Sitting of 26 March 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of the right honourable Clement Edward Davies, Q.C., Member for Montgomery, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the right honourable Member.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SAINT THOMAS APOSTLE (QUEEN STREET) CHURCHYARD BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.

  NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL
  As amended, considered.
  To be read the Third time.

  UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 3rd April, at Seven o'clock.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Walkerasked the Lord Privy Seal what preparations are being made to deal with the situation which will arise if the negotiations with the European Economic Community break down.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): I have nothing to add to the replies which my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal gave to Questions on this subject on 8th March.
  Mr. Walker: Would my hon. Friend not agree that, as a result of the speeches of the German Chancellor and of the French Minister of Agriculture, the likelihood of these talks breaking down is far greater than when the original reply was given? Will he give the House an assurance that active steps are being taken to study the alternative?
  Mr. Godber: I would not agree that the position is less favourable. I would remind my hon. Friend of the remarks made by the German Foreign Minister, Dr. Schroeder, towards the end of last week, when he said that the Federal Government were of the opinion that Britain's joining must not prejudice the vital interests of the Commonwealth; hence it was with the full consent of the Federal Government that the Commonwealth problem in E.E.C. was being tackled so as to take account of the vital interests of the British federation of States; in the new talks in Brussels about Britain's accession a synthesis between the Commonwealth and the Rome Treaties must be found.
  I would think that that represented very well the position.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is it true, as reported in one of the London newspapers this morning, that the Lord Privy Seal has gone to Ottawa to try to persuade the Canadian Government that they must expect adverse conditions if Britain joins the Common Market? Would it not be much better for him to go there to plead that a representative of the Canadian Government should

  819
  come over here and join his Australian colleague in Brussels?
  Mr. Godber: Certainly I am not responsible for what appears in the London newspapers. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has gone over for discussions which I am sure will be useful in regard to this whole field. Certainly we would in no way object to a Canadian observer coming as my noble Friend suggests.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister of State give an assurance that the Government will do nothing to cause trouble between France and Germany, since the reconciliation of France and Germany was the main purpose for which the Community was created?
  Mr. Godber: Certainly I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the last thing we would wish to do would be to cause trouble between those States.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would my hon. Friend not agree that unless there is a practical, constructive alternative plan as indicated in the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), there may be a temptation to continue negotiations with the European Economic Community beyond the point at which they may be thought to be rewarding?
  Mr. Godber: No. I would not accept that. These two concepts are not necessarily antagonistic, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear the other day.
  Mr. Millanasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make representations to the members of the European Economic Community to allow Her Majesty's Government to participate in the work of the Fouchet Commission dealing with the political development of the Community.
  Sir D. Walker-Smithasked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals he has now made to associate Her Majesty's Government with the discussions of the Fouchet Commission.
  Mr. Godber: We do not participate in the work of the Fouchet Commission because we are not members of the European Economic Community. Of course, we are closely concerned with
  820
  the outcome of the Commission's work; and the six Governments have kept us fully informed of the substance of the drafts being considered by the Commission. They recognise the need to hold consultations with us before they finalise any agreement.
  Mr. Millan: Would not the Government make representations to be directly represented here? Is it not highly unsatisfactory that very far-reaching discussions should be taking place without British participation, and are we not likely to be presented eventually with a fait accompli which we might find it very difficult to resist? Why should not the Government have the opportunity of putting their point of view both to the Six and, for that matter, to the House?
  Mr. Godber: We are being kept informed informally of the procedure with regard to these discussions. I think that in regard to our position on our own negotiations, we have got as far as we can reasonably expect at the present moment.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would not my hon. Friend agree that if, as most hon. Members think, the economic and political aspects of this matter are very closely intertwined, it would be very dangerous to come to a decision to join the European Economic Community without fuller information about and fuller association with the consultations taking place in Europe in regard to political developments?
  Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has made clear on a number of occasions that we realise the political implications in all this, and what I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend also to remember is that there are safeguards in the Treaty with regard to any extension of its powers. I would call attention to Articles 235 and 236 in this context.
  Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the implications over the surrender of national sovereignty through economic integration are far more serious in the Treaty of Rome than in the proposals of the Fouchet Commission's Report, and that if we do not wish to have any surrender of national sovereignty we should not consider going into the Community at all?
  Mr. Godber: No, I would not accept that the provisions of the Treaty of Rome go any further than has been expounded from this Box on many occasions. The position is quite clear. Hon. Members have read the Treaty of Rome, and these provisions relate largely to the economic field, and cover social problems as well. As to what will be covered in the Fouchet Report, we have to wait to see what will be covered by the agreed proposals of the Six.
  Mr. Millanasked the Lord Privy Seal how far Her Majesty's Government are participating in the discussions taking place within the European Economic Community on the arrangements to be made for the associated overseas territories after the expiry of the present Convention at the end of 1962.
  Mr. Godber: These discussions are confined to the present members of the European Economic Community and their associated overseas territories. There is, of course, a close connection between them and the parallel discussions we are holding with the Six on the association of Commonwealth countries and territories. Discussions on this subject are being resumed by the Deputies in Brussels this week.
  Mr. Millan: Again, is that really satisfactory? Is it not a fact that there are differences of opinion within the Six on this question of the participation of overseas territories, and that any agreement which the Six may come to will, therefore, be hammered out with great difficulty? Would it not then be extremely difficult for us to make any changes at all in whatever agreement is arrived at, and, in view of the tremendous importance of this to the Commonwealth, would not the Government ask if we could participate in some way, if only at official level, in the discussions going on just now?
  Mr. Godber: We are having informal discussions. I do not think we can expect more at the present stage of our own negotiations with the E.E.C. When we reach a later stage then we shall be more entitled to seek to have our views considered.
  Mr. E. Johnson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the sooner we join the European Economic Community the
  822
  better we shall be able to influence decisions on political and other matters?
  Mr. Godber: That is certainly a point of view which I quite recognise my hon. Friend has. Once we are in we shall be in such a position, and it is because we wish to see the exact terms on which we can go in that we are pressing forward with our proposals.
  Mr. Mayhew: Are we being kept fully informed about these discussions?
  Mr. Godber: Yes, we are indeed.
  Mr. Dribergasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement summarising the views on future political and constitutional developments in Western Europe which are to be put forward by Her Majesty's Government in connection with the United Kingdom's application to join the European Economic Community.
  Mr. Godber: The views of Her Majesty's Government were set out in paragraphs one to ten and paragraph 22 of my right honourable Friend the Lord Privy Seal's statement in Paris on 10th October last.
  Mr. Driberg: Are those the only views that are to be communicated in due course to the Fouchet Commission—which we were told last week would be done? There are many other aspects of the important political developments that may follow our adherence to the Common Market. Have the Government considered, for instance, the position of the British monarchy in a predominantly republican federal set-up?
  Mr. Godber: I would not have thought that the position of the British monarchy was at stake or at risk in any way in these negotiations. Any such suggestion would seem to me to be almost frivolous. As for the Government's proposals, I have answered a previous question in relation to the Fouchet Commission which sets out the position. I would remind the House of the views officially put forward by the Lord Privy Seal, and I do not think that I can usefully add to them here.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm what the Lord Privy Seal told the House recently, that there can be no question in relation to the Rome

  823
  Treaty negotiations of entering into any commitments which involve a federal or supra-national set-up, a unified foreign policy or a unified Parliament, and that such matters would require a separate treaty? If that is the position and it is the view of the Government, as we hope it is, that we shall not accept any such commitments now or hereafter, would not it be more honest for the Government to say that plainly to Europe now so that there can be no accusations of bad faith in three or four years time?
  Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend set out the latest position in his statement the other day. I have already reminded the House of the safeguards under Article 236 of the Treaty of Rome in regard to extension. I think that that is as far as I can usefully take the matter now.
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Lord Privy Seal whether arrangements have now been made for British film experts to attend the meetings of the Common Market Working Party on film policy.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): No, Sir.
  Mr. Swingler: Does that mean that the Brussels delegation from the British Government is not concerned about the matter? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for several weeks now the British Film Producers' Association has been trying to obtain from either the Board of Trade or the Brussels delegation some information about what discussions on film policy are going on inside the Common Market? Since it is known that there has been a Commission on it for over twelve months, why do not the Government know anything about it and why are not they concerned?
  Mr. Thomas: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are concerned about this matter. The Question refers to arrangements for our experts to attend meetings of the Working Party. In the work of the Working Party, as in other matters, the Six and the Commission are, not unreasonably, reluctant to admit United Kingdom representatives to discussions while the Brussels negotiations are in progress and before we have joined the Community. The United Kingdom delegation will, however, keep in touch with the Commission, and I hope that arrangements will be made at an appro-
  824
  priate stage to ensure that our views are fully taken into account by the Working Party.
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent Common Market policy on films has been studied by the experts negotiating in Brussels; what conclusions they have reached on the effects of the British film industry of Great Britain's proposed entry into the Common Market; and what proposals he will now put forward to safeguard the industry's position.
  Mr. P. Thomas: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Gentleman on 7th December last.
  Mr. Swingler: That reply did not contain any answer at all. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Board of Trade has recently replied to the British Film Producers' Association saying that it has no official information whatever about either the subject-matter or the personnel of the Common Market Commission which has been sitting for over twelve months on film policy? Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the whole matter should be decided by the Common Market Commission, that they will then sign on the dotted line, and that the film industry can take the consequences?
  Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. Common Market policy on films has yet to be decided by the Community.
  Mr. Swingler: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it is being decided now by the Commission?
  Mr. Smithers: If the matter is so important and potentially dangerous for this country, would it not be an advantage for us to be inside the Common Market so that we may take part?
  Mr. Thomas: If we become members of the Community, we shall, of course, have our say in the decisions on what the policy should be.
  Mr. Swingler: Would it not be of advantage if Her Majesty's Government requested the members of the E.E.C. to let them know what is being decided by the Commission in respect of the interests of film industries in Western Europe so that the Government could

  825
  formulate a policy to safeguard the interests of the British industry? Why does not the hon. Gentleman do that?
  Mr. Thomas: As I said, no Common Market policy has been decided.
  Mr. Swingler: It is being decided now.
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will indicate in the course of the negotiations with the European Economic Community on the proposed association of the United Kingdom that there can be no agreement which calls for the creation of a European Parliament and which curtails the authority of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Godber: In my right hon. Friend's statement to the Six on 10th October, he said that we were ready to accept and play our full part in the institutions established by the Treaty of Rome. These include the European Parliamentary Assembly. That Assembly does not encroach on the authority of national Parliaments. Any proposal to amend or widen the powers of the Assembly would require unanimous agreement.
  Mr. Shinwell: But what would be the purpose of a European Parliament unless a Parliament of this kind were subordinate to it in some respects? If anything of this sort occurs, will it not be a complete and disgraceful betrayal of British sovereignty and independence?
  Mr. Godber: The reference is to an Assembly, and there are various international assemblies in different parts of the world in which we play our full part which we do not necessarily think derogate from our responsibilities in this Parliament.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how far ahead the Government are looking in giving these Answers? While various institutions have already been set up by the Common Market, it is well known that they are but the foundations of something far stronger. How far are the Government looking ahead?
  Mr. Godber: It is difficult to say how far we are looking ahead. In this context how far can one look? We are looking a considerable way. We are trying to see precisely what are the terms on which we can enter the Common
  826
  Market. In that connection, if we have a satisfactory position established, clearly we shall be in a position to evaluate both the economic and the political links which will be called for. Obviously we shall have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages in that respect.
  Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give the House some definition of a European Parliament and what its powers are to be—or is it to be like the gentlemen in another place, not vested with any powers at all?
  Mr. Godber: I would not endeavour to forecast the body which the right hon. Gentleman envisages, nor would I comment on his criticism of another place, which I do not support.
  Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has received from members of the European Economic Community regarding their discussions and decisions reached about East-West trade.
  Mr. Rankinasked the Lord Privy Seal whether his negotiations on the European Common Market have included discussions on a common policy towards trade with state trading countries.
  Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend has not discussed these matters in the negotiations nor has he received any information from the Member Governments of the European Economic Community about them.
  Mr. Wilson: Has the Minister received any information? Is it not a fact that the Common Market countries have agreed that a quota shall be fixed on all East-West trade of member countries including, if we join, Britain? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is or is not a fact and what is the Government's attitude towards such a proposal?
  Mr. Godber: I have no knowledge of such proposal. If the right hon. Gentleman has any information about it I shall be glad to look into it.
  Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that the quota is 5 per cent. and that, if it were accepted, it would affect Britain

  827
  very seriously, because our total trade with the Eastern bloc has been increasing greatly? If such a provision were inserted, would the Minister consider it possible to accept it?
  Mr. Godber: I have just said that I have no information about such a regulation. If the hon. Member has such information I shall be glad to receive it from him.
  Sir D. Walker-Smithasked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent the negotiations with the European Economic Community have sought a revision and modification of the Regulation-making powers of Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome.
  Mr. Godber: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said in paragraph 13 of his statement of 10th October.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a very important matter in the context of the principle of sovereignty of Parliament in that these regulations, under Article 189, will be of general application, will be binding in every respect and will be directly applicable within member States—that is to say, without any opportunity of scrutiny by this House or any control by this House?
  Mr. Godber: This matter was fully discussed last August, and I call my right hon. and learned Friend's attention, in particular, to the speech of the Lord Chancellor in another place. As a layman, I am very reluctant to attempt to put a gloss on what he said on that occasion.
  Mr. Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sovereignty of Parliament referred to will not be worth very much unless it rests on a sound economic foundation?
  Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that under the inevitable momentum of the Treaty of Rome decisions will increasingly be taken by the Council of Minister on a majority vote and that this means that the sovereignty of the British House of Commons will, under the existing provisions of the Treaty of Rome, increasingly be eroded?
  Mr. Godber: I do not think that it is necessary to make such an assumption.
  828
  It is an assumption which the hon. Lady is making—a very big assumption—that there will be such an erosion. As I pointed out earlier this afternoon, there are Articles in the Treaty which make it essential that any extension of the Treaty itself require unanimity. As for the provisions in the Treaty, the House will have plenty of opportunity of considering them when we know the terms and conditions under which we could enter the Community.

  LAOS
  Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement about the present situation in Laos, and about the conference on Laos now sitting in Geneva.
  Mr. Godber: Since my right hon. Friend's replies on 21st February, the military situation has remained generally quiet, although there have been occasional minor outbreaks of fighting. Negotiations for the formation of a Government of National Union are continuing and the Geneva Conference is awaiting their outcome.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the Minister of State recall that it was the C.I.A. which most disastrously brought about the downfall of Prince Souvanna Phouma's Government, and is he satisfied that the C.I.A. are not now reinforcing and supporting the Right-wing Government of Vientiane and thus preventing us from bringing Souvanna Phouma back into power, as we desire?
  Mr. Godber: I think the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the statement made by Mr. Harriman over the weekend, which is extremely helpful, and I would recommend him to study it further.
  Mr. Harold Davies: Can my hon. Friend say whether the weekend news was confirmed with the British Government, because we welcome this new approach to the problem and the agreement that Prince Boun Oum will not be supported in establishing an opposite Government.
  Mr. Godber: We have not received the official version of Mr. Harriman's

  829
  Statement, but the hon. Gentleman will have seen in The Times today a reference to it.
  Mr. Rankin: As the hon. Gentleman a little earlier warned us not to be taken in too quickly by what we see in the Press, can he guarantee accuracy this time?
  Mr. Godber: I said that I was not responsible for all that appears in the Press. That is the position now, but I should be very surprised if this report were wildly inaccurate.

  EGYPT (BRITISH PROPERTY)
  Mr. Wallasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has now received information from the Egyptian Government as to their intentions with regard to the seizure of the property of over 30 British citizens; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. P. Thomas: I can add nothing yet to the reply my right hon. Friend gave my hon. Friend on 29th January.
  Mr. Wall: Is it not outrageous that after nearly six months these people do not know whether their property is sequestrated or frozen and whether they are to get compensation? Is he not aware that there is a growing feeling that the way in which the Ango-Egyptian Financial Agreement is being implemented is far from satisfactory?
  Mr. Thomas: I certainly agree that we would like to have received a substantive reply from the U.A.R. Government sooner. We are continuing our efforts to get one, and we have left them in no doubt of the seriousness with which we view these matters.

  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (RECOMMENDATIONS)
  Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Lord Privy Seal if he has studied Recommendation 69 passed by the Assembly of Western European Union concerning the state of European security; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. Godber: I have read the recommendation with interest. Since it is very detailed and covers a large variety of
  830
  different subjects, I do not feel that it would be useful or indeed possible to make a general statement about it.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my hon. Friend agree that point 3 of the recommendation, dealing with the pooling of technical and industrial resources with a view to general standardisation, would be of great advantage to this country within the N.A.T.O. Alliance?
  Mr. Godber: I agree that this article to which may hon. Friend refers, as well as certain other of the articles, is indeed important. We should like to give it further study.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Lord Privy Seal if he has studied Resolution 19 passed by the Assembly of Western European Union concerning the situation in Berlin; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. Godber: I have noted this resolution, which is encouraging evidence of the solidarity of the Western European Union Assembly on the issue of Berlin.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can my hon. Friend assure us that we are taking full advantage of this resolution with the member countries of the N.A.T.O. Alliance, and is he convinced that they are pulling together at the moment?
  Mr. Godber: Yes, I think I can say that we are satisfied. Of course, there are difficulties and problems in regard to the different nuances of this matter, but this sort of resolution is indeed very helpful.

  GERMANY (ANTI-NAZI REPRISALS)
  Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Lord Privy Seal how many young men, who were sentenced as boys by the Allied Military and Central Commission Courts in Germany, after the surrender of the German forces in 1945, to long terms of imprisonment, for reprisals taken after their release from concentration camps against S.S. guards or members of the Gestapo, are still in prison; and when it is intended that they shall be released.
  Mr. P. Thomas: None, in so far as courts in the former British Zone are concerned.
  Mr. Johnson: May I ask my hon. Friend whether his attention has been drawn to a report by the Forgotten Allies Trust to the effect that 133 of these young men are still in prison, and can he definitely confirm that none of these were sentenced by British military courts?
  Mr. Thomas: I have see that report and I have made inquiries about the facts alleged in that report. We know of no case where a person sentenced for such a crime is still in prison.
  Mr. S. Silverman: The Minister's original reply referred to the former British Zone of occupation, and his answer was limited to that, but as that zone is now part of Western Germany, which we have recognised and with which we have treaties, would it not be worth while finding out whether in Western Germany as a whole there are any such cases now?
  Mr. Thomas: I referred to the British Zone since zones other than the British would not be the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. I can only repeat what I said. We know of no case where a person sentenced for such a crime is still in prison.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mrs. Castleasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will initiate proposals at the disarmament talks for a ban on all nuclear tests than can be detected by means of existing instruments on the territories of the Powers involved.
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Lord Privy Seal if, following improvements in detection methods, Her Majesty's Government will support proposals for banning all nuclear test explosions in the atmosphere which can be detected by existing means.
  Mr. Godber: This is not simply a problem of detection. It is necessary also to locate and to identify. The number of natural seismic events occurring annually in the Soviet Union alone may run into hundreds. We need, therefore, to have a capability to distinguish between natural events and nuclear tests, and to verify what has occurred in cases of doubt. Our present state of scientific development does not by itself provide
  832
  this but we are continuing intensive research. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on 13th March, we are seeking to reach agreement on the whole problem and not just part of it.
  Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that national stations are sufficient to identify the overwhelming majority of tests and that the Soviet Union has offered to conclude a treaty banning all those tests which are identifiable by national stations? Would it not be a good thing for us to take up this offer as a starting point, particularly as President Kennedy said at his Press conference the other day that a test ban treaty would do more for the security of the West than any resumption of nuclear tests?
  Mr. Godber: We are very anxious to conclude a treaty, and I have been engaged in these discussions in Geneva only last week. I know the great difficulties, but unless the Russians are prepared to agree to some kind of verification we cannot agree to a treaty which would provide no safeguards.
  Mr. Allaun: Would not the common sense approach be to agree first on the easier issue of detectable tests and use that as a basis fox a wider agreement? What is stopping that?
  Mr. Godber: There is no agreement between the two sides on what is detectable. My noble Friend only last week appealed to the Russians if they had any knowledge of what was detectable to come forward. We have asked them again and again to let us have scientific information and they have always refused.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In view of the bad faith shown by the Russians in the recent moratorium, would not my hon. Friend agree that we cannot jeopardise our national security by agreeing to something which we cannot verify ourselves?
  Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. This is one of the real problems which has forced us to insist on verification.
  Mr. Mayhew: Were there not proposals for verification by neutrals, and what was the reply?
  Mr. Godber: We put forward proposals ourselves at the end of last

  833
  August, and we have repeated them now, that there shall be a considerable proportion of neutral representation in any inspecting team. The Russians have replied that they will not accept any inspection team on Soviet territory on any conditions whatever. My noble Friend pressed them only last Friday.
  Mr. Mayhew: It has been suggested that it could be done by neutrals alone. Has that been put forward? If so, what was the reply?
  Mr. Godber: The offer put forward was that half the team should be neutrals. We have had no counter-offer. My noble Friend has pressed the point in Geneva, but we have had no indication that inspection teams of any kind would be acceptable to the Soviet Union.

  CHRISTMAS ISLAND (NUCLEAR TESTS)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Lord Privy Seal what assurances were given to the Japanese Ambassador on 9th February regarding the danger to Japanese citizens in the event of a nuclear test on Christmas Island.
  Mr. Godber: The Ambassador was assured that all possible precautions would be taken in regard to any nuclear tests to be conducted in the atmosphere in the Christmas Island area.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable concern in Japan about this Christmas Island test? Is he aware that there has been an increase in Strontium 90 in animals and vegetation since the Russian tests? Is not this a splendid opportunity for the Western Powers to show that they are more Christian and civilised than the Russians by announcing that they will abandon these tests?
  Mr. Godber: I saw the reference which the hon. Member made to this point last week. I have made inquiries. We have received no representation from the Japanese Government based on these facts.
  Mr. Harold Davies: Would the Government now be prepared to issue a White Paper showing the effects on plankton and marine animal and
  834
  vegetable life? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is well known that after tests fish have been found with two, three and more heads in the ocean currents off the coast of Japan? [Laughter.]
  Mr. S. Silverman: What is funny about that?
  Mr. Davies: On a point of order. Is it in order for some hon. Members opposite to consider that a scientific fact is just a matter for jocularity in the House? This is a matter for civilisation and its future. It is a fact which has been shown to the world by the staff of a ship engaged on scientific research.
  Mr. Speaker: We should be in grave difficulty if what hon. Members considered became a point of order.
  Mr. Godber: I have no knowledge of this. I shall be happy to receive any information which the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) can give us.

  N.A.T.O. (NUCLEAR WARHEADS)
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will request the United States Government to circulate to their North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies details of the steps taken to ensure security of nuclear warheads where custody pending use remains with the United States Government.
  Mr. Godber: No, Sir. The North Atlantic Alliance is aware that the security of such nuclear warheads is rigidly enforced and that they remain in the constant physical custody of United States military detachments. Detailed security arrangements are concluded bilaterally between the United States and each North Atlantic Treaty Organisation country concerned. I see no reason to recommend any change.
  Mr. Allaun: But has not the Mace already been supplied to Germany? Did not the Minister of Defence on 20th December admit that nuclear warheads are allocated to Germans in N.A.T.O. as they are to the British? Since the warheads in time of emergency must be

  835
  stored near the missiles, would this not mean that they could be seized and used by German officers?
  Mr. Godber: I am advised that this is definitely not so. There is no question of this happening. The security arrangements are strict and are stringently enforced, and I am sure that they would cover all eventualities.
  Mr. Warbey: Is it not the case that the Americans have agreed to hand over custody of nuclear warheads in an emergency?
  Mr. Godber: Certainly not.

  CENTRAL EUROPE AND AFRICA (NUCLEAR-FREE ZONE)
  Mr. Hendersonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government to propose the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe and Africa, respectively, as part of an agreement on disarmament.
  Mr. Prenticeasked the Lord Privy Seal if Her Majesty's Government's representatives in Geneva will support proposals for nuclear-free zones in Central Europe and in Africa.
  Mr. Godber: The answer to both Questions is "No, Sir".
  Mr. Henderson: What is the Government's objection to this proposal? Would not the creation of a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe not only ease the tension that exists there, but also provide a system of control and inspection which might well be the first step to an agreement on general and comprehensive disarmament?
  Mr. Godber: No, Sir. I do not think that this is really the way to proceed. The Government do not think that it is readily feasible to eliminate any particular area from the effects of nuclear war. We believe that this can be done effectively only by eliminating these weapons altogether through general and complete disarmament, and that is what we are seeking at the moment.
  Mr. Prentice: Whilst we all agree with the objective of general and complete disarmament, may I ask whether it would not be useful to put forward at
  836
  Geneva a pilot scheme in Central Europe and elsewhere with a view to proceeding to general disarmament later?
  Mr. Godber: All sorts of proposals are being put forward at Geneva, but I do not think that this is one to be put forward for immediate discussion.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Since it is clear from the hon. Gentleman's answer that we are running into great difficulties on the nuclear test ban which raises the whole question of inspection, may I ask, without going into a general disarmament agreement, which we all want to see, whether the hon. Gentleman would not agree that at any rate the Government should encourage the development of agreement on any issues which will lead in the long run to a general disarmament agreement? Does he not feel that this question of a non-nuclear zone might be a very valuable advance while we are trying to create the confidence necessary for wider agreement?
  Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman has a Question on the Order Paper later on the disarmament conference generally. Perhaps replies on this point might come up more readily there. My immediate reaction on this narrow point is that it is not one of the most fruitful avenues of approach.

  VIETNAM
  Mr. Brockwayasked the Lord Privy Seal what action has been taken by the representative of Her Majesty's Government, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference on Vietnam, following the recent worsening of the situation in South Vietnam.
  Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Lord Privy Seal what action he will now take, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference on Vietnam, in view of the recent developments in Vietnam and the deterioration in the situation there.
  Mr. P. Thomas: As the House is aware, we have had exchanges of Notes with the Soviet Government. These rest with a Soviet aide mémoire of 17th March, which again urges that the United States should be called upon to cease interfering in South Vietnam. This ignores the United Kingdom proposal

  837
  that the Soviet Government should deal with the root cause of the trouble by exercising restraint upon the North Vietnamese. As there is clearly no agreement between the two co-Chairmen on the facts of the situation, we must now await a report from the International Control Commission.
  Mr. Brockway: Is not this a very serious situation for the whole of South-East Asia, particularly in relation to Laos nearby? Will the hon. Gentleman answer these questions? First, what are British commitments in Vietnam at present? Second, in addition to communications with Russia, has there been any communication sent to America regarding the military aid which America is offering to South Vietnam? Third, will the Government consider recalling the Geneva Conference so that this very grave situation can be discussed in the spirit of the earlier conference at Geneva?
  Mr. Thomas: As I said when the matter was last discussed in the House, it is, obviously, a serious situation. I gave the reasons why Her Majesty's Government think that it is serious. In answer to the questions which the hon. Member has put: first, there is no British commitment in South Vietnam. Second, we have had no communication with America in our position as co-Chairman, although, of course, we are in communication with America on these and all matters which affect us. Third, it would hardly be possible to agree on a policy when there is no agreement at all as to the nature of the situation. Therefore, I think that we should await the report from the I.C.C. before any question of recalling the Geneva Conference arises.
  Mr. Harold Davies: Since the Minisster has said that there is no commitment by the British Government in South Vietnam, can he go further and say that that implies that there is no commitment under the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation in Vietnam, and will he assure the House that we shall not interfere in the internal affairs of Vietnam? I endorse the supplementary questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). Will the Minister please approach the American Government to see whether we can, at least in the transition period, bring about a standstill in the movement
  838
  of troops and military equipment into South Vietnam?
  Mr. Thomas: When I said that there was no British commitment in South Vietnam, I was not talking about our obligations under Article 4 of the Manila Treaty.
  Mr. Davies: That was misleading.
  Mr. Thomas: Whether or not Britain would be required to give assistance under that Article would depend upon the situation at the time. Clearly, I cannot give a categorical assurance at the moment. On the other matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised, the United States has said that if the North Vietnamese will stop their campaign to destroy the Republic of Vietnam the steps which the United States is taking to assist the South Vietnamese in their defence efforts will no longer be necessary.
  Mr. Mayhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this country has serious commitments and responsibilities in South Vietnam, and is he aware that, although, no doubt, the interference of North Vietnam is contrary to all principles of co-existence and is a main cause of the crisis there, it is nevertheless the fact that the Americans are being provoked, it seems, beyond the brink of what is sensible in their aid to South Vietnam now, and will he urge on the Americans that they should not go beyond operational military training of troops at the most and should not in any circumstances take part in operations themselves as service men?
  Mr. Thomas: I think that the Americans are fully aware of what their responsibilities in that area are. They are there assisting at the moment by reason of a call which came from the South Vietnam Government. If the campaign which is being conducted by the North Vietnamese were to cease, the American intervention would no longer be required.
  Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us think that the Americans are doing a great deal to help against very serious Communist penetration in South-East Asia in what they are doing in South Vietnam?
  Mr. Thomas: It is quite clear that what is taking place in South Vietnam now is a calculated Communist take-over bid.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the oppressed and impoverished people of this country are to do while great Powers thousands of miles away play with their fortunes and their future for ideological considerations of their own?
  Mr. Thomas: As I have said, I cannot agree with the view frequently expressed in some quarters of the House that what is happening in South Vietnam is the action of an oppressed rebel minority. In fact, it is quite clearly directed and assisted from North Vietnam.
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the participation of United States pilots and ground staff in military operations conducted by South Vietnam Government forces against South Vietnam guerrillas, he will, as co-chairman, reconvene the Geneva Conference on Vietnam and propose bringing the situation before the Security Council as a threat to peace.
  Mr. P. Thomas: I have nothing to add to my answers on 14th March.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that American armed intervention in Southern Vietnam, whatever may be the allegations concerning North Vietnam help or otherwise to Southern Vietnam, is contrary to the Charter and might involve us in war? Will not the hon. Gentleman at least give the same warning that Mr. Eden, as he then was, gave to Mr. Dulles over Dienbien-phu, that, if American military action in Vietnam results in war with China, we will dissociate ourselves from such a war and will refuse to be involved in it?
  Mr. Thomas: As I have said before, there is no agreement between the two co-Chairmen as to what is the cause of the conflict which is taking place in South Vietnam. In our view, the next step is for the International Control Commission to report to the co-Chairmen.

  NON-NUCLEAR COUNTRIES
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal what reply he has given to the official request of U Thant for information on the policy of the British Government towards the General Assembly resolution of 4th December, 1961, calling upon the non-nuclear countries to agree not to produce, acquire or station nuclear weapons on their territories.
  Mrs. Castleasked the Lord Privy Seal what reply has been sent by Her Majesty's Government to the letters from the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking Her Majesty's Government to state their response to the Swedish resolution, passed by the United Nations on 4th December, 1961, proposing that non-nuclear countries should not manufacture nuclear weapons or acquire them from the nuclear powers.
  Mr. Godber: I am placing copies of the Secretary-General's letter and of Her Majesty's Government's reply to it in the Library.
  Mr. Warbey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this resolution for a non-nuclear club was passed by 58 votes to 10 with the support of four N.A.T.O. members, including Canada? Since the Soviet Union has indicated its readiness to sign a treaty preventing it from passing on nuclear weapons and nuclear "know-how" to its allies, including China, will the British Government seize the magnificent opportunity which this presents to prevent a further spread of nuclear weapons?
  Mr. Godber: I have already explained Her Majesty's Government's attitude on this matter in reply to previous Questions. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman studies the reply, which he will find in the Library.
  Mrs. Castle: Does not Her Majesty's Government's insistence on retaining the British independent nuclear deterrent act as a serious obstacle to the creation of a non-nuclear club? Is it not clear that the United States Government are increasingly opposed to Her Majesty's defence policy, as was made clear recently in an article in the semi-official magazine "N.A.T.O.'s Fifteen Nations"?
  Mr. Godber: Whatever is the American Government's attitude to this resolution and whatever is our reply to it, Britain's possession of the nuclear deterrent plays no part in it because it is related to countries which are not at present nuclear Powers. Therefore, I do not think that the question is relevant.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Why was the reply placed in the Library in the first place? Should not it have been published in HANSARD or as a White Paper so that the whole country could see what attitude the Government take? Is not this another case of the kind to which I referred a few minutes ago? If there are grave difficulties about reaching agreement on the major issues, we should do all we can to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh countries. Has the hon. Gentleman and the United States' Government considered what would be involved if countries such as Egypt, Israel, China or even Cuba get nuclear weapons?
  Mr. Godber: First, I should have thought that the way in which we have circulated the reply was adequate. Secondly, Her Majesty's Government supported the Irish resolution, which was opposed to the dissemination of nuclear weapons to additional Powers. That seems to me to meet the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. This is a matter to which my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary referred in his speech at Geneva only last week as one which we fully support.

  THAILAND
  Mr. Rankinasked the Lord Privy Seal what consultations he had, within the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation arrangements, with the United States Secretary of State before the joint statement of Mr. Dean Rusk and Mr. Thamat Khoman was issued affirming that the United States of America would come, if necessary, to the assistance of Siam even if there were no South-East Asia Treaty Organisation unanimity.
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Lord Privy Seal what consultations took place between Her Majesty's Government and the United States authorities in the
  842
  South-East Asia Treaty Organisation before the declaration by the United States Secretary of State that the United States of America would take immediate military action to assist the Thai Government to resist Communist aggression or subversion without consulting the cosignatories to that treaty.
  Mr. P. Thomas: There is constant consultation between South-East Asia Treaty Organisation members, but these discussions are confidential. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) has not represented the United States Secretary of State correctly.
  Mr. Rankin: Is not this treaty with Thailand one way whereby the United States can circumvent the unanimity provision of the South-East Asia Treaty? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that, despite any bilateral pacts into which the United States may enter, we will stand by the unanimity provision in the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty?
  Mr. Thomas: Article 4 (1) of the Manila Treaty lays an obligation on each signatory, in certain circumstances, to take action in accordance with its constitutional processes. This is an individual as well as a collective responsibility. But if these circumstances should arise S.E.A.T.O. members would presumably act in concert.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the official text issued by the State Department of the assurance given by the United States Secretary of State to the Thailand Foreign Minister contains the following passage:
  "The Secretary of State … expressed the firm intention of the United States to aid Thailand, its ally and historic friend, in resisting Communist aggression and subversion. … The Secretary of State reaffirmed that this obligation of the United States does not depend upon the prior agreement of all other parties to the treaty, since this treaty obligation is individual as well as collective."
  Does not that mean exactly what my Question states, that the United States reserves to itself military action which might involve us in war without consulting us and without our agreement?
  Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the words in his Question, he will see that they are quite different from the words which he has just read out. As we see it, there is no

  843
  conflict between the joint United States-Thailand communiqué and the provisions of the Manila Treaty. Her Majesty's Government welcome the statement and the bilateral discussions which led to it. They will help to strengthen the fabric of collective defence in South-East Asia.
  Mr. Tapsell: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that this country's support of Thailand's opposition to Communism is no less strong than that of the United States?
  Mr. Thomas: We have made our view quite clear by signing the Manila Treaty.
  Mr. Mayhew: While it is understandable, in view of events in Thailand and Laos, that the Thais should be worried about their security, and while I understand that this bilateral agreement has been welcomed by other countries in the area, including Australia, is it not a rather strange procedure that a bilateral agreement of this kind should be made on the main purpose of this Treaty without proper discussion and consultation with the members of the organisation?
  Mr. Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman reads what Mr. Rusk said, he will see that he did not say that there would be no consultation with other S.E.A.T.O. members. Nor did he say that the United States would take immediate military action to resist Communist subversion in Thailand, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus). He said that, in the event of Communist armed attack on Thailand, the United States' obligation to take action under the Manila Treaty does not depend on the prior agreement of other parties to the Treaty.

  FOREIGN POLICY IN SECOND WORLD WAR (PUBLICATION)
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the complete edition of the recent official publication, "British Foreign Policy in the Second World War" by Sir Llewellyn Woodward, will be available at the Foreign Office or other suitable premises for the use of authorised students of history.
  Mr. P. Thomas: No, Sir.
  Dame Irene Ward: Since the United States Government have published their
  844
  documents, why should we allow the British case to go by default? If we can allow the publication of an abridged edition, why cannot students of history have access to all of the documents, like people in the United States? Is it not ridiculous to issue an abridged edition and then to deprive people of the opportunity to look at the proper edition?
  Mr. Thomas: The larger work was compiled for official purposes. One of the reasons why it is considered that it should not be made available to students is that the larger work contains references and quotations from Cabinet discussions which, by custom, are not made available to students until the documents are fifty years old.

