombe and explained that we regret the suspension of his talks with Mr. Adoula and expressed the hope that Mr. Tshombe would resume discussions as soon as possible. I would mention that Mr. Tshombe has just nominated the Katangan members to four commissions, to the establishment of which he and Mr. Adoula agreed during the recent talks in Leopoldville, for examining the practical aspects of the integration of Katanga into the Congo. These commissions deal with the military, fiscal, economic and monetary and communications aspects of integration. It is our hope that they will be set up and start working as soon as possible. So far Mr. Adoula has declined to nominate his members, on the ground that he is dissatisfied with the terms of reference. At the same time, Mr. Tshombe has offered to make available to the Congo Government 100 million Congolese francs and said that he was ready to begin discussions again in Leopoldville with Mr. Adoula. It is our earnest hope that the talks may be resumed as soon as possible, although I am afraid that the noble Marquess has some ground for thinking that the situation does not seem to be getting any better at the moment. We can only go on doing our best.
I would repeat that this is something which does not depend on what Great Britain does. We must make it plain to all our friends that a solution cannot be reached by force or warlike methods. U Thant came over here and had discussions with my noble friend the Foreign Secretary; and he said that he did not intend, and had no mandate, to use force except for the purposes of self-defence or stopping civil war in the Congo. We earnestly hope that moderate counsels may prevail and that peaceful methods, and not anything else, may be used.
The other noble Lords who spoke towards the end of the debate returned to the question of Berlin, which is perhaps the question most greatly fraught

1111
with danger to the immediate peace of Europe. A fortnight ago I had the privilege of visiting Berlin at the invitation of Herr Brandt, the Governing Mayor. I also went to the Federal German Republic. What impressed me most of all in Berlin was the spirit of the people there—their cheerfulness, and even gaiety. I think it showed that when people are isolated and cut off, as they are; when they are living in a continual state of tension; when they know they are defending what is right against what is wrong, it makes them wonderfully cheerful, happy and confident. I was glad to see that the delegation of Members of another place from the Party opposite, who went there a week before I did, evidently received the same impression and spoke about it very well in another place as soon as they got back.
That delegation also received the same impression as I did about the wall, and, what is equally horrible, the strengthening of the barbed wire barriers round the perimeter of West Berlin from whose vicinity so many houses and families have been removed by the Communists in order to make it less easy for anybody to get through. This wall is a horrible and wicked thing. I think it is an example to the whole world, which I hope the whole world will take note of, demonstrating that the Communist Government in East Germany seems unable to survive without the brutal murder of so many men, women and children, whose only crime is their desire to go from one part of their own city to another. I thought of this when the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, was talking about the Committee of Seventeen. I wish that some of its members, who have gained their own political freedom and their own civilisation from British colonial tuition, would spend their time going and looking at Berlin and other parts of the world which are under the tyranny of Communism. I think they would spend their time much more profitably from their own point of view, as well as that of the world, if they would pay more attention to the places where real tyranny exists, and waste less time passing harmful resolutions on matters which do not concern them.
What will happen in Berlin is, of course, uncertain. Some people believe
1112
that Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Khrushchev mean what they say when they say they are very soon going to create a crisis by recognising East Germany. Others think that they will merely "put the heat on" by some new kinds of interference with access. We cannot know what will happen: we must be prepared for anything. But our position is clear: we intend to defend Berlin, if necessary. We insist on three principles: freedom of choice for the 2 million people in West Berlin, our own right of free access to the city and the right to maintain Allied troops in it. These principles are mot negotiable, and if the Russians should interfere with them, then they, and they alone, will he responsible for the consequences. But we can assure both Russia and the world that we shall not be the side which will create a crisis. We intend to act with firmness, but also with patience.
We must not be guilty of wishful thinking. It may be that we shall have to live with this problem and this danger for a very long time. On the other hand, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, began his speech by suggesting that we might sometimes be too pessimistic about the possibility of living on easier terms with the Russians. The successful conclusion of the Laos negotiations is of great importance to the world. It is particularly significant, I think, to note Mr. Khrushchev's comment on those negotiations. He said that they demonstrated that even the most complicated and difficult questions of international disagreement were capable of being solved by negotiation. Although those words of his may seem to be quite inconsistent with his words and his actions in other parts of the world, I think they may perhaps afford some ground for hope that the idea of peaceful co-existence—this negative idea of peaceful co-existence, which in the mind of Russia usually means any hostile action short of nuclear war—may some day develop into a more positive co-operation with our fellow human beings behind the Iron Curtain, which all of us, and I think many of them, too, are longing to see.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask him one question? He used the phrase, I think, that "our interests in the Congo are not very great".
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I did not say "our interests"; I said that our influence, our ability to persuade President Tshombe to do what we want, is not very great.
LORD COLYTON: I am sorry. I misunderstood my noble friend.
7.46 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I think I can say, on behalf of all the speakers who followed the Foreign Secretary, how grateful we are to the noble Earl for the attention he has paid to our speeches, and I would thank him personally for the answer he gave me to the question I put on the withdrawal of British and other troops from Thailand in the near future. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, reminded us that we have been accustomed for many years to have a debate on foreign affairs in this month. I think that he and I were really the originators of that regular practice. The noble Marquess was then followed by the present Foreign Secretary, before he became Foreign Secretary. The noble Marquess, and I think all Members of your Lordships' House, will agree with me that we are very fortunate now that our foreign affairs debates take place in the presence of the Foreign Secretary, who is able to come here to give us first-hand information of what has been happening. He came back yesterday from Geneva, and we have had to-day an up-to-date record on how things are proceeding on urgent problems. We are glad that we have the presence of the Foreign Secretary at these debates. I should like to say how much I enjoyed listening to his speech to-day, and how much, with one
1114
or two slight exceptions, I agree with him.
I would say a final word. I noted the remark of the noble Earl that during our Recess there might be two spots which might develop into danger spots—Berlin and the Congo. I hope very much that in neither case will this happen. I see no reason myself, despite the complexity of both problems, why they should develop into danger spots during the Recess. The Foreign Secretary has stated our case on the three points which the noble Earl mentioned, and there is agreement on both sides and, indeed, throughout the House. I hope that when we come back it will not be to a situation of gravity either in Berlin or in the Congo, but to situations which are considerably better than they are to-day. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TAY ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

RIVER DART NAVIGATION BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at nine minutes before eight o'clock.