  GENEVA DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE
  Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the present state of the negotiations at the Geneva Disarmament Conference.
  Mr. Prenticeasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the position reached at the disarmament conference in Geneva.
  Mr. Godber: Since my right honourable Friend the Lord Privy Seal answered a similar Question last Monday, there have been five plenary meetings of the conference, and also four informal meetings, besides meetings of a sub-committee consisting of the delegates of the United Kingdom, United States and the Soviet Union to discuss nuclear tests.
  It has been agreed that the conference should pursue in plenary sessions its primary objective of reaching agreement on general and complete disarmament and for this purpose should consider the United States programme of September, 1961, and the Soviet draft treaty of 16th March, 1962, together with any other documents submitted. It has also been agreed that concurrently and without prejudice to this work, a committee of the whole shall consider various proposals of a more limited nature.
  The sub-committee on nuclear tests has unfortunately made no progress, because of the Soviet refusal to consider any system based on international verification. That sub-committee is due to

  845
  meet again today, possibly with the addition of representatives of other States.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the light of the experience of the last ten days or fortnight, he feels that we are getting near a point at which urgent consideration should be given to Heads of Government attending the conference? Will he take it that both sides of the House would support him in an all-out effort to get a general agreement on disarmament? There is some reason for feeling that going all-out on the question of a test ban, which involves getting over the difficulties of the inspection hurdle for only a limited objective, may possibly not be the most rewarding line on which we should be pressing ahead. Will he give an assurance that the Government are making an all-out effort to get a general disarmament convention?
  Mr. Godber: Yes. On the first part of the question, it would perhaps be most appropriate to await the answer which the Prime Minister will be giving tomorrow. On the second part of the question, I gladly give an assurance that we are doing all we possibly can both in the field of general and complete disarmament and in that of the narrower measures to which the right hon. Gentleman referred earlier this afternoon. We think that these two things can go ahead concurrently.
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the problem of nuclear tests. This is proving a real difficulty at the present time. But this surely need not impair our efforts in the general field where we are seeking in every possible way to find areas of agreement at least as a start.
  Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister's reference just now to narrower issues raised earlier this afternoon, including a nuclear-free zone and a non-nuclear club, mean that the Government have not closed their mind to these questions as part of what might be a very useful disarmament convention?
  Mr. Godber: Those suggestions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers have been put forward and will undoubtedly come up for discussion. There are a number of other similar measures which I think have hopeful overtones in them. This is the way in which we are seeking to press forward.
  Mr. Prentice: What proposals, if any, are the British representatives making on the question of inspection and the gap between the Soviet and American positions about the scope of inspection? Are the British Government supporting the idea for splitting up the areas of inspection into zones, as has been suggested in some quarters?
  Mr. Godber: We are very willing to look at this question of sampling inspection, which was put forward originally at the Pugwash Conference. I have discussed this with certain Russians at the Conference, and I am still hoping to get more of a glimmer of response than I have so far achieved. This is one of the avenues which we are exploring. We are exploring every avenue which will get over the difficulty of the inspection problem.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will publish a White Paper containing the latest disarmament proposals of the United States and Soviet Governments and the official speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at the Geneva Disarmament Conference.
  Mr. Godber: A White Paper is in preparation covering the basic documents published before the conference met. In addition, I am placing in the Library copies of the speech delivered on 15th March by the United States Secretary of State, containing proposals for immediate action on disarmament, the draft treaty tabled by the Soviet Delegate on the same day and the speech of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary on 20th March. These papers have also already been made widely available through the Press.
  Mr. Henderson: What is the difficulty about adding to the White Paper, which apparently is in preparation, the information asked for in the Question?
  Mr. Godber: It is the practical difficulty that the White Paper is already in hand and that if one seeks to keep holding it up to add additional documents, it will take a considerable time. The question of a subsequent White Paper could well be considered, but I have tried to cover these points in the way in which I have indicated in my reply.
  Mr. Wilson: This point was raised in the defence debate about the publication

  847
  of the daily transactions. Will the Minister consider this again? We welcome the White Paper. Will the Minister consider whether we could not have a daily statement in the Library at any rate of all the important transactions of the conference? They are given by member Governments to the Press. Could not hon. Members have that on a day-to-day basis with the authority of the Government?
  Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman presumably refers to the verbatim daily reports. There is a Question to arise in a moment about that, and I should like to wait for it.
  At the end of Questions—
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
  Mr. P. NOEL-BAKER: To ask the Lord Privy Seal what proposals were made by the British delegate concerning the publication of the verbatim record of the United Nations Disarmament Committee now meeting in Geneva; and what arrangements have been made.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the Minister said when we were dealing with Question No. 26, may I ask, through you, whether he will now be willing to answer Question No. 30?
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was frustrated, but I am afraid Chat there is no mechanism whereby Question No. 30 can now be answered unless application is made to me.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister of State rather cut out obvious supplementary questions by saying, when dealing with Question No. 26, that this Question appeared later on the Order Paper, and as it then looked as if we should reach Question No. 30, would it not be in order for the Minister of State now to apply to you for permission to answer the Question?
  Mr. Speaker: It is not right to involve the Chair in those matters, although I am afraid that it is from time to time.
  Mr. Godber: Might I have your permission, Mr. Speaker, to reply to Question No. 30, because I feel that I gave rather an indication that I would answer
  848
  it and by so doing somewhat limited the discussion? The Reply to Question No. 30 is as follows:
  It has been agreed at Geneva that the verbatim records of the Conference will be made available for public use as soon as they have been checked, unless otherwise decided. Checking will take about ten days.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I should like to express my gratitude to the Minister of State for his Answer and for all that he is doing about this matter. Might I put it to him that we had the Foreign Secretary's speech the next day in The Times, we had Mr. Dean Rusk's speech three days later from the Embassy and Mr. Gromyko's speech three days later from Soviet News, but we have not had Mr. Unden's speech or the speech of the Indian delegate or other very important speeches? Would it not be more satisfactory to get the secretariat to issue these speeches next day, as it could easily do if it so desired?
  Mr. Godber: There is a difficulty here. At the start of the conference—I wild be quite frank with the House about this—no procedural arrangements were agreed on. Indeed, they could not have been. There were informal discussions in advance. We tried to get agreement on certain matters, and we got the best we could. That resulted in the present form. I would point out that 17 nations were concerned, and we could go only so far as we have gone in this regard. We shall seek to give the maximum information that we can and will try to circulate additional papers in the form I suggested, through the Library.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but will he consider whether the secretariat could not do for this vitally important committee what it does for the General Assembly, a much larger body, and get the record ready for the next day? Time is very important in this matter.
  Mr. Godber: There is a distinction here. The Assembly is held in public, but these committee meetings are not, and it was agreed that delegations should have the opportunity to correct speeches before they were finalised for publication. That was the agreement which was reached, and on that I must rest.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WEST INDIES BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.33 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purposes of the West Indies Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  This is not a Bill that any Secretary of State could propose to the House with pleasure. It marks the end of an experiment in government in which many of us placed high hopes. But I believe—and I shall try to put my reasons before the House—that the Measure is necessary and practical in the light of the circumstances we are now facing.
  The Federation of the West Indies was inaugurated in April, 1958, and I think that we all felt then that there were many difficulties in this Federation, with its great geographical spread for example, but we hoped that the various islands and their political leaders and political parties would come closer together by being united in a federation.
  But, in fact, the opposite has happened. There has been a widening division among the various islands, partly on matters of doctrine with the arguments between those who supported greater centralisation and those who supported less centralisation, and partly—we must face it—on differences of personality that have arisen during the last four years.
  There have been a series of conferences on a possible Constitution for independence for the Federation, but they have been time and time again be-devilled by the economic and financial problems—questions of the freedom of movement and of financial and economic power—and although Her Majesty's Government have at all times tried to
  850
  help these conferences reach agreement, we must, I think, all recognise that on these basic problems of labour, finance and economics there have all the time been deep divisions among the various units of the Federation.
  Agreement was reached at Lancaster House, in June last year, at a conference at which my right hon. Friend presided, but by that time it was already known, and had been known for some time, that a referendum was to be held in Jamaica. In fact, it was in May, 1960, that the Jamaica Government announced their intention to hold a referendum, and the whole Lancaster House conference of 1961 was held in the light of that decision and in the knowledge that such a referendum would shortly take place.
  Some people, I think, had tended to suggest that we might have objected to or refused the Jamaican proposals to hold a referendum, but, of course, we have no power whatever to do so. It is a self-governing country, and when countries become self-governing they clearly have the right to make decisions of this kind. We did not propose a referendum to the Jamaica Government. It was their initiative and their proposal, and we had no power whatever to refuse.
  The result of the referendum, which was held in September of last year, and which produced a majority against federation, was, I think, a disappointment to very many people in this House and elsewhere. But it was a fact that we all had to face and a fact which could not be set on one side. It meant in itself a radical change in the future of the West Indies when one recognised that Jamaica represented more than half the total population of the Federation. The referendum represented a complete change in the position of the Federation.
  Shortly after the referendum was held, the Federal Prime Minister, Sir Grantley Adams, and a delegation came to London where they were informed that Her Majesty's Government could not refuse to Jamaica the right to secede, and the Federal delegation neither dissented from that proposition nor asked for further consultation.
  The next move was when a delegation from the Government of Jamaica came to this country, and it was announced by my predecessor on 6th October, 1961,

  851
  that legislation would be introduced to give effect to Jamaica's desire to secede and that we would make every effort to ensure that the legislation passed by the end of March, 1962.
  The next stage of the development was in January this year when I paid a visit to Port-of-Spain. At the time of my arrival it was announced by the General Council of the People's National Movement of Trinidad, the Premier's party, that it had decided not to take part in a federation of the Eastern Caribbean territories.
  It was generally assumed that this recommendation would be accepted by the party as a whole and by the Trinidad Government. That assumption has, of course, proved to be quite correct, because both the party and the Government of Trinidad have accepted it. It was against that background that I held consultations with other people in the West Indies during my visit.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: If it was right in principle—which, personally, I doubt—for Jamaica to hold this referendum and to decide, as a result thereof, to withdraw from the Federation, did my right hon. Friend suggest to the Prime Minister of Trinidad that it would be appropriate, before Trinidad decided to dissociate itself from the Federation, that it, too, should hold a referendum, particularly having regard to the fact that this question had not been an issue at the December elections in the island?
  Mr. Maudling: No. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend would agree that, when countries like Jamaica or Trindidad become self-governing, they must decide these matters for themselves. We did not propose a referendum in Jamaica. I do not think that we would have done so, because, on the whole, the use of the referendum is not a system of government we tend to favour in this country. But Jamaica was entitled to hold one, just as the Trinidad Government, having been elected shortly before, were entitled to reach a decision without a referendum. In either case, we must accept the decision presented to us.
  In the light both of that and of the discussions with the Premier of
  852
  Barbados and the Chief Ministers of the other islands—who all said to me without exception that they wished to see the present Federation dissolved and to set about finding a new system for Barbados and the Windward and Leeward Islands—I was presented with a situation in which Jamaica had decided by referendum to secede and the leaders of the Governments of every other unit of the Federation had asked to have the present federal system dissolved. I think that, in the light of those factors, there was clearly no course whatever for us to take other than to dissolve the Federation. It was, as I have said, the unanimous wish of the unit Governments that we should do so.
  Some question has been raised as to the speed with which we are acting, and also about consultation. We are accused of acting with undue haste—on the whole, the opposite of what we are usually accused of doing. But, first, we had undertaken to pass through Parliament, by the end of March, if we could, legislation permitting the secession of Jamaica. Secondly, all the Governments I spoke to in Port-of-Spain considered that, once the decision had been taken to dissolve the Federation, the sooner it could be done the better, because the remaining in being of the Federation would only complicate the discussion of future arrangements for whatever new system might be evolved.
  It was, therefore, urged on me by everyone except the Federal Government that the action I should take should be as swift as possible. I have mentioned the discussions which took place with the Federal Government delegation after the Jamaican referendum. When I went to Port-of-Spain, the Federal Government were the first people I saw and I discussed the whole problem with them. At the end of my visit, I again discussed the whole problem with them completely frankly and told Sir Grantley Adams and his colleagues exactly what I intended to recommend when I returned to this country. I also explained the timing I proposed and the reasons for moving swiftly.
  In referring to Sir Grantley Adams, I should like now to pay tribute to a man whom all of us regard as a person of charm and distinction who has many

  853
  friends in this country and in this House. I know that the House would wish me to pay that tribute. I would not like it to be thought that I or anyone else thinks otherwise about this very distinguished West Indian.
  Logic pointed to the conclusion that the right thing to do in the present situation in the West Indies was to dissolve the present Federation swiftly and then set about consideration of the next step and what the new organisation should be. This Bill has been drafted in that light. It has three purposes.
  The first is to provide for secession by the individual territories or, preferably, for dissolution of the Federation. The second is to deal with the future of the existing assets and liabilities of the Federation, including the liabilities for public servants of the Federation, and with the common services at present performed by the Federation for the islands as a whole. The third is to make provision for further groupings among the islands if this should be thought desirable.
  I should point out that we do not, in the Bill, provide for the independence of any territory, because it has been a tradition—and I believe it to be a good one—that independence should be provided for by Parliament by a specific and separate Bill.
  I turn now to the provisions of the Bill as a whole. Clause 1 gives Her Majesty power by Order in Council to provide for secession or the dissolution of the Federation. I have said that I believe, having heard the views of the unit Governments, that the right course is to proceed by dissolving the Federation. That we will propose to do if we are given powers embodied in this Bill.
  Clause 2 deals with the assets of the Federation and the common services. What we have in mind is that the future of these assets and of these common services must be settled by agreement among the various parties—Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados and the other islands. We envisage holding a conference some time in the summer, possibly in July, at which the long-term future of these various common services will be determined.
  Of course, some of them are very important indeed. I do not think that the university is probably properly
  854
  described as a common service. It has a special position, and I think that the House would attribute special importance to its maintenance. It was my impression in the West Indies that everyone shared that point of view. Certain services like shipping, the meteorological service, and the advisory service must be continued in a different guise under the new set-up.
  We therefore feel that there should be a conference at some time in the summer to work out the long-term future of these things, but, in the meantime, there is need for someone to act, as it were, as trustee or liquidator, taking over the assets and holding them and the common services pending a decision by the conference. Clause 2 therefore provides that the assets of the Federation shall vest in a Commission or Commissioner appointed by Her Majesty's Government and that he shall also carry on the common services as trustee until it has been decided by general agreement—which will take some time—what their long-term destiny should be.
  Mr. Peter Tapsell: What does my right hon. Friend envisage as the future of the office of the Governor-General of the Federation? The present Governor-General has rendered services of very great distinction to the West Indies. Does my right hon. Friend envisage replacing his office by that of a Commissioner-General or something similar?
  Mr. Maudling: I would like to pay a sincere tribute to the Governor-General. I was very much impressed, in my short visit to Trinidad, by the position he has established there, and by the widespread friendship and understanding that he has with all people in the West Indies. But once the Federation is dissolved the office of Governor-General will disappear automatically as part of the process.
  Mr. Tapsell: We must hope, I imagine, that some form of co-operation will continue amongst these islands. Would it not, therefore, be helpful to replace the post of Governor-General by somebody with an overall authority, perhaps with the title of Commissioner-General? Is it not necessary to have someone in the West Indies with responsibility extending beyond Trinidad?
  Mr. Maudling: I agree that we want the maximum co-operation among the islands. However, we will have a situation in which Jamaica, for example, after August will be an independent country. The co-operation will be between independent Jamaica and Trinidad, moving towards independence, and possibly a federation of the Eight. I do not know, but whatever form of co-operation evolves, it would not be appropriate to have a Governor-General, or representative of Her Majesty, at the head, because there would be a mixture of dependent and independent territories. The situation will be very different from what it now is.
  Clause 3 deals with the payment of compensation. I attach great importance to ensuring that the public servants of the Federation are properly treated and properly compensated. The first charge upon the existing assets of the Federation should certainly be a compensation scheme for these public servants.
  Clause 4 provides for the establishment of a new Court of Appeal in place of the Federal Supreme Court.
  Clause 5 provides powers for the governing of individual Colonies, and I should like to explain what lies behind this Clause and the powers which we are seeking. I should like, first, to repeat the assurance which has already been given—that it is not our intention in any way to derogate or reduce the powers of the territories already enjoying full internal self-government. Clearly, we would not contemplate anything of that kind. But there are several purposes which we have in mind in Clause 5.
  The first is the possibility of providing a written constitution for Barbados. The new Premier of Barbados, who is an outstanding figure in the West Indies, has told me that his Government may ask us to provide it with a written constitution, and we need the necessary powers from Parliament to be able to do that.
  Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: Is that a serious intention of Barbados? Barbados has always enjoyed the prestige of a charter which goes back more than 300 years and which it has always jealously safeguarded against
  856
  any representations from the Government here for any modification or change. Is it now suggested that the Barbados Government are quite prepared to tear up that charter and have a written constitution in its place?
  Mr. Maudling: It is not a question of Barbados being prepared. This was not an initiative on our part. The new Government of Barbados are contemplating asking us to provide it with a written constitution—I believe that this was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, but it is certainly public policy of the party. The Premier told me that he would be asking us in such a situation, and all we are taking is power to meet that request, if it is made. The clause also contains some technical arrangement which we have to make for the Jamaica Independence Bill, and there is the third purpose which is financial and which I should like to explain to the House.
  With the dissolution of the Federation, the powers which the Federation now has of supervising the use of grant in aid from this country will disappear. I am very anxious that we should have adequate powers to ensure that the substantial moneys which Parliament grants to these territories are properly used. I think that we must have these powers, and, in the face of the dissolution of the Federation we would not have them unless some provision of this kind were made.
  I must say quite frankly that I have been very disturbed recently by the inadequate levels of financial administration which have appeared in some of the unit territories, and it is only right that, when Parliament votes money for these territories, the Government should have adequate powers to ensure that these moneys are properly used. That is one of the reasons which underlies the Clause.
  Clause 6, the last substantial Clause, provides powers to form new associations within the area. The House will have observed that in such a case it is provided that there should be an affirmative Resolution before any such provision is made effective. What is very much in everyone's mind, of course, is the proposal for a federation of Barbados, the Leeward and Windward Islands. I should like to repeat what

  857
  I have said on previous occasions—that we regard this proposal as very promising, although one to be examined with considerable care.
  There was a recent conference of the eight Governments and they have been good enough to send me a substantial memorandum, setting out their detailed proposals for a new federation, which I am urgently examining. I agree that there is a need for speed in these matters and the possibility of an early conference of the unit Governments is something which we should have in mind if we decide to proceed on these lines.
  On the other hand, I am anxious to proceed with a due amount of caution. We should not be wise to rush into a new federation unless we were fairly confident that it would be well founded. The questions which we should have in mind are whether there would be adequate central organisation, particularly for economic and financial matters, and whether we can avoid excessive machinery of government. These eight islands comprise a land area of less than Shropshire or Wiltshire and with a population less than that of Hertfordshire. To have eight separate chief ministers and eight separate legislatures and eight separate cabinets seems to be a rather substantial amount of government, and a rather expensive amount of government, for such an area; and that is something which needs to be carefully considered before we reach a final conclusion.
  It is also of great importance to study in some detail the financial viability of such a new association. I am indebted to the eight Governments and to Professor Lewis, that very distinguished West Indian, who has had a lot to do with advising them on these matters, for the advice which they have given me on making these units of the Eight an organisation which can stand on its own feet, free of financial dependence on this or any other country. I am examining that with, obviously, considerable sympathy, but these things must be carefully examined before any decision in principle about a federation of the Eight can be reached. However, I should like to repeat that in these conditions this seems to us to be a very promising idea and Her Majesty's Government certainly have no wish to stand in the way of such a development, if it can be shown to our
  858
  satisfaction to be in the best interests of the islands as a whole.
  I have endeavoured to set out the background which has led to the production of the Bill and to explain in broad terms its purposes and the purposes which we are seeking in it. As I said in the beginning, it is a sad occasion to see the end, as it must be, of this experiment in government. But this is an occasion for us to be practical and realistic and to move swiftly to try to lay a foundation for a future about which no one need feel pessimistic.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman say a few words about Clause 4 (6), which deals with the abolition of the West Indian Court of Appeal? How does that affect the former jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? Formerly, the ultimate court of appeal from the courts was to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. A West Indian Court of Appeal was then set up. By Clause 4 (6) that West Indian Court of Appeal is now to be abolished. What happens to what was the appellate jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in this respect?
  Mr. Maudling: I must ask my hon. Friend to give a detailed reply to that in winding up the debate. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) will find that this provision is mainly formal and not substantially important.
  3.58 p.m.
  Mr. Denis Healey: I think that all of us will sympathise with the Colonial Secretary in what was clearly a disagreeable and melancholy task. He told us that we have to wipe the slate clean of an experiment which was certainly hopeful, but which proved to be over-ambitious.
  All of us regret the need for the Bill. Most of us think that it is still true that the British territories of the West Indies could best achieve prosperity and political stability by forming some form of union or association. Indeed, it is difficult to see a long-term future for some of them unless they can become members of a larger whole. But we must also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there was no alternative to a

  859
  Bill roughly of this nature once the result of the referendum in Jamaica was known.
  I confess that the right hon. Gentleman's argument that it was not possible for Her Majesty's Government to prevent the Jamaican Government from holding this referendum must be taken very seriously. But now that this decision has been taken we have a duty to give the remaining territories in the West Indies the best possible chance of survival, and I confess that many of us on this side of the House, and possibly some hon. Gentlemen opposite, feel rather unhappy about the way in which Her Majesty's Government have handled the situation since the referendum in Jamaica, and about some of the things in the Bill itself.
  I think that the fundamental uneasiness we feel is due to the fact that Her Majesty's Government are choosing now to destroy everything which does exist in the form of co-operation between the individual territories without first seeking to achieve any agreement among the unit Governments concerned about what to put in its place. I would not go so far as to accuse the Government of indecent haste, but it seems to me that to act simply on a rapid examination of the wishes of the independent unit Governments is not adequate in these circumstances. Indeed, this offers an extraordinary contrast with the Government's behaviour in a similar situation which has developed in the Central African Federation.
  There, after all, Her Majesty's Government refused until recently to concede even the right of secession, even after the views of the majority of the local inhabitants had been made crystal clear. And even now, when they are prepared to consider the right of secession in principle, they have made it clear that they are not going to concede this right in practice without first having a full discussion among all concerned about the alternatives to the Central African Federation in its present form.
  The Government have shown what many of us regard as even excessive concern for the views of the Federal Government as distinct from the views of the Governments in the three separate States of the Central African Federation. This
  860
  is in astonishing, and if not wholly inexplicable, certainly illogical, contrast with the Government's behaviour over the West Indian Federation, because here there has been no attempt by the Government at an initiative to preserve what all of us regard as an extremely hopeful, desirable, and even perhaps necessary, form of co-operation between a number of territories for which we are still responsible, and there has been very little attempt to preserve even the form of consultation with the Federal Prime Minister of the West Indian Federation
  We must accept the statement of the Secretary of State—and I know that it is true—that when he was in the West Indies in January he made it clear to Sir Grantley Adams that it was his intention to introduce a Bill providing for the dissolution of the Federation. Indeed, he told Parliament this when he made a statement on his visit a month ago, but it still remains true that neither Sir Grantley, nor, so far as I have been able to discover, any of the unit Governments in the West Indies, actually had a chance to see the Bill before it was published.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether consultation means any thing in the Commonwealth if it is simply confined to the Government making a general statement of intention and then publishing a Bill without any attempt to find out whether those immediately concerned by its operation consider that the form it has taken is a suitable one. So far as I have been able to discover, nobody in the West Indies had a chance to comment on the draft which is now before the House before it was presented to the House of Lords.
  Sir Grantley did not even hear about it until he arrived at London Airport, and I am sure that a great deal of the alarm and suspicion which was created in the West Indies by the publication of the Bill could have been avoided if the right hon. Gentleman had sent drafts of the Bill to the unit Governments and to the Federal Government in advance, and had explained to the Governments concerned some of the things which had been dragged out of the Minister of State for the Colonies in another place, and which the Secretary of State has confirmed this afternoon.

  861
  The right hon. Gentleman knows, for example, that when the Bill was first published and first heard of in the West Indies everybody believed that the Government had in mind somehow or other to return many of these territories to some sort of Crown Colony status. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if this matter had been handled properly, if there had been the sort of consultation which I think we have the right to expect as natural and regular in cases like this, this alarm and suspicion would not have been created, and that a great deal of the prejudice which has now developed in the West Indies against some of the elements in the Bill could have been avoided.
  I was extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the sincere tribute that he paid to Sir Grantley Adams, a leading Commonwealth statesman, but it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman, by his treatment of Sir Grantley, added a little insult to injury. After all, we had this extraordinary business of the Prime Minister of a Federation which is still recognised by Her Majesty's Government, who was coming here as a result of a resolution of the Federal Parliament, arriving at the airport with no representative of Her Majesty's Government to greet him. This was extraordinary, and, I think, almost unprecedented.
  Mr. Maudling: I accept that that was an error, for which I personally apologise to Sir Grantley.
  Mr. Healey: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that, and perhaps it will do something to wipe out the most unfortunate impression created on Sir Grantley.
  We also had the fact that it was several days after his arrival before he was even clear that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to see him. Though I recognise the extremely heavy commitments of the right hon. Gentleman during that week, it was almost a week after Sir Grantley arrived before he saw the Minister whom he had come to see.
  I should like to echo the tribute paid by the right hon. Gentleman to Sir Grantley. For many years he has been one of the leading statesmen of the
  862
  Commonwealth; a man with a long record of loyal service to the Crown; a man who has spent his life in the service of the people of the West Indies, and in the service of British people too. It seems to me a most unhappy contrast between the treatment accorded to Sir Grantley and the treatment which has been consistently accorded to his opposite number from Central Africa when he chooses to appear in this country as an uninvited guest. I cannot help wondering whether the real explanation for the contrast is not the simple and unfortunate fact that Sir Grantley did not threaten to use force to keep the Federation together, and that he did not have a posse of Conservative vigilantes at his beck and call.
  The fact is, and the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of this, that Her Majesty's Government had already given to many people in the West Indies an impression of bored indifference to their opinion by their conduct over the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill. We know this to be the case because leading West Indian statesmen have said so in so many words. I cannot help feeling that in some respects this impression must have been reinforced by the rather offhand way in which the Government introduced this Bill, and yet hon. Members on both sides of the House know that there is no part of our Commonwealth to which we in Britain owe a greater obligation.
  As has been so often said in this House, most of the people there were taken there by us either as slaves from Africa to work on the plantations, or as indentured labour from Asia, and have always in recent years been distinguished by their exceptional loyalty to this country. They all feel themselves British, and describe themselves as British.
  Against that background, I cannot understand why, after the unfortunate result of the Jamaican referendum, the right hon. Gentleman did not call a limited federal review conference. Why not at least bring Trinidad and the small islands together to discuss what the future should be? It was well known that the form of the Federation before the Jamaican referendum was to some extent enforced by the conditions which Jamaica set, but might it not have been at least possible, if the right hon.

  863
  Gentleman had called the Governments of the unit territories together last autumn, that something might have been saved out of the wreckage?
  Why, again, have the Government still taken no initiative to save such regional co-operation as is represented by the common services? The first collective consultation, so far as the Government have been able to tell us, will perhaps be some time this summer—practically a year after the referendum in Jamaica. So far as we were able to understand from the Colonial Secretary this afternoon, and from what the Minister of State has said in another place, this collective consultation—the first for almost a year after the referendum in Jamaica made it clear that the Federation could not continue in its present form—would be limited to the common services.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: I agree that the Colonial Office has drifted in connection with the West Indies position, but would it have been possible to hold a consultation of the kind recommended in the autumn of last year? Dr. Williams said that he had no intention of discussing the question of federation until his own elections were out of the way in December.
  Mr. Healey: I do not know whether or not it would have been possible. If that was a reason for some delay the Government should have called a conference the moment the Trinidad elections were over. The future of the Federation was not an issue in the Trinidad elections. If this was a major obstacle to the holding of an earlier conference, it does not seem to have been a very decisive one.
  The fact that we are giving a blank cheque to the Government in passing the Bill would worry us much less if the Colonial Secretary or some other Government spokesman had given us some idea of what was in his mind. The blank cheque is worrying because it seems to reflect a blank mind. Since the Jamaican referendum made it clear that the Federation could not survive we have had no indication from Government statements which would give us any clue as to their idea about the future of the territories for which they are still responsible.
  864
  Clause 6 aroused alarm and suspicion in the West Indies, because it was held to foreshadow a return to Crown Colony status for some of the territories. The Colonial Secretary has cleared that point up, but it is unfortunate that it was not cleared up when the Bill was originally published. This could have been avoided if normal consultations had taken place before the Bill was published.
  I want to sound the Government's mind on some of the major issues which lie in front of them, the House and the West Indies now that federation in its old form is to disappear. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), in winding up for the Opposition, will deal with the most important problems of economic aid, on which the Colonial Secretary rightly said that the future survival of these islands will to a large degree depend, and he will also say something about the question of pensions for those federal civil servants who will, unfortunately, find themselves unemployed.
  I warn the Joint Under-Secretary that we will want to know whether the Government are to make the normal contribution of 50 per cent. towards the pensions of those federal civil servants who find themselves unemployed as a result of the passage of the Bill.
  When the Colonial Secretary made his statement in February it was clear that to hon. Members on both sides of the House the most urgent and important single issue created by the dissolution of the Federation was the future of the common services. The common services—the two Canadian ships, meteorological services and the advisory services, and also the university—will constitute the only tangible sign that there is a degree of community of interest among these territories which once belonged to the Federation. We would all agree that if we can build up and develop these common services we may succeed in creating a new basis of common interest among the territories concerned on which some new and more viable association may be built.
  I cannot understand why, among the membership of this provisional holding company—as it might be called—which the Government are setting up to run the common services there are no representatives from unit Governments. When

  865
  this question was discussed in another place, the Government spokesman argued that this was an extremely temporary provision and that it was hoped to produce a long-term arrangement very quickly. If this is the case, surely it is not necessary for the Government also to include in the Bill a provision for raising money for this holding authority from the unit Governments.
  Her Majesty's Government cannot have it both ways. If they believe that the scope and duration of this proposed authority is such as possibly to require financial contributions from the unit Governments, it would seem, on the basic principle of "no taxation without representation"—if on no other political principle—that the Government should be prepared to have some representation of the unit Governments on the common authority.
  I cannot help feeling that this is one of several issues on which it would have been wise for the Government to have had negotiations with the unit Governments in the Federation before dissolving it. Surely they have to some extent weakened their bargaining power with the unit Governments by giving to the most important Governments—Jamaica and Trinidad—all they wanted in the way of independence before getting any solid assurances as to their future contributions to the less fortunate members of the old Federation.
  Nevertheless, we are all glad to read of the Prime Minister of Jamaica's assurances that Jamaica, as an independent country, will not ignore the interest of her sister islands—I believe that he referred to them as "her poorer sisters". I hope that this will equally be the case with Trinidad. But I think that we should have been wiser to have had a more statutory and juridical obligation accepted by the independent States of the West Indies before proceeding with the dissolution of the Federation.
  Mr. Maudling: It is a little hard for the hon. Gentleman to say that we should have made provision for the less fortunate territories in connection with Jamaica's wanting to be independent and, in the same breath, to say that he is glad to see that the Government of Jamaica have undertaken to do precisely that.
  Mr. Healey: The Prime Minister of Jamaica gave assurances in the most general terms. In fact, nobody has as yet discussed in detail how the common services are to be run in the future, and what contribution the various unit Governments will make towards their operation. It would seem to have been wiser if the Colonial Secretary, before going all the way on these other issues, had at least obtained a rather more solid framework for the future of the common services than he was able to offer the House this afternoon.
  I want to ask the Colonial Secretary a few questions about the future of the other islands. Most hon. Members will regret the decision of the Trinidad Government as much as we regret the decision of the people of Jamaica, but is it still absolutely out of the question that some form of association may be established between Trinidad and the other islands of the Eastern Carribean? If the fact that there is still some possibility of this is one of the reasons why the Colonial Secretary has been so unusually coy about the federation of the little Bight on this occasion, we would applaud his modesty.
  Some of the early reactions of the Governments of the small islands towards Dr. Williams's offer of membership of a unitary State with Trinidad—I think I am right in mentioning the Governments both of St. Kitts and Grenada in this respect—suggest that there is still some flexibility in the situation, and if this flexibility is there it should be used to the fullest extent by Her Majesty's Government in any negotiations which follow.
  What the right hon. Gentleman said about the federation of the little Eight seemed highly reasonable. We would all wish these countries to work together as closely as possible, but we have doubts whether it is possible for them to carry the institutional paraphernalia of full federation. There is no doubt that a federation of the little Eight could scarcely be economically viable without a guarantee of long-term economic assistance from some foreign country or other. There is a danger that if such a federation were formed, some of its members might decide, in time, to opt out of the federation and associate with Trinidad, leaving a federation of the little Five or the little Four, which would

  867
  have even less chance of survival than the Federation already proposed.
  This takes us to the far broader question of what we shall do with our remaining colonial responsibilities in the West Atlantic and the Caribbean area. We have not only the countries which have already stated that they want to join the federation of the little Eight; we have the Virgin Islands, whose future is referred to in the Bill, the Turk Islands, the Caicos Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas, and even Bermuda, British Guiana and British Honduras on the mainland, all with a very uncertain future and yet, somehow or other, we have to see whether they can be included in a larger economic or political unit. This seems typical of the most formidable problems which future Colonial Secretaries of State will have to deal with.
  I went through the list of territories still under the right hon. Gentleman's control, which he thoughtfully provided us with a fortnight ago, and I noticed that of the 45 Colonies under British responsibility, only eight have a population of over 1 million. Of those eight, six will be independent by the end of next year. By the end of next year we shall probably have 37 Colonial Territories all with populations of under 1 million, and 20 with populations of under 100,000.
  It seems to me that the time has certainly come when we should have some really hard thinking on both sides of the House—I do not blame the Government particularly about this—about what we are to do with these remaining territories, most of which will find it absolutely impossible to survive as independent States, and some of which may be in areas of great strategic importance and may, therefore, before long become the subject of very dangerous take-over bids from one great Power or another. It would be helpful if the Government could tell us about their ideas on this question, if only in relation to the future of the smaller islands in the Caribbean, some of which are directly concerned with the Bill.
  It seems to me that either we shall have to find for these islands some entirely new status as members of the Commonwealth—some new form of
  868
  Dominion—or encourage them to associate themselves with their regional neighbours even if those neighbours are outside the Commonwealth, as, I understand, we are already doing in the case of Gambia with Senegal. In this respect, it would be helpful if the Government could say what proposals they have to revitalise the Caribbean Commission.
  This Commission was set up almost exactly twenty years ago. It did a great deal of useful work during the Second World War, but it has been rather moribund during the last ten years. It seems to me that in the context of the collapse of the Federation there is a very strong case for some British initiative to try to revive it. I hope that there will be no dog-in-the-manger attitude on the part of Her Majesty's Government in this respect. If it proves impossible for us to do what we would wish for these islands, I think that there is everything to be said for encouraging our friends to join us in trying to help them.
  I come to my final point. We tend always to discuss the problems of the West Indies—in the main, rightly so—as a problem of British colonial policy, but in a few months' time Jamaica will be a new independent State in the Caribbean. A little later, perhaps, Trinidad will also be a new independent State. It is time that we began thinking about the West Indies as part of the general problem of the Caribbean and of Central America.
  This is an area which is of major concern to the United States of America and in which, possibly, Canada rather than Great Britain is likely, in the long run, to be the most influential member of the Commonwealth. It seems to me that we need now, at any rate, when the Federation is collapsing, to try to engage the interests of the United States Government rather more directly than we have done in the past. Some of the individual territories, like Jamaica, have already tried to make economic agreements with the United States.
  There is the big American contribution to the Federal Development Loan. Incidentally, I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us later what will happen to this United States contribution if the Federation itself is to be dissolved. It seems to me that the climate in

  869
  Washington at the present time is particularly fruitful to negotiation and consultation on this between ourselves and the Americans. It is not only that the Americans are deeply concerned, some of them perhaps are over-concerned, with the menace of Castroism in Cuba, but also, I think, that they recognise, in general, the need for progressive and stable Governments in Central and South America, Governments which can command widespread popular support and Governments exactly like the Government that we have in Jamaica at present, Governments for which there are very few parallels, unfortunately, in the case of the Southern part of the Western Hemisphere.
  It seems to me that Governments like the present Government of Jamaica and Trinidad are natural candidates for membership of the Alliance of Progress. One of the things we might do for these islands in the concluding years of our responsibility for them is to introduce them into some fruitful and long-term relationship with their great continental neighbour.
  We might do something in respect of Canada. I think that the Colonial Secretary will be as glad as I am at the growing interest Canada has shown in the future of the West Indies. There has been the gift of two ships—one of the major physical assets in the common services that we have been discussing today. I believe that there is talk in Canada, although not in official circles, of making the Bahamas a new maritime province. Here, too, is a case for a British initiative to see whether we cannot produce an international context in the Caribbean more favourable to the survival of these countries than the existing one.
  I believe that the Government could initiate discussions quickly on this and also, possibly, discussions with the Commonwealth as a whole to find out whether there is some possibility of a joint Commonwealth contribution to the future of the British West Indian Colonies when they move towards independence.
  I have tried to make some constructive suggestions about the future of the West Indies, and I regret if, in the course of
  870
  doing so, I have been so critical of Her Majesty's Government, but I think that the criticisms that I have expressed reflect a very widespread feeling in the West Indies.
  I ask the Colonial Secretary to believe me when I say that my criticisms have nothing to do with party politics. I believe that this is a widespread feeling among all people who have the welfare of the West Indies at heart. I do not feel that in making these criticisms I am attacking the Colonial Secretary personally. I think that the major part of the responsibility for what has gone wrong here, as in Central Africa, lies with the present Leader of the House. In the West Indies, as in Central Africa, he really left the mess—maybe not of his own choice at that particular time—which the present Colonial Secretary has to clear up.
  I cannot avoid the impression that one reason for the inertia of Her Majesty's Government lies either in the machinery of the Colonial Office or the machinery of government itself. It seems to us, from the outside, at any rate—and I hope that the Under-Secretary will reassure me on this point if I am wrong—that the Government's machinery is incapable of dealing with more than one or two colonial problems at once.
  One of the reasons for the lack of initiative by Her Majesty's Government in the West Indies has been the preoccupation of the Colonial Office with more urgent and perhaps more dangerous problems in Africa and other parts of the world. I cannot feel that this type of overloading of the present machinery will be met by improvisations like giving the responsibility for Central Africa to a Minister who is already responsible for the Home Office and the Common Market.
  I do not think that it is enough simply to wait until we can reach Question 9 on the Colonial Office agenda. The problem will not wait. This sort of delay might mean at best the missing of a real opportunity to exert a constructive influence on the problem. At worst, it might lead to a cycle of violence, making it impossible even to impose a solution.
  As I said at the beginning, hon. Members on this side of the House feel that the Bill is justified only if it means that

  871
  the Government are wiping clean the slate of the Federation in order to take an immediate and positive initiative themselves. I hope that in his reply the Under-Secretary will be able to give some hope that this is the case.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Russell: The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) ended what I thought a most reasonable speech by suggesting that some of the blame for what is happening in the West Indies rests on the shoulders of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I wish to say—particularly as I have not always agreed with the policy of my right hon. Friend—that in my opinion one of the troubles has been the terrific overloading of the Colonial Office, where decisions have had to be made on all sorts of problems in the Commonwealth.
  Various countries have pressed for decisions. Some of them, I regret to say, have been encouraged by a number of the hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Leeds, East, although those hon. Members are not at present in the Chamber. This has added to the burden which the Colonial Office has had to carry. I do not think that any Government Department could have had a harder task than the Colonial Office has had during the last four or five years. A terrific pace has been generated by the emergence of nationalistic movements in all parts of the world, some of which have proved more destructive than constructive.
  This is a sad occasion. As was said by my right hon. Friend, no one can say that he welcomes the Bill. It is a regrettable necessity. After all, the West Indies is the oldest part of the Commonwealth. Jamaica and Barbados have a Commonwealth history extending over 300 years. What is more important is the fact that the West Indies is a non-racial part of the Commonwealth, at least so far as Europeans are concerned.
  There are racial problems regarding the Indians in Trinidad and in British Guiana which still produce tensions, but from the point of view of Europeans versus Africans there exists no tension at all. This is due largely to the fact that we have been in charge of these parts of the world for so long compared
  872
  with the time for which we have been responsible for parts of Africa.
  I take it that in the case of Jamaica and the referendum there is no analogy with Western Australia, which has been quoted as an example of a course which might have been followed. Western Australia was never an independent State, and, therefore, presumably, its referendum could be disregarded. Jamaica is in a different category. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would deal with that in his reply.
  It is strange that the Prime Minister of Trinidad did not make the question of the secession an issue during the recent general election. It seems extraordinary that when such an issue is imminent, and the country is having a general election, it should be completely ignored until after the election, and that then, without authority, the Prime Minister and the Government should decide to secede. It seems an unusual course to adopt. One would think that it would have been made an issue at the election, when the Government—as did the Prime Minister of Jamaica—could have received and respected the decision of the people. However, that was not the case. I take it from what my right hon. Friend has said that there is no method by which constitutionally we could question that decision. Nevertheless, I consider it highly regrettable.
  Like the hon. Member for Leeds, East, I hope that a system will be created eventually for the continuance of the little Eight. It would be disastrous were they to be left on their own. I think that some kind of unitary strength is the obvious solution, and if that can be achieved in combination with Trinidad it would be all the better. I hope that the Government will be bold in this matter and give a lead in the direction which they consider the best. If there is one criticism which might come from the country about the present Government it is that sometimes they are rather nervous in giving a lead. Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friends to consider the point carefully.
  In my opinion, a form of unitary State with Trinidad at the head would be the best solution for Trinidad and for the remaining eight, and I hope that the Government will not hesitate

  873
  to put forward that view and to impress it on the politicians of those territories. It seems to me that it would be a complete waste and a top-heavy system to have, as it were, a federation of eight countries with a central Government and eight legislatures and eight independent governors. That would involve a colossal expense, particularly for some of the smaller members, and I hope that that will be borne in mind by my right hon. Friend.
  I agree that a problem is coming up—in fact, it has already come up—regarding the final solution in respect of some of the smaller Commonwealth territories. This problem arrived on 1st January of this year when New Zealand gave independence to Western Samoa, an island with a population of just over 100,000. Incidentally, it is a little ironical that such a country can have what is, presumably, complete independence within the Commonwealth when there are many Greater London boroughs with populations nearly twice as big which are not to have municipal independence. However, I should be ruled out of order were I to pursue that point further.
  I wish to support what was said by my right hon. Friend about Sir Grantley Adams. I also hope that some means will be found for the West Indies as a whole to continue with the Mission that has been in London ever since the Federation came into being, with its excellent head, Sir James Gordon.
  My lay mind finds Clause 1 (2) of the Bill completely unintelligible. It may be that lay minds which are much more expert than my own can arrive at a solution. But I find it difficult to follow and I hope that my hon. Friend will explain it more fully. I hope also that he will tell the House how many public servants of the Federation are involved and how many will find themselves out of office as a result of the dissolution. I agree that we must see that these people do not suffer in any way. I hope that they will be absorbed into whatever unitary or federal government may be formed.
  It was suggested that the United States might be interested in the Caribbean territories. I prefer that we should concentrate on the Canadians rather than the Americans. There is a great deal of trade between Canada and the West
  874
  Indies and I should like to see Canada rather than the United States in the position of a "mother country" to the West Indies. In one respect the United States have been far from helpful, although when the Federation came into being the Americans asked in what way they could be of help.
  I refer to the market for products such as citrus. Time and again the Americans have pressed for the ending of restrictions on the importation of citrus into this country from the dollar area and that could be only to the detriment of the West Indies. I give Her Majesty's Government credit for having fought this proposal as hard as possible, and so far with a considerable amount of success. The free entry of American citrus into this country might be described as paving the way for the complete ruin of the citrus industry in the West Indies.
  We must not try to ingratiate ourselves with the United States, but with Canada, by all means, I sincerely hope that this will happen. I think that we shall have to struggle with the United States over this battle for the ending of discrimination if we are to preserve the citrus industry of the West Indies. I hope that this trade aspect will be borne carefully in mind. We must not damage an area where there is considerably high unemployment through any further weakening of Commonwealth preference, or of quotas or whatever restrictions there are on imports of the dollar area. I hope that a solution will be found to this problem to the benefit of the nine other countries concerned and that it will bring unity and prosperity to that area.
  4.41 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: I suppose that of all hon. Members I am the most grieved at the necessity for this Bill. I deplore the break-up of the Federation. At no time have I regarded it as an over-ambitious experiment.
  My interest in the West Indies goes back well before the war. I certainly did something to try to secure the famous Royal Commission which studied the social and economic problems of the West Indies. I also helped, through colonial development and welfare schemes, the subsequent developments which took place. I had the great honour and privilege of presiding over

  875
  the famous Montego Bay Conference, in 1947, when the conception of Federation received an enormous impetus and the various Governments of the West Indies set to work to find how this constructive idea could be brought into operation.
  I did not initiate that conference without the legislative councils of the respective Colonies themselves considering most thoroughly the proposal of federation. What transpired was as a result of their quiet deliberations in their respective territories and was the answer to the felt need for some corporate body to carry forward the progress of the West Indies. It should be appreciated that the Federation was born largely because for a long time there had been the necessity for close consultation and association between the territories. It was born because it was felt that there should be established certain common services.
  The university college had been founded at the end of the war. There had been certain technical services developing under the Stockdale group of advisers. There was also the need for other services—meteorological, defence, post, etc. All this work was going on, creating in the minds of those statesmen and others working in the West Indies a feeling of necessity for an organisation which could function as a whole and supervise and develop the services obviously necessary.
  There was a further thought which at that time was of great significance. The individual territories felt that of themselves they could never become fully independent. The only way to reach a viable status and to exercise genuine responsibility was by coming together in the form of a Federation and thereby securing Dominion status. It may be that conditions in the world have altered since, but the fact was that this was an expressed wish and the Federation was the answer to a felt desire. Like all federations, there were obvious difficulties as to how such a thing could be devised and it was recognised that once it was established there must be considerable strains.
  The difficulties of building up a Federation, I repeat, were fully appreciated. There were the variety of territories forming the British Colonies, the distances between the islands, the dif-
  876
  ferences, sometimes in language, and of peoples, the difficulties of communication, transport and fiscal arrangements. All these factors were fully known. They were not burked. It was understood when the idea was formulated that the Federation must tackle these problems in the hope that more of a corporate spirit could be allowed to develop.
  This Federation was a free coming together. It was not something that was imposed on these colonies by the imperial Power. It was recognised as necessary and Britain gave all the aid she possibly could in the formulation of the plans in building up the Federation. I wish to pay tribute to the early work of people like Sir Thomas Lloyd, Sir George Seel, Sir Hubert Rance and Sir Frank Stockdale and those other civil servants who worked very hard for the success of the project.
  So today, there is a Parliament, a Cabinet, a Prime Minister, a Governor-General and a capital. Now we must face the collapse of all this which has been built up over the years. In the formulation there have been many great efforts at compromise. One has watched with anxiety the various conferences which have taken place but not until, I believe, May of 1960, was the announcement made by Jamaica which threatened the whole of the work. That Government announced that a plebiscite would be held. The consequences at the time could not be altogether foreseen.
  I would not attach blame to Her Majesty's Government for permitting a plebiscite. As the Secretary of State has pointed out, the British Government had no option but to allow the plebiscite to go forward. They were conscious of the calamity which might overtake the Federation if the plebiscite went against the continuance of Jamaica in the Federation. Her Majesty's Government, in one of their official statements after the conference in 1960, issued a warning that there should be caution in the West Indies because there were grave dangers if such a plebiscite were to result in a decision at the expense of the Federation.
  I am a little critical about whether, once it was known that the plebiscite would be taken, Her Majesty's Government engaged in the fullest possible consultation with the other Governments which would be affected should it happen

  877
  that the plebiscite brought the result which it subsequently did. The consultations might have been wider because Her Majesty's Government were aware of the dangers confronting the Federation if the plebiscite gave a vote for Jamaica to pull out.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I must point out that it was known, in May, 1960, that there was to be a referendum in Jamaica and that for much of 1961 we were sitting either in the West Indies or in Lancaster House fully aware of this threat to our deliberations.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I am arguing that Her Majesty's Government having become aware that such a plebiscite might result in Jamaica pulling out from the Federation, further consultation should have been taken, as for instance, what would happen to the common services and the position of the respective islands in that event. I must leave that point, but I reiterate that I regret that consultation at that time was, in my judgment, altogether inadequate.
  The impression was created in the outside world that there was a capitulation to the demands of Jamaica instead of there having been an effort to try to modify her course of action. I deplore the personal antagonisms which, apparently, existed in the West Indies among responsible statesmen. I would have thought that there would have been a greater amount of discussion and consultation between, at least, the Prime Ministers of the respective territories, particularly discussions about the dangers confronting the Federation by the withdrawal of Jamaica. But, as far as I can gather, there was very little discussion between them.
  Even now, although the situation after August will be changed, the Prime Ministers have not come together, nor have the representatives of the Governments directly concerned, to see whether some of the services can be saved in the days to come. We are all aware that the Federal Government feel very strongly about the course of events. That Government feel desolate. It was obvious from the delegation which was recently here just how sick at heart they are that all the labour of fourteen years—the hard work put into the construction of
  878
  a Federation—is being lost by the action which Jamaica has taken.
  We have now, therefore, to look to the future and I certainly regard the Bill not only as inevitable, but, in the circumstances, necessary. It may be that it is couched in the most ample terms, and gives astonishing authority to Her Majesty's Government. It allows for the alteration of constitutions, and of making new constitutional groupings without consultation with the territories concerned and even without parliamentary discussion. All this is being done by Order in Council, for thereby the Government can, by this procedure, escape parliamentary discussion. In any case, I regard the Bill, such as it is, as necessary, although there are many defects in it which will have to be considered in Committee.
  Not only is Jamaica pulling out, but Trinidad is likely to do the same. The position, as I understand it, is that in Trinidad there has been no declaration of the will of the people regarding their future relations inside a federation of any kind. All that has been decided—by a party conference, later supported by the Trinidad Government—is that Trinidad will withdraw. Trinidad has tended to complicate the situation, I gather, by offering to extend to certain of the Windward or Leeward Islands the right to go into their own unitary State in the form of provinces or county councils whereby they would surrender a certain amount of their sovereignty. This could be a real complication to the idea put forward by the Secretary of State for a small federation of the Eight.
  It remains to be seen what Trinidad will do, but I feel that if recognition is to be given to what appears to be the desire of the Trinidad Government it should at least be supported in some way by popular approval in that island. There is also the other proposal; that there should be a lesser federation. I confess that I was surprised by what the Secretary of State said about the Colony of Barbados—that Barbados was prepared to destroy her own Charter, receive a new written constitution and co-operate with the Leeward and Windward Islands for the formation of a lesser federation—always provided that the slate was cleaned regarding the existing Federation.

  879
  This is a considerable risk. If a federation is formed—of the Leewards and Windwards and Barbados—obviously it must be viable. In view of the grants in aid which are now paid out by the present Federal Government from United Kingdom grants I cannot see how such a small federation could operate with any degree of prosperity and success. Be that as it may, it may be a fruitful line of exploration and perhaps a unit in the Caribbean can be formed in this way.
  I now return to the larger problem presented to us—the preservation of the common services. These are of vital significance to the British territories in the Caribbean. It seems that any attempt to preserve the common services must include the co-operation of Jamaica and Trinidad in that effort. Otherwise, I am afraid that many of these common services will just disintegrate.
  To depend only on the strength of Barbados and the Leewards and Windwards for maintaining the common services will be only half-hearted. A university cannot be run except on the basis of the co-operation of all the territories. The meteorological services, defence and many of the technical services are all largely dependent on the co-operation of all the territories which have so far been grouped in the Federation. Therefore, it is of very great importance that in the preservation of the common services we should not think merely of their preservation in the interests of Barbados and of the islands which might link up with it in a small federation, but in terms of the larger association which is now being dissolved.
  It is perfectly true that in such an association there will be independent islands. Trinidad and Jamaica will very soon receive their independence. But that should not deter us from trying to bring them into an arrangement whereby they can contribute with the other territories to the success of some loose organisation concerned with and responsible for the common services. It has been said that in the meantime and before any permanent arrangement can be made for the common services, an interim holding organisation should be created. It seems to be in the mind
  880
  of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that such a holding body would be of very short duration.
  I would point out that many temporary bodies have a habit of staying in existence for a long time because of the sheer inability of those concerned with forming a permanent organisation to agree on the structure which such permanent organisation should take. Therefore, it may well happen that this interim organisation will last for a long time before differences can be resolved and a permanent structure created.
  What is this permanent structure to be? As far as the temporary structure is concerned, that, presumably, will be unaccountable to anyone, as my hon. Friend has pointed out in his speech. It is clear that as regards defence and other services, money will be raised and spent by, the appointed Commissioner. He will be quite unrepresentative and the various islands will not be represented. He will have power to carry forward what plans and schemes he likes as far as the preservation of the services are concerned.
  There is also, of course, the problem in respect to the existing Federal staff, who have a vast experience. The Governments and the federal staff have been working on Federal services and problems for a long time. It seems to me that even if there is an interim arrangement there should be some opportunity for them to share in the decisions taken in this temporary arrangement. With regard to the long-term arrangement, that, I think, would take some time to bring into being, though I am glad to know that Jamaica has said that she will co-operate during the interim period. She is also interested in what is called the Caribbean organisation.
  This brings me to the further point. I quite agree with what my hon. Friend has said in regard to the curious political influences which are at work in the Caribbean at present. Some of those influences are destructive and some are constructive; some of them are authoritarian and some are more democratic. In any case, the Caribbean is a region of great significance and importance. Therefore, as far as Britain is concerned, we should be in a strong position and not necessarily rely on ourselves alone to

  881
  tackle some of the economic and defence problems that arise there. There should be the fullest co-operation through a central organisation so that all parties who have an interest in that part of the world can work together.
  I agree with Mr. Norman Manley that it is important that Jamaica should come into the Caribbean organisation. It was our purpose right back in 1942–43 to create the Anglo-American Commission—an organisation concerned with the social and economic development of the whole of this region. In that organisation we had the co-operation of the Americans, of France and Holland. A certain amount of work was done which was of benefit to the islands. I would hope that perhaps on the basis of the Caribbean organisation, it would be possible to build up a stronger organisation in which Canada, the United States and, possibly, the other independent Powers, including the independent territories of Trinidad and Jamaica, could all play a part in the improvement of the social and economic life of that part of the world.
  After all, a similar experiment has been tried out by the Colonial Office in the South Pacific, where a great deal of satisfactory work for the benefit of the people of the South Sea Islands is done through the co-operation of all the Powers interested in that region. I should, therefore, like to see, now that the Federation has collapsed, the various Powers interested in the area coming together and helping forward West Indian social and economic life.
  Although I deplore very deeply the passing of the Federation, I believe that out of this wreck, with wise statesmanship, a new organisation of value might be formed. I do not think that we need necessarily despair because this experiment is coming to an end. As I say, I should like to see the co-operation of the other Powers with Britain and with the new independent States in the Caribbean for the purpose of securing the welfare and prosperity of the people.
  Finally, I also should like to add my tribute to the work which has been done by the statesmen of the West Indies in their efforts to secure a solid Federation. I do not exclude from that tribute, Norman Manley, who, over the years, has proved himself to be a very great
  882
  statesman, a man of very great quality and one who has been able to look ahead and to do magnificent work on behalf of his people. I would also include Sir Grantley Adams, who, with his wisdom and common sense, has done a great deal of first-class work. I include also, of course, those who have sometimes been in opposition to him, men like Mr. Gomes, in Trinidad, and others throughout the West Indies who have been loyal workers for the idea of federation.
  I believe that we should acknowledge today, even while we announce our regret and feel somewhat melancholy at the passing of this experiment, our thanks and obligations for all that these men have done in their efforts to make this dream come true.
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Fisher: I am very glad to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), because he was one of the earliest architects of the Federation and he must be more unhappy than almost anyone in the House to see the sad outcome of all his early efforts. As my right hon. Friend and everybody else who has spoken in this debate have said, we cannot pretend that this is either a happy occasion or a happy Bill; for any of us here who know and love the West Indies it is a very sad thing.
  We in Britain sought to achieve something very sensible indeed and immensely worth while when we established this Federation. Lord Hailes, the Governor-General, Sir Grantley Adams, the Federal Prime Minister, successive Secretaries of State, of course of both parties, and many men of good will throughout the Caribbean and in this country have all worked and striven for a very long time to launch this Federation and to make it a success, and now it has all come to pieces in our hands.
  Federations, of course, are never easy to create, and they are even more difficult to sustain, especially in the early years of their existence, and we knew at the outset that the West Indian Federation would be one of the most difficult of all because there were immense problems of distance and separation by sea; there were conflicts of personality and of island interests; of freedom of movement and of trade, and different, rival methods of taxation.

  883
  There were always local island patriotisms, but there was never, unfortunately, a wider West Indian patriotism. There was no real sense of being part of an exciting new West Indian nation which would have a tremendously important rôle in the Commonwealth and in the free world. This somehow always seemed to be lacking. Some of the islands wanted a stronger central Government than the rather weak one with which we began. Others wanted it to remain weak.
  I believe we here did our best with both money and advice under successive Governments to reach a compromise. Perhaps we made mistakes. I dare say we did. But I was rather surprised, I am bound to admit, that the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) singled out my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for special criticism. I thought that this was a little hard. He said that my right hon. Friend the present Colonial Secretary was left with "an awful mess" on his hands, but the mess arose because of the Jamaican referendum, not through any action of the former Secretary of State. However, no doubt mistakes were made on all sides. I said at the time, and I am sure it is true, that a mistake was made in 1956 when leading West Indian Ministers like Mr. Norman Manley decided to remain in their own islands instead of going to Port-of-Spain. I dare say that everybody has made mistakes.
  There was, to be perfectly honest, a sad failure of human relationships. The island leaders indulged in public recriminations against the federal leaders and vice versa. Everyone criticised everybody else. No one seemed to consider it to be his duty and his opportunity to launch and propagate the theme of unity through the Caribbean. No one really sold the idea of this Federation to the people. I have been amazed—I know other hon. Members have had the same experience—on going out there in years gone by to be asked by West Indian journalists, "What do you think of federation?" and of being put in the position of going from here to try to sell the idea to them, because Ministers out there were not doing that job, and this was perhaps one of the reasons it failed.
  884
  There has been a parallel in Central Africa—a failure by us and, I think, by Sir Roy Welensky and his Ministers to sell the concept of federation there and its advantages. So that I believe—it is a purely personal view—that that Federation, too, is likely soon to dissolve.
  The truth is that nowadays, whatever may have happened in America or Australia in the past, we cannot impose federations and we cannot force them to survive, unless they are based upon the consent of the people. There were the best reasons in the world for a federation of the West Indies, political reasons and economic reasons which we all of us know.
  There were innumerable conferences, I believe seven or eight conferences, between 1947 and 1961, and at the last of them, last summer everyone bent over backwards to make it possible for Norman Manley to win his referendum in Jamaica upon which, in the end, everything depended.
  It is no use jobbing backwards but of course that referendum should never have been held. We all know that a referendum is the most unsuitable way of appealing for the verdict of the people. We should certainly, I am sure, have advised against it if we had had the opportunity to advise at all. If Mr. Manley wished to put this issue to his people I am quite sure that the proper thing to do was to go to the country in a general election, when his own party, in party loyalty, would, naturally, have supported him. Instead, he selected the most unpopular plank in his whole political platform and went to the people on that alone, in isolation, for a "Yes" or "No" answer; and he announced his intention to do this without consulting the Governor-General, without consulting the Federal Prime Minister, without, so far as I know, any consultation with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and without consulting anyone at all in the whole of the West Indies.
  I have the very greatest respect and admiration for Mr. Norman Manley who, I think, is one of the most brilliant and gifted national leaders I have had the pleasure of meeting, but this really was a calamitous and, as it turned out,

  885
  an irretrievable error of judgment on his part. Jamaica has full internal self-government. Once the referendum was announced, we could not stop it or influence its course.
  All we could do was to hope that it would succeed, and help it to succeed, which I think we did, in June, 1961, in London. Everyone helped at that conference; and yet, despite all that was done there—on 19th September by a small majority on a small poll it failed, and brought the whole federal experiment crashing down in ruins. Mr. Manley accepted that verdict. He had to. We all had to accept it. We could not have overturned it except by force, which would have been unthinkable. I thought that it was unrealistic and rather a waste of a journey for Sir Grantley Adams and his colleagues to come here, as they did this month, and ask us to put the clock back. That is not, of course, a criticism of Sir Grantley Adams, who is an old friend and, I hope he will not mind my saying, a close friend of mine and of this country. He had to come here no doubt because of the unanimous resolution of his own Parliament in Port-of-Spain. But I do not think there was anything we could possibly have done to help him.
  Now, as we see, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago have chosen the same course of independence alone. I do not know whether this is the wish of the people of Trinidad or not. Nobody knows. The issue was not put to them at their recent election. I think that it is quite extraordinary that it was not put to them, but I am certainly not advocating a referendum there as well.
  I can express only a personal view, which, I am sure, is shared by many hon. Members of this House, that the decision of the Jamaican people and the decision of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago are profound mistakes which even they themselves will come one day to regret. I think that it is perfectly pathetic that the very able men who lead these territories—and they are of a very high calibre, as we all know—have in a way let themselves down, because of their failure to co-operate with one another, and have fallen below the level of events in the world and certainly below the level we expected of them.
  886
  In so doing they have certainly shown no interest whatever in the future of their own compatriots in the remaining small islands, whose fate has been almost cynically disregarded—though mitigated perhaps by the words of the Prime Minister of Jamaica which were quoted by the hon. Member for Leeds, East when he spoke. Now we understand that the eight smaller islands wish to remain federated together. If that is so, I think we should give them all the help and encouragement we possibly can.
  But we must recognise that it cannot yet lead to real independence for them, because real independence means standing on their own feet financially, and I do not think they could do that, at any rate for some time to come. It cannot be anything but expensive for the British taxpayer. But we have certain historical obligations to the people of the British Caribbean which we must honourably try to discharge; and in my view, even a non-viable federation, which is what I am afraid this would be, is preferable to complete fragmentation.
  We must see to it, however, that the federation is as viable as possible, and I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend indicate in his speech that there may be efforts somewhat to reduce the scale of government in these little islands. I thought that Lord Ogmore, in another place, put the point rather well when he said that there was too much harness for the horse. I am sure that that is true. There is no doubt that one Governor would be sufficient for these eight islands, and there could be fewer paid Ministers and Members of Parliament in the unit and in the federal spheres. Some of the islands are very small indeed, and there is no need for such an expensive panoply of government.
  I am glad to see, in Clause 3 of the Bill, that a compensation scheme is envisaged for the federal civil servants who may lose their employment or may have their careers prejudiced through absolutely no fault of their own. The best hope for the future lies, as other hon. Members have pointed out, in the shared services for which the Bill makes interim provision until a conference in July, when a more lasting solution will

  887
  be worked out. These are very important—the shipping services, the University College, the West India Regiment, the Supreme Court and a very large number of valuable advisory services. They are important, not only for themselves, but for the possibility of building upon them for the future.
  I am sure that a lasting federation of the West Indies will emerge eventually from our present disappointments, perhaps based on these shared services. I am sure that this will come about. I suppose that the West Indian people were not yet ready for the concept of federation, when we first proposed it. Perhaps we have made the same mistake in Central Africa. Perhaps federation must be a plant of much slower growth, not imposed from the top but coming from the roots of the people, but I am sure it will come in the West Indies, because it makes sense. Ultimately, the people will understand and will wish and will achieve tomorrow what they have wantonly discarded today. This is my faith and my hope for these beautiful islands. This is what we and they must work for in the years ahead.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) has just said with such deep sincerity. The hon. Gentleman spent a good deal of time talking about the Jamaica referendum, with which I want to deal myself, but he did not do what I should like to try to do, and that is to draw some lessons from the mistakes we made in the Caribbean so that we do not repeat them in the future. This is the point that worries me.
  To start with, however, I accept the necessity for the Bill. I was in Port-of-Spain at the same time as the Colonial Secretary, having a look myself at whether the Federation was bound to collapse and I came to the same conclusion as did the right hon. Gentleman. There was absolutely no prospect of preserving it, and I found that we were bound to have some such Bill as that which the right hon. Gentleman has now found himself compelled to introduce. I am sure he is quite right.
  I would say, first, to the people and politicians in the West Indies that it is
  888
  no good asking the British Government to try to force this Federation to continue. Some politicians are here to do that, and they are perfectly entitled to their point of view. They are still saying it in Port-of-Spain, but it is wrong. We in this country, having given internal self-government to Jamaica, cannot disregard the results of the referendum.
  Secondly, we cannot disregard the equally legitimate—I stress those words—decision of the Trinidad Government not to continue in the Federation. Whether it is a referendum or a decision of the duly elected Government, our tradition in the Commonwealth is that we must accept the decision; and it is no good going from one to the other and saying that because they had a referendum in Jamaica we should force one on Trinidad as well, and thus let the whole interminable argument go on. They are equally legitimate forms of determination, whether by referendum or by Government decision, and we are bound in our traditions to carry on in that light.
  The Jamaica referendum was the first immediate cause of the break-up of the Federation, and, to some extent, I share the views of the hon. Member for Surbiton, when he half-criticised Mr. Manley for holding a referendum at all.
  Mr. Fisher: I did criticise him.
  Mr. Chapman: I am not so critical. I do not believe that at the time Mr. Manley should have wrapped up the issue of the Federation with the whole issue of the future of his own Government, and I do not blame him for trying to settle one by referendum and the other by a general election.
  What the hon. Member for Surbiton did not do, and what we must do, is to criticise the way in which the Jamaica Opposition behaved and the way in which the referendum was handled. This is the tragedy. This is what caused the break-up of the West Indian Federation—the utterly irresponsible attitude of Sir Alexander Bustamente. What happened was that instead of fighting the issue on its own merits he wrapped it up in a fight on the frustration of the Jamaica people because economic advance was not fast enough; he wrapped the whole thing up

  889
  with a vote of no confidence in the Government, as opposed to the issues about the actual Federation itself.
  Sir Alexander Bustamente confused the issue by pretending that the argument was between independence for Jamaica and no independence at all. He had the "freedom ball" as his election symbol, saying "We are for independence", disguising the fact that the Federation would be independent anyway and would contain an independent Jamaica in it. It was utterly irresponsible. It was using the magic in the word "independence" in Jamaica, and diverting it for irresponsible purposes for the benefit of the Opposition.
  Mr. Fisher: That is all quite true, but this was predictable. My criticism of Mr. Manley was that he made an error of judgment, because hon. Members like the hon. Member for Northfield and myself, who know the islands, knew perfectly well that Sir Alexander Bustamente would play the referendum in the way he did. He is an astute and clever politician, who took advantage of a political opportunity which should never have been given to him.
  Mr. Chapman: I will not continue the argument. It is but water under the bridge. I am only saying that if the hon. Gentleman wants to criticise Mr. Manley, I am sorry to have to remind him that the greater criticism falls on the Opposition in Jamaica for the way in which they handled the referendum. It was, in Mr. Manley's view, a supreme test in democracy. The Opposition did not accept it as such, but put it into the fight with other issues, and I am sorry about the way in which it was handled.
  The second thing which was another immediate cause on which we must reflect for a moment is the decision of Trinidad to seek independence on its own. There has been some talk of trying to force Trinidad to stay in, but anyone Who has read the formidable document prepared by the People's National Movement in Trinidad, setting out in a full page their arguments against Trinidad being in the rump of the Federation, must agree that, on the facts, which speak for themselves, they have every right to say that they prefer independence alone. There is no point in pursuing that further.
  890
  The other important point is that opinion in Trinidad is now fast moving towards a strong sense of independent nationhood. That is certainly what I felt there, and there is the fact that the striking economic advance in Trinidad in recent years gives the people there every reason to be super-confident about their independent future. They have every chance of making a great success of it. I do not want to bore the House with a long quotation, but the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, in making a loan recently to Trinidad, has paid a glowing tribute to the economic advance and stability there.
  The Bank has spoken of how the per capita income is so high, the external debt service so low, the pace of economic and educational advance so fast, and of the Government's record being so good. In view of this, we cannot expect the Trinidad Government to be other than confident in their own independent future, and with this striking advance in the national income per head we cannot at this stage try to bully Trinidad into a federation which it does not want. The time is far past for anything like that, and the confidence of the people of Trinidad is far too great.
  I should like now to tell the House what I believe to be the main lessons of failure in this loose form of federation which is now collapsing. The obvious one which is easy enough to see is the problem of geography. Then there are the divergent political trends and the poor economic links between the islands. Everything was telling against the chances of federation in that area. There is a divergent economic problem. It is obviously crucial in Jamaica that the Government there should keep their hands firmly on industrial development in that island.
  It is the one source of investment in Jamaica which is bringing such quick results in raising the standard of living that it must be fostered at all costs to preserve social peace in that island through an advance in the standard of living. Investment in agriculture is not producing anything like the returns that investment in industry is producing. We could not have expected Jamaica to have gone in for a tight form of federation in which its industrial development was

  891
  controlled from Port-of-Spain, a thousand miles away.
  The fourth point is the problem of divergent personalities in the whole area. This is a terrible tragedy. Those of us who know the eminent politicians in that area know them well enough to speak a little frankly and to say that part of the problem is their own fault. As has been said, if we could have had a little more frankness and more restraint in mutual exchanges of the future of the area, and a willingness to be in consultation, we could have saved a good deal of the terrible unhappiness which has been created in the last few months.
  I should like to come to the main lesson for us and to where we went wrong in trying to handle this Federation. I want to concentrate on that. Here we were five years ago with a Federation in which we knew we had all these problems. The tendencies to diverge were greater than the tendencies to unite. The economic problems were crucial. We knew that the problems of personalities existed and needed careful handling. The great mistake we made in handling the Federation was in the form of top-level administration and representation which Britain sent out. In saying this I do not intend at all to criticise Lord Hailes, the Governor-General. We thought only of having the usual kind of Governor-General who is mainly a figure of ceremonial and splendour and who has to represent Her Majesty.
  We never thought that such a Governor-General should be the tough go-getting, hail-fellow-well-met, working politician as opposed to an ex-Tory Chief Whip. I do not intend any criticism of Lord Hailes. He has fulfilled his job with great distinction; but we wanted in that job a different man with a different concept of the job.
  We can learn this only in retrospect. The Governor-General should not have been called a Governor-General. He should have been called by some other name, and instead of carrying out the traditional functions of a Governor-General in that area he should have had a top-level economic staff of his own trying to see its way clear through the economic problems of the area and giving continual guidance to an emerging nation.
  892
  We should have had a top-level administrator whose job it would have been to be continually travelling and on speaking terms with the top-level politicians so that when divergences and silly criticisms among them arose they would have been turning to him for his efforts to heal the breaches and to pour oil on troubled waters. We should have had an administrative staff at the side of the Federal Cabinet looking to the problems which might arise instead of waiting until they arose and a crisis supervened. We in this country should have realised what a tough job this was and what a different type of man was needed.
  Let me take two examples. If the position in the West Indies had been properly handled there would have been no simple announcement by Mr. Manley that he intended to hold a referendum. After all these years we had reached a stage when a statesman like Mr. Manley made an announcement "out of the blue" that he intended to have a referendum, without even consulting the Governor-General. It is ludicrous that after four years of federation that kind of thing could have happened. The Governor-General was presented in Port-of-Spain with a fait accompli. He was not told earlier that a referendum was to be held. This should never have happened.
  Let us take another example of where we went wrong in handling things. What happened when the referendum was over? It was left to Professor Arthur Lewis to go off by plane to Port-of-Spain from Jamaica, saying that he was to have consultations—he hoped in the service of Sir Grantley Adams—to find out how the rump of the Federation could be rescued now that Jamaica had seceded. Why should it have been left to Professor Lewis as a form of private enterprise? This was a job for top-level administration to be guiding and looking ahead and to be saying, "One hope of federation has collapsed. Let us set our investigators going fast so as to find out what can be rescued." But there was nothing like that.
  Professor Arthur Lewis conducted a very fine mission. I have read his report on the maintenance of the Federation. It is a first-class document. If anything could have saved what was left of the Federation, that would have done it.

  893
  Indeed, we have now reached the stage when I am fairly confident that, when we come to try to rescue a federation of the Eight, we shall be as dependent on that document as on any other. What a ridiculous situation.
  Here we are, after five years, still learning the lessons and not yet having the sort of investigation, guidance and general direction in the affairs of the area which would give us our own proper basis of information and ability to guide and counsel through very difficult matters of State. It is so very wrong that we should be so left behind by events and have to try to make the best of every situation afterwards.
  Look, again, how we have fallen behind in the matter of financial guarantees. One of the crucial factors in determining whether Trinidad continued with the remaining islands in some form of federation was the extent of financial guarantees in respect of the Leeward and Windward Islands. I put a Question to the Colonial Secretary asking whether he would give guarantees in respect of the Leewards and Windwards which would encourage Trinidad to lead a smaller federation. The Answer was, "We are saying nothing for the time being".
  In the document of the People's National Movement giving its decision to end the Federation and opt out, one of the main clauses reads:
  "And whereas no indication has yet been given by either the United Kingdom or the United States of the extent of financial assistance which will be provided over a number of years at least for the smaller Territories to make up for the deficiencies that are being left behind by centuries of maladministration and underdevelopment by the United Kingdom."
  In other words, one of the main planks in rejecting the continuance of federation is that no one had any idea of what guarantees we should give in the future in respect of the Leeward and Windward Islands.
  I had not expected precise figures in pounds, shillings and pence; but, clearly, this was a crucial factor in determining Trinidad's decision. Again, we were left running behind the bus after it had driven away. We had to say that we would have given financial guarantees, as, of course, we have done. We are providing a lot of money now, but because we were not having the top-level guidance, direction and tactically-minded administration needed in the
  894
  area, a point was reached where our intentions were misunderstood.
  Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman is always very fair and knowledgeable in these matters. Will he be fair and recall that Dr. Eric Williams announced his decision on the very day—or was it the day after?—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State arrived in Port-of-Spain? If Dr. Williams really thought that it was worth discussing the financial details of what contribution we should make to make the remainder of the Federation led by Trinidad viable and effective, would it not have been more responsible on Dr. Williams' part at least to wait a few days and discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend, who was then in Port-of-Spain, instead of making the announcement unilaterally?
  Mr. Chapman: I agree that that is a fair criticism. On the other hand, it does not absolve us. If we had been planning ahead, we should have seen that the absence of financial guarantees would become a crucial factor when the People's National Movement in Trinidad made up its mind and we should have made our position very clear earlier in order to remove any possible chance of misunderstanding.
  When we think about the federation of the Eight, we must learn from these mistakes. When we create a federation of the Eight, as I think is inevitable and desirable, we must put out of our minds the idea of a Governor-General with top-level splendour and goodness knows what. We must have at the head of the federation, which will have even more formidable economic problems than the Federation we are dissolving, a go-getter, a politician, someone who has a foot in both administration and politics, someone like Sir Hugh Foot, who is now speaking for us at the United Nations, someone with a sense of mission who will go round the area, study its problems, have the economic analyses done, and then scour the world for economic aid in order to make the area viable within a reasonable time.
  This is a type of personality we have had to use in other parts of the Commonwealth. We shall need such a man desperately here. Our experience of the break-up of the Federation shows that this is precisely the kind of person

  895
  who at all costs must be found when the new federation is created. He would not interfere with any federal Government. He will, if he is like Sir Hugh Foot, be able to work alongside them in a position of trust and mutual confidence beneficial to both sides.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) made two points about the future with which I cordially agree. He said that one can hope that in this area, with a longer period of growth, perhaps, a wider regional association will emerge. This is very important, and, of course, it is not out of the minds of West Indian politicians. Dr. Williams himself is known to be interested in some form of federation involving both British and non-British possessions in the area. For instance, Trinidad's economic links today are greater with Curaçao, Guadaloupe and Venezuela than with any of the British possessions in the area.
  So it may well be that, with the urgency of the situation, with the leadership of men like Dr. Williams, and with a little respite from the personal bickerings of the last few years, the future will bring the possibility of a wider association in the area. I earnestly hope so. Indeed, I believe that this is the one hope we have for the future.
  I agree with my hon. Friend also in his references to the possibility of interesting the United States and Canada in the economic development of the area, but I think that he may not, perhaps, be aware of how far such interest has already gone. In Jamaica at present huge amounts of American Government capital are being provided for pilot housing schemes and pilot water supply schemes and similar efforts on an impressive scale. I imagine that an American ambassador will be the first to be appointed to independent Jamaica; the Americans are moving very quickly because they know of their economic interest there. American capital is flowing in quite rapidly. Kennedy Peace Corps personnel are due in Jamaica to help in various measures of social development there.
  Canadian capital, too, is flowing in. A large part of Jamaica's banking system is dependent on Canadian banks, and the same applies to her bauxite
  896
  industry. Canadian capital is flowing, and businessmen are now going to Jamaica and making glowing speeches about the stability of the country and the possibility of even more Canadian capital for development.
  Therefore, what we have to do is not so much to tell America and Canada to do something but to encourage the very rapid flow which has already started. I do not object to American capital as some of my hon. Friends do. I think that the chances of obtaining United States capital are far greater than the chances of obtaining Canadian capital on the scale which is needed, and we must be very happy that the United States is taking such a strong interest in the whole area.
  The Bill is an unhappy necessity. As I have tried to explain, I fully understand Trinidad's decision, under its very able Premier, to have nothing to do with the rump of the Federation. I fully concede that Jamaica is perfectly entitled to have made her decision. I simply say again to West Indian politicians that it is now no good asking us to try to force either of those islands into a federation.
  Let time go by for a little while. Let us attempt federation for the eight islands and preserve common services as far as we can. Above all, let us have more and more economic plans on the lines of the magnificent plans in Trinidad and the new ten-year plan in Jamaica so that we can see the future mapped out. Let us have a more conscious sense of the British rôle in preserving what we have and in developing it again into a proper federation. Our mistake has been that we have not set about the task consciously enough in the past and that we have not sent out the right men to carry it out.
  5.51 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), in the closing sentences of his speech, counselled caution in proceeding with a federation of the Eight. Earlier, he dealt mainly with what I would call the big-part characters in the drama rather than the small-part characters, the eight island units. It is to the future of the eight island units that

  897
  I wish to address my remarks, particularly to the question of federation there, and to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to exercise the utmost caution in going ahead with any new organisation for what is left of the previous Federation.
  In his first statement about this matter to the House on 6th February, my right hon. Friend said that this subject needed more thought and study, and that he intended to give it. He said that, in the meantime, as he repeated today and as we see in the Bill, there was to be an interim authority for the common services. Between that first statement in February and the present time, there has been the meeting of the Chief Ministers of the Eight in Barbados, which lasted from 26th February to 3rd March. My right hon. Friend touched on this today and said that he had received a report from that conference, but he did not give the House much detail about the report he had received or the decisions which had been made at the conference.
  I can only quote from The Times report, dated 5th March, of what was decided there. I understand that the conference decided that there should be a new Federal Government which
  "would be set up by an interim Federal Council which would create a Civil Service and take over from the individual territories those services which have been allocated to the Federal Government. A Governor-General would be appointed and the interim Federal Council would appoint an interim Federal Prime Minister. General elections would be held within a year of the creation of the new Federation, after which the Prime Minister and the Cabinet would be chosen in the usual way provided in the constitution."
  I warn my right hon. Friend not to accept recommendations as firm as that at this stage. I fear that it might mean another abortive federation if we hurry into a new organisation so quickly. I say that for this reason. I do not believe that the conference of Chief Ministers in Barbados was truly representative. It is true that it was made up of the delegate members of the Governments of the little Eight, but, on the other hand, this Jamaica referendum was against the expectation of the Jamaican Government. I am not satisfied that the Ministers who were present at the conference really represented the feelings of the people in the eight States.
  898
  To justify the warning that I give to my right hon. Friend, I wish to give some facts concerning one of the Eight, Antigua. The position there is not unrelated to the position in other islands, particularly in Barbados. The Under-Secretary of State will remember that on occasions I have asked Questions in the House about Antigua. In Antigua and Barbuda there are 58,000 people. It has been said before in this debate that it seems a little incongruous to us here that a population little larger than that of a small urban district has all the panoply of government—a Governor, a Legislation Council, a Chief Minister, and so on. But that type of constitution is common to the Eight, and it is upon Governments and communities of that size and structure that the future of the Eight depends.
  Before any new organisation is set up we should ensure that the system of government and the actual government of these units are satisfactory. My complaints in the House about the Government of Antigua, for example, have been that there has had to be retrospective and indemnifying legislation for things unlawfully done in the Colony and that there has been the withholding of compensation money for years after the compulsory acquisition of property.
  I have here three Ordinances produced in January, 1962, whitewashing retrospectively illegal spending by the Government of Antigua over the years 1958, 1959 and 1960, involving no less than over 1 million dollars. The men who committed these blunders of government went to the conference in Barbados representing the people of Antigua and purported to commit those people to this Federal Council idea about which the report in The Times that I have quoted tells us.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was, I think, informed by the substantial Opposition Party in Antigua as long ago as September, 1961, and in more detail in November, 1961, of the opposition against immediately rushing headlong into a further federation before the matter had been fully considered. I wish to quote my right hon. Friend's reply to that quite constructive proposition put to him by the Opposition Party in that small island. He said:
  "In reply to your letter of"—

  899
  so-and-so—
  "on the question of federation, I am directed to inform you that Antigua's relationship with other territories in the West Indies now or in the future is a matter which will be considered by the Government consisting of the duly elected representatives of the people."
  If it is a Parliamentary word to use, I would say that that is humbug, for two reasons. First, the break-up of the Federation was due to Jamaica's referendum and not to the voice of the Government elected by the people. Secondly, I do not believe that the existing Governments in a certain number of the little Eight are representative of the people. Certainly, it is not in Antigua. In that island it is a Government which is entirely in the pocket of one trade union, the Antigua Trades and Labour Union.
  I believe that this is not an unusual set-up in these small States. I am told that the Chief Minister of the Government there is the president of that trade union, that three of his Ministers are vice-presidents of that trade union, that the Industrial Development Board is presided over by a union member, that three other Ministers and all elected members of the Legislative Council are executive members of that union, and that the Speaker himself is not only an executive member of the union, but is also a member of the union's central political committee.
  Mr. R. W. Sorensen: Is that surprising in view of the fact that there is only a very small population and that most of the males in the population belong to that trade union? Is it not, therefore, inevitable?
  Mr. Page: I personally find it surprising. I am quoting Antigua, although I believe that the position is similar in the other Colonies there.
  Mr. Charles Royle: Does not the hon. Member agree that even the British Government have their alliances?
  Mr. Page: And the Opposition, too.
  But I think that there is a feeling that Ministers should be independent of other organisations and other loyalties. I ask my right hon. Friend to inquire into this. I ask him to inquire also how
  900
  long ago the electoral roll was revised in these eight States, to inquire into the antecedents of some of the presiding officers at the poll at the last elections and to inquire into nepotism generally in the Government there.
  Mr. Chapman: And the British Administrator there.
  Mr. Page: Indeed, I am criticising the Government for allowing, through the Administrator, this sort of thing to happen. If this is general in all eight States I feel that my right hon. Friend is unwise to accept the recent Barbados conference, in February and March, un-questioningly as being a democratic expression of opinion in these eight States. In Antigua, there have been meetings over the past six months attended by 4,000 to 5,000 people—the kind of figure which makes us look with covetous eyes when we represent constituencies fax bigger than the 58,000 population of Antigua.
  These meetings have not just been anti-federation, but have supported practical proposals put forward as an alternative, namely, that before going into federation again what is needed is a greater degree of economic prosperity and stability in each unit. These islands are grant-aided, at present through the Federation, although it comes back on the British taxpayer in the end. It would be unfortunate if some of that revenue and the revenue of the small units themselves were drained away unnecessarily into a federal council at present.
  Before further federation there should be greater advance in democratic and constitutional government and there should be a greater recognition of the independence of Ministers, in the small units, before plunging further into experiments in federation after the collapse of the present Federation. The hon. Member for Northfield stressed the need for some economic planning committee. He was thinking of one over the whole of the West Indies.
  Mr. Chapman: Yes.
  Mr. Page: I think, too, that an economic planning unit is necessary for the little Eight to find out where they have been going wrong economically up to the present, and there is a need for a

  901
  constitutional and administrative inspectorate to guide them in the constitutional conduct of government.
  Once the House passes the Bill, are we to have another opportunity before my right hon. Friend presents the House with a fait accompli on the new organisation? I fear that his mention of a conference in July, coupled with the procedure which can be carried out by Order in Council under this Bill, means that unless we give a warning now the House will be presented with a fait accompli along these lines, "Here is a constitution for a new organisation, here is the Order in Council, you must pass it or else—" I hope that we shall not be presented with that. I fear that if we are presented with a organisation in that way there will be a repetition of the present abortive federation.
  We must admit that it has been something of a smudge on this country's reputation of being able to lead colonial countries to independent nationhood that we have had to dissolve this Federation. That is important, but perhaps not as important as that we must prevent the remaining eight from losing faith in us and, if I may put it in the vernacular, thinking that we have not got a clue, and, therefore, turning elsewhere for guidance in their affairs.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. John Dugdale: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) took some exception to the activities of certain trade unions and made some rather grave charges of nepotism against the Government of Antigua. I am not cognisant of the details of Antigua politics, but if people have only one or two industries I should not have thought it wrong for the members of the trade unions representing those industries to be in their Government. It seems to me a fairly reasonable thing, and I should be very much surprised if they were not in the Government. There have been charges of nepotism even in this country from time to time, and I do not think it altogether fair to point to Antigua as being the sole example.
  I do not know whether I dare intervene in the debate, because I am about the first hon. Member who cannot begin by saying, "When I was last in Port-of-Spain", or "When I was last in
  902
  Kingston". I have not had the privilege of going to the West Indies, although I have many West Indian friends from Sir Grantley Adams downwards and I care deeply for them and for what they are doing.
  In this funeral oration, as it appears to be, I should like to sound one note of optimism. In Rhodesia we saw someone trying to force a federation upon people who did not want it and refusing to take a vote of the whole population to ascertain their wishes. But here we have people going to the extreme of democracy and asking for a plebiscite. What could be more democratic? Is it not a good thing that the people of the West Indies, who have been trained by us in democracy, should be over-careful in asking for a plebiscite even though the decision goes against what they themselves want to happen? It is perhaps a good thing to compare Sir Roy Welensky and his activities in Rhodesia with the fine action which has been taken by such men as Sir Grantley Adams and Mr. Norman Manley, who have a record as democrats and as socialists and who are showing what social democrats can do in one of the territories for which, up to now, we have been responsible.
  I welcome what I understood the Colonial Secretary said—that we intend to safeguard the pensions of all those people who have been serving in the Federation. I hope that I was right. It is most important that they should be safeguarded. It is bad enough for people in the Government, such as Sir Grantley Adams and others, suddenly to find themselves without a Federal Government, it would be terrible if the officials who had been working there were suddenly deprived of a living and had no adequate pension. But I understand that provision is to be made for them, and I hope that this will be confirmed by the Under-Secretary. We have had a great deal of trouble recently about people in the Colonial Service who have found themselves suddenly without work and without pensions. I hope that that will not be repeated in the case of the Federation—owing, I agree, to circumstances quite outside our control.
  I hope, too, that it will be possible for the West Indies to do what East Africa is doing, and that is to have common services as far as possible without

  903
  Federation. If they do not want to have Federation, that is their own affair; we think it is unfortunate, but if they do not want it, let them at least have common services. When I was in Ghana recently, I was interested to find that a leading civil servant had gone from there to be the chief civil servant of the East Africa High Commission. Such people are doing a very fine job there. I hope that something like that may be arranged in order to salvage what is left of the Federation, which all of us very much regret is disappearing.
  I hope that one of the things salvaged will be the university. It would be most unfortunate if it were to suffer as the result of the break-up of the Federation. There are also many other things, including the West Indies Regiment, which we do not want to see suffer. But the university, above all things, must be kept in being by some method in spite of the break-up of the Federation.
  I want to say a few words about the economic position. The individual countries which will be left after the Federation has broken up will need a great deal of help from us in the way of equipment, machinery, technicians, capital and, above all, markets. All those are things which we can give them, and I hope that we will. Hon. Members have talked about what can be done by the United States. I hope that the United States and Canada will do much, but let us not forget that the task is primarily ours. It is we who are responsible for the fact that the West Indies population is there now. I hope that we shall do everything possible to supply those countries with the capital and the markets which they need.
  If I may make one brief and perhaps slightly controversial point, the markets were originally supplied by the sugar agreement made by the Labour Government, which gave a guaranteed price for sugar. That was of tremendous value to the West Indies in those days. The agreement was negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones). I hope that we shall be able to give those countries guaranteed markets wherever possible for the things they want to sell, for only if they have them will they succeed in building up a good economic structure. I hope
  904
  now that we shall give them the equipment, the machinery and the technicians that they need.
  One hon. Member said that the Americans had sent their Peace Corps there. That is all very well. I do not want to say anything against the Peace Corps, but we had our own "Peace Corps" which we sent out to various colonies long before President Kennedy ever thought of his Peace Corps. I hope that it will do some useful work, but we do not want to depend entirely on Mr. Kennedy's Peace Corps. We must depend on our own efforts in helping these people even after they have—as we think, wrongly—broken up their Federation.
  I hope that by doing this we shall in some small measure wipe out the harm that has been done in Jamaica and the West Indies generally by the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill. Naturally, it would be out of order for me to discuss that, and I will merely say that it has given some people there the feeling that we do not care quite as much as they hoped we did for the West Indies. We can wipe that feeling out if we show that we intend to help these countries in every possible way to build up their economic future now when they are going on their own. All of them need our help; I hope that all of them will get it.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Williams: I hope that the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) will forgive me if I do not refer to his speech immediately, although I hope to come back to the question of trade later in my remarks.
  I want to take the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) as the starting point for mine. I could not agree with him more when he says that the tragedy of the situation today is that we are debating, apparently, the demise of a Federation Which ought not to be on its death-bed if the policies pursued, first, by Her Majesty's Government in this country and, secondly, by representatives of the West Indies had been attuned to the needs of the moment.
  Having launched a federation, as in Central Africa, we have to a certain extent, it seems to me, lost interest and

  905
  failed to keep up the momentum which existed at the birth in each case. It is this which causes me to have profound doubts about the direction, the purpose and the sense of purpose of Her Majesty's Government colonial policy.
  To launch a federation and then in substance do little about it afterwards is to ask for disaster; and I believe that disaster is with us in some small way today. Whether one is talking about Central Africa or the West Indies, the enthusiasm of the Government is noticeable by its absence. In the case of the West Indies, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said, we have also had the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, with all the animosities and tensions that that is going to create and the breakdown of loyalty which has been the automatic and just due between the two parts of the world—the United Kingdom and the West Indies.
  Now we have this hurried, this unwanted and, what I believe could have been, this unnecessary Bill. Hurried? What was the rush? Why was there no time for second thoughts after the Jamaica referendum? Surely it might have been possible, either earlier, in the autumn of last year, or later, in the early months of this year, to find some way of calling together a federal review conference to discuss the possibility in the event of break-up of at least maintaining the Federation in a new form rather than automatically assuming that break-up should come.
  Unwanted? I doubt whether the Federal Government would say that this is a wanted Bill. Surely Her Majesty's Government, in constitutional form, should have some cause to take note of Federal Government opinion rather than just the opinion of one of the member territories. An unnecessary Bill? What effort was made before the Jamaica referendum and afterwards substantially to keep the Federation in being?
  Here I return to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Northfield. There was a momentum of some proportion at the time that the Federation was created but it was a momentum which was dissipated, in part, I agree, by the jealousies, personalities and antagonisms of the prominent politicians
  906
  involved in that part of the world. But if there had been some drive towards unity created by this country, those problems could have been overcome.
  Those who have made any study at all of federations know perfectly well that it is in the formative years that one has difficulty in holding them together. Automatically, those who have been large and important politicians in perhaps small or minor islands or States suddenly find that the depth of the water in which they are swimming has changed and that the currents have become stronger. There is all the more need, therefore, that the parent authority—the United Kingdom Government—should provide the outward and visible signs of support for a federation and see it through its difficult formative years.
  It is the absence of a momentum for federation in the months which have gone and in the way the Bill has been presented both to the Federal Prime Minister and to his Government and to this House that some of us wish to criticise. What advice was given to the Jamaica Government when they decided on a referendum? Were they informed that there was no way of escaping from the Federation within the terms of the Constitution?
  Mr. Fisher: They were not asked.
  Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend says that they were never asked, and I agree with him. However, after they had announced that they were going to hold a referendum, were they informed that within the terms of the Constitution there was no escape clause? If they had been, then the ground would have been prepared for the holding of a federal review conference. Although Jamaica might have said that it did not wish to remain in the existing Federation, the ground would have been prepared for saying, "Let us reconstitute the Federation", and for keeping the momentum of federation together. The Government could have said that, but instead they came to the conclusion that Parliament would meekly make legal an act which, when it was carried out, was illegal.
  Mr. Chapman: Is not the true explanation that contact between Mr. Manley and members of the Federal Government was not sufficiently developed, and that

  907
  Mr. Manley would never have made such an announcement without proper consultation had there been close enough contact?
  Mr. Williams: I agree. This situation should never have arisen, but as it has arisen it is reasonable to have expected a Government which, in name at any rate, believed in federation, to have done more to try to keep it together. If the Federation had then still gone wrong, the ground would have been prepared for further consultation to keep a reconstituted federation together.
  Her Majesty's Government must realise that it is their lack of faith and of constancy that is distressing some of their supporters. I do not believe that many Government supporters would have been influenced at Orpington by the halting and unnecessary nature of this Bill, but support cannot easily be given to a Government who so easily give up a commitment of federation. Why was there no constitutional conference? Why has not a way been found of giving a chance for second thoughts in Jamaica? Why was so little done to maintain the momentum of the Federation and then to keep it together? This poor, miserable little Bill personifies the purpose of this Government in great affairs.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I do not want to cover ground which has already been covered in this quite comprehensive debate, but I would like to say that, like other hon. Members, I deplore the Bill and I deplore the constitutional antagonisms out of which it has arisen. It is a great pity that the inhabitants of those charming islands were unable to agree to federate.
  It seems to me that they have as many reasons for federation, for close association—constitutional and otherwise—as could be desired. They have similarities of race and language, and a common strategic interest, which is a very important consideration. They have similarities in their ways of life and in their social customs. It seems a thousand pities that, having been presented with federation, they have rejected it and now encounter difficulties as a result of which this Bill is presented to the House.
  908
  Arising out of that, there are certain questions I wish to ask, and I hope that I shall be given a reply. Were the West Indies consulted about the drafting of this Bill? Were they consulted about the difficulties this Bill is designed to resolve? Were they shown a draft of the Bill? If they were, what suggestions did they make upon it? What opportunities were they given of trying to resolve the difficulties which this Bill is designed to deal with? Were any conferences held by the leaders of political thought in these islands to resolve the difficulties? If so, what was the result? If no conferences were held, is it too late to hold one in order to obviate the difficulties with which this Bill is designed to deal? Is it too late to encourage the kind of association between the various islands which federation would have brought about?
  I deplore this Bill. I think that it is unnecessary and that it is at any rate premature. I submit that before final decisions are reached upon it the citizens of the West Indies and the great men of those islands should be given a further opportunity of resolving the difficulties which the Bill is designed to deal with. I do not want to deal now with Committee points, but I would like an explanation of Clause 4 (6) which deals with the West Indian Court of Appeal. Formerly, the ultimate court of appeal for justiciable matters arising was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Its jurisdiction was withdrawn and a supreme court was set up for the islands.
  Mr. Graham Page: The hon. and learned Gentleman gave the House to understand that the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had been withdrawn when the Court of Appeal was set up. That was not so. There is still an appeal to the Judicial Committee from the Court of Appeal.
  Mr. Hughes: Clause 4 gives Her Majesty power
  "… to establish common courts for West Indian Colonies."
  Subsection (6) reads:
  "The Court of Appeal established by the West Indian Court of Appeal Act, 1919, is hereby dissolved".
  If that jurisdiction is to be withdrawn, what is to be the ultimate jurisdiction in the West Indies? I ask the Secretary of State to deal with that point. He

  909
  did not do so when I intervened in his speech to ask him.
  The House is aware that there are great men in these islands. I submit that before a final decision is reached upon this Bill they should be called together in conference and given an opportunity of resolving the questions which this Bill is designed to deal with. I do not propose to cover any of the points already raised in this debate, but there is a strong contrast between this Government's way of dealing with constitutional difficulties in the West Indies and the manner of previous Governments in dealing with constitutional difficulties in other parts of the Colonial Empire and Commonwealth. I refer to the American colonies, Canada, India, Ireland and other parts of the Colonial Empire, the constitutional difficulties in which were happily resolved by other Governments.
  This method of dealing with the difficulties in the West Indies symbolises the most abject and ignominious failure in the history of the British Empire and British Commonwealth. The House should think twice before passing the Bill, at any rate in its present form. No doubt attempts will be made to improve it in Committee. I hope that we shall be able to improve it in a way consistent with the great history of the British Empire and the British Commonwealth so that it emerges as an instrument of happiness for the people of the West Indies.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) has glossed over many of the difficulties which face the inhabitants of the West Indian islands. There has been no doubt in the mind of any hon. Member who has spoken in the debate that the political leaders of the islands, whatever may have been their utterances in their own islands for electoral reasons, fully understand the importance and significance of the Federation. But we are up against a far greater understanding of the problems of federation among the electors of the islands. I think that we were all amazed that the Jamaican referendum was such a close-run thing, especially when it is realised that very few members of the electorate of the island of Jamaica manage to see politi-
  910
  cally beyond their own island problems, let alone the problems of federation, with a capital a thousand miles from Jamaica. I do not think that the hon. and learned Member was very fair when he tried to gloss over the difficulties. To say, as he said, that there are similarities of race in the islands is to forget that there is a terrific problem among the negroes and the West Indians and all the other races there. It is nothing like as simple as the hon. and learned Member would have us believe.
  I should be fascinated to know what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) meant when he spoke of a limited disaster. It is hardly a disaster if it can be limited.
  In all matters connected with the West Indies we have to face the fact that for the last 500 years everybody has had great hopes for these islands, but they have always been rather disappointed in the first instance. The Spaniards did not find the gold and silver which they expected to find there. The early settlers did not find that it was as easy to make a profit from the land as they had hoped. In fact, people have survived after the first enthusiastic rush only by settling down to some serious hard work and reorganisation of the agriculture and economies of the islands on a far less profitable basis than they first expected.
  I do not see why we should expect in the twentieth century that the new political ideas should get off to any better start or be any more successful than the original economic hopes of the people who first went to these islands. I believe that there will be more attempts at federation after further groundwork and after a period of probably another twenty years' development in the islands. I believe that in time we will see yet another federation in the islands in exactly the same way as many of the other developments have taken time to come about.
  But it is wrong fox the House to hold out much hope—as has been suggested by The Times and some other newspapers—of some sort of Common Market federation within the West Indies. The affinity of interest of the British Colonies with the French and Dutch and American colonies in that part of the world—and Puerto Rico is shortly to become another State of the United States rather than

  911
  part of any West Indian Federation—is nothing like so close as their affinity of interest with other British possessions in that part of the world.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) spoke about the chance of a larger federation in this part of the world. After the next general election in the Bahamas, on a full franchise, there is no doubt but that the Government there will be much more in sympathy with other Governments in the West Indian islands. The Bahamas with 100,000 people and British Guiana with 500,000 people and British Honduras with another 100,000 could join to make up an Atlantic Federation of some 4 million. That is nearly a viable unit by modern standards of something like the size of Denmark. That would be a country with some hope of standing up independently.
  That is a much better starter for the future than any idea of a Common Market federation. The Dutch and French islands may wish to join a strong British federation like that, but unless we can achieve some unity with other British Colonies in that part of the world, with the other orphans of British sea power, I do not believe that we will achieve that strength of political and economic unity which will attract the French and Dutch colonies, which are extremely prosperous, into our own federation.
  Quite rightly we are today dealing in particular with what some hon. Members have called the "little Eight". That is rather simplifying the problem, for the little Eight really represent some 22 small islands which are left in the eight unit governments of the surviving Colonies.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) and others have suggested that Trinidad might be persuaded to look towards the nearby Windward Islands. The same attitude has been shown towards Tobago. But I am not at all certain that it would be to the advantage of the Windward Islands to rush into a federation with Trinidad. One contribution which Tobago makes to Trinidad is that it produces a large amount of much needed labour. A terrific economic expansion is going on in Trinidad, but in Tobago there is no sign of the prosperity to be seen in Trinidad. About 37,000 young people go from Tobago to
  912
  work in Trinidad and there is not a great deal of economic expansion going on in Tobago.
  Mr. Chapman: The hon. Member is being rather unfair. Revenue in Tobago is only 2 million dollars a year, but the amount spent by Trinidad in the island is 9 million dollars. It is unfair to hint that in some way Trinidad is not spending a fair amount of money on Tobago.
  Mr. Kimball: It is a matter of the way the money is spent in Tobago. The developments being encouraged there are not especially connected with its agriculture but rather on government, administration and forms of other work. I do not believe that the development which is going on in Tobago can be undertaken as well by the Trinidad Government as by the British Administration.
  I was especially glad when my right hon. Friend said that the colonial governments which are left will receive grants in aid in some form or another. I understood him to say that if we were to spend this money, we ought to have a say in exactly how it is spent. I am certain that we in this country can do an enormous amount to stimulate the economic development of the remaining eight Colonies with a population of just over half a million. The British taxpayer will have to make grants in aid to these eight Colonies for some time to ensure that a decent economic development takes place in the hope that we may be able to make them into such a viable economic unit that Jamaica and Trinidad and the two islands which have left the Federation already will once again, perhaps in about twenty years, wish to return to the Federation with them.
  It is perfectly possible to achieve a very large economic expansion in these eight islands. It can be done by a tremendous expansion in their agriculture, with the exception of Barbados, where there is such an enormous population that not much more can be done with the development of agriculture.
  I also believe that much more could be done to develop the tourist trade of these islands. We have only to look at the tourist trade of the Bahamas to see what it means to them. It is their principal industry. But the West Indian islands are far more attractive than any Bahaman island; they have mountains

  913
  and far more attractive scenery than the flat coral reefs of the Bahamas Bank.
  I have three constructive suggestions to make to my right hon. Friend in relation to the expansion of agricultural services. First, the time has come to separate the advisory services from the grant-paying services. It is no good having the same person telling a planter that his cocoa trees are fifteen years old and must go, and then coming back in the autumn and paying out the grant. We must separate the financial and grant-paying services from the advisory services.
  It is a fair criticism to say that in these islands there is a tendency for the Government demonstration farms to be show pieces. I am not decrying the tremendous enthusiasm and hard work of the farm managers, but there is some element of the feeling that "Our demonstration farms have a larger range of services than yours, or employ more people, or have a bigger acreage," and not enough attention is paid to teaching and to spreading the knowledge gained on these demonstration farms.
  In the islands for which we are still responsible I should like to see a system by which specific smallholders were asked to run their farms according to a pattern set down by the British administrator or agricultural adviser. I am certain that when other smallholders saw these people, on their own account, carrying out the instructions given by demonstration farms and making a profit, they would quickly catch on and follow the new methods to a much greater extent than they do now, with the Government demonstration farms being run as show pieces.
  In most of the small islands the directors of agriculture are also responsible for agricultural education in the schools. They all say that there is a tremendous reluctance on the part of the education authorities to take any interest in day release schemes or any form of agricultural education for the children, many of whom will go back to their families as smallholders. There is tremendous possibility in expanding the horticultural industry especially to meet the demands of the tourist trade. We can get nothing but tinned vegetables in these islands. The land and climate is suitable. All that is lacking is the incentive.
  914
  The tourist industry in the remaining eight islands can be immensely developed, but if we are to have a further development of that industry in the islands for which we are responsible we must give some definite guarantee to future developers. It is not a question of building hotels and developing the tourist trade as in Jamaica; in Jamaica there is electricity and there are roads and main water supplies. Anybody building a hotel or developing a beach or a resort in one of the smaller islands must provide his own private capital and do a tremendous amount of work to build the roads and lay on the water supplies, and provide all the normal facilities available in the larger islands. If we expect people to spend extra money in order to expand the tourist trade in the twenty-two remaining islands of the little Eight, I hope that we shall be able to provide security and encouragement for future capital development.
  By expanding the agriculture industry in the little Eight we increase their buying power and their whole prosperity. I know that what I have said about the development of the tourist trade and of agriculture does not apply to Barbados, but that is one island in the little Eight which has a large surplus population. It is the largest island, and it has almost 250,000 people. If we increase the buying power and economic viability of the remaining seven islands Barbados may well become the centre to which manufacturing industries will come because of the labour available there, even though its geographical situation is not all that it might be.
  Unlike many hon. Members who have spoken, I do not regard this as a funeral oration or a sad occasion. I regard it as one of the political knocks of economic and political development which the West Indies have had in the last 500 years. I still believe that we shall eventually see the formation of a federation. I hope that it will be a viable federation, of 4 million people, incorporating the whole of the North and South Atlantic possessions of the British Commonwealth.
  6 45 p.m.
  Mr. R. W. Sorensen: I am almost at the end of the queue of melancholy mourners over the impending

  915
  interment of the Federation. Strangely enough, however, to some extent I share the mood of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). I do not believe that this is the final catastrophe. In the days to come we must expect the resurrection of the corpse that is to be buried in the near future.
  Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I do not altogether share in the criticism of the Government. One of my hon. Friends suggested that had there been not necessarily a different Governor-General but a different functionary with wider terms of reference he might have prevented this misfortune from occurring. I do not agree. The responsibility for the end of federation lies mainly, if not exclusively, upon the shoulders of the Caribbean peoples. Why should we always assume that the responsibility for misfortune is due to statesmen or politicians in this country? We have certainly had our share of responsibility in the past, and we should be blamed where it is fair to blame us. But if we are to vest in other peoples the responsibility of running their own affairs, it works both ways; we must vest them also with responsibility when there is a collapse, an accident or a misfortune.
  I admit that the demise of the Federation was not altogether unexpected for me. The Federation was a very valiant attempt to try to associate together a number of very scattered islands, with no contiguity between them. This was not an insuperable difficulty, but it was nevertheless a very real one.
  I have a slight knowledge of the West Indies, although I do not have as much as many of my hon. Friends, and I would say that apart from the geographical impediment there axe two basic reasons for the collapse of the Federation. First, in recent years there has been no development of a Carribbean consciousness as distinct from a local island consciousness. In my brief visit to the islands I was struck by the fact that the people of one island—numbering only a few thousand—were more conscious of belinging to that island than of belonging to a wider community, stretching perhaps to more than 1,000 miles away. Until this Caribbean consciousness develops, federation is liable to be largely a fiction.
  916
  Secondly—and reference has already been made to this—a great deal of internal political tension exists. It is a question of human frailties. In some measure, these have been responsible for the failure of Federation. Let us suppose that Mr. Norman Manley had not succeeded in defeating what is somewhat misleadingly called the Jamaican Labour Party, led by Sir Alexander Bustamante. Let us suppose that Mr. Norman Manley had lost the election and that Sir Alexander had been Premier instead. It is likely that the whole circumstances would have altered. Instead of Sir Alexander campaigning so vigorously and vehemently as he did against Mr. Norman Manley, we might have found him espousing the cause of Federation. An intense rivalry exists between these two personalities and between their respective parties.
  One hon. Member opposite expressed rather stringent criticism of the fact that on one island there was a close association between the trade unions and the administrators. That criticism could also be applied to Jamaica. Is it not true that the Jamaican Labour Party is closely associated not so much with the trade unions as with the employers' associations? There is this constant association between economic interests on the one hand and political convictions on the other—a situation not unknown in this House, on both sides. One cannot be surprised by that. Therefore, one cannot be surprised that in small islands with populations of 58,000, of whom 30,000 or less are really adults, and which obviously have only a small section with the aptitude, the opportunity or the training to take part in public work, there should be coincidence between economic interests on the one hand and political activity on the other. In respect of the island to which the hon. Member referred, the only thing he seemed to regret was that the interests were trade union interests. If they had been of a different character I am sure he would not have been so alarmed.
  I have referred to the relationship between the two parties in Jamaica, and the fact that the referendum was lost because of the hostility of Sir Alexander Bustamante and because he exploited a political situation, as indeed politicians often do. It is because of that that

  917
  undoubtedly, by a small majority, the citizens of Jamaica registered a negative rather than a positive vote.
  I now go to the other end of the Caribbean to Trinidad. Long before the referendum in Jamaica, Dr. Eric Williams and other members of his party were becoming increasingly critical of the very idea of Federation. It is my belief that here again we had what I would call human frailty on the part of Mr. Eric Williams. In many respects I greatly admire him. I have met and talked with him several times. We have in his case again, for deep conscious or unconscious reasons, hostility to the Federation which, in my view, would inevitably have led to its disintegration, even if the referendum in Jamaica had gone the other way. Mr. Williams, Sir Grantley Adams and Mr. Norman Manley did not see eye to eye at all. They had different judgments as to what Federation should be.
  Do not let us be too mealy-mouthed about this. Do not let us be too humble in the Uriah Heep style and take to ourselves all the blame for this misfortune. The misfortune must be placed, I repeat, on the backs of the people of the West Indies themselves. If they had had ampler judgment and more perspective, I think that they would have come to a very different conclusion. If they had been more rational they would have realised theoretically the great advantage that Federation would bring them in the course of time. I say "in the course of time" because my experience was that many did not see any particular economic advantage from the Federation. They did not see beyond the immediate moment. Contrary to our frequent assumption that people are rational in their judgment, often they are nothing of the kind. They are impelled by emotions, fears, apprehensions and traditions. Reason, although it plays a little part, is a flickering flame that can easily be blown out.
  On the other hand, this does not mean that Federation is not possible in some other form. Mr. Williams has made clear that he is in favour of federation, but that he wanted a wider federation—a federation to include not only those areas and places still in the
  918
  British orbit but others as well. I think this would involve psychological difficulties. But, be that as it may, he himself was in favour of the principle of federation as everyone must be if he looks at the matter objectively. Surely, it is absurd that there should be ten main or thirty larger or smaller islands in the British sphere of influence, and others in other national spheres of influence and that all of these should be in separate categories. Theoretically, obviously, there ought to be federation for their own economic and political good. But the time when that will be achieved will evidently not be yet. Therefore, I join with my hon. Friend opposite—if I may call them my hon. Friends on this occasion—in saying that we must look hopefully to the future. We must look forward to the time when out of the present disaster the people of Jamaica will develop a little more reasonable balance and judgment.
  Meanwhile, something has to be done for these islands which are left in a very difficult economic position. If it is asked whether they will survive the answer is that they will survive, because they have survived already. They have survived for hundreds of years. But another question is: how will they survive? They will survive, but they may only just do so. Even with a high infant mortality rate and a high adult mortality rate and even if there were no hospitals or schools they would still survive. But it would be just human survival and that is about all. The whole problem is not only that of physical survival. They must develop their lives so that they have some kind of mental and physical fulfilment.
  I cannot see this happening for many years to come unless this country in particular goes to the aid of these small economically unviable islands and encourages them economically for a period of years. That means that we shall have to accept our responsibilities for the human beings in these eight islands as much as we accept responsibility for human beings in this island we call England.
  Not only must there be considerable economic and financial aid from this country but from other countries too—but starting in this country—to these eight islands. I hope fervently that the population will not threaten to increase

  919
  as rapidly as it has increased in Jamaica during the last few years. Everyone knows that Jamaica is bursting at the seams.
  One reason why we have the overflow of its population coming here is because, although the infant and adult mortality rates have been reduced, there has been no corresponding reduction in the birth rate. The result is that even if one poured into Jamaica more capital than is being poured in at present, and even if there were more encouragement and a more rapid economic development for Jamaica alone, it could not absorb the whole of the present population. Some of that population must go elsewhere. This applies to a less degree but still seriously so to other islands. If in those islands there is an extension of medical and sanitary provisions and similar means of saving human life, undoubtedly the economic position could become much more acute. Therefore, I express the earnest hope that the population will not increase as rapidly as it has been increasing, and as it will increase unless some measures are taken.
  Professor Lewis himself indicated clearly that if certain stringent economies were applied to these islands they could just survive. That would include the sweeping away and pruning of all that is not absolutely necessary. Were that done, the islands could "tick over", as they are doing today. There is, I repeat, no question of the islands surviving, for they have survived up to now. The question is whether we, under those unfortunate circumstances, can assist them economically and physically to survive above the mere subsistence level. I say again that Mr. Norman Manley, Sir Alexander Bustamente, Dr. Eric Williams, Sir Grantley Adams and others who are now courageously accepting responsibility for leading their people forward are henceforth responsible rather than ourselves. Had there been a different Governor-General I do not believe that it would have made any difference. On the contrary, I believe that had the Governor-General or someone like him been given greater powers or other directives, it might have produced a reaction against this country. It might have led to a suspicion that the Governor-General had an axe to
  920
  grind. It is far better to let people work out their own salvation, even though they make mistakes; and here I think that a great mistake will be made on our part if we are bitter or over-critical of them. They have to work out their own salvation, although I profoundly regret that the brave venture of the Federation had to come to an end. Nevertheless, there is still hope that out of it will arise wisdom. Meanwhile, let us make quite sure that we accept our moral responsibility for the human beings who will be still in our charge.
  7.0 p.m.
  Sir Henry Studholme: I am sorry that I was not present at the beginning of the debate and, that being so, I feel apologetic about intervening now. I decided to speak only because of something which was said by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). May I first express my agreement with the extremely wise and sensible speech of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen)? I agree with everything that the hon. Member said.
  Today we must all feel sad that we are discussing the winding up of this Federation. With my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) and the hon. Member for Leyton, I hope that we shall see another federation emerge. It was a great ideal which was killed by two things. One was the great distance between the islands, particularly the main islands, and the other was the "parish pump" outlook—in other words, local feelings, jealousies and personalities. I was lucky to be able to go to that lovely part of the world as a member of a delegation with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), to present a mace to the Federal Parliament. I remember the speeches that were made then and the bright hopes which were held at that time, and it makes one very sad to think that the project has crumbled away.
  The hon. Member for Northfield said that he was not criticising the Governor-General. But if it was praise which he was expressing it was very faint praise. The hon. Gentleman said that it would have been better to send a politician and a man who would do the job of knitting the people together. I do not think that anyone could accuse Lord Hailes of not being a political animal. Lord Hailes

  921
  has had a wide and long political experience and he is a very shrewd political animal. No one who has seen Lord Hailes at work, or knows what he has done, would deny that nobody could have done a better job of trying to knit these people together. He entertained them charmingly and I think that he did a first-class job. Lord and Lady Hailes have played their parts admirably, and when the time comes for them to depart from the West Indies they will leave behind a tremendous fund of gratitude, good will and affection. That is all I wish to say. I felt it unfair that there should be even a suggestion that the failure of the Federation is in any way due to Lord Hailes. If it is due to anyone it is certainly not due to him.
  Mr. Sorensen: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), with whom I disagree, said that another type of functionary would have been advisable. He did not criticise the occupant of the present office at all.
  Sir H. Studholme: I am very glad to hear that. I must have misunderstood the hon. Member.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I went with the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) and a former member of this House, Sir Thomas Dugdale—who now disguises his pleasant personality behind the title of Lord Crathorne—to present a mace to the Federal House of Representatives as a gift from this House. I am wondering who will get that mace now. I hope that I may have the opportunity of going with the hon. Member for Tavistock to recover it, because I am quite sure that the three of us who represented this House were gratified on the occasion of our visit to the West Indies by the reception which we were accorded and by the evident desire of the Federal Government—and, so far as I could discern by all the members of the Federal Parliament—to make a success of Federation.
  It is a very great disappointment to find ourselves in this position today. For once I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) that we must try to find causes for the deterioration of the
  922
  Federation. When I was in the West Indies I was told that members of an island Parliament, that is to say, the Trinidad or the Jamaican Parliament, or any other island Parliament, were not available to become members of the Federation Parliament. I think that some of the trouble may be traced to that fact. The names of Norman Manley and Alexander Bustamente have been referred to in this debate. Both those very astute politicians believe in making the "base" secure before they wander off on some procession towards higher things elsewhere. Had they been able to sit in the Federal Parliament with Sir Grantley Adams some of the troubles which arose might not have occurred. If there is any further effort to get a federation I hope that that requirement concerning members of an island Parliament will not apply.
  Although the population of the West Indies is large, ability at the level of the three men I have mentioned is rare, I hope, therefore, that in any future federation members of island Parliaments will be allowed to become members of the Federal Parliament. Our House of Commons is considerably reinforced by having as hon. Members people who are also members of local authorities. Even when they are in the Government hon. Members remain representatives of their local authorities and, therefore, are able to see how Measures enacted here work out in the localities. It is astonishing sometimes to see how Measures assume a quite different appearance when considered in a public hall or a county hall from what is the appearance when they are discussed in this House and enacted for someone else to administer.
  While I was in the West Indies I had the privilege of addressing a meeting representative of all the teacher associations in the islands. It is something to have an audience which includes people who have flown over a thousand miles in order to be present. At that meeting and in the conversations which followed I was struck by the very earnest desire to secure for the islands a system of education at primary and secondary levels from which a sound higher education and an improved industry could be based. It is a great disappointment to find that that association of all the islands together with that purpose will

  923
  be to some extent hindered by what is now happening. I sincerely hope that in the near future there may be a further effort made without some of the limitations which I think handicapped the first Federation in rebuilding the kind of spirit which then existed.
  I very sincerely regret that the Colonial Secretary should have had today to stand at the Dispatch Box to apologise for some of the indignities which have been inflicted on Sir Grantley Adams in the last few months. Sir Grantley Adams, were he a member of this House, would be a distinguished and leading member of it, respected I am quite sure on both sides of the House as a man of infinite resource and a very wide mind. He particularly endeared himself to me by saying that he had been a wicket keeper when he played cricket and that he had founded his work on Strudwick. He could have taken no better example. I regret that anything should have arisen in the course of the last few months which should have caused him any personal pain in his public life and his relationships with this country, with this House and with this Government, so ably described by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South.
  This may have been a failure. I think the hon. Member for Tavistock will agree that when we met them in their Cabinet rooms both the Government of Trinidad and the Government of the Federation displayed towards one another, as well as towards us, ideal relationships of what a multi-racial government should be. I have confessed to this House before that when one went into the room one noticed the varying colours of the faces of those with whom one was conversing, but it was not very long before one had forgotten the colour and was listening to the argument. For this experiment to be written off now as a failure is probably to be too despondent. I certainly came away feeling that men and women there had displayed the kind of relationship to one another, both when they agreed and when they differed, which should have laid the foundation of a state in which all people could find a share.
  The hon. Member for Tavistock, Lord Crathorne and I were entertained by a man of Indian descent who was Minister
  924
  of Agriculture in Trinidad. He tested my digestive organs pretty severely when he provided us with armadillo as the principal dish at the luncheon. However, it was an interesting experience to go about with him. Some of the criticisms—made in the utmost good spirit—by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) did not appear to be quite justified by what we saw on that occasion. I think an earnest effort was being made on the farms to apply the lessons that were given in the various institutions established in the island of Trinidad and the advice given by those who came from the Government to help farmers in the development of ideas which they had been given.
  I hope there will not be too long a rest in the grave for the Federation, but that at an early date there may be some quickening again of the spirit which we had hoped would fulfil one of our country's great ambitions, to see a multiracial federation with islands separated by hundreds—and in some cases more than 1,000—miles of sea, united to provide a full and reasonable life for their people and to give them a place in the world which they deserve.
  We were gratified at the time to find that Canada was making valiant efforts to help the West Indies in sea transit. I hope that from Canada rather than from the United States that kind of co-operation will continue and will be enlarged, for these people intensely feel that they are Britons although they are of a different colour. They take their ideals of political, social and economic life from the experiences of this country. I should like to see them remain well within the Commonwealth and getting assistance not merely from us and Canada but from such other Commonwealth countries as can contribute to giving them a fuller life.
  7.16 p.m.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), in closing his speech, said that although he had had occasion to criticise the Government strongly he did not do so in a party spirit. I think that he has been proved right by the course which the debate has taken because it has provided the unusual picture of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) joining with my

  925
  hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and myself in our strictures on the Government. It has seen the equally charming spectacle of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) and the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) joining together to defend the Government against some of the criticisms which have been made about them.
  That is as it should be in this kind of debate, but I think there has been a general agreement among all who have spoken—perhaps to varying degrees—that this has been a rather sad debate in which everyone who has an affection for the West Indies and for their peoples has expressed a sense of disappointment however much they may have laced it with hopes for the future. It was, after all, in connection with the West Indies that what I suppose might be called the Whitehall end of the colonial revolution through which we are living actually had its birth.
  In the late thirties, as some of the older Members will remember, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) there were riots and troubles in the Caribbean. The Moyne Royal Commission was appointed. Its Report at the outbreak of the war shocked and shamed official opinion. It was felt that its exposure of poverty and neglect in the Caribbean was so likely to do so much damage to our war-time morale that its contents were actually suppressed until my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield became Colonial Secretary at the end of the war and ordered its publication.
  It was as a result of those events and that Report that the first Colonial Development and Welfare Act was passed by this House. It was partly due to those developments in the West Indies that the changed colonial policies of successive Governments in the postwar era had their beginning. We saw a new sense of responsibility both for the economic welfare of the Colonies which were dependent upon us and for advancing them as quickly as possible to full independence. Nowhere did these take place more quietly or with greater promise than in the West Indies. The West Indies set an enviable example
  926
  to other parts of the world in their lack of colour prejudice. They have shown themselves particularly loyal members of the Commonwealth, with a sense of patriotism at least as great as any that is found in this country, and they have been little islands of democratic reasonableness in an area where political fanaticism and dictatorship of various kinds is all too common.
  It is against this background that we must consider what has gone wrong with the efforts that have been made to create a unified Federation. It is easy, of course, to have hindsight in this matter but, in retrospect, it seems that the British Government foolishly tried to ride two horses at once, without realising that they were going in divergent directions. At the same time as we were encouraging federal independence we were promoting individual self-government for every single island. Some of them, like Jamaica and Trinidad, were powerful and self-confident in their own resources and felt, as we have seen, that they themselves could go it alone. Others of the islands, with populations varying between rural district councils and small boroughs, found themselves with the full flattering panoply of Cabinet Government.
  I do not underestimate the difficulties that successive Colonial Secretaries have found in creating a sense of nationhood in the scattered Caribbean area. Nor do I underestimate the difficulties that Sir Grantley Adams and the political leaders of the Federal Parliament found in undertaking some of their tasks. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton said that he believed that the prime responsibility for failing to make a go of the Federation lay with the political leaders of the West Indies, rather than with Her Majesty's Government here. I would not dissent from that general proposition, but we in this House have only the power to press the British Government, and it is their fault and defects and sins of omission to which we are bound to draw attention. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South in his strictures on the Government for the way in which they have behaved since Mr. Manley lost his referendum gamble in Jamaica. It would have been better if Her Majesty's Government, at that point, had conceded Jamaica's right to secession

  927
  in principle than to have told Mr. Manley that they felt it would be better to hold a federal review conference to work out the consequences of Jamaica's secession in greater detail. This would have helped to reduce misunderstanding.
  I understand the Government's reluctance about getting bogged down in yet another West Indies conference. Along with cricket, political conferences seem to be a national pastime in the West Indies, but the Government must face a conference on this this summer. My hon. Friend said that there would have been a better negotiating position had this conference been entered before the details of Jamaica's independence had been agreed to. The Minister replied by saying that my hon. Friend was unfair and the right hon. Gentleman urged him to look at the assurances that Mr. Manley gave during the course of the Jamaican independence conference. However, if the Minister will himself look at those assurances he will see that they were in very general terms indeed and that these matters need to be gone into in greater detail.
  As it is, the Government have tied themselves to a timetable and this has led to considerable misundertanding. It would, at least, have been better had the Government labelled their Bill differently and called it, perhaps, the "West Indies Transitional Measures Bill". That at least would have made it clear, like the South African Measure last year, that a standstill arrangement would prevail; that it was a temporary affair while a conference with the West Indian Governments was entered into and while new arrangements were made for the common services.
  Such an arrangement would have made clearer the sweeping powers contained in the Bill and shown that they were really necessary. However, while welcoming the Government's present intentions, we hope that, in Committee, they will feel able to make their point of view clear beyond doubt in the text of the Bill by accepting some of the Amendments we will move in an effort to clear up this point and that there will be adequacy of consultation with the various authorities in the West Indies.
  I must make it clear that while we feel that a strong obligation rests with the
  928
  British Government to engage in consultation all along the line with the West Indian authorities, there is, equally, a strong obligation on the West Indian leaders to consult among themselves. After all, one of the reasons this position has been reached is that there has been a failure in this respect.
  I should not like to speculate as to how long ago it was that Mr. Norman Manley, Mr. Eric Williams and Sir Grantley Adams talked these things over. I have memories of a dinner at which, I think, all three were present and I recall how we were able to keep the conversation going only by talking about cricket. So they have their responsibilities as well as Her Majesty's Government. It is important that these consultations should go on all the time, for a group of important questions regarding the future of the members of the Federal Civil Service remain outstanding. I understand that there are about 350 of these and there appears to be no question of what compensation they should receive or of alternative arrangements or posts for them. After all, they committed themselves to federation and their careers, as Federal civil servants—probably in the majority of cases—have been completely wrecked. They appear to have been left disgracefully in the dark as to the future by Her Majesty's Government as well as by the authorities in the West Indies. The Secretary of State appears to be shaking his head, but might I inform him that I received a letter the other day from the Federal Public Service Association which states:
  "To date, with dissolution day drawing closer, the staff have not been told of a scheme under which compulsory termination of appointments or absorption into other services will operate. … Perhaps, if there had been proper negotiations between the Association and those responsible for paying compensation (no one really knows who is responsible) something would have been known by now."
  The Federal Public Service Association may be wrong in the picture it has of the position and I should be grateful if the Minister would clear this up. They make that comment in perfectly good faith, and it is unfortunate that Federal civil servants should be left with these sort of feelings.
  Reading the exchanges in another place, one cannot help feeling that the Government are being very evasive

  929
  about this urgent problem. There seems to be a real danger that the Federal Government, the unit Governments and Her Majesty's Government are all trying to shift the responsibility on to each other's shoulders. The West Indian Governments have their responsibilities, but, in the end, the responsibility rests with Her Majesty's Government. It is only a few days since the Secretary of State brought in an Order in Council that allowed him to suspend the payment of compensation to Ministers and hon. Members of the Federal Parliament for their prospective losses. He was perfectly right to do so. It is obvious that he has the power to do that sort of thing and, in the end, it is his responsibility to make sure that these Federal civil servants are treated fairly and justly.
  I hope that they will be given a free choice as to whether they accept fair compensation or accept reabsorption in the public service somewhere in the Caribbean. Presumably some of them can be transferred straight to the common services organisation if these negations go well. There are, I believe, 52 Federal civil servants in the meteorological service. Some of them can be reabsorbed in the unit civil services from which they came. Mr. Norman Manley indicated during the independent negotiations that Jamaica could accept some responsibility for them. But, in fact, only 35 of the 350 civil servants come from Jamaica, according to my figures. The biggest number—182, or more than half of the total—come from Trinidad. This is a very large number, but it seems unlikely that they can be absorbed into the public service in Trinidad. Therefore, the question of fair compensation is a very real one, and it is very important that it should be cleared up before too much good will is lost. The good will of these civil servants will be an important element in making a success of future plans in the West Indies.
  A number of different suggestions have been put forward by various hon. Members during this debate as to what the future pattern ought to be in the Caribbean area. I can understand the Government being chary about committing themselves to any particular plan before knowing how acceptable it is to all the peoples in the area. A number of possibilities have been pretty fully
  930
  canvassed during this debate. In terms of economic welfare and political influence the best, of course, especially if it were still possible, would be to get a closely knit association between Trinidad and the other eastern Caribbean islands. The report of Professor Arthur Lewis, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), was initially written in the hope that that might be possible.
  Dr. Williams' suggestion of an association in a unitary state with Trinidad does not seem to have had more than a very limited attraction, and it therefore looks as if the real alternatives are a political federation of the little Eight and the grouping of some of the islands around Trinidad and the rest around Barbados. If so, it looks to me as though an association of the little Eight is much the more preferable one in the interests of the economic welfare of the peoples of the area, but if it is going to work it does mean a great deal of economic help from this country in order to get it off the ground.
  It would also, I think, need some economic help from the better-off islands like Trinidad and Jamaica, but I must confess that I am not unduly optimistic that that kind of help is going to come; but I think we ought to say plainly they ought to do it. The Governments of these islands are democratic, Socialist Governments of the same political complexion as the party sitting on this side of the House, and in many ways they are very good, admirable Governments, but their concept of mutual aid is not a very imaginative one, and I think it may take a long while to succeed in talking them into believing that they have an obligation to their neighbours in the Caribbean area—as well as the very real and historic obligation, of course, which we have in this country. One of the most unfortunate aspects of the present setback is in fact that economic developments are being held up in the really under-developed territories of the area. Trinidad and Jamaica are relatively highly developed compared with islands like Dominica, for instance, or islands like St. Lucia or Montserrat. One of the very useful things which came out of the July conference was the proposal that the Government would send as a matter of

  931
  urgency an economic mission to those smaller islands. They were able to announce that the Government of the United States had associated themselves with the sending of that mission. I should like to know from the Under-Secretary of State what has happened to this. I should like to know whether in fact it is still possible, in spite the change in the circumstances, to go ahead with any of the arrangements which were agreed at that stage. Certainly this scheme is a reason for proceeding with the setting up of whatever new form of government there is to be there as quickly as possible. We do not suggest, having complained about undue haste, that this should be done without properly taking account of all the factors, but it is important to see as quickly as possible what can be done, and to do it as quickly as possible.
  A number of hon. Members have objected to the fact that the Governments of these small island territories are greatly overloaded in terms of Ministers and Governors and so on. I think it is important to be clear about the nature of this problem. Professor Lewis, in his survey, has made it clear that the actual cost of this overheavy Ministerial set-up is very small and we are not going to save a great deal of money by that. The real objection to this panoply of government, as I have called it, is that it makes united action in government more difficult. That is the political objection. The economic objection is in terms of an over-staffed civil service, so that perhaps civil servants are being paid salaries which are at a higher rate than the economic resources of the islands would normally permit. It is there, perhaps, that some administrative economies could be made.
  I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said when he suggested that perhaps even more important than the actual form of government for the remaining territories of the West Indies Federation is the future of the common services themselves, and the degree of economic co-operation and association which can be arranged. It is very important to get this off to a good start. I hope the Government will respond to the appeal which my hon. Friend the Member for
  932
  Leeds, East made in his opening speech, that there should be effective consultation even during the interim period, and I wonder whether it might not be possible for some sort of advisory council during the interim period while the conference is taking place, and the various Governments concerned are making up their minds what the final form of the common services is to be.
  Like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields I should like to emphasise the importance of the university in the West Indies. I was very much impressed when I was there by the extent—and this is most important—to which it had a central part to play in creating the much-needed sense of West Indian nationhood. I hope that West Indian leaders can be persuaded to preserve it as an inter-Caribbean university, and perhaps adapting it to some of these arrangements, and perhaps to put it on a more economic basis, because it is expensive. I hope that the university may be a common responsibility. The British Government, I think, have already withdrawn financial support and Trinidad is, I think, much more interested in having a university of its own in Trinidad rather than supporting this as part of the common services. I think it would be most unfortunate if the present joint responsibility were to fall apart, and I hope very much that the university can be preserved on a Caribbean basis and that its very beautiful campus can continue to be used in training the leaders of the whole Caribbean area.
  If the common services organisation can be made an effective one, with hope of growth and development in the future, then it is possible that the West Indies, while abandoning the present Federation, may only have taken one step back in order to make several steps forward. An effective common services organisation can become an important instrument of Caribbean unity. Because it is looser and more flexible it may possibly embrace the co-operation of metropolitan countries like Canada and the United States.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) sounded a note of warning about this at the start and said we must be careful about the interests of the citrus industry in relation

  933
  to the American, but it is equally true that the sugar industry in the Caribbean area is threatened by disaster at the moment because of a lack of an effective agreement with the United States Government, and what we really want to do is to try to put the whole pattern of relationships between Canada, the United States and this country and the Caribbean territories within a different framework. I think it can, perhaps, be done within the Caribbean organisation which my hon. Friend spoke about. I think that is the hope we must preserve and work for all the time.
  In realising that hope the Government do start off with the handicap of mistrust which is partly of their own making. It is perfectly true, as I said at the beginning, that the West Indian politicians have a very heavy share of responsibility here, but the task of statesmanship by the British Government is to try to dissolve the mutual mistrust which exists in the West Indies as fast as they possibly can. I cannot help feeling that if the moderate, democratic politicians of the West Indies had enjoyed half the consideration and attention which the Government have recently shown to more extreme political figures of both colours in other parts of the world the Government would not have committed themselves to this half-thought-out timetable in this Bill. Nor would the Bill have to be the kind of blank cheque which inevitably lends itself to misunderstanding of what were the Government's real intentions. We hope that the Government will now try to make amends by showing how anxious they are to consult the West Indian Governments at all stages in the new arrangements, how concerned they are to preserve the degree of democratic advance which has been attained in the various territories, and how willing they are to be generous, both with compensation for civil servants and with economic help for the smaller islands.
  7.41 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): Without question we have had a debate which has been full of sound sense, though occasionally we have found strange alliances, such as that between such a distinguished Member of the Opposition as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and my hon. Friend the Member for
  934
  Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams). Still, throughout, this debate has shown the sincere wish of all those concerned to see that there should emerge from the West Indies over the years some new organisation or association of countries which will put what we have recently seen happen to federation into the remote and comparatively unimportant past. This should be the intention of all of us.
  I do not myself propose to add anything to the apportionment of blame which has been distributed fairly generously on both sides of the House, and which, of course, is being distributed with an ever growing generosity in the West Indies itself. I do not want to go any further except humbly to accept any blame which might be mine, and to wish well to all my friends, of whatever political persuasion, section or faction, in the West Indies.
  I should like to take up a remark by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), to which the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) gave a very quick response, on the question of the function of a Governor-General, or, indeed, of any person from outside who is not a member of or actual voter in the West Indian territories themselves. This is a strange tendency, with which I cannot find myself in accord. It is no longer a case in this day and age of trying to exercise dominion over palm and pine with a Governor-General directing what should or should not be done. I find it strange, coming from such a well-known liberally minded Member as the hon. Member for North-field, who suggested that this should be done. It is impossible in any way to separate the issue of federation from the desire and the will of the people themselves, and I would only add my tribute to those which have come from all sides of the House to Lord and Lady Hailes on the way in which they have discharged their duties.
  I am sure that this failure has been a disappointment to all of us here. It is a sorrow for many in the West Indies, and certainly it has come as a shock to many well-wishers in the United States of America and Canada who have put so much hope and faith into the Federation. I am afraid that of this there is no question. The problem which faces us now is what to do, and I think my right hon. Friend in his speech earlier today

  935
  delineated clearly what our tasks now are. I should, therefore, like to reply to some of the points which have been made by hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken.
  I believe that the essence of the problem, if it can be expressed in this way, is the need to build in the West Indies a federation of sufficient power and a Federal Government with sufficient strength to be effective. In purely economic terms, this is where the failure lies. Yesterday, the Federal Government had an income not drawn from anything except the mandatory levy, with no powers of taxation and living on the charity of the constituent parts, so that when circumstances changed and certain people said that they were no longer interested, automatically the Federal Government went by the board, and this must be understood in order to put matters in their proper perspective.
  It has been suggested that we could have done otherwise than we did. That may have been. Maybe, if we looked back into the past we could find errors that we committed, but I am quite certain that the Federation either had to expand into a real true force, the sort of thing we thought of in the May Conference last year, which would have given the Federation an income of 30 million dollars rising to 60 million dollars, or that it would inevitably fail. In this instance, what has failed is not so much the Government itself as the idea of federation, and I believe that this can be expressed, in economic terms, in a minimum income of 30 million British West Indian dollars, and that without this the idea of the Federation was bound to wither and diminish.
  Faced with this situation, we had to accept the referendum of the people of Jamaica. It has been suggested by various hon. Members that there were certain actions that we could have taken. It has been suggested that we should have called a conference at that very moment. It was perfectly impossible to call a conference of any value at that moment, when it was quite clear that Dr. Eric Williams was about to enter an election on 4th December, and, equally clear, that Sir Grantley Adams's reputation was about to be at stake in
  936
  an election which was to take place in Barbados on the same day. Once we got to this stage it would have been foolish for us to have intervened by proposing that another conference should be held. There has been an almost permanent series of conferences from 1958 to 1961, and always there were full attendances by British Colonial Office teams, not to rule but to advise, not to try to direct but to guide. Throughout these years there have been endless attempts on our side to give guidance and to offer consultation. I believe that it was inevitable, therefore, that when the "big two", providing more than 80 per cent. of the Federal Government's income, decided to come out, it was time for us to do something.
  I believe that this Bill, apart from the unpleasant things which it has to do, the special things and the consolidating things, preserves the vital functions of the common services organisation. This has been touched on by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and it is very important that we should understand precisely what is at stake. Firstly, we have an interim plan, which we are discussing now with the Governments concerned. It is an interim plan, and includes a budget which will be put to the Governments concerned, but a budget which will be much less than the present Federal budget. It will be agreed with the other Governments, and it will have to be agreed fairly shortly, but at this stage there is no need to have an interim council.
  In reply to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) who has done so much for the West Indies, who suggested that these interim organisations tend to drift on and that it was important to have proper representation, I would say that we can if such representation seems desirable provide for it by the wide powers in the present Bill. I believe that then we shall have to set up, as my right hon. Friend suggested, a permanent organisation, which will carry on, as one hopes, over the years, and will extend and will be a railway line to wider ideas, even if those wider ideas cannot be approached for several years to come. We hope to have this permanent organisation in operation around or before 6th August when Jamaica herself becomes independent.
  Mr. Sorensen: Can the hon. Gentleman give us some idea whether any kind of guarantee is being sought that the university will not be exclusively a Jamaican institution?
  Mr. Fraser: I apologise. I wanted to say something about that. The University College of the West Indies was set up by Royal Charter. It lies outside the scope of the Bill, and indeed largely outside the scope of the Federal Government. I understand that what the Federal Government does is to collect the various contributions made by individual members of the Federation. As far as we are concerned, and as far as we have influence, the University College should go on, because it is one of the most harmonising of all factors in the West Indies; and this is the will of this House and of many people in the West Indies. Nevertheless, there must be some local option. Trinidad for instance may wish to develop a college of her own. I am sure that the spirit of the college, led so ably by Dr. Lewis, will receive our support so far as is consistent with any powers we have.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) was in some difficulty about Clause I. So was I when I read it, but I have been in touch with my legal advisers. I am told that it deals with a comparatively simple point of the continuation of certain Acts passed by the Federal Government which, appropriately amended, are suitable for use in any new organisation. The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) asked about Clause 4. I understand that the hon. and learned Member is unable to be here. The two points are that there will be a new Supreme Court of Appeal for the West Indies and the two Courts of Appeal for the Windwards and the Leewards will remain. The point which the hon. and learned Member raised referred to a Court of Appeal which although it exists on paper has been defunct for several years.
  Mr. Graham Page: I think that the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North was to ask whether there would still be an appeal from whatever court is set up in the
  938
  West Indies to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
  Mr. Fraser: Yes, there will be. I thank my hon. Friend for deputising so ably for the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North.
  Mr. Page: I will not presume to do that.
  Mr. Fraser: As to the compensation scheme for officers of the Federal public service, the actual numbers involved vary slightly from those given in debate today. Only one figure stays in my mind at the moment. The people employed in the meteorological service number 78 and not 52 as has been stated today. Again speaking from memory, I believe that a number of the people in Trinidad are employed locally and are not people of enormous skills. There is nevertheless the problem of absorbing these people into a continuing organisation and of absorbing others into existing, or expanding, local services, and the problem of compensation for the others.
  Her Majesty's Government lay it down in Clause 3 that the Federation should make this a first charge. This is how the British Government always work in these matters. They always depend on the local Government to meet the sum required for compensation, for pensions, and so forth. Clause 3 provides for the appropriation of the quite considerable assets of the Government of the Federation and for the making of contributions by all or any of the Governments of the territories included in the Federation at the passing of the Bill. This must be a matter of negotiation for those concerned. There is the question of what is involved in assets and liabilities. If the assets and liabilities should prove to be disparate we are not precluded from making a contribution should the need be definitely and clearly shown.
  Various other points arise on the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) asked about our powers to make any changes. As was partially explained by my right hon. Friend, any question of independence for a territory will mean having a Bill before Parliament. Any change in Clause 6 will mean that we proceed by affirmative Resolution which can be prayed against. If the Federation is

  939
  divided into two or two islands are joined together, I give an assurance that this will be done by affirmative resolution and that we shall not act in these matters without the full knowledge of the House.
  Mr. Chapman: Is it not the case that under Clause 7 many decisions will not be subject to annulment? This point has puzzled me. Only new decisions which alter the existing Act of Parliament will be subject to annulment, but all sorts of other things can be done by Order in Council and there will be no means of praying against them. I do not understand why.
  Mr. Fraser: I will have a look at that between now and the Committee stage. Changes in relationships between the Islands may be prayed against.
  As for the economic situation, it is important to consider the aid we give in relation to our other commitments throughout the world. Aid in the form of grants-in-aid and C.D. and W. funds has been running at the rate of £5¾ million a year. It is therefore quite a considerable contribution from the taxpayers of this country. As hon. Members know, this grant-in-aid as it applies to the smaller islands, except Barbados, will have to be reviewed at the end of the year. The grant-in-aid for the Windward and Leeward Islands runs at £4 per head per year, which is high considering our large commitments in other areas.
  Various useful points have been made on the economic situation. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) made points of great value in our deliberations. Useful points were also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). The economic position will be of vital importance. I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) about the growing interest of Americans and Canadians in this area, but it will be idle to conceal that the failure of the Federation has naturally led to some diminution of interest in those countries.
  As for the future, we have before us three possibilities. There is the possibility of unions of some of the small
  940
  islands with Trinidad in a unitary state. There is the possibility of the federation of the Eight. There is the possibility of the smaller islands remaining under Colonial Office control. Of these three, we must aim to achieve that solution which is best in the interests of the Islanders themselves and of ourselves. This is why we are earnestly studying the report which reached us on 16th March. On that report we hope soon to reach a conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Caribbean Organisation. This, unfortunately, is a rather dormant body which seems to have had little growth in power or impetus of late. Nevertheless, there are abroad in the Caribbean ideas, whether from Dr. Williams, from Mr. Manley or from some of the new men like Mr. Barrow—a very remarkable man, in my opinion, who has appeared as Premier of Barbados—for wider things which could be done.
  I believe that what is being done now is realistic, and is, in fact, the only thing which we could do for the West Indies. Something has been going on over the years, and looking back over the long history of attempted federations in the area, which can be traced back to the 1880s, we have gained something, and some lessons have been learned. These people are now on the threshold of independence. Colder winds are blowing now that some measure of our support has been removed, and people will have to face political realities which, perhaps, they have never had to face before. In South America there were difficulties. Even in the Caribbean itself there are problems, and it is these problems which, on independence, the various countries will have to face. There will be no longer the sheltering hand, the inept arm of the Colonial Office, to help at the last moment. These problems will, I think, help people to concentrate their minds. Against them, there is the background of the new flow of ideas, the new desire for a wider and more effective West Indian nationhood.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. McLaren.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  WEST INDIES BILL [Lords]

    WEST INDIES [MONEY]
    [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
    Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
    [Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable provision to be made for the cesser of the inclusion of colonies in the federation established under the British Caribbean Federation Act, 1956, and for the dissolution of that federation and for matters consequential on the happening of either of those events (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), it is expedient to authorise—

    (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required by the Secretary of State for the purpose of making—

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

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

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

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

    Resolution to be reported.
    Report to be received Tomorrow.

  GENERAL GRANT
  8.4 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Dr. Charles Hill): I beg to move,
  That the General Grant (Increase) Order, 1962, dated 12th March, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.
  Section 1 of the Local Government Act, 1958, requires that the Order should be laid together with an Explanatory Report. This Report has been published as House of Commons Paper No. 135.
  As the House will know, when there are unforeseen increases in the level of prices, costs and remuneration, and where those increases have an effect on the cost to local authorities which appears to be so large that it ought not entirely to fall on the local authorities, Section 2 of the Local Government Act, 1958, enables the Minister to make an Order for the purpose of increasing the grants. This Order is subject to an affirmative Resolution.
  The General Grant Order, 1960, prescribed the aggregate amounts for the year 1961–62 and 1962–63. For 1961–62 the amount was £454 million, and for 1962–63 it was £472 million.
  The local authority associations concerned—the County Councils' Association and the Association of Muncipal Corporations—and the London County Council have made a statement to me of the items which they think should be taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the aggregates of the grants, together with estimates of the increases in costs. There have been the usual consultations with representatives of the local authorities about these items. The consultations have not yet been completed. They are for the most part complete, but on a number of items, one particularly, the consultations are not yet complete. So it is that the Order now before the House is essentially an interim Order.
  The Order has for its purpose to enable me to make agreed additional payments of grant for the year 1961–62 during that year—that is, before the end of the financial year in which the extra costs have had to be borne by the authorities. This Order, which expresses the

  943
  interim arrangements will be followed, when the consultations are complete, in the next few months, by a further Order which will bring together in a single document for the approval of the House an increased aggregate in respect of the year 1962–63 and any such further increase in respect of 1961–62 as may seem right in the light of the consultations still to be concluded.
  In practice, with the exception of one item, the second Order is unlikely to be affected more than marginally by the further consultations in relation to additional costs in 1961–62. Any disparity of view in the consultations has been slight. There is, however, one item which will have a marked effect in relation to 1961–62. It concerns the Education Bill now in another place, and, in particular, the proposed altered arrangements for awards to students.
  I should have wished to deal with this matter in the Order now before the House, but it has not been possible to do so. Until that Bill becomes law and gives me the necessary authority, as it will, for making additional general grants in respect of it, I am unable to include it in this Order. The matter will be dealt with in the Order to follow later in the year, though the House may be interested to know that there is no disagreement with the local authority associations on the amount of the estimated additional cost which is to be taken into account.
  A word now on the sharing out. The aggregate of the general grants is shared out between authorities by reference to the objective factors specified in the 1958 Act in accordance with the weightings for each factor prescribed in the 1960 Order. Any increase in the total aggregate grant makes it necessary to revise the weightings. These are designed to maintain, as far as possible, the same proportional distribution through the basic and supplementary grants as before. They will require further consideration when we come to the further Order which it is proposed to lay before the House in due course.
  In short, this Order is brought forward to ensure that the local authorities receive additional money during the present financial year. It will be overtaken later in the calendar year by an
  944
  Order which will not only cover such items as awards to students, but, if the current consultations, which are almost but not quite complete, in respect of the present financial year reveal that additional money should be included, it will cover such money also.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. James MacColl: When the General Grant Order, to which this is a supplement, was considered by the House in 1960, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said that it would enable us to see in advance the development which was planned and the cost which it would entail. That was rather a triumph of hope over experience. We have enough experience of the working of the general grant procedure to know that it is not possible to anticipate all expenditure and all costs in this way. Each time that we have considered these Orders we have had the same comment to make, namely, that, so far from having a once-for-all decision, we are getting, rather monotonously, supplemental grants arising. It is true that we did not have one, as far as I know, in 1961, but the right hon. Gentleman has promised us two in 1962 to make up for that. I suppose, therefore, that we can take it that, after we have approved a general Order, we shall have a supplementary Order virtually every year.
  The sooner that this Order is approved, the better. We are approaching the end of the financial year, and although local authorities, no doubt, have had a fair undertaking from the Minister that he has the support of his Whips and a majority in the House and therefore might reasonably expect these grants to be made, it is not until the final decision has been taken that they can be absolutely sure. For my part, I think that this is the least the Government could have done, and the sooner it is done the better.
  The Minister said that this was essentially an interim arrangement, made after the usual consultations. It would be interesting to know whether there was a wide range of difference between the original proposals of the local authorities and the proposals of the Ministry. Consultation can cover a lot of strong-arm tactics in achieving agreement. On the other hand, it may be that there was

  945
  virtually very little difference. We gather that there was a certain amount of difference in one field, but whether that means that there was very little difference in other fields I do not know.
  May I make one rather technical complaint? I do so as an individual struggling to understand these things, and it may be that I am being unreasonable. Under the original General Grant Order, the estimated expenditure on which the grant was based was analysed according to services—education, local health, welfare, and so on. This appears in Appendix A of the 1960 Report. It is most important that statistics should be, as far as possible, uniform and easily comparable. If they are not, they simply irritate people and waste a lot of time.
  The estimates of additional expenditure are not analysed according to services. It does not require very much intelligence to realise that the Burnham award to teachers is falling on the educational services, or that the fire brigade increases are also falling on a specific service. But when it comes to awards to manual workers and other increases in costs and pay it is difficult to know to what extent they are spread over the different services in respect of which grant is made. It would help us to appreciate the effect of these increases if they were analysed.
  One important item is the increase in loan interest rates. We on this side have said enough—there is no need to say it all again—about what we think of the Government's policy on loan interest rates. It would be interesting to know, although unreasonable to ask the right hon. Gentleman to forecast, what will happen in the second Order. Will there be a further interest rate increase in the second Order, or, as a result of the fall in Bank Rate, are the rates at which local authorities are borrowing likely to fall?
  That is something which covers a very wide field of capital expenditure, but I presume that it does not cover capital expenditure on housing. That is one of the difficulties created by not having the figures split up. I assume that, as housing is excluded from the general grant, increases in rates of interest on housing loans are not included in this figure. A speech by me on the effect of increases in rates of interest, although it is a subject of absorbing interest to the
  946
  House and to me, would not be relevant this evening. Are these increases falling mainly on the schools or on highways?
  When we are asked to approve a grant of this kind, it is desirable to know in respect of which services these increases are being made. It would answer a question about which I have been wondering, namely, weighting. On the face of it, it is absurd that, in making an additional grant of over 50 per cent. in respect of the increase in teachers' salaries, that grant should be distributed by weighting for old people and children under school age. That is a rather odd way of distributing it. I should like to know how supple and flexible is the formula in ensuring that this increase in grant goes to the authorities whose expenditure is being increased as a result of their educational activities.
  I can see certain difficulties. We were told in the 1960 Report—and the Government ought to have been ashamed to say it—that at a time when we were desperately starved of teachers, the Government were budgeting for a reduction next year in the supply of teachers. Presumably that will affect the next supplementary grant, not this. But not only is there an absolute shortage of teachers; in certain areas there is an acute local shortage, and there has to be rationing and quotas for teachers to try to secure a more even distribution. To base the grant on a notional calculation of the population in terms either of children or of adults, when the teachers are not distributed evenly over the country, cannot be satisfactory. There will be an additional amount for authorities which are short of teachers, for they will get a little more grant than they would normally expect. Alternatively, in areas with more teachers, and consequently paying a higher salaries bill, a smaller share of the grants will be paid than would be expected.
  Slowly, but nevertheless surely, the percentage of grant which is being paid on expenditure is falling. With the original General Grant Order in 1958 there was published an interesting table showing the percentage of expenditure met by the grant. In 1958–59 the proportion was 56·4 per cent. When the general grant began, it dropped to 55·5 per cent. It remained at 55·5 per cent. for 1960, but if my logarithms are correct it has fallen now below 55·5 per cent. as a result of the fact that the

  947
  amount which has been added to the supplementary grant is proportionately slightly less than the increase in expenditure.
  I do not want to exaggerate the importance of so small a reduction, for a reduction of 0·1 per cent. on a grant does not sound very much. But it means that on every £1 million of expenditure the Government, by a little dexterous manipulation of figures, are dropping their grant by £1,000, which is a significant amount in terms of rates and rate products.
  It is even more galling for local authorities when, as in this case, the substantial burden of the increase is falling on education. Some of these services were working on the basis of a 50 per cent. grant when percentage grants were given, but education worked on an average of about 60 per cent. It was not a flat percentage grant, because there was a formula, but the average was about 60 per cent. In other words, authorities which are receiving this extra grant to meet increases in teachers' salaries might have expected under the old percentage system to get a grant of 60 per cent. but in fact they are getting slightly under 55 per cent. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that when the Government produce their further grant covering the next financial year and tidying up a little on this year, any errors of that sort will be corrected, so that the Government's share will be slightly more than their absolute mathematical minimum rather than slightly less?
  The Government are rather like an unpopular grocer who sells a commodity in terms of weight and, when he finds it a little overweight, or, as in this case, a little underweight, takes a little off or puts a little more on, with the result that the customer pays a little more in proportion than he would pay if he had been give what he ordered. I suspect that the Government are being rather niggling with local authorities about this Order, and we want an assurance that these grants will be calculated and interpreted generously.
  The amounts upon which the Order is paid are too small. I do not want to anticipate tomorrow's debate, but we think that the figures being paid in
  948
  respect of nurses, teachers and other services are much too small and that the expenditure ought to be greater. We think that the grant ought to be greater in absolute terms, because of the extra costs, and also relative to the amount which is falling on the local authorities.
  While we must support the Order and see it through as quickly as possible, we express our complete difference of view on the working of the grant and the effectiveness of the grant as a flexible instrument of control. We regret that it is not larger and that the amount of expenditure upon which it is based is not also larger.
  8.27 p.m.
  Mr. James Boyden: Local authorities suffer from two particular difficulties: their rates are very inflexible and they have certain difficulties in explaining to their electorate their policies which partly result from the rating system. This Order does nothing to make their problem any simpler. It is a model of uncertainty and of lack of clarity. I do not know how an ordinary councillor, sitting on the finance committee, can be expected to assist in formulating a forward-looking estimate and budget when the Government take three bites at the apple in the course of the year, when they are not certain of the weighting of the figures which will be produced and when they have to have two discussions with local authority associations in the course of the year to settle the figure.
  This is one of the difficulties of local government. More and more the financial decisions are passing into the hands of treasurers and more and more the Government are getting what they originally wanted when they set out the General Grant Order—control of the total amount, irrespective of the sort of services which were to be developed. They are putting on local authorities the odium of rising expenditure.
  Last week, in a Written Question, I asked the Minister for Education for some data about educational expenditure because I wanted to see how the general grant, of which this is the next Order, was working in respect of the weight on particular local authorities for particular functions. I asked for the total amount awarded by local authorities for university awards, and the percentage for each

  949
  local authority of its total budget; the same for further education awards; the same for maintenance awards; and the same for teachers' salaries. I hope that the House will bear with me while I explain what these results lead me to conclude, and perhaps I can give some supporting evidence for my conclusions. This Order specifically exempts the current Education Bill from its operation, which is a sign of the sloppiness of the Government.
  Dr. Hill: The Government have no power to include it until the Education Bill becomes law.
  Mr. Boyden: If the Government's timetable had been right they would have introduced the Bill earlier and would have given more consideration to the Opposition, who would have helped to get the Bill earlier. The Government would then have been able to bring the Bill and the Order forward at a more convenient moment.
  It is interesting that with university awards the Minister originally relied on local education authorities to produce a more uniform system. During the discussions in Standing Committee, the right hon. Gentleman several times, or perhaps it was the Parliamentary Secretary—because the right hon. Gentleman was more absent than present—complimented the local authorities on bringing up the awards to a more uniform standard. The purpose of the Bill is to make university awards mandatory and uniform.
  It happens that the university awards, of the three categories of expenditure which I have taken as examples, are the most uniform. The average expenditure for local authorities in the country is 2·1 per cent. of local education authority budgets. The lowest burden on a local authority is half that figure and the highest is twice that figure. In other words, in the area of local education authority expenditure, where the Minister is most concerned about uniformity, the range of variation of burden on local authorities is no more than four times.
  I will give examples of some of the authorities which spend higher and lower proportions of their budgets in this way. The authorities are not taken at random, and I think that these examples give a better impression than general averages. The highest spenders from their budgets
  950
  are Cheshire 3·2 per cent., Devon 3·1 per cent., Blackpool 3·2, Darlington 3·3, Southport 3·1, Wallasey 3·3 and Bournemouth 3·5, and half the Welsh counties spent more than 3 per cent. Those are authorities for which university awards are the biggest burden in their budgets. I cannot say what the correlation is between their services, but those authorities are the ones that have spent more proportionately from their budgets than others do. Among the lower categories are Canterbury 1·3 per cent., Birmingham 1·2, Salford and West Bromwich 1, Bedford 1·8, Essex 1·7, and Nottinghamshire and Wiltshire 1·3.
  Here is a service which the Minister wants to make uniform throughout the country, not precisely at this moment, because the Minister will bring in another General Grant Order to put this right. We have here, as I have pointed out, a range of variation of four times in the burden placed upon local authorities. Surely in the current situation the Government ought to be doing more to level up the burden.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be going a little wide. It would help me if he would show how he relates his remarks to the Order before the House.
  Mr. Boyden: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My case is that one of the functions of the Government should be to make the burden upon local authorities more uniform. The increased grants are an attempt to ease the burden on local authorities. The Government have taken into account rises in prices and salaries, and have had discussions with local authorities to decide the most equitable arrangement before bringing out the Order. My case is that the Order does not go far enough. My figures are based on the similar system which has been operating. I understand that the present Order is no different in principle from other Orders. I am trying to establish that the system will not work out fairly for local authorities and that the burden will be very unequal as between them.
  In respect of university awards the burden is more equally spread than in other examples which I shall give. In respect of further education, the Opposition have been pressing very hard for

  951
  the same mandatory powers such as the Minister wanted for university awards. The situation there varies from 1 to 80. I admit that this is a bit of a statistical freak. When one is working with smaller figures, a low figure and a high one will produce such an exaggerated effect. However, even if one makes allowance for that, the average expenditure in the country is 0·79 per cent. and the lowest spending authority on further education awards spends one-fortieth of that and the highest spending authority twice that figure.
  This may have an effect on actual awards. It may be that geography is extremely important for a person who wants to have a further education award. Apart from that, the unequal way in which the General Grant Order has been working in this sphere where the local authorities have discretion—the "glorious freedom" of the Minister of Education and the Minister of Housing and Local Government—shows a very great range of burden on authorities.
  The highest burdens are: Cornwall and the Isle of Wight 1·9 per cent., Bournemouth the same, and Plymouth 1·4, and half the Welsh authorities have more than 1·6 per cent. The Welsh come very well out of all these statistics. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will derive satisfaction from this as a result of the other post which he occupies. The lowest authorities include Northumberland 0·03, Northamptonshire 0·22, Bootle 0·02 and Norwich 0·04.
  In maintenance allowances—where the Minister of Education says that everything in the garden is lovely—we find that the average expenditure is 0·13 per cent. and that the lowest spender spends one-sixth of that amount and the highest spender double. There is therefore a variation of 10 or 12 times in the burden on local authorities. Examples include Durham 0·22, East Suffolk 0·24, and East Riding 0·25. Half the Welsh authorities are more than 0·25. In the lowest categories are Cheshire, Leicestershire and Salford 0·04, Peterborough, Staffordshire, Chester and Coventry 0·03, and Warwickshire, 0·02.
  The general picture is that loan charges make up 9·2 per cent. of the average budget of local education autho-
  952
  rities. All this expenditure on maintenance allowances in secondary schools and on further education and university awards, amounts to 3·02 per cent. In other words, the hand of the past weighs more heavily by three times than the hand of the future—three times more than the awards to the bright young generation on whom local authorities and the Government should be spending the maximum amount.
  My criticism of this Order and of the system of which it is part is that it does nothing to redress the balance between these wide variations. Loan charges of local education authorities amount to £60 million per annum and awards of this description total £19¼ million. The situation in relation to maintenance allowances has practically broken down. Time and time again, when discussing this matter during the passage of the Education Bill and at other times in the House, the Minister of Education has rested very comfortably on what the local authorities are doing and on his case that the standard of living has risen and that maintenance allowances are hardly necessary. Again I stress that the general grant is doing absolutely nothing about this situation.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting very wide of the Order. He cannot deal with general principles. He must bring his argument to the provisions of the Order.
  Mr. Boyden: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. But the Explanatory Report refers to an increase in interest rates on loans, and one finds that this Order is an effort to help local authorities to cope with the effects that the high interest rates are having.
  Again, I can only speak in relation to education, for I have not the figures for housing or for the acquisition of land, but I find, on looking again into the past, and referring particularly to the Welsh authorities—which have been very forward-looking in the granting of education awards—that there is a direct correlation between low loan charges on an authority and the amount of awards it has been able to make. I picked out from last year's figure four Welsh authorities and we get a quite surprising correlation.

  953
  The County of Caernarvon, with a loan percentage of its budget at 6·3 per cent.—which compares with the national average of 9·2 per cent.—is making university and further education awards and maintenance allowances at a total of 5·4 per cent., which is twice the national average. It is the same sort of story which Carmarthen, whose loan charges are 6 per cent. and awards 5 per cent. Merioneth has loan charges of 6 per cent. and awards of 5·8 per cent., and Merthyr Tydvil has 5·7 per cent. loan charges with awards at 4·8 per cent.
  There is a very strong connection between the way in which these loan charges fail to give an impetus to local authorities. They do not give the right incentive which would mean a more equal percentage throughout the country, with the emphasis on the right sort of things that a forward-looking Government would want.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. A. E. Cooper: It is really disgraceful that when we are discussing an item of very nearly £500 million there is not one member of the Liberal Party present. One would have imagined that this party which claims to represent even a minimum proportion of the people at this time would at least have some interest in local government affairs. We can only hope that the country will take note that Liberal Members are so far removed from the realities of the situation that they do not even bother to take part in debates in this House.
  Nobody would pretend that the present general grant system was perfect. There are obvious difficulties in various constituencies. In my own there is a very high rateable value upon which the grant is based, but the actual rateable value of the property is not necessarily a strict criterion of the ability of the people who live in that property to pay the rates which are being demanded upon it.
  We have a very considerable old-age pension population in my constituency. Any increase in rates does not directly fall upon their shoulders because they can go to the National Assistance Board and the extra is covered in that way. So one has to regard this matter in this way: what actually falls upon the individual ratepayer and how much is paid
  954
  by the taxpayer through increases in National Assistance subventions?
  I have some Questions down to my right hon. Friend tomorrow dealing with the increase in grant consequent upon the increase in teachers' salaries. I should like to draw his attention to the speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when the general grant system was introduced. We were certainly promised that any increases of this category would be fairly met by the Exchequer. What we have to consider tonight is whether the increase of £13 million fairly represents the increase which the Exchequer should bear in respect of the increase in teachers' salaries.
  In fact, it represents about 20 to 25 per cent. That is a little niggardly. The Exchequer should be bearing rather more than 20 to 25 per cent. of this item. There are other items which have to be considered, and I ask my right hon. Friend to give special attention to this point in the next year or so.
  The Questions I have asked him relate to the increase in the interest debt incurred by local authorities year by year. Local authorities generally seem to tend to borrow and thereby incur an increase in their debt liability, whereas some increase in the basic rate over a period of years to cover items of at least small sums of money, which are normally met by borrowing and which be met by revenue, would reduce the burden upon the ratepayers. Local authorities generally seem to tend to take the line of least resistance and to borrow as hard as they possibly can. It will be interesting to see my right hon. Friend's answers tomorrow when we shall see the net annual increase of debt incurred by local authorities year by year.
  Basically, the general grant principle contains an element of fairness, but one has to recognise that counties differ in the number of new people going to them, how close they are to the conurbation of London, and so forth. Ilford is in Essex, a county of particular difficulty. The population of the county has increased enormously in the last few years and there is little ground to suppose that that increase will lessen. In consequence, ratepayers in the county are faced with an abnormal increase in rates for the provision of new schools and the general

  955
  social services for which my right hon. Friend is responsible. Something has to be done for these counties where a special problem exists.
  It is no use hon. and right hon. Members opposite and on this side of the House claiming that teachers' salaries have to be increased and more schools provided, there is no point in ratepayers' associations and the general public claiming that more and more teachers have to be provided and greater salaries paid to produce the number of teachers we need, unless they are willing to foot the bill. We have to face the fact that the general increase in rates this year is largely the result of the general increase in teachers' salaries and additional payments for the provision of schools, university buildings and so on.
  This is the sort of thing which must inevitably go on. What we have to do over the next year or two is to make up our minds fundamentally how much of this great increase in expenditure on education has to be met by the Exchequer and how much can properly be met by the ratepayer. My view is that we have reached the limit, having regard to the old-age pensioners and persons living on fixed incomes. It is impossible for us to expect any more from this section of the community.
  Mr. Boyden: Is the hon. Member aware that in their estimates for the coming educational year several county councils have reduced the number of teachers they require because of the problem of finance?
  Mr. Cooper: I read a report in one of tonight's newspapers that one county had done that. The fact remains that our population is increasing at an alarming rate. I wonder whether you will permit me to make this point without calling me to order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Our school population has increased by more than 2 million since 1945, and is expected to increase by at least another 1½ million by 1970. These are astronomical figures, considered in relation to our resources. We must seriously consider how the education service, to mention only one service, is to be financed in the future.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is going much too wide. He cannot go into the question of general policy. He must come back to the terms of the Order.
  Mr. Cooper: Far be it from me to quarrel with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I would draw your attention to the fact that this Order covers a wide range of subjects. It relates to the expenditure by Her Majesty's Government of no less a sum than £467 million this year. It involves almost the whole of our local government services
  Although I approve of the general grant principle, because it is important that local authorities should have the absolute right to say how they should dispose of the money they receive from the Treasury, the responsibilities that are being imposed upon them year by year are growing out of all recognition, and it is becoming impossible for many local authorities to meet their additional responsibilities.
  Although we shall approve the Order, and local authorities will be grateful for this extra money, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not overlook the fact that we have reached the breaking point in the ability of ratepayers to meet the ever-increasing burdens being imposed upon them.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mrs. E. M. Braddock: My contribution is rather in the nature of a query. I have been looking at the terms of the Order, and I should like to know whether, when discussing these matters, the local authorities made any reference to the need for an additional grant in respect of the mental health service. If the Minister can tell me that the discussions which have taken place with the municipal corporations have embodied the question of the new mental health service, or that future discussions will do so, I shall be glad. This is an almost completely new service for local authorities, and it brings with it many additional requirements.
  When I asked a question previously on the matter I was told that the grant was two-and-a-half times the amount spent during the financial year 1957–58. The Royal Commission went into this matter very carefully. On the question of cost, it thought that it would be necessary for a percentage grant of 75 per

  957
  cent. to be made to local authorities over a period of approximately ten years to enable them to provide the services necessary under the new Mental Health Act. That recommendation was not included in the Act.
  The amount required by local authorities for mental welfare services is included in the general grant. The reason why local authorities are not generally meeting the additional requirements for the provision of mental welfare services is mainly that of finance. I would have thought that in the general grant provision would have been made for additional allowances for this purpose.
  If the Minister can say that in the next general grant local authorities will be granted additional expenditure to provide the mental welfare services necessary, I am quite prepared to leave the matter there at the moment. I hope, however, that this matter will not be overlooked, because I can assure the Minister that the amount being allowed at the moment is quite insufficient to enable local authorities to provide these services for younger people who are mentally subnormal and for people coming out of hospital who require these services. Until such time as extra finance is provided for the local authorities we shall not get the services required for mental welfare.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. F. Blackburn: I think that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) said that the local authorities were reaching the limit of what they could afford to pay at the present time, and no matter how large the general grant happened to be it would still not be enough to meet the heavy expenditure which the local authorities were having to bear. Rates are the most unfair system of taxation there is. Therefore, unless the Government are prepared to look into that problem there will be general dissatisfaction with the general grant.
  Since I was Chairman of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill which became the Local Government Act, 1958, I have never had the opportunity of expressing my views about the general grant. If you are worried in case I intend to express them tonight, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I assure you that
  958
  I shall delay doing so until some other occasion. This grant, although very welcome to local authorities, is still not enough to meet the heavy increase in expenditure which local authorities are having to bear. I do not wish to go into detail, but perhaps I may give an example to show what is happening.
  In my constituency every local authority is having a great struggle to prevent any increase in the rates. I live in an area which is not ruled by a "wicked" Labour-controlled council—there is only one Labour member and he was elected this year for the first time. When I first came to live there five years ago the rate was 18s. 6d. in the £. This year it will be increased by 4s. 6d., bringing it to a total of 27s. 9d. in the £. This means that in less than five years there has been an increase in the rate of nearly 10s. in the £. That increase, I suppose, would have taken place whether under the old system of percentage grants or under the present system of a block grant. But it is evidence of the fact that unless we have some new system of rating we shall find ourselves having to adopt a system of P.A.Y.E. for rates as well as for Income Tax.
  I see that the Burnham award to teachers gives an increase in the award for payment of salaries for teachers of £12½ million. The hon. Member for Ilford, South was wrong when he said that that would meet only 20 per cent. of the increased cost of teachers' salaries. The £42 million granted to the teachers was for a whole year and salaries have not been paid for the whole year. So I presume that we can say that this is the Government equivalent of what should take place.
  The increase in interest rates and charges takes £2·14 million. The Government always say that they cannot give the same rates of interest to local authorities, that they cannot insulate local authorities against a general increase in rates throughout the country. They do it in another way by making it an item in the general grant. I think that often we should find ourselves in a much happier position if, with a lower interest rate, there were less necessity for including it in the general grant.
  The trouble is that the Government are continually increasing the burden on local authorities. I know that is not included in this grant at present because

  959
  it has not been dealt with by the House of Lords, but I quote it as an example of what is happening. The grants which have to be made to students are put on the local authorities as a burden. Why should not the Government take over the payment of the grants instead of imposing the burden on local authorities? Then there would not have to be a supplementary order to get some contribution towards the increased burden which local authorities have to bear in the future. It should be central Government expenditure and not one for the local authorities.
  Since there is to be an increased grant to local authorities we can only welcome this Order. But I think the time is coming when the Government will have to consider in serious detail not only the matter of the general grant but the whole question of local government finance and how it is to be raised. Consideration will have to be given not only to the question of grants from the central Government but to whether some new system should be devised to ease the burden which at present falls only on certain people who live within the area of a certain local authority.
  I am sure that the Minister would agree that a detailed examination of the present rate system would reveal it to be most unfair. I realise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that that matter does not come within the confines of this debate. I am merely trying to link the question of the size of the grant with the burdens being placed on local authorities. I hope the Minister will look seriously at both problems and not merely the problem presented by the general grant.
  9.3 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): We have had an interesting debate which has shown that there is general agreement that this Order ought to be approved. A number of wider issues have been raised which I think it would not be appropriate for me to go into deeply this evening. But also there are a number of specific points on this Order with which I will deal to the best of my ability.
  A number of hon. Members opposite followed the lead given by the hon.
  960
  Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and suggested that in some way the Government were seeking to reduce their share of the burden of the increasing expenditure being incurred by local government to provide increasingly better services. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) went further and said that the Government were deliberately trying to throw on to local authorities all the odium of increased expenditure. Those allegations are not borne out in any way by the history of the general grant, nor indeed by the Order we are considering this evening.
  I think it only fair to recall that the first 1958 Order fixed the general grant figure of £393 million for 1959–60 and £414 million for 1960–61. There was in 1959 an increase Order which increased those figures to £402 million and £429 million respectively. In the event the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Accounts for 1959–60 showed that the expenditure of local authorities fell below the estimate by £16 million, which meant in effect that they received £9 million more than their expenditure warranted. We make no complaint about that. It is one of the purposes of the general grant policy that local authorities should be encouraged to get the full benefit of saving they make, but it is also fair to say that this shows that we have not been ungenerous in the approach we have made to the estimates put forward by local authorities.
  Mr. Boyden: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman saw the article in Education by the Secretary of the Association of Education Committees in which he pointed out that the arrangement of the general grant had had a damping down effect on local authorities so that the net result was that they could not spend up to these total general grants because they had to economise falsely?
  Mr. Rippon: I do not think the hon. Member can say that local expenditure has been damped down and at the same time that it has been rising greatly. Here again, contrary to expectations voiced by some critics at the time, the share of local authority expenditure on education has not fallen as a result of it being changed from a specific to a general grant. I do not think there is very much force in that argument.

  961
  The 1960 Order provided for a grant in 1961–62 of £454 million and in 1962–63 of £472 million. This Order puts up the figure for 1961–62 by £13 million to £467 million. As my right hon. Friend has explained, there will be a further increase Order to tidy up both small items under dispute and the much more substantial figure of the grant in relation to the cost of the Anderson Report recommendations when the Education Bill goes on to the Statute Book. I think the figures show that the grants from the central Government have contributed an increasing percentage to local authorities, certainly much higher than before the war. For the period 1950–60 Government grants as a percentage of local Government expenditure rose from just under 53 per cent. to 55·9 per cent. As a result of this Order the same percentage is broadly kept.
  The hon. Member for Widnes asked if the effect of the Order was to reduce the Government's percentage contribution. It is true that it falls very marginally as a result of this Order, but that is entirely due, I understand, to questions of rounding off. When the next Order is made the proportion will be altered again. The main factor in that will be the effect of the Education Bill. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) implied that this would quite unfairly put an increased burden on local authorities. It should be understood, as has been made clear in debates on the Bill, that the general increase Order will provide for a 100 per cent. reimbursement of the expenditure falling on local authorities as a result of the implementation of the awards to students. That will alter the proportion of the grant to the total expenditure of local authorities to some extent.
  The hon. Member for Widnes asked some questions about the distribution formula.
  Mr. MacColl: Before the hon. Gentleman gets on to distribution, may I ask him a question? He has quoted some absolute figures but I was not arguing that the absolute size of the general grant has risen. Obviously it has because expenditure has risen, but I quoted the percentage figures from the general Order of 1958 to show that the proportion
  962
  met by grant had fallen from 56·4 per cent. in 1958–59 to something under 55 per cent. now. That was precisely the point which I thought he agreed. He said that this was just rounding it up. I am asking for an undertaking that next time he will round it up and not down.
  Mr. Rippon: One must deal with each Order on its merits. The percentage varies and it will obviously be altered next time by giving effect to a grant which has regard to 100 per cent. of expenditure on a particular item. I was saying that if one looks at this between 1950 and 1958 one finds that not only has the Government's contribution gone up but it has also gone up when expressed as a percentage of total local government expenditure. This Order brings it down to 55·4 per cent. None of the statistics which we bandy across the House can, perhaps, be compared easily, like with like.
  Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the year 1950. There seems little point in taking a figure for 1950 and another for this year. I am comparing the figure before the general grant was introduced and the figure which exists now. The hon. Gentleman's own figures—and I admit that I have not done a lot of homework on this—show that under the percentage grant there was an increase in the percentage and that, since then, the figure has tended to drop.
  Mr. Rippon: I think that it was fair for me to take a broader picture covering a decade. I have been saying that the effect of this General Grant (Increase) Order will be a marginal reduction in the proportion of grant, that is not very substantial and, further, that it will be altered by the next increase Order. Broadly, as a percentage, it is fairly constant now at 55·4 per cent. Perhaps it will be up a little next year. There is no suggestion in any of these figures that, as an act of deliberate policy, the Government are trying to reduce their share of total local government expenditure.
  This is worked out with the local authorities in relation to particular circumstances and services. As between one year and another there may be a variation upwards or downwards. Taken over a period of years the graph has moved steadily upwards and has remained fairly steady over a considerable

  963
  period. One cannot anticipate exactly what the future may hold, but all that has happened should be sufficient assurance for hon. Members and local authorities to know that future amounts will be fixed after discussions with the local authorities and others concerned on a fair and reasonable basis.
  It is reasonable for hon. Members to remember that the Order has been agreed with the local authorities associations. There is no dispute about any of the figures of the Order. Such small items as remain in dispute will be dealt with in the later Order which will be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the Education Bill, assuming that, in due course, they are enacted.
  On the distribution formula, as the hon. Member for Widnes knows, we carry out the mathematics in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 (2) and Part III of the First Schedule to the 1958 Act. There is no dispute about this, for it has the desired effect of distributing in the most equitable manner the increase which results from the Order.
  Regarding interest rates, this does not cover housing, which is dealt with under a different provision. The greater percentage of the £2·14 million referred to is attributable to education, which accounts for £1·973 million. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland asked if this covers the full cost. It certainly covers the increased cost of charges through higher interest rates and, in so far as local authorities have agreed to the figure, it must be assumed that they accept that that figure represents the additional cost.
  A number of hon. Members went a little wider and talked about interest rates and the loan burden in the general sense. I do not think I can go into that tonight. I think most Members of the House accept that local authority borrowing rates must be influenced by general market conditions, but increased costs in respect of loan charges do not result simply from movements of exchange rates. They result also from the very great expansion of local authority borrowing which has taken place as a result of Government policies which have resulted in the expansion and the betterment of services.
  964
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) raised specifically a point about the mental health service. The additional cost due to expansion of the mental health service under the Act is not taken account of in this increase Order. As I think she recognised, the power to make an increase Order is only for increases in costs attributable to services within the grant period. This was debated when the 1958 Bill was going through and an Amendment to what is now Section 2 (4) was defeated. The local authorities associations, I think accept this, albeit, no doubt, reluctantly, but, of course, they argue conversely, that if there is a contraction in the services in a period that should not be taken into account. That issue, no doubt, will come up again from time to time. Certainly increased costs of development of services can be and will be taken into account in the next Order.
  Mrs. Braddock: Does that mean that the mental health services will be taken into account in the next Order specifically?
  Mr. Rippon: In the next general Order.
  The hon. Member for Widnes asked for a detailed analysis of increases between services. This was not done for the 1959 increase Order. The amounts are really very small by comparison with the total relevant expenditure. The fact that we have not done it before does not necessarily mean that we ought not to do it in future. I would certainly undertake to consider this point before any further increase Orders are introduced.
  Finally, the hon. Member for Widnes wanted to know what the agreed difference was between what the local authorities estimated and what the Government have accepted for grant purposes in this Order. The reduction in fact is £3·15 million. The original estimate was £27·23 million. The greater part of this reduction results from information which was not available when the local authorities made their estimates. They made their estimates entirely in good faith. As time goes on and the increases are carried forward it will be possible to make more accurate assessments of

  965
  the increase in costs. The reduction is largely attributable to this amendment in the estimates.
  I think that the crucial point about this Order is that agreement has been reached between the Government and the local authorities. This represents something accepted by all parties, and it is in that spirit that the House can also accept it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the General Grant (Increase) Order, 1962, dated 12th March, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.

  GENERAL GRANT

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RECORDS) [MONEY]
    Resolution reported,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the functions of local authorities with respect to records in written or other form, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums so payable by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.
    Resolution agreed to.

  CHILDREN'S TEETH
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
  9.19 p.m.
  Mr. John Howard: At a time when the link between smoking and lung cancer is under scrutiny, it is perhaps appropriate that the House should consider the only other condition which is steadily winning the battle against modern science. I refer to the question of decay in children's teeth, and decay also in the teeth of adults. Caries, to give the technical name to decay of teeth, is widespread, and becomes more serious each year.
  Undoubtedly, a large proportion of the population suffers from dental caries, and a very much larger proportion indeed than at any other time in our history. Unfortunately, and this is the subject of tonight's debate, a very large
  966
  proportion of these people are children. This is an entirely preventable disease, and it is making Britons, including the children of Britain, the wearers of false teeth.
  I will set out quite briefly the background to this debate, which I shall tell the House originated in Southampton. I was asked to meet local members of the dental profession, and these dentists were so concerned about the position and so convinced of the need to publicise the strong views they held on the scourge which they contend threatens to overwhelm the dental profession that not only did they give me an extremely good dinner, but also put on for my benefit a display of the most horrific slides. These slides were in colour, and they showed the distressing condition of children, many of them under the age of ten, who not only lost their first teeth from the ravages of caries, but whose second teeth were also irreparably damaged. The slides demonstrated that many children at the ages of 12 and 13 were condemned to wear dentures simply because at that tender age there was no treatment possible other than the extraction of a mouthful of decaying teeth.
  In the opinion of the dentists of Southampton and district, the extent of dental caries is so great that the problem can only be tackled, with even a remote chance of success, if attention is concentrated on the teeth of children of school age and of children under that age. The information which I shall put before the House is not only confined to the opinions expressed to me in Southampton, for I have taken advantage of an opportunity provided for me to check the conclusions of this group of dentists, and the suggestions which they made for dealing with the problem, against certain other authoritative sources.
  In the time at my disposal, I propose to say just a little about these subjects. First, I will refer briefly to caries and exactly what it is; secondly, I will assess the present problem and the position of the dental service; and, thirdly, I should like to suggest some possible lines on which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary could take action. Dealing with caries first, it is decay which is caused by eating carbo-hydrates—sweets

  967
  and sugar. Sucking sweets is the principal cause of caries, particularly among children. The Guardian of 14th March drew attention to this problem in relation to smoking and, under the subheading "Sweets next?", analysed this problem, and I propose to quote from one paragraph:
  "Sales of chocolate and sugar sweets climbed in 1961 to a record of £272 million, or just over £5 for every man, woman and child in the country, every one of whom, on average, ate half-a-pound a week. This only bears out the continual complaints of doctors and members of the school dental service about children who eat sweets so regularly that their teeth start rotting even before they start going to school. Munching sweets so that bits of sugar stick to the teeth with the best chance of causing decay is one thing in which Britain leads the world."
  Why?
  Tonight I propose to say a little more about the problem so neatly summarised in that paragraph in the Guardian. Certain interesting conclusions can be reached from experiments, the maintenance of records in certain areas, and from reports of the school dental service. For example, sweets which are taken at meal times are not so harmful in causing decay as sweets which are taken in between meals, and toffees and caramels are associated with more decay than any other type of sweets. It is also clear that there is an increasing lack of oral hygiene. Although I realise that it is not competent to raise that matter on the Adjournment, it is odd that there should be Purchase Tax on toothpaste.
  Children go to school eating sweets first thing in the morning and, no doubt, return sucking sweets in the afternoon if their pocket money holds out that long. The ubiquitous "lolly" must add millions of pounds a year to the nation's health bill. The present position is that the low standard of dental health education, coupled with the increased consumption of sweets, has resulted in the appalling state of children's mouths.
  Children beginning school at five years of age have an average of five decayed teeth. As there are approximately one million children beginning school each year in England and Wales this means that 5 million fillings are required. A dentist certainly cannot fill anything like 4,000 teeth a year. Therefore, well over 1,000 dentists, roughly the whole complement of the school dental service, would
  968
  be required to deal with the decayed teeth of the new school intake each year alone. This, of course, is quite apart from other duties and the care of the remaining children from the age of five to school-leaving age, which is also the responsibility of the school service.
  The severe shortage of dentists in the school dental service has to be measured against what it is estimated a dental officer can do. I believe that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education and his Ministry take the view that a dental officer can look after about 3,000 children successfully. This assumes that a number of the children do not report for treatment and that others are dealt with by the dental practitioners in the National Health Service, otherwise the figure which the dental profession prefers, of 1,000 to 2,000 children as a maximum, would be nearer the mark. In any event, if dental decay increases at the same rate the ratio of dentists to children obviously must be increased if we are to contain the ravages of caries.
  The possibility of dealing with the problem through the school dental service can best be measured against examples which I have taken from official reports. The first example brings to light the appalling piece of information that in the last fifty years the average number of rotten teeth in five-year-olds in Birmingham has increased from 2·8 teeth per child to 4·6. In Manchester about 65 per cent. of the schoolchildren were suffering from dental caries when the last available report was published.
  The lack of co-operation from parents is evidenced in another survey of 12-year-old schoolboys in Northamptonshire. This showed that 11 per cent. cleaned their teeth more than once a day, 39 per cent. brushed them once daily, 47 per cent. brushed them only occasionally, and 3 per cent. were honest enough to confess that they did not brush their teeth at all and never had done so. In Bedfordshire, the annual report of the school dental service revealed that one out of four children under five would need false teeth before they reached the age of twenty.
  What is being done to remedy this state of affairs? I know that efforts are being made to increase the number of dentists, but inevitably progress is slow, and it does not necessarily benefit

  969
  children if the number of dentists is increased because, if previous experience is any guide, the bulk of the extra dentists may go into general practice rather than into the school dental ser-vise. Another possibility is the fluoridation of water supplies. This is a particularly promising development, and I hope that it will be accelerated. Its wide extension would be a valuable addition to the public health services.
  In addition, the wider use of auxiliaries might help. Dental auxiliaries are being trained now under the new scheme at New Cross. There are dental hygienists and dental surgery assistants available, and these are two very useful additions to the dental force in this country. But this is experimental. The results of the first course at New Cross have yet to be known and it may be necessary to revise the syllabus. We must, therefore, treat this experiment with reserve.
  These efforts barely touch the problem which, as I have shown by the examples I have given, is immense. As a result of my conversations and inquiries, I think that there are certain possible solutions to the problem. One solution would be based on early and continuous treatment of children's teeth, the purpose being to enable a comprehensive school dental service to be maintained by lifting some of the load from it through, first, rearranging the scale of fees to induce dental practitioners to treat children and adolescents, and, secondly, by requiring dental students on qualifying to serve for a time in the school dental service. My hon. Friend may not like this suggestion, but I am one of those—I believe that there are many—who hold the view that when training fees have been paid by the public the young men and women concerned ought to make some contribution in return, not only in dental surgery but in other fields as well.
  An experiment on this line could be applied to one area of the country, a test area, where we could see the outcome of a fully functioning school dental service. Such a service would involve, first, continuous dental health education, a campaign to make the facts well known; second, an adequately staffed school dental service with complete autonomy; third, fluoridation, and support from general dental practitioners.
  970
  Unless something on these lines is introduced, the only alternative will be to abandon the school dental service as a treatment agency. In its place, if it were abandoned, the family dentist, using, preferably, every form of ancillary help, could take care of all children from birth to adulthood. If such a policy decision could be made, a public health dental staff would have to be created at local authority level whose task would be similar to that of the local medical officers of health with whom they would work in parallel, not in the department of the medical officer of health as at present.
  Treatment would become the responsibility of the dental practitioner and all aspects of dental health such as fluoridation dental health campaigns and such other measures as may be evolved would be the concern of the public dental health officer. It would also be his task to maintain a close liaison with the schools by using the dentists on his staff who would examine the children and refer them for treatment to one of the general dental practitioners in the area. Such a scheme, backed toy an extension of the dental health programme at teacher-training colleges and the interest, perhaps, of the parent-teacher associations, would make for closer liaison between dental health officers, the schools and parents.
  I hope that my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Education and Health will give this suggestion consideration. If it were followed, it could result in this major assault on our teeth, health and pockets being first contained and finally defeated. We should have then made a major contribution to the health of the coming generations.
  9.36 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard) for drawing attention to this matter of very great seriousness and public importance. I am grateful to him for presenting the facts of the case in moderate terms. I do not dissent in any way from the words he used in describing the condition of the teeth of many of the children in this country. Nor do I dissent from his description of

  971
  the causes which have led to that condition. It is undeniable that in recent years the condition of school children's teeth has deteriorated considerably. Dental caries among school children has spread at an alarming rate. It is probably true, and I think accepted by those who have studied the problem, that the condition arises mainly as one of the concomitants of the affluent society, in that children today have more money to spend and a wider choice of things on which to spend it. They regale themselves with large and unregulated quantities of sweets and succulents of one kind or another, including the ubiquitous "lolly".
  I do not know whether it is seriously contended that it is possible to approach this problem by the sort of education in self-denial which would meet my hon. Friend's description of the cause of the trouble. Certainly—and I shall return to this in a few moments—dental health education has a very important part to play in bringing this scourge under control. However, we should be foolish to imagine that children will not continue to be children.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Education is responsible for the school dental service. But we in the Department work in very close collaboration with the Minister of Health. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is present, which signifies the responsibility which we share. The responsibility is also shared by the parents and children themselves, and I hope to show before I resume my seat how they fit into the pattern.
  My right hon. Friend's responsibilities and powers are defined for him in the Education Act, 1944, and in the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953. I want to assure the House that he has made and continues to make the greatest possible efforts to ensure that his duties are performed under the powers vested in him by those Acts. His duties devolve from him to the local education authority, and Regulation No. 3 of the School Health Service Regulations, 1959, requires local education authorities to provide comprehensive dental treatment for the children who are in their schools. This comprehensive dental treatment can be provided either
  972
  by dentists employed directly by the local education authority or under arrangements made by agreement with the regional hospital board. The purpose of this requirement was to ensure that it would be impossible for authorities to meet their statutory obligations simply by referring all children requiring treatment to the general dental service.
  In discharge of this duty, local education authorities are required to appoint a principal school dental officer and such other officers and staff as may be required to enable them to carry out this duty. In addition to these dental officers, they also employ dental surgical assistants, oral hygienists, dental technicians and anæsthetists. The principal school dental officer is responsible under the system to the principal school medical officer for organising, supervising and advising in the carrying out of the duties devolved to him. Dental officers are either employed as full-time officers of the authority or they work on a sessional basis as required and as they are willing to serve.
  Having defined the duties which fall upon local authorities and having said what obligations they must discharge, I must point out that local education authorities come up against the first stark fact in their lives—that there is an overall shortage of dentists both in the school dental service and in the general dental service. Here I refer to my hon. Friend's proposal that the responsibilities might be shifted from one point to another. I remind him—as I am sure he recognises—that no amount of shifting of these duties will produce more dental officers and, therefore, more of what I understand is called chair-side time. I apologise if I am interrupting the conversation between the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).
  Mr. John Cronin: I hope that I did not give the hon. Member the impression of discourtesy. I was just saying to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) what an excellent speech the Parliamentary Secretary was making.
  Mr. Thompson: I am prepared to forgive almost anything in those circumstances.

  973
  As I was saying, the service is faced with the stark fact that there is an overall shortage of dentists. This shortage affects not only this country but is a characteristic, I am advised, of all highly developed countries at present and is a worldwide condition.
  My hon. Friend asked what steps we are taking to meet this admitted serious deficiency. The training and supply of dentists is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and, as would be expected, he has been active in trying to effect an improvement. Steps are being taken and plans are in operation to increase the number of places in the dental training schools. From 1963, when the buildings have been completed and the courses organised, it is expected that the dental schools will be able to accommodate an additional 300 students, which represents an increase of about 50 per cent. on the present position. In addition, as my hon. Friend reminded the House, there is a scheme for dental auxiliaries to be trained under a two-year training scheme and for them to be employed either in local authority health services or in the hospitals. It is believed that this experiment may result in better use of the dentist's time on the more serious dental surgery; and then dental auxiliaries will be able to carry out much of the simpler dental care.
  The position in the school dental service itself, although difficult and in many ways still serious, is not deteriorating. The number of children is our schools has increased very considerably in recent times. There are now in the maintained schools well over 7 million children compared with 5 million at the end of the war. During this period two significant changes have occurred to affect the school dental service. At the end of the war, the school dental service, like so many other local authority services, was in a state of considerable disruption. It began to settle down between 1945 and 1948. In 1948 the National Health Service Act, with its universal dental provision, came into operation. A large number of dentists at that time employed in the school dental service and in other local authority dental services decided that there were more attractions in the general dental service, and they left, with the result that the number of full-
  974
  time dental officers in the service of the schools suffered a severe setback.
  In 1952, the year when the first effects of the 1948 Act had begun to be seen in the school dental service, there were available altogether in that service 713 dental officers or full-time equivalents of dental officers. This compared with 921 in 1948, prior to the Act. That figure has now risen fairly steadily, apart from one or two minor setbacks, until at present there are 1,069 full-time equivalent dental officers in the school dental service. This represents a considerable improvement, a little more than enough to keep pace with the very rapid rise in the number of children in our schools.
  These dental officers are required to examine and recommend for treatment and, where possible, treat the children in their areas. I do not want to enter into a dispute with my hon. Friend, or, through him, with the profession, about the appropriate number of children that a school dental officer ought to take care of. The position at the moment is that a little more than half the total number of children in our schools have their teeth examined annually and a little more of half of those who are examined and recommended for treatment receive it through the school dental service.
  I freely admit that these are very unsatisfactory figures. But that is not the end of the story. The parents have their responsibility, and it is not right for us to minimise it. Rather is it our duty to help the parents to appreciate it and carry it out. The general dental service is available for the care of the teeth of these children, and I would hope that where children are not inspected in the schools because of the shortage of school dental staff or where, when needing treatment, they are unable to get treatment through the school dental service, their parents will make the necessary arrangements for them to have the service provided by the general dental service.
  My hon. Friend suggested that it might be possible to rearrange the service so that all the treatment which was required for children's teeth was carried out by dentists in the general dental service or in some new local authority dental service. There are

  975
  many complications attached to changes of this kind, although there might be some attractions. First, I am quite sure that it would not provide an attraction to set up a school dental service which consisted of nothing more than the examination of children's teeth. Dentists, who are professional men in an interesting and complex profession, would find little satisfaction if their entire professional life were to be spent doing nothing more than examining children's teeth and passing them to somebody else for treatment. I fear that that side of the service envisaged by my hon. Friend would quickly fall into decay—if that is the right word—if organised on that basis.
  It might be thought desirable to set up some local authority clinics which did nothing but treat children's teeth, whether the children were sent by the means my hon. Friend has described or some other. I am sure that all dentists would find a profession unattractive which consisted of doing nothing but treating children's teeth. The variety and change and the additional and different complications that can arise in different tooth conditions form, I am sure, part of the attraction of the dental service. I think if it were organised on the basis my hon. Friend suggests, some of those attractions might disappear.
  My hon. Friend suggested that it might be considered appropriate to award dentists on a different or better basis. I refuse to be drawn into a discussion of what is the right kind of reward for professional services of this or any other kind. I think my hon. Friend knows that there is a dental Whitley Council for local authority dentists which has the responsibility in this matter. He will know that the dentists were awarded, in January, 1961, a 12½ per cent. increase in their salaries, and I have no doubt that when the time arises for different awards to be considered, the Whitley Council will take the appropriate action and make the appropriate recommendations.
  But I do not think that a comparison between the general dental service on the one hand, with its somewhat higher rewards, and the public dental service on the other hand, with its rather more limited rewards, is quite a straight com-
  976
  parison in those terms. There are other attractions to public service that are perhaps more apparent in the dental service than in some others. Dentistry, I am advised, is an arduous occupation requiring not only high competence and professional skill but also considerable physical fitness and capacity to endure long hours of physically tiring work.
  In the general dental service, a dentist requires to be physically fit for the greater part of his working life in order to win for himself the abundant prizes to which we hear reference made from time to time; and the facts of life are probably against his being able to do that until his working life comes to an end. He gets older, more tired and less capable of carrying out these arduous tasks during a whole working day.
  Mr. J. Howard: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is more tiring for a dentist to treat a child for a tooth condition than an adult?
  Mr. Thompson: I think that is a professional value judgment which I am not competent to make, but my hon. Friend is probably right.
  In the local authority dental service, however, the dentist works a set number of hours a day during a set number of periods in the week over a set number of weeks in the year—usually fewer weeks than for many of us engaged in different forms of public service. He is able to endure this degree of hardship and effort for a longer part of his working life. It is felt by many dentists that this is a compensatory consideration to be taken into account in evaluating the two professional courses open to him. There are longer holidays for school dental officers—providing that their terms of contract have taken that factor into account—than there would be for the dentist who is engaged in the more arduous conditions pertaining in the general dental service.
  My hon. Friend referred to the proposed fluoridation of water supplies. That again is a matter beyond the competence of my Department to discuss, but he will know that certain studies are now being undertaken which remain to be evaluated. I have no doubt that when the work is done, the lessons learned from these studies will be made available to local authorities and the House.

  977
  My hon. Friend finally referred to the need for proper dental health education. I am sure that this is the most important and most immediately useful job that we can do. Given the shortage of dentists and given the time that it takes to increase the number of dentists available, here is where we ought to be moving. Again I must warn the House that the schools have already been engaged upon a great number of warning campaigns. We have at one time or another warned or are warning children not to pick up dangerous missiles; not to burn their nighties in front of open fires; not on any account to smoke; we do not like them to suck lollipops, and now we are to teach them how to clean their teeth.
  A great deal is already done by many teachers who are devoted to their children and anxious and concerned to see that they should have the benefit of the best possible advice. In our teacher training colleges a great deal is done to help the teachers themselves to understand that the whole child is a much more teachable instrument than a child with toothache or some other physical disability. All this is part of the normal day-to-day exchange of a teacher's life.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary do a great deal in their Department and in co-operation with mine to see that suitable literature posters, guidance and advice are available. Every other year my Department issues the "Health of the School Child", which is the Report of the Principal School Medical Officer and contains an important section dealing with the dental health of the children.
  A great deal is being done along these fines, but it is a hard row to hoe. Children like sweets and parents like pampering children. I very much hope that the constant effort being made by propaganda, by information and advice will add up to a total of information which will be of value in saving the teeth of at any rate some children. I hope that the good examples that those children can set to their fellows and what the Government and the teachers themselves do will produce some slowing down of the present unfortunate situation and an improvement in the health of the teeth of our children generally.
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. John Cronin: I intervene in this interesting debate with a good deal of hesitation, but I feel obliged to do so for certain reasons. The Parliamentary Secretary made a stimulating and interesting speech and explained his Department's point of view with considerable lucidity. We all feel due sympathy with what he said, but I feel obliged to intervene for various reasons. One is that I have a particular respect for the views of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard), who has done a careful study of this subject and to whose views one must pay much attention. One must also bear in mind that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is with us tonight. I understand that although he has not yet spoken in the House, he will do so tomorrow on the subject of conditions in the National Health Service. I believe he has a considerable interest in the subject of dental care.
  I am reluctant to speak on matters of dental care, because for the last year I have spoken more frequently on matters concerning aviation. Nevertheless, as a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons I have some knowledge of dental matters—
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
  Mr. Cronin:—although the only people really to understand these things are the Fellows of Dental Surgery in the Royal College of Surgeons. The hon. Member made some stimulating remarks, which I should like to refer to. Perhaps, with the permission of the House, he will have the opportunity to catch the eye of the Chair again.
  The hon. Member for Southampton, Test said that he thought that the care of children's teeth would be less interesting to members of the dental profession than the other forms of dental surgery—
  Mr. J. Howard Mr. J. Howard indicated dissent.
  Mr. Cronin: I am sorry. I understood the hon. Member to say that. I am glad to see that he expresses dissent. I

  979
  can assure him that many dental surgeons take an interest in children's teeth. The difficulty is that the school dental service is not made sufficiently attractive to members of the dental profession.
  When alternative attractions exist, concerning salaries and conditions of service, it is necessary to offer some inducement to people to enter a certain service. This is what we need to obtain an increased flow into the school dental service. I did not have the opportunity of hearing the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, but I heard him say that the school dental service was inadequate in the strength of its personnel. A heavy responsibility rests upon the Government to make it clear that the school dental service is sufficiently attractive in order that we can obtain the right people in sufficient numbers.
  Mr. J. Howard: The point I endeavoured to make was that the school dental service started with an enormous handicap. Every child starting school began his school life with an average of about five decayed teeth. An enormous number of fillings had to be done at the commencement of the school year.
  Mr. Cronin: I am glad that the hon. Member has pointed out this difficulty. It increases my feeling of diffidence about not having heard all his speech. I am sorry that Parliamentary duties outside the House prevented me from doing so. The Government must concentrate on increasing recruitment to the school dental service.
  I hope that the Minister will comment further upon the question of the fluoridation of water. It is generally accepted in scientific and medical circles that if the fluorine content of water is increased the incidence of dental caries is enormously reduced. It is not satisfactory for the Minister to say that this is a scientific matter which is outside his sphere. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have a great deal of confidence in the way in which the hon. Member conducts the affairs of his Department, and this seems to be something of a lapse on his part. He should carry things a little further in this respect.
  It is known that the increase in the fluorine content of water decreases
  980
  dental caries, and it is not satisfactory that a responsible Member of the Government should confess ignorance of this important scientific principle. We are all concerned with the care of children's teeth, and it is a little surprising to hear a Member of the Government say that this is beyond him. I would have expected him to brief himself very carefully. It may be that he should have talked to his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who is sitting beside him. She is probably an expert on these matters. It may be that she feels that she ought to make some contribution to the debate. I do not think that the matter should be left there. It is a scientific fact that the increase of fluorine content of water reduces dental caries, and therefore we might have expected something more valuable from the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench than merely a suggestion that this is an abstruse point of scientific knowledge which is beyond his knowledge. I hope that we shall hear something more about this.
  The next thing that occurs to me is that it is well known and well recognised that the consumption of sticky sweet foods is a great cause of dental decay. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is paying attention to this, because it is an important point. This is well-recognised in all scientific circles, and I am sure that I carry the hon. Member for Orpington with me when I say that an excess of consumption of sweets, toffees, chocolate—
  Mr. J. Howard: Lollies.
  Mr. Cronin: I am glad that I carry the hon. Gentleman with me—causes a greatly increased tendency towards dental decay.
  Some of us, on the rare occasions when we have time to spare from our Parliamentary duties, watch television. As a result, we hear and see continuous advertisements recommending small children to eat and chew large quantities of lollies, toffees and sweet substances which we know are deleterious to their teeth. It is very important that we should have some idea where the Government stand. Are the Government really concerned that television should be used as a medium to induce children to take specific action to cause a serious decay in the health of their teeth? I

  981
  hope the hon. Gentleman will take this point very seriously. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will agree with me that this is a very substantial cause of ill-health in children's teeth. As we all know ill-health to teeth can cause numerous other kinds of ill-health. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should give us some idea whether the Government are taking this seriously.
  Fortunately, we heard last week from another place that the Government are taking seriously the question of the excessive smoking of cigarettes, which is a rather lethal habit. Dental decay, although not lethal, is something that causes real ill-health and inconvenience to children. It is important that we should know whether the Government are taking any serious action to combat the ceaseless propaganda to induce children to take action which will interfere with the health of their teeth.
  The Parliamentary Secretary has given us a very helpful and very lucid speech and has shown that his Department has a real concern for the welfare of children and particularly their teeth. I hope that the hon. Lady will speak or that the Parliamentary Secretary will speak again. I do not think there will be any difficulty about the hon. Gentleman obtaining the leave of the House to do so. I cannot imagine that any hon. Member present would wish to deny him that permission. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will relieve the anxiety of all hon. Members on both sides of the House as to the future welfare of the teeth of our children.
  10.8 p.m.
  Mr. K. Thompson: With the permission of the House, I wish to reply briefly to the point made so courteously by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin). May I first thank him for his generous comments on the speech which I have already delivered and may I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard) on the initiative which he has shown in bringing forward this matter.
  Even with the permission of the House, there is little that I can add to what I have already said regarding the two points to which the hon. Member for Loughborough referred. He knows the conventions, if not the rules, which
  982
  bind Ministers to the affairs of their own Departments. It would be quite wrong for me to embark on a discussion about the scientific merits or social demerits—all of which are highly arguable—of the fluoridation of our water supplies.
  Mr. Cronin: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's difficulties. But sitting on his left is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health who is well briefed in these matters and could make a substantial contribution to this important debate.
  Mr. Thompson: I am quite sure that if I did not restrain her, nothing would give my hon. Friend more pleasure than to give the hon. Member for Loughborough all the technical advice which he needs about the fluoridation of our water supplies. I do not wish my hon. Friend any harm, but I think that that subject would be an admirable one for an Adjournment debate particularly on a night when, for example, we had been discussing the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, or something equally interesting.
  The hon. Member for Loughborough claims this to be a matter which is established by scientific fact. But it is something about which there is considerable dispute among scientists. Even when they have finished their arguing there is a lot of disputation to be done between those who take account of the social considerations aroused by the proposal to add some of this substance, whatever it is, to our water supplies. But that is a matter to be discussed on another occasion. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Loughborough for letting us know of the importance which he attaches to the matter. We attach importance to it, too.
  I can say no more than I have already said about the habit of children of eating sweets. I have no doubt that they will continue to eat large quantities of sweets, and, bless their little hearts, if they were not doing that no doubt they would be getting into some other kind of trouble. We must teach them how to eat sweets sensibly, and how to take the appropriate action afterwards. I hope that education in general health and hygiene will lead them to do that. As our society becomes more accustomed to

  983
  the fruits of good living and of living with the benefit of a good liberal education and a balanced approach both to the problems of plenty as well as to the problems of a shortage, I am quite sure—
  Mr. Cronin: I hope that when the hon. Gentleman refers to a "liberal" education he is talking in a general manner and not making a concession to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). I trust also that what he has said is not an indication of a wholesale
  984
  conversion on the part of the Government.
  Mr. Thompson: I was using the word in its least offensive sense.
  Having said all that about the sweet-eating habits of our children, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that we are well aware of how important it is to treat this matter in a balanced and sensible manner.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Ten o'clock.

  NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL (DISCUSSIONS)
  NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL (DISCUSSIONS)
  CONGO (MR. D. GAUDEN)
  CONGO (MR. D. GAUDEN)
  EUROPE AND AFRICA (ECONOMIC RELATIONS)
  EUROPE AND AFRICA (ECONOMIC RELATIONS)
  VIETNAM (MILITARY OPERATIONS)
  VIETNAM (MILITARY OPERATIONS)
  DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE
  DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pumping Station, Huish-Episcopi (Tender)
  Pumping Station, Huish-Episcopi (Tender)
  Milk and Beer (Consumption)
  Milk and Beer (Consumption)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensioners (National Assistance)
  Retirement Pensioners (National Assistance)
  National Assistance
  National Assistance
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Coal (Price)
  Coal (Price)
  Electricity Distribution System, Immingham
  Electricity Distribution System, Immingham
  Indigenous Light Hydrocarbon Oils (Preference)
  Indigenous Light Hydrocarbon Oils (Preference)
  Domestic Fuel (Prices)
  Domestic Fuel (Prices)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Airports (Runways)
  Airports (Runways)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Hours of Work)
  Nurses (Hours of Work)
  Nurses (Recruitment)
  Nurses (Recruitment)
  Lung Cancer (Deaths)
  Lung Cancer (Deaths)
  Dental Health Service
  Dental Health Service
HOSPITALS
  Agency Nurses
  Agency Nurses
  Tonsilectomy Operations, Tamworth
  Tonsilectomy Operations, Tamworth
  Royal Gwent Hospital
  Royal Gwent Hospital
  County Hospital, Griffithstown, and Royal Gwent Hospital
  County Hospital, Griffithstown, and Royal Gwent Hospital
  Hospitals (Visits)
  Hospitals (Visits)
  Nursing Staff
  Nursing Staff
EMPLOYMENT
  Pakistani Immigrants
  Pakistani Immigrants
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  THE WEST INDIES (FEDERATION)
  THE WEST INDIES (FEDERATION)
BRITISH ARMY
  Soldiers, Royal Horse Artillery (Retention)
  Soldiers, Royal Horse Artillery (Retention)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants (Pensions)
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants (Pensions)
SCOTLAND
  Inverness County Council (Water Supplies)
  Inverness County Council (Water Supplies)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Nuclear Deterrent (Cost)
  Nuclear Deterrent (Cost)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Rates (Revaluation)
  Rates (Revaluation)
TRANSPORT
  Diesel-Engined Road Vehicles
  Diesel-Engined Road Vehicles
EDUCATION
  Regional Colleges of Further Education
  Regional Colleges of Further Education
  European Youth Centre
  European Youth Centre

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

APPEALS AGAINST IMMIGRATION OFFICERS' DECISIONS
2.35 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order
Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many representations during the past ten years have been made to the Home Secretary by or on behalf of aliens who have been refused permission to enter the United Kingdom; and in how many of these cases the decision of the immigration officer has been overruled.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, I very much regret that the information which the noble Lord requires is not available.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, could the noble Earl tell us whether there have in fact been any appeals of the kind mentioned in the Question, and whether the lack of information is caused simply because no records are kept of them?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, it may interest the noble Lord to know that he is in fact the only Member of the Houses of Parliament who has ever asked for this particular information. I take it, therefore, that there would not be very great purpose in compiling the information which would provide the answer which the noble Lord would like. I can tell him that from 1952 until 1961 there were 12½ million aliens who came into the country, and that, out of that number, about one in six hundred were refused admission; but I am afraid that that does not help the noble Lord very much.

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed and sent to the Commons.
INDEPENDENT CHAPEL MAWDSLEY STREET BOLTON BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed and sent to the Commons.

PAYMENTS IN AID OF AGRICULTURAL SCHEMES (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1962
2.37 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved. This Order renews the special assistance to Northern Ireland agriculture—often known as the
"remoteness grant", as the noble Lord opposite well knows—for a further five years, and increases the amount of the grant by £250,000 a year. Section 32 of the Agriculture Act, 1957, provided for a grant of £1 million a year for five years, and this five-year period expires at the end of this month. The section also empowers the three Agriculture Ministers to make an Order, subject to an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, renewing the grant for up to five years at a time, and altering the annual amount. This Order has been made in pursuance of that power.
Moved, That the Payments in Aid of Agricultural Schemes (Extension) Order, 1962, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl would feel disposed to say one or two words about the term "under approved arrangements"? I cannot imagine any noble Lord wishing to oppose this Order, but I think that perhaps the noble Earl would help a few of your Lordships if he were to say a word or two on what the approved arrangements are, as briefly as possible.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, the approved arangements are really nothing more than agreements or arrangements between the three Agriculture Ministers and the Minister of Agriculture, Northern Ireland. The principle is that we in Parliament have voted a sum of money to Northern Ireland agriculture

765
through the Ministry of Agriculture in Northern Ireland, and that money can be spent as the Minister in Northern Ireland would care to spend it—shall I put it in that way, my Lords? Nevertheless, because the power is given year by year it must come within the approval of the three Ministers in the United Kingdom. I hope that explains the point to the noble Lord.
LORD WISE: My Lords, can the noble Earl inform us how the sum of £1,250,000 is made up? Can he break it down in any way?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord only that last year it was spent partly upon the subsidy per ton of silage which was made in Northern Ireland, partly upon breeding cattle and partly upon store cattle. I am afraid that, without notice, I cannot tell the noble Lord exactly how much was spent under each particular head, but, so far as I know, it will be roughly the same in the forthcoming year.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
2.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, in rising to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered, may I say that I think it might be convenient if, at this stage, I indicated in outline the effect of these Amendments and suggested those to which your Lordships might direct your attention. Needless to say, if any noble Lord attaches an importance to any one of them which is not apparent to me, I shall be happy to give a full explanation.
Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, 7 and 9 are concerned with drafting or minor administrative points and, I suggest, might be accepted without further discussion. Amendment No. 6 limits narrowly—namely, to cases committed for trial—the right of a legally-qualified chairman to sit alone. There was uneasiness expressed in another place on giving any wider powers to dispense with lay justices. Amendment No. 8 provides that
766
the justices with juvenile court experience who sit on an appeal from a juvenile court shall, so far as is practicable, include a man and a woman.
The main purpose of Amendment No. 10, that is, the new clause after Clause 9, is to provide an appeal on salary for a clerk of the peace who is not—I repeat, not—also a town clerk, deputy town clerk or assistant town clerk. Broadly, the position is that where the clerk of the peace is, by virtue of holding another office, on the staff of a city or borough, his salary is fixed within scales determined by a negotiating machinery, and he may or may not, according to mutual convenience, receive fees payable to him as clerk of the peace. It is, however, accepted by all concerned that there is a good case for providing that a clerk of the peace who is not a town clerk, deputy town clerk or assistant town clerk should have a right of appeal to the Home Secretary where he feels that he has a complaint against the salary fixed by the borough council. He has not a salary fixed according to negotiated scales, and it is reasonable that he should have some authority other than his employers to whom he can turn if dissatisfied.
Amendment No. 11, another new clause, together with the consequential Amendments in the Schedules, Nos. 18, 19 and 21, deal with two minor matters on which the wording of old Statutes is causing difficulty in the stipendiary magistrates' courts in London and South Staffordshire respectively with regard to the qualification of magistrates' clerks. The result is to include a barrister among those professionally qualified in London, and to equate the position in Staffordshire with that of other magistrates' courts.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 have the effect of requiring the consent of both the prosecution and defence to be obtained before a case is committed for trial under this clause to a sitting of assizes or quarter sessions already in progress. This accords with strong feeling expressed on both sides of the Committee in another place, as well as by the Bar Council and the Law Society. Amendment No. 14 is designed to close a somewhat obscure gap in Clause 15, subsection (3), and so ensure that, when a case is committed by magistrates to

767
quarter sessions for sentence, any appeal against the decisions of the magistrates' courts—for example, an appeal against a conviction for a road traffic offence and an appeal against disqualification—may be dealt with by the same court as is to deal with the sentence.
The effect of Amendment No. 15 is to secure that the provision that the period spent by an offender in custody before sentence should, in certain circumstances, count towards the length of any term of imprisonment later imposed by a superior court should apply to all circumstances, including breaches of a probation order, or offences committed while subject to a probation order or conditional discharge. Amendments No. 16 and 17 deal with the payment of costs when committal proceedings have proved abortive. The remaining Amendments, Nos. 18 to 25, are drafting or consequential.
My Lords, I hope that your Lordships may think that this method of providing the House with a conspectus of the Amendments is convenient, and may obviate their being put seriatim to the House unless, as I say, there is any particular point that any noble Lord wishes to raise.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure the House will be very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his suggestion as to how these Amendments should be dealt with. As a matter of fact, I have been through them, and I was going to suggest that they should be dealt with in the way the noble and learned Viscount has put forward. I think he has dealt with all the Amendments which I personally felt required explanation, so I do not propose, to ask him any further questions. Unless any other noble Lord wishes to do so, I should be quite content that they should be dealt with in the most expeditious manner possible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill 49 as first printed for the House of Commons]
Clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
("(3) Any functions exercisable by the sheriff of the county of York in relation to
768
the attendance of jurors at the quarter sessions for the West Riding of that county shall continue to be exercisable by him as if this section had not been passed, and no such functions shall be exercised by the sheriff of Hallamshire.")
Clause 4, page 3, line 1, at end insert ("the county of")
Clause 4, page 3, line 8, at end insert ("the county of")
Clause 4, page 3, line 14, at end insert—
("(3) Anything to be done at a court of quarter sessions which, under any enactment, is to be done at sessions held at a specified time may be done at the first sessions held after that time, in any case where either no sessions are held at that time or sessions held at that time were begun before that time.")
Clause 4, page 3, line 24, after ("than") insert ("the county of")
Clause 4, page 3, line 30, leave out ("any case") and insert ("the case of a person committed to the court for trial")
Clause 4, page 3, line 39, after ("than") insert ("the county of")
Clause 4, page 3, line 41, at end insert ("and of the justices sitting and so qualified one is a man and one a woman")
Clause 8, page 5, line 7, leave out (" the city of").
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
Remuneration of certain clerks of the peace
(" .—(1) The remuneration of a clerk of the peace for any borough shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, be such as may from time to time be determined by the council of the borough; and the remuneration of the clerk of the peace for the City of London shall be such as may from time to time be determined by the court of quarter sessions for the City of London.
(2) In determining that remuneration the council or, as the case may be, the court, may direct that the clerk shall be entitled, in addition to his salary, to retain such of the fees payable to him as are specified in the direction.
(3) The clerk of the peace for any borough, unless he is also the town clerk or a deputy or assistant to the town clerk, may appeal to the Secretary of State against any determination of the council of the borough varying his remuneration and against any refusal of the council to make such a determination.
(4) On an appeal under subsection (3) of this section the Secretary of State may determine the remuneration of the clerk as from such date as he may fix, and in making the determination he may give, vary or rescind any such direction as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section.
(5) The rate at which any such remuneration as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is payable at the commencement of this Act shall continue to be the rate at which it is payable until the remuneration is varied under this section.")
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
Qualifications of clerks at certain stipendiary courts
(" .—(1) A barrister may be appointed chief clerk to any metropolitan stipendiary court.
(2) The following provisions shall apply to the appointment, under section seventeen of the South Staffordshire Stipendiary Justice Act. 1899, of a clerk to the magistrate acting under that Act and of a deputy to that clerk, that is to say—

(a) a person may be appointed clerk to that magistrate if, and only if, he would be eligible, under section twenty of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, to be appointed a justices' clerk, and the power under that section to prescribe age limits shall extend to the appointment of a clerk to that magistrate;

(b) a person may be appointed deputy to the clerk to that magistrate notwithstanding that he is not a solicitor of the Supreme Court.")

Clause 12, page 5, line 45, after ("may") insert (" with his and the prosecutor's consent and")
Clause 12, page 5, page 6, line 2, leave out (" that person ") and insert ("him")
Clause 13, page 6, line 42, after(" conviction") insert ("or against an order made on the conviction")
Clause 15, page 7, line 39, after ("under ") insert ("paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section six, paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (3) of section eight or subsection (4) of section eight of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948 ")
Clause 16, page 8, line 2, leave out ("The following provisions") and insert
("Subsections (2) to (5)")
Clause 16, page 9, line 10, at end insert— (" (6) Where a person is committed to be tried, sentenced or dealt with by or before any court of assize or quarter sessions but is not tried, sentenced or dealt with by or before that court, subsections (2), (3) and (5) of this section shall, with the necessary modifications, apply as they apply where a person is tried, sentenced or dealt with as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section.")
Fourth Schedule, page 12, line 9, at end insert—
("The Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1839
In section five, after the words "unless he shall be" there shall be inserted the words "a barrister or"")
Fourth Schedule, page 12, line 18, at end insert—
("The South Staffordshire Stipendiary Justice Act, 1899
In section seventeen, in subsection (1), for the words "a solicitor of the Supreme Court"
770
there shall be substituted the words "a person eligible under section (Qualifications of clerks at certain stipendiary courts) of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1962 ".")
Fifth Schedule, page 15, line 6, at end insert—

("14 & 15 Vict. c. 55.

The Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1851.

Sections nine to eleven.")

Fifth Schedule, page 15, line, 26, at end insert—

("62 & 63 Vict. c. xc.

The South Staffordshire Stipendiary Justice Act, 1899.

In section seventeen, in subsection (4), the words ' being a solicitor of the Supreme Court'.")

Page 16, line 21, column 3, after (" In ") insert (" Part I of ")
Page 17, line 15, column 3, at beginning insert ("In section two, in subsection (3), the words from ' In this subsection ' to the end of the section")
Page 17, line 15, column 3, at end insert ("In section eight, in subsection (3), the words from ' and any reference ' to the end of the subsection ")
Page 18, line 36, at end insert—

("7 & 8 Eliz. 2, c. 25.

The Highways Act, 1959.

In section two hundred and seventy-six, in paragraph (a) of subsection (9), the words ' the appeal committee of '.")

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, for which I am very grateful, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the Amendments they have made to this Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TELEGRAPH BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
VEHICLES (EXCISE) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

PIPE-LINES BILL [H.L.]
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Cross-country pipe-lines not to be constructed without the Minister's authority
1.—(1) It shall not be lawful for works to be executed in land for the construction of a cross-country pipe-line except under an authorisation in that behalf (in this Act referred to as a "pipe-line construction authorisation") granted by the Minister, or otherwise than along the route delineated on the map annexed to the authorisation or within such limits of lateral deviation from that route as may be specified in the authorisation; and if works are executed in contravention of this subsection, the person executing them shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
(2) The Minister, on an application for a pipe-line construction authorisation, shall have power in his discretion to grant the application or to refuse it.
(4) If, after a pipe-line construction authorisation has been granted, the execution of the works whose execution is authorised thereby has not been substantially begun at the expiration of twelve months from the date on which it was granted, or at the expiration of any extension of that period which the Minister may allow, the authorisation shall become of no effect, except as regards works previously executed.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, to insert as a new subsection (1):
"(1) The British Transport Commission, or any Board or Authority to which the functions of the said Commission may be transferred, shall have power to construct and operate pipe-lines in Great Britain."
The noble Earl said: My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth regrets that he is unable to be here to move this Amendment. But your Lordships will be aware that in the Second Reading of this Bill he expressed the view that all my noble friends hold, that this new development in transport is one that ought, in our view, to be kept under public control. However, so far as we can we should like
772
to amend the Bill in such a way as to give more scope to the agencies operating the national transport system. Everyone agrees that this pipe-line development is a new, almost a revolutionary, development in inland transport. It is going to supplement and compete with existing methods and we have to see to it—indeed, the purpose of the Bill which the Government have brought in is to see to it—that the evils of the unrestricted and unrestrained competition of the last century on the railways is not repeated. Therefore, we have examined the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill with that in mind.
We find the position is rather confused, because at this moment there is a Bill before the House of Commons, one clause of which gives power to agencies of the Transport Commission to construct and operate pipe-lines, either themselves or through the agencies of other bodies. I think that we should be told what effect that other Bill, the Transport Bill, and that clause in particular, have on the Pipe-lines Bill. We have been told by the Minister in the Second Reading debate that, under existing authority, the railways, the inland waterways and other Government Boards are empowered to build pipe-lines and operate them if they are for their own operational purposes only. If any of these boards wish to operate pipe-lines to act as carriers for other owners, then they will have to come to the Minister under the Pipe-lines Bill and obtain authorisation.
We think that the need for co-ordinating the various means of transport in order to avoid waste and duplication is such that the Transport Commission should be able to operate pipe-line systems as carriers of other peoples' goods in the same way as the railways and waterways carry other peoples' goods on their own tracks and canals. This seems to me almost exactly parallel with the system as operated in other countries. In France, for example, a body including representation of the French Government departments and private interests is operating a pipe-line between Havre and Paris, carrying other peoples' goods—namely, various types of oil. We think that in our country the Transport Commission, or any Board or authority to which the functions of

773
the Commission may be transferred under the Bill now going through Parliament, should have power to construct and operate pipe-lines in Great Britain. Your Lordships will have noticed that Amendment No. 3, in the names of my noble friends, is designed with the same object; that planning claims to construct and operate pipe-lines should lie with the British Transport Commission or its successors. I hope that the Minister may appreciate the reasonableness of this demand. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): This Amendment, as also No. 3, is presumably intended to deal with the issue of principle between the Opposition and the Government in relation to this Bill—that is, the issue of public ownership. The noble Earl gave several reasons for the Amendments. He said it was essential to have a rational plan for the future development of a pipe-line system; that pipe-lines should operate as common carriers, and that pipe-lines should be co-ordinated with other forms of transport; and, of course, I am sure that the noble Earl had in mind too that the Transport Commission would be enabled to use its land for the purpose of building and operating pipe-lines.
I should like to refer to the Government's general approach to this question, as I did in the Second Reading debate. The Government do not dispute the need for the orderly development of pipe-lines or for avoiding, as my noble friend Lord Chesham once said, a pipeline network like a dish of spaghetti, sprawling all over the place. But the Government do not think that public ownership is desirable at this stage. As the Minister of Power said in discussing this matter in another place, it seems desirable to leave the problem to the initiative of private enterprise, provided that there is public control on a recognised plan and pattern. In my Second Reading speech, I also pointed out that I saw no reason why the Government should be called upon to provide millions of pounds for the development of pipe-lines which are required for private enterprise.
774
The noble Earl asked me what the effect of the Transport Bill, now being considered in another place, would be on the Pipe-lines Bill. Clause 12 of the Transport Bill will empower Boards to construct and operate pipe-lines in Great Britain, or to enter into transactions with other people to construct and operate them; but they will not have power to acquire land for this purpose except where the pipe-line is to be mainly on lands belonging to the Boards. These powers are adequate to ensure that full use can be made of the railways and canals, but they stop short of empowering the Boards to build pipe-lines anywhere for the purpose of providing a new service or simply for making a profit. It is the Government's view that that is the right place to draw the line.
The construction of pipe-lines means heavy capital investment. No one would argue that the British Transport Commission are in such a flush financial position that they should devote their funds to this new enterprise when the alternative of getting private industry to provide the funds is there. The only thing that this Bill seeks to do is to see that any development is a proper one, that it is conducted in an orderly fashion and that a proper system of pipelines evolves from what industry requires at the present time.
The Government do not accept the view that pipe-lines should be operated as common carriers, so that anyone who puts down a pipe-line should be compelled to take other traffic. But the Bill does provide that, if the Minister sees the need for pipe-lines to be constructed in such a way as to carry additional traffic, that should be done. Finally, the Government accept the view that when major pipe-line projects are being considered other forms of transport should be examined; that care should be taken to avoid unnecessary disturbance to lands by the fullest use of the existing wayleaves of the Transport Boards, such as disused railways and canals. It will be the Government's intention to set up administrative and consultative arrangements for discussion on such matters. I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment, which is really the back door to nationalisation.
LORD SILKIN: I will not pretend that I am disappointed at the noble Lord's reply, because I expected that he would take a line of this kind. I am bound to say, however, that I regard it as a very narrow and unimaginative line. We are at the beginning of a new era, and for the Government to take the view that they will merely sit back and hold the scales for people to come along who think they can make a profit out of this new phase of transport, and not themselves take an active part in its development, is, as I have said, in my view, narrow and unimaginative. The noble Lord said that he felt it was necessary to have a co-ordinated system. But are you going to get it in this way? All that will happen is that some undertaking (and there is one already in the picture, I see, for whom the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is going to speak, because they have a large number of Amendments to this Bill), visualising a profit out of providing certain pipe-lines in certain areas, will come along and, if the Minister of Power gives them authority, acquire private land compulsorily. That, to me, is a shocking doctrine from a Conservative Government—to give one private body power to acquire compulsorily land from private people, or to acquire private rights over other people's land.
At any rate, the Minister is going to take that power and give them those rights. I am not sure whether there can be a public inquiry or not; I think that is a little vague at the moment. But we are going to see that if private enterprise does function it will function fairly between one body of private enterprise and another. Private enterprises are going to function in this way; and it will happen quite fortuitously and accidentally, and only in those places where some body feel that they can make a profit. There will be no co-ordination, no attempt to make sure that this new form of public transport will be general throughout the country or that one scheme is linked up with another
I feel that the Government are losing a wonderful opportunity of being in right at the beginning of something which is bound to come in the future. We had this sort of experience before in various forms of transport. The railways were built fortuitously: not necessarily in the
776
right places, but where some undertaking thought they could make a profit. It was a bad mess, and in the end they had to be publicly acquired. I know that noble Lords opposite did not support the nationalisation measure, but they have taken no steps to denationalise. They are quite capable of doing that, if they think it right, but they have allowed nationalisation to stand. The same thing happened with the tramways all over the country; they had to be municipalised. I foresee that if this goes through in the way in which the Government seem determined that it shall, the time will come when these pipe-lines will have to be publicly acquired. We shall then have to" pay through the nose", and pay for something which is unco-ordinated and less satisfactory than it could be if this Amendment were accepted.
The issue is not quite as the noble Lord says, because we contemplate in the Bill that private enterprise may come along and take part. But what we want is that where the British Transport Commission, or any body that are going to be put in their place, decide that they would prefer to do it, then they should be allowed to do so; they should be allowed to take the initiative in any part of the country where they think a system is necessary and desirable. So far as we on this side of the Committee are concerned we should have no objection to private enterprise coming in and supplementing and co-operating in the policy of creating a nation-wide system of underground transport.
As I have said, I had no hope that the Government would accept this Amendment, and all I am doing is putting on record as clearly as I can the reasons which have prompted us to move it. I hope, at any rate, that they are understood and that the issue between us is perfectly clear. We want a co-ordinated system of transport. The Government want to leave this to private enterprise, in a chaotic and chancy state, and do not really appreciate the far-reaching nature of the possibilities involved.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is scarcely fair to the Government here. He says that the Government want no co-ordination and no planning. The

777
noble Earl, Lord Lucan, says that we do not want any waste or duplication. Why the British Transport Commission should be more capable of making an overall plan than the Ministry, I do not know. I do not think their planning has been so successful so far as to lead one to believe that they should be the national planning authority, I should like to call attention to the Explanatory Memorandum, which in paragraph 1 says:
"The Bill has four main objects. The first is to provide the Minister of Power with means of controlling the development of cross-country pipe-lines in the public interest, together with a procedure for objections to such projects to be heard and considered locally."
That seems to me to fulfil entirely the points which both the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, have been making.
LORD SILKIN: Is it not a fact that this is chancy? It depends on people coming along and being prepared to build a pipe-line in a certain place. It does not necessarily follow that there would be a co-ordinated system.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: As I understand the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill, the only two objections he raises against these Amendments are, first, that the Government are opposed to nationalisation. Well, there is nothing new in that. It was almost a waste of words to tell noble Lords what the Government feelings were. But the noble Lord has a second objection to these Amendments. He thinks that private enterprise has both the money and the initiative, and would obviously set out to succeed because of the profit motive. We agree with the noble Lord in that. But what he seems to forget, or what he has never given a thought to (and I presume that this applies to the Government as a whole), is what happened yin this country before certain industries and services were nationalised.
Perhaps the best illustration of my point is to recall what happened when electricity, apart from municipalisation, was more or less under private ownership. The noble Lord must know, and I am sure your Lordships will remember quite clearly, that all one of the private electricity companies had
778
to do was to come to this House and obtain further power to supply electricity over very wide areas; and then, having secured the power, it absolutely refused to provide the service for many years. In those days, it was not a question of nationalisation: it was what the noble Lord seems to want in these days—sterilisation.
As I understand these Amendments, they do not ask for nationalisation. All they suggest is that, if the Transport Commission feel there is an even chance of improving the service, and perhaps making it a paying service, they should have the right, as with private enterprise, to explore the possibilities of this new service. I should have thought that that was just what every noble Lord in the House would want to see. They are always supposed to be hostile to monopoly, but they want monopoly here for just a section—the whole does not matter. I do not think that is the best way of starting what might well develop into not only a superior service to the one we now possess, but also a profitable one. I should not have thought that it was a question of nationalisation or sterilisation. It is a question of how can we get the best service, despite the parlous financial plight of the Transport Commission at the moment—not due to nationalisation, but due to obvious shortcomings on the part of private enterprise while the railways were still in the hands of private enterprise.
I hope the noble Lord will feel that this is not a question of ideologies, but only of the best means of securing the best service for the nation as a whole. For it is the national interest we have in mind, and not just that of the British Transport Commission or any other Commission. I should have thought that those in charge of the Transport Commission at this moment are wise enough in their day and generation, both in financial terms and other terms, to know whether it would be worth their while to explore the possibilities of a pipe-line here and there as a supplement to the railways. I hope the noble Lord will not feel that this is just a question of ideology. The question is: bow can we give the best service to the nation without giving certain people a monopoly, and without completely sterilising those who feel they can give a service to the nation?
LORD SHEPHERD: May I join in the note of disapproval at the Minister's attitude to our Amendments? The other day we were discussing the Courtauld-I.C.I. merger, and the noble Viscount who leads the House then asked us to remember that we were in the twentieth century, when one required large organisations in industry in order to control a particular section so that industry can go forward for the advantage of the nation. My noble friend Lord Lucan has made a case that these new pipe-lines should be vested, not entirely, but at least the predominant side of it, in the hands of the British Transport Commission. We have put down an Amendment to that effect, though not because this is a political issue—it was the noble Lord, Lord Mills, who made this a political issue. We feel that the British Transport Commission is the one organisation in this country which is providing transport service throughout the country. It is not provided by road. Road transport is fragmented into many companies. It is British Railways, with its ancillaries, which is providing the general transport system right through the country.
It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, to say, "They are hardly good planners." The position of the British Transport Commission is not one of their making. In fact, it was made by the Conservative Party when they broke up the co-ordinated transport service that had been created by a Labour Government. It was the only hope (and I am sure that in his secret heart the noble Lord, Lord Mills, would admit it) for the future of a bankrupt railway service that it should be co-ordinated and stimulated with road transport. Yet that also was to be denied. The flourishing side of the industry was to be hived off to private enterprise. Now the noble Lord says that this new form of transport service is not to be available to a State Corporation; it is to be available only to private enterprise.
The noble Lord may be right. He may say, "We will have it in private enterprise". But, as I understand it, the Minister is going to be particular as to who shall operate from, say, London to Liverpool. There will be no question of three or four different
780
pipe-lines being operated by three or four different companies from London to Liverpool, or Liverpool to Glasgow. There will be one company with a franchise. In fact, the Government are going to create a privileged monopoly as they did with commercial television. That is as I understand it. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, can correct me if I am wrong. If that is the case, if there is to be a monopoly, I would certainly support 100 per cent. that it should be in the hands of the State. We made a tragic mistake with commercial television, and I hope that this is not going to be repeated in this Bill. I cannot anticipate that the profits will be anywhere near as big as they are in television, but the principle is still there. Now I will come back to the real reason why the Amendments are on the Order Paper. They are there because we see the British Transport Commission as the one authority, the one organisation, which now provides general transport throughout the country. We see this pipe-line as, shall we say, moving into the '70s, so far as transport is concerned. We believe it is right, in the interests of the country, that this service should be allied, co-ordinated and developed within the State organisation.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I think my noble friends have made it quite clear that in the starting of this new development we regard it as a matter of great importance that the State must, through its existing agencies, have the power to construct its own pipe-lines. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, quoted from the Explanatory Memorandum and said that he thought the Minister had adequate powers; but surely he has not seen that the powers the Minister has are purely negative. The Minister at present has no power of initiating or stimulating developments in directions where they are wanted. He can only wait for private enterprise to make application. We are not, of course, by this Amendment asking for a monopoly; we are merely asking for the Transport Commission or their successors to have power to construct their own pipe-lines.
Finally, may I say that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has said, if I understood him rightly, that the Government were not insisting on the principle of common carrier operation of pipe-lines. But

781
surely that is just what Clause 8 does. If the Minister sees a likelihood of a demand in excess of the demand from the original applicant he can compel that applicant to provide facilities to carry other people's goods. That, I understood, was an essential feature of the Bill: that the Government proposed to encourage or, in fact, compel the applicant to operate as a common carrier. That is getting away from the subject of this Amendment, which we believe is essential to the proper launching of this new element of transport and we propose to ask the House to divide on the matter.
LORD MILLS: The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, painted a very convincing picture of what happened to the railways, but he did not tell us that that development took place 150 years ago when the pattern of living and the centres of population were not settled. Circumstances are entirely different to-day. We know what is the pattern of trade in this country and we have some idea of what pipe-lines are required. But I would ask noble Lords to remember one thing: these pipe-lines we require at present are not for the public use but for private use. The Government fail to see why they should provide millions of money
to deal with this problem when the facilities are required by private industry. That is the nub of the problem.
I am very glad to hear from noble Lords opposite that they are not adopting a doctrinaire approach and that this is not even a political matter. The fact remains, however, that they want to put new and enlarged responsibilities on a transport system which, as we all know, is doing all it can to put itself in a position where it does not lose so much money as it is doing and has done for some time; and in these circumstances I think it would be quite fatal to accept this Amendment.
My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye pointed out, quite rightly, that one of the main objects of the Bill, among all the things which have been touched upon, is to provide the Minister of Power with the means of controlling the development of cross-country pipelines. It will be his duty to see that they develop in an orderly manner.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kenswood, L.

Summerskill, B.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Lucan, E.

Walston, L.

Amulree, L.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Williams, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Rusholme, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Crook, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

Henderson, L.

Silkin, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Effingham, E.

Mills, L.

Ampthill, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Milverton, L.

Arran, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Molson, L.

Auckland, L.

Goschen, V.

Monsell, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gosford, E.

Monson, L.

Bathurst, E.

Grenfell, L.

Newall, L.

Bossom, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hampton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Cholmondeley. M.

Horsbrugh, B.

Somers, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Howe, E.

Soulbury, V.

Conesford, L.

Killearn, L.

Spens, L.

Coutanche, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Strang, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Strathalmond, L.

Denham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinton, E.

Derwent, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Teviot, L.

Devonshire, D.

Mancroft, L.

Waleran, L.

Dudley, L.

Mansfield, E.

Weir, V.

Dynevor, L.

Margesson, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "cross-country".
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I beg to move this Amendment which, as your Lordships will see, is linked with Amendment No. 12. Briefly, we question the need for, or the soundness of, differentiating between local pipe-lines and cross-country pipe-lines. The Government have made this arbitrary distinction of ten miles, and called anything over that "cross-country" and anything less than ten miles "local". No very good reasons seem to us to have been given for that distinction, and it gives considerable latitude to prospective builders of short pipe-lines, because they do not have to obtain authorisation from the Minister: they merely have to give sixteen weeks' notice and get the local planning authority's permission.
It is easy to see that there are a number of really local pipe-lines where it might be unnecessary for the promoter to have to go to the Minister to get authorisation—for example, pipe-lines at docks and harbours, refineries, factories, mines, quarries and the rest. But all those are specifically excluded from the Bill by Clauses 50, 51 and 52. Local pipe-lines serving local needs of some particular industry are therefore already exempt from the need to go to the Minister. But why allow people to build what would, in effect, be branch pipe-lines from a central one without the necessity of getting the Minister's permission? Until we have heard more about the Government's reasons I personally am not convinced of the need, and I therefore beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("cross-country ").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD MILLS: As the noble Earl has said, this Amendment and No. 12 in the Marshalled List would have the effect of making all pipe-lines subject to the full authorisation procedure, that is the same procedure which will govern cross-country pipe-lines. To apply this procedure to the large number of quite small pipe-lines appears to us to be entirely unnecessary and would impose an undue burden on applicants. It is the development of the cross-country pipe-lines which the Government wish to be able to control. Pipe-lines under 10 miles long (I agree that the figure is an
784
arbitrary one; but a dividing line has to be taken somewhere) would normally be for the purpose of linking specific installations, such as individual chemical plants in the course of production, or oil tanker berths with shore installations or refineries. There will normally be little argument as to the need for such facilities or over the general line which they should follow.
In any case, the local pipe-line will be subject to planning control by the local planning authority. The promoter of such a pipe-line will have to negotiate the rights he needs with the owners and occupiers of the land over which it is to go. Failing their agreement, he would, of course, have to apply for a compulsory rights order which would be the subject of a local inquiry. There does not seem to be any need for this Amendment, which, as I have said, seeks to make short lines subject to the same authorisation procedure as long cross-country lines. I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD LINDGREN: In present circumstances, and in the light of what one can see of the development of pipe-lines during the next few years one can accept the point of view put forward by the Minister. But, after all, this is legislation for the likely development of transport of various types of material, and therefore, at a later stage, there is likely to be a multiplicity of these pipe-lines. Whilst in the early stages of development it is true that, so far as planning permission is concerned, the consideration given by the local authority to the question of highway subways, drains and waterways—and in London to Post Office pipe-lines and London Tubes—will not be a material factor, if these pipe-line are going to develop to any extent, then certainly in the towns and the outskirts of towns it is desirable that there should be some control through a central authority.
Local authority boundaries are in no way determined by the possibilities of transport functioning. One can have a multiplicity of local authorities, particularly within the area of cities like Manchester or Birmingham, and London. One would have thought that it would be much better to have a central authority in regard to which general overall permission was given, having

785
regard to the fact that places such as Greater London or Manchester have in their vicinity a number of urban districts, even though they are short of ten miles away, which might be involved, and there might be a number of pipelines concerned in the development.
LORD MILLS: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, but I would remind him that the authority is the Minister. If in any area or class of areas the Minister considers that local pipe-lines ought to be subject to the same authorisation procedure as cross-country pipe-lines, he can make an order to that effect under Clause 6, subject to Affirmative Resolution. I think that deals with the point.
LORD LINDGREN: I accept that. But, with great respect, would that not be too late? After all, surely the damage would have been done by the time Clause 6 arises.
LORD MILLS: I think not. The Minister can make such an order at any time he sees the need for it.
LORD SILKIN: I think I can understand the Minister's case here much more easily than I could see it on the last Amendment. But I should like him to explain what is the point of having the 10-miles provision. Ten miles seems a long pipe-line. I should have thought that if one had wanted to make a distinction between local and cross-country lines, something substantially less than five miles would have done the trick. The noble Lord visualises the occasion (I think he considers that it might be rare) when the Minister would have to intervene under Clause 6 and ask that the procedure for the cross-country pipe-line should be adopted in the case of lines which are less than ten miles long. On the other hand, I foresee that that might be fairly frequent.
The occasion I envisage is where a pipe-line might go right through a town and beyond it and, as my noble friend has explained, within the area of a number of local authorities. In those cases, which I think will be fairly numerous, the Minister would wish to intervene. I should have thought it would be much better if you did it the other way: gave a short distance for the pipe-line, say five miles, but with a
786
right in certain cases to convert it into a local line where it was felt that that would be satisfactory. Of course, our Amendment is not directed to that, but I hope that we are all trying to be helpful to one another. I would respectfully suggest that that might be worth considering.
LORD MILLS: We have been accused, both on Second Reading and again today of giving no thought to this matter. But in fact, although I said that ten miles was an arbitrary figure, it was by no means a figure "out of the blue"; it was the result of full inquiries. Some people thought it ought to be a mile, others two miles, and so on; and after full consideration of all the evidence we could gather we selected ten miles as the best. I think there are ample safeguards for dealing with the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and therefore I wish to oppose the Amendment.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: This is purely a practical matter and there is no great principle involved; but if the conception in the Government's mind is of a system of trunk, artery and arterial roads, with feeder lines from the refineries and distribution branches to industry, I fail to see why it is not necessary for the Minister to control the proliferation of these branches. They will almost all be in or about built-up areas or centres of industry. They may be under ten miles, but they will give an unnecessary and wasteful duplication of construction. I am quite prepared to believe that the Minister has given this matter great thought, but I still think that experience will show that some central control is necessary for branch lines other than those that are already provided for in Clauses 50, 51 and so on. Nevertheless, I do not propose to press this Amendment; but I should like the Minister to give thought to the problem.
3.49 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: Before we part with this Amendment, I want to say one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Mills. I appreciate that the Government have given consideration to this Bill—of course they have. I hope that Governments give consideration to every Bill that they present to either House. That does not mean that these Bills are incapable of being

787
improved, or that anything that may fall from the lips of noble Lords in various parts of the House should be ignored or be ridden over roughshod—simply because the Government have given consideration and they are going to stand by their decision. If that is the attitude, then I fail to understand what is the purpose of a Committee stage in this House. If the noble Lord is going to say to us: "But of course we thought about this before; we gave consideration to it. We reject your Amendment, and are not even prepared to consider it", then I think we are wasting our time. I do not propose to waste my time on the Committee stage. I will leave it to my friends in another place, who will not stand for this kind of treatment.
LORD DERWENT: With respect to the noble Lord, it seems to some of us who have been listening to this matter that the case for the Amendment, that the ten miles is wrong and that some other distance is right, has not been made out. I should be prepared to accept what the Minister says, because I do not see why it should be three miles or four miles, and if we are going to move an Amendment it seems to me that the case for the Amendment must be made out.
LORD CONESFORD: May I point out one matter that I do not think has been mentioned? I do not think it is final in support of either the Government's view or the Amendment, but it is the problem that is raised when one of those smaller lines goes through an area covered by different planning authorities. If it went through the area of three planning authorities, you might have the situation that two of them gave permission and the third refused it. That would not necessarily be an argument for the Minister to take the matter over under Clause 6 of this Bill, but it would have the somewhat strange result that the appeal by the person desiring to construct the pipe-line would be from the planning authority that had refused permission, to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Therefore, in a case of one of these local pipe-lines where there was a difference between the planning authorities the appeal would go to that Minister, whereas in most cases the Minister concerned would be the Minister of Power. No doubt one
788
Minister can consult the other. I do not say that the position is necessarily wrong, but I thought it might be worth pointing out that it would have that result.
LORD MILLS: I think I had a rebuke from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, which was not really deserved. I have been most impressed all the time I have been in your Lordships' House with the way the House improves legislation. These improvements come from proposals of the noble Lords opposite and also from proposals from this side of the House. But when very careful consideration has already been given and when one says that noble Lords opposite fail to alter one's mind on the matter, I do not think that can be called riding roughshod over the opinions of noble Lords in this House. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that for what it is worth.
LORD SHEPHERD: Before we go on, could the noble Lord reply to the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, in which there was considerable merit?
LORD MILLS: It is true that the planning authority has a duty to determine whether, for its own reasons, an application should be rejected. There is provision in this Bill for a public inquiry even in regard to a local line where the planning authority is not prepared to give its consent. So I think the matter is quite well covered.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: In the Parliamentary Division that I represented for well over thirty years there are two urban district councils, a rural district council and a county borough council all within an area of ten miles. It is perhaps more mysterious to me than to anyone else as to who in the last analysis would give the final decision on one of the shorter pipe-lines.
LORD MILLS: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but in the case he has cited they would not be the planning authority.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: It would be the county council, I presume. The county council would come in as the overall planning authority. The two urban district councils would have to be consulted, the rural district council would have to be consulted, and the

789
county borough would have to be consulted—because they came within the ten mile limit. I understand from the noble Lord that the county council planning authority will have the final say, or the Minister.
LORD LINDGREN: The Ministry of Housing and Local Government have for some time been encouraging local authorities to delegate powers; there has been a big move in the direction of delegation of powers from the central authority down to the minor authorities, both urban and rural. Most county councils have done this to a considerable extent. This still means that, while the county has the overall final authority and would co-ordinate the application of the two urban district councils and the rural district council, to which my noble friend referred, those who are promoting pipe-lines would be expected in the first instance to consult four authorities, and that the final negotiations would be with two authorities. This seems to me to be extending it a little for a ten-mile area.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2), after "authorisation" to insert:
" shall have regard to the public interest and convenience and the interests of amenity, and "
The noble Viscount said: I hope that when he was speaking a little earlier this afternoon I did not detect in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, any slight suspicion of hostility towards me, because I can assure him that in regard to some part of his speech that he made on the first Amendment I have very considerable sympathy with him. It was rather for that reason I put down this Amendment. As the Bill at present stands there seems to be no sort of overall direction which will charge the Minister with seeing that no such complexity and plethora occurs in the pipe-line field as occurred in the last century with railways. It was in order that he should be strengthened and encouraged to resist this sort of thing that I thought fit to put down an Amendment requiring him to take note of the public interest. And I hope that by using the phrase "public interest" your Lordships, and the Minister later, would interpret my view as
790
meaning that he ought to be very strict in supervising the spread of pipe-lines and the whole pattern of their national network.
There is a further consideration of which I think we ought to take note if one is setting out for him a charter, as it were, on which to work, and that is the convenience of the public, by which I mean this. If there have to be two pipe-lines running roughly between the same two places, he should take very carefully into account whether they both ought not to go into the same hole, rather than that two groups of people should have their land and their many interests disturbed in the process. There are many problems of that nature which I think the Minister ought to take very carefully into consideration, and which so far as I can see he is not required at the moment to do.
The third of the things with which I have attempted to charge him in this Amendment is the interest of amenity. I see that noble Lords opposite have put down a very much fuller Amendment on this, and so indeed has my noble friend Lord Mills himself. Therefore, I need say very little about it. But I hope that if this Amendment be not acceptable in itself, my noble friend will be able to give your Lordships the very strongest possible assurance that the Minister is going to take a very stern view of his duties under this Bill in order to see that we do not have a somewhat slipshod network of pipe-lines all over this country, which should really have been very much better co-ordinated in the first place; that he will continue as time goes on to see that the pipe-lines, which are added at a later stage, do not duplicate those which already exist and, if possible, they follow the same routes; and that in every possible way there is a very secure hold taken upon this situation. This is the purpose for which I put down this Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, after ("authorisation") insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD WILLIA MS OF BARNBURGH: I should like to support the theme of the noble Viscount when he raises the point that, apparently, there is no criterion to guide the Minister as to what is the public interest, what is the pri-

791
vate interest, or what anybody else's interest may be. I understand that no Private Bill would be allowed to go by unless it were proved that the Bill was in the national interest. I think there ought to be some basis on which the Minister, or whoever happens to be in charge and is either giving or withholding authority, will be satisfied that the public interest is going to be served. I can visualise pipe-lines going here and there, and agricultural land being disturbed; and we have already had some experience of what can happen with opencast coal production. I have seen sights in my county and adjoining counties which almost made one weep. Of course, that was in the earlier stages of opencast mining. It has taken very many years for an acceptable solution to be found. That relates to the public interest, and it is the sort of thing which should be thought about very seriously at the outset, and not five, ten or fifteen years later.
I do not quite know whether or not the words in the Amendment will meet the case, as they are not too specific. But I would hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will feel that we ought not to make the same mistake which was made in the early stages of opencast coal mining. If we can determine what we think is the public interest, and that is the criterion on which the Minister grants or withholds authority, then I am sure that your Lordships' House will be happier than they are at the moment, when there is no criterion at all and no reference to public interest. I hope that the noble Lord will give some little thought to this before he rejects it.
LORD SILKIN: I should not have intervened but for the reference of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, to what I said on an earlier Amendment. I should like to assure him that there was not the slightest intention on my part to suggest any hostility to him. On the contrary, I have, as we all of us have, the highest admiration for his abilities and we hope that he will have a very happy, long and successful career. I was perhaps "pulling his leg"—if I may use a vulgar term—about this Amendment, because I noticed that many of us have been circularised by a
792
Company which has an interest in securing the passage of this Bill. They have been good enough to suggest a number of Amendments that we might put down, and I thought I detected some of them in the Amendments which the noble Viscount has put down on the Order Paper. He assures me that he has put each one down on its merits and after full consideration, and of course I entirely accept that. But that is the explanation for the observation I made.
On the merits of the Amendment itself, I hope that this is not one of those Amendments which the Government considered before they introduced the Bill and decided that it was not necessary. Indeed, I noticed that the noble Lord himself has a number of Amendments. Evidently, he did not think of everything in this Bill. There are some things that he must have omitted, and I should have thought that this was one of them. I hope that the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment or something like it.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): I do not suppose there is anyone in any part of the House who would disagree with the underlying principle of this Amendment, that the public interest and convenience, and the interest of amenity as well, should be safeguarded. I should not like to have to define myself as resisting this Amendment, because that would be to gainsay what I have just said, and that is something which I would not wish to do. I should like, if I may, to refer my noble friend to paragraph 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum where he will find that the object of the Bill—
"is to provide the Minister of Power with means of controlling the development of cross-country pipe-lines in the public interest".
That is the underlying purpose of the Bill.
If it were not to be with regard to the public interest and convenience, there would have been no Bill. It may be the case, in fact it is—we have already had proof this afternoon—that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, said, there are differing political views on how to achieve the public interest. That we have seen and it must exist. But there is certainly no difference between any of us on the point that the

793
Minister is to act and should act in the public interest. The whole object of the Bill is for him to act in that way, and it seems to me that it is quite clear that there is no other way in which he can act; he is not at liberty to act in any other way. I would say, therefore, that that aspect of my noble friend's point is already covered. If I were to accept the Amendment it would merely add words to the Bill and would add no further strength to what is already there.
On the point of amenity, if your Lordships will look at Amendment No. 57, in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills, you will see that it covers amenity. Perhaps we shall mention it again when we reach Amendment No. 7, which I think takes full care of the interest of amenity. I hope, therefore, that in view of what I have said my noble friend may be satisfied and will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I first express my appreciation of the very generous things that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said? Of course I entirely accept that. My noble friend Lord Chesham has said remarkably little about what Her Majesty's Government consider to be in the public interest in this particular field. I wonder whether he would care to go a little further into the sort of way in which he expects his right honourable friend's mind to work when considering the whole complexity of this subject.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The noble Lord said that the words "in the public interest" are in the Explanatory Memorandum. But in his remarks he then seemed to me to assume that what was in the Explanatory Memorandum was, in fact, part of the Bill. That seems to me to be the weakness of his argument. He talks about public interest and reassures us because it is dealt with in the Explanatory Memorandum. He says that the purpose of the Bill is to preserve public interest, but there is nothing in the Bill which translates that expression of intention contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
LORD CHESHAM: My noble friend will not be surprised to learn, perhaps, that I was aware that the Explanatory Memorandum did not form part of the Bill. I referred to it as an indication of the first object which had been in any-
794
one's mind when devising this Bill. I am not sure whether consultation with Parliamentary counsel would improve my mind or not, but I am not quite certain how to define in a Bill what is "public interest"—I may be not sure of that merely because I am ignorant—and what are the particular aspects of the public interest which are to be protected.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I interrupt my noble friend for one moment? Had the Government not pursued this course but the course of the procedure laid down for a Private Bill, public interest would have been adequately safeguarded. The Government have really brought this ambiguity upon themselves by introducing the particular procedure outlined in the Bill. I hope the Minister is not going to be resistant and, if I may use the word without offence, obstinate, but will tell us that the intention set out in the Explanatory Memorandum will be considered at a later stage as a possibility for insertion in the Bill.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Before the Minister replies, may I point out to him that the Long Title of the Bill equally has no mention of public interest. The Long Title says that the Bill is to regulate and facilitate the construction of pipe-lines. That is all the Minister has to go on in exercising his discretion. What I think the noble Viscount and other noble Lords have in mind is that there should be some broad aim of policy, which need not he defined too closely, to guide the Minister in exercising his discretion.
LORD CHESHAM: I should not like to be thought obstinate and resistant on a matter of this kind. I have merely sought to try to show that the object of the Bill is to proceed with the development of pipe-lines in the public interest by offering safeguards to individuals, to collections of individuals and, generally speaking, to the public in various ways. To explain what the Minister considers as being in the public interest is, to my mind, to make a lengthy Second Reading speech explaining the Bill. As I said, the intention of the Bill as a whole is in the public interest. But I do not want to go on with this too long, because I certainly should not want to be resistant about it. I tried to show only that some

795
such expression as that used by my noble friend in his Amendment would not add anything to the Bill. If he and your Lordships would be happier that this matter should be looked at again to see whether anything constructive can be added—because I think your Lordships would agree that we should not want merely to add words that mean very little—I should be only too happy to look into it.
LORD CONESFORD: I should like to support both what the mover of this Amendment has said and what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has said. I think the real difficulty here turns on the burden of proof. As long as you have anything like Private Bill procedure, the applicant has to prove the Preamble. The burden is on the applicant to show that the pipe-line is in the public interest. Now all that is swept away. There is machinery providing what the applicant has to do. He has to say, "I want the pipe-line, and I have got such-and-such consent", or, "I have consulted such-and-such people ". Then there is the bald statement that the Minister can grant or refuse, but there is nothing to indicate what the Minister is to have in his mind. I agree, of course, with my noble friend Lord Chesham, that there is something not quite appropriate in putting into the Bill such simple words as "shall have regard to the public interest" —because, of course, every Minister must have regard to the public interest; and the other addition of amenity is being provided for more specifically in another, later Amendment.
What I ventured to put before the House during the debate on Second Reading was that something more is required to show the sort of principles that are to be observed. To put a possible principle that might appear, the Bill could provide that the Minister shall be satisfied that the proposed pipeline achieves its object with a minimum of interference or prejudice to private interests or to amenity—some principle of that sort. The effect of proceeding from a Private Bill, where the burden of proof is entirely on the pipe-line constructor, to the method adopted by this Bill, where the matter is entirely in the hands of the Minister, but where
796
there are no principles laid down at all on what the Minister is to observe, shows, I think, that there is something missing which ought to be supplied by a Government Amendment. I am convinced that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross will not press this particular Amendment, which I think is surplusage in so far as public interest is concerned, and is better provided for by subsequent Amendments in so far as amenity is concerned. I therefore think he will not press this particular Amendment; but, for the reasons given both by him and by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I think there is a point of substance which is not met at present in the Bill, and is not met by any of the Government Amendments hitherto put down. I therefore very much hope that, at a later stage, something will be done to meet the need which I think is felt in all quarters of the Committee.
LORD SPENS: May I just add a word to this discussion? I personally should very strongly deprecate any such expression as public interest "going into an Act of Parliament, because, if it means that it is going to be put upon Her Majesty's judges to decide whether or not a Minister has acted in the public interest, it is a highly undesirable form of legislation. Certainly Her Majesty's judges, so far as I know, would very much deprecate being called upon to decide what is in the public interest. That is a matter for a Minister or for this House or for the other place to decide, and it is not a matter which should be put into legislation in any form so that the burden of decision is put upon Her Majesty's judges. Therefore, if further words are added, I suggest that the less we have about the public interest in an Act of Parliament which may be the subject of litigation the better.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Particularly in view of what my noble and learned friend has just said, and also having regard to the speech of the noble Lord upon the Front Bench and my noble friend Lord Conesford, I will not press this Amendment; but I am extremely glad to hear from my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government will look at this matter again because I, like other noble Lords, feel there is a

797
point of substance here. However, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2), after "application" to insert:
"subject to such modifications (if any) as he may think fit".
The noble Viscount said: I am afraid that, once again, I have anticipated an Amendment by noble Lords opposite, but only in the place in which I have put mine down. So far as I can make out, the Bill, with the possible exception of paragraph 5 of the First Schedule, does not entitle the Minister to make an alteration in a pipe-line construction authorisation which is sent up to him for his approval. So far as I can see, he is empowered only to grant it as it stands or to refuse it as it stands, although according to the First Schedule he may make a few minor alterations. This does not conform with the normal powers of a Minister when this type of duty is laid upon him. For instance, when he sits in a quasi judicial capacity to decide upon an appeal under the Town and Country Planning Acts, he has the power written into that Act either to grant the appeal or to refuse it, or to grant it subject to such modifications as he may think fit. It seems to me, therefore, that whether or not there is some vague power in the Schedule to this effect, there should appear in the .body of the Bill a perfectly clear power and discretion to the Minister to make such modifications as he may think fit to an application which is sent up to him under Clause 1. Therefore, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, after ("application") insert ("subject to such modifications (if any) as he may think fit").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD LINDGREN: As the noble Viscount intimated in moving his Amendment, the general principle so far as Amendment No. 6 is concerned is exactly the same. As I see no purpose in having two discussions over a difference of words, if your Lordships would agree we could have a discussion on both Amendments at the same time.
798
I appreciate that the Parliamentary draftsmen say that the less one puts in the better, because the more one puts in the greater is the possibility for people to point out that certain things are in, others are left out and were therefore intended to be left out. It seems to me, however, that if there is to be permission to grant and permission to refuse, then there ought to be the possibility of varying or modifying. Therefore, from this side of the House I should like to support Amendment No. 5 in the name of the noble Viscount.
LORD CHESHAM: Again, I am in no mind to resist the spirit of these two Amendments in principle. All I am going to say is that I had, up till now, taken the view that what is already in the Bill provides for the necessary modification. I would agree that the provisions of Clause 1, subsection (2), give the impression that the Minister should either grant the application or refuse it, but it must be taken in conjunction with paragraph 5 (1) of the First Schedule, where it says quite clearly that a modification of the rules may be made. Perhaps noble Lords will be able to help me here. I have had some difficulty in thinking of what variations or modifications the Minister is likely to make other than ones of route. Such matters as depth, size of the pipe, what is to go up it, and so on, are covered elsewhere in the Bill. Certainly my understanding is that the wording of the Bill was already sufficient to comply with the points which noble Lords have raised. Therefore it is much more a matter of drafting than of substance. Indeed, it may at first sight seem a little complicated. I am told that there would be certain complications in re-drafting the clause to say the same thing, and I hope that both noble Lords will feel satisfied that their fears are in fact met.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to my noble friend, but it passes my comprehension why, if it is the intention that the Minister must have this power, he must rely on something in the Schedule and cannot write it into the clause in the Bill. It seems to me to be such an obvious thing to do, and so much easier for everyone. Is my noble friend saying that this is a matter which he will not question any further?
LORD CHESHAM: No; quite frankly, I am not saying that. I should need a little convincing that it was needful to write it in in some different manner; but if your Lordships feel happier about it, I will consider the matter again, although I feel bound to say that I could not commit myself as to what that consideration would lead to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to my noble friend. He has spurred me to make some research into this matter, and I will see whether I can find some precedents for this, and I may possibly raise the matter again on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: In view of the appearance on the Marshalled List of Amendment No. 57, which is, to all intents and purposes, the same as No. 7, tabled by my noble friend Lord Chorley and myself, I suggest that we have the discussion on Amendment No. 57, and not on this one. If that is agreeable, I do not propose to move this Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "substantially". The noble Viscount said: This is a very small point. The words "substantial "and" substantially" have in the past given rise to serious litigation. Therefore, I have put down this Amendment in order to raise the point whether Her Majesty's Government might not be able to find a more suitable method of putting into effect what I quite see is a valid point, in order to make it a little less uncertain when the work has been "substantially begun". It is, as I say, only a small point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, leave out the word ("substantially").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD CHESHAM: In reply to this Amendment, might I ask whether my noble friend and your Lordships would be prepared to consider Amendment No. 11, which I think is the same point, because I am bound to say that I think this is a matter which is "substantially" in the public interest? This form of drafting and the use of the word
"substantially" in this connection has actu-
800
ally come from the precedent in the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950. Under Clause 1 (4) and Clause 2 (3), a construction authorisation under Clause 1 or notice given under Clause 2 expires if the work has not been substantially begun after twelve months. Now, if we withdraw the word "substantially", it would be possible for the promoter—the constructor of the pipe-line—to keep those authorisations and notices in being just by digging a silly little ditch or turning over a few spadefuls of earth; and I do not think that that is what is wanted. "Substantially" has worked quite well in its application under the Act I mentioned, and I think it is the proper word in this case and should remain where it is. I hope my noble friend will accept that it should.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, I do. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I hope your Lordships will forgive me for detaining you once more on this clause, but there is a small point on subsection (4) in respect of which I did not put down an Amendment and which I think is worthy of being considered by your Lordships. The Committee will see that, although as a broad principle the authorisation, once given by the Minister, will lapse at the end of twelve months, none the less the Minister has power to extend that period and, so far as I can see, his power is unlimited. He could extend the authorisation for any period which he thought fit.
The effect of an authorisation to construct a pipe-line across any property will be, of course, that the route taken by the pipe must be sterilised to all intents and purposes until the line is laid and the whole thing is over and done with. Therefore, I very much welcome that this sterilisation cannot, normally speaking, last for more than twelve months unless the holder of the authorisation goes back to the Minister for regrant. But to me it is a little worrying that the Minister should have this unlimited power to extend the period of validity of the authorisation he has granted.

801
I wonder whether your Lordships and the Government might not think that there would be a case for inserting in the Bill at this particular point the requirement that if the Minister decided that he would like to extend the time during which an authorisation should remain valid, he should give the owner of the land across which it is proposed that the pipes should run an opportunity to make representations to him, so that he may perhaps make the period a further year or might impose some sort of condition on the proposed pipe-line owner so as to avoid a long period of doubt and hesitation to the landowner in question.
LORD MILLS: I appreciate the validity of the argument put forward by the noble Viscount and I should like to give the matter further consideration.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank the noble Lord.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Local pipe-lines not to be constructed without notice to the Minister]:
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, in subsection (1), after "local pipe-line" to insert "more than one mile in length". The noble Lord said: First of all, I should like to apologise to your Lordships for having put down this Amendment in manuscript form at such a late time, but I returned from a trip abroad only yesterday, so I trust that I have your Lordships' forgiveness for putting down this Amendment this morning. The purpose of the Amendment is that industry, on which this country depends to such a large extent, shall not be unreasonably hampered by the provisions of this Bill in so far as very short pipelines are concerned, while it still allows the rights of private persons to be properly protected.
The number of short pipe-lines of a mile or less in length—in many cases of half a mile or less—is very great, particularly in the chemicals and minerals fields. I say with humility that it would seem, as the Bill stands at the moment, that the Government have not shown the correct amount of awareness of the large number of short pipe-lines that already exist. I would, for instance,
802
mention only a few areas and places: Cornwall, Tees-side, Merseyside, Birmingham, Winton, Widnes, Runcorn. These very short pipe-lines come daily under the eye of factory managements, and therefore it would be quite impracticable for long notice to have to be given for carrying out new construction or alteration work on pipe-lines which may be only a few hundred yards outside the area of the factory. In effect, the Bill imposes a control in the form of a sixteen-week notice, even when an industry may be able to obtain immediately the agreement of the one landowner who may be affected.
It is possible for such a short pipe-line to be laid from a quarry to a factory and to pass through the land of only one landowner. Or a short pipe-line used for chemicals may have to be laid to replace an existing defective one. Or a short length of pipe-line may have to be laid from a brine well to a plant which will use or treat the brine and which is in close proximity to the wellhead. Short pipe-lines have also to be laid at short notice in the china clay industry, to which I referred on Second Reading. There have been cases in the past, especially because of the large variety of qualities and of demands from abroad—approximately 70 per cent. of the output of the china clay industry goes for export—when a short pipe-line has had to be laid just to meet the demand of one customer, say, in America. Also, short pipe-lines may have to be laid at short notice to comply with the requirements of a river board in order to avoid river pollution.
Therefore, unless there is exemption for such short pipe-lines from the notification procedure, there will be unwarranted dislocation and interference with normal industrial processes. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, as an experienced industrialist, must be well aware of this problem which industry, particularly the chemical industry, will face if this Bill goes through as it is, and I hope he will see some way of accepting this Amendment. I think that he will realise that for such short pipe-lines this exemption cannot be detrimental to the public interest and will be of great assistance to industry as a whole and particularly to the chemical and minerals industries. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, after ("pipe-line") insert the said words.—(Lord Merrivale.)
LORD LINDGREN: While the noble Lord who moved this Amendment made an excellent case from his point of view. I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment. It is easily understood if the works to which the pipe-line is to be joined are in open country; but more often than not they may be in a town, or quite close to a town, in which such matters as water mains, sewerage and the rest are likely to be involved. Sixteen weeks is not a long time for all the various interests likely to be affected to get to know what is happening, and for their various technical staffs to consider possible effects and to have consultation in regard to possible lines of action to be taken. If it were only one firm and one pipe-line; if they were the only landowners and there was likely to be no other interest involved, then the case put by the noble Lord would no doubt stand. But where there are other interests involved—it may be another landowner, local authorities, water companies, sewerage works and the rest—generally sixteen weeks is not an unreasonable period.
LORD MILLS: I appreciate the reasons which have actuated my noble friend Lord Merrivale to put down this Amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has very nearly got the answer. My noble friend has not appreciated, I think, that the main purpose of the period of notice prescribed under Clause 2 is to enable the Minister to consider, in consultation with other interests affected, whether any safety requirements should be imposed. From this point of view, the length of the line is almost immaterial. Any line which runs outside the promoter's premises can be a potential danger to the public: indeed, a short line carrying dangerous or explosive materials in a built-up area may require much more stringent safeguards than a longer one conveying harmless things through the open country. I suggest, therefore that it would be impracticable to relate the period of notice to the length of line proposed. The clause, however, provides in line 13 and 14 on page 3 that the Minister may allow a shorter period of notice in a particular case, and this
804
should enable him to meet the difficulties which my noble friend foresees.
LORD MERRIVALE: I must say that I am little disappointed at the response of my noble friend Lord Mills. He completely failed to mention the manner in which companies at the moment acquired the right to lay their short pipe-lines which, as I mentioned, are already in existence and operate from one plant to another or from one factory to another nearby factory around the country. Therefore, as the law stands at the moment there are safeguards. I fail to see why my noble friend is not content with the safeguards which now exist for the protection of the general public, local authorities and others, and cannot see his way to agree at least to the principle of my Amendment.
I am not wedded to the distance of one mile. So far as the chemical industry is concerned, I think that a distance of half-a-mile would be quite satisfactory. I should not have thought that amenities of the country or the general public interest would be affected in any unpleasant way if this Amendment, or another one covering a shorter distance, were accepted. It can be in a number of cases that the length of pipe-line may be very small indeed; it may go only just outside the curtilage of a factory. I am sure that my noble friend is aware of this. He must have great knowledge of how the chemical industry works at the moment, and must know that if the Bill goes through in its present form it will injuriously affect some very large organisations in the country, on which in large measure the country depends for its livelihood.
It is all very well to say that local authorities or the general public interest will be affected; but we are an industrial nation. I agree that we must have safeguards, but there are safeguards in the Bill; and very short pipe-lines are day-to-day matters which cannot stand a sixteen week delay in respect of this notification period. I would plead with my noble friend to look at this matter again and have further consultations. Perhaps at a later stage he may say: "We have consulted with some of the largest concerns in this country, but we still believe as we did before. "The chemical industry is one of our most important exporters. Surely, if in the

805
matter of these very short pipe-lines their day-to-day operations will be affected, it is not right that we should pass the Bill in its present form.
LORD MILLS: I can only repeat that in this Bill the Minister will be given power to specify the safety requirements in regard to any pipe-line. It is not a question of the length of the pipe-line. But there is also power in the Bill for the Minister to stipulate a shorter period of notice in any particular case. These problems of the chemical industry, the china clay industry and so on, are well understood and appreciated. Merely because it specifies a period of sixteen weeks, or such shorter period as the Minister may decide, is no reason to think that he will decide anything which is against the interests of the industry.
LORD MERRIVALE: I do not propose to press this matter, but I will go into it further and reserve the right, if need be, to put down another Amendment at a later stage. With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"( ) Notice shall be given to the owners and occupiers of any land along the route of the proposed pipe-line of the intention to give to the Minister the notice referred to in the foregoing subsection before such notice is given to the Minister."
The noble Viscount said: The question of local pipe-lines has perplexed me in some degree in regard to this Bill, and as your Lordships have already heard it has exercised noble Lords opposite. I am particularly concerned that your Lordships should consider the matter very carefully, in view of the admission by my noble friend Lord Mills that the ten-mile limit for a local pipe-line is, in fact, a purely arbitrary measure.
In those circumstances, it seems to me that, not only now, but probably more so in the future, the Minister's power, under Clause 6, to convert a pipe-line shorter than ten miles from local to cross-country pipe-line procedure, and to subject it to the more strenuous procedure under Clause 1, is going to be very important. If that clause is to be
806
properly operated, I believe it to be quite vital that the owners and occupiers of land over which any pipe-line promoter proposes to put his line, should have notice of his proposal at the very earliest opportunity, so that if for any reason they object to it they shall have the earliest possible chance of making representations to the Minister and asking him to use his power under Clause 6.
I have put down this Amendment in order to put at the forefront of the clause the necessity that a would-be pipe-line owner shall give notice, in the case of a pipe-line shorter than ten miles, to those whose lands are likely to be affected by it. I know that my noble friend Lord Mills said on Second Reading that this particular provision was not necessary, because in subsection (2) (c) of Clause 2, the promoter of the proposed pipe-line has to certify to the Minister the rights and the consents which he has obtained. This means, by inference, that he has had to go to all the owners along the proposed line and talk to them. This is another example of the point I raised a few minutes ago. If Her Majesty's Government intend the would-be pipe-line owner to consult and to give notice to the people along the line, why do they not put it in the Bill? I consider that this necessity is so important that it ought to go in the forefront of this clause in order to give people the maximum protection where the local pipe-line procedure is liable to be used. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Amendment, No. 10, deals with almost the same point, and I was wondering whether it would be as well if I spoke to that now. I agree with everything the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has said, and my Amendment tries to do the same thing, though goes, perhaps, a little further. It insists not only that notice should be given, but that owners and occupiers should be fully consulted, in that the promoters would have to seek to get the rights over their land and would have to prove that they had sought to get those rights before going to the Minister. I understand that subsection (2) (c) is

807
intended to achieve this object, but I am informed that there is a certain amount of doubt as to whether it does so. I think it is absolutely essential that the people are consulted at the earliest possible moment.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It is impossible to over-estimate the importance of this Amendment, because it goes to the root of one of the greatest grievances which not only landowners, but anyone who owns or tenants a house, even in a village or sometimes a big town, has to face. Again and again one finds the interests of an owner or occupier, large or small, prejudiced, inasmuch as he suddenly discovers that some Government Department, statutory board or local authority proposes to do something which is definitely inimical to his interests. One is always told that he ought to have known what is going to happen. What usually happens is that something appears in the Gazette which nobody except officials reads, or it appears in the local newspaper. I hope that most of us who live in the country read our local newspapers, but, quite frankly, I do not think that anyone can be expected, once or twice a week, to wade through advertisement columns in order to discover, wedged probably between notices of a church concert and of a farm sale, that something is going to happen which may affect his interests.
This is happening the whole time, and I feel it is essential that there should be a change. If a sense of grievance arises, as it undoubtedly often does, as a result of the behaviour of these Government Departments and public bodies, still greater will be the resentment if it is done at the behest merely of a private company. Furthermore, there will not necessarily be much time. It may well be that it will be thought it could be covered by the notice which the Minister will give later on. But in point of fact no large company is going to embark upon a pipe-line—it is not even going to consider making application for a pipe-line—unless, by private consultations beforehand, it is found that the Ministry is likely to grant approval. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept this Amendment, or will promise to put in something like it, because,
808
quite frankly, it is not good enough for us to be told that in any case the Minister is bound to do that although it is not stated specifically in the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the Minister replies, would he be kind enough to tell me at what stage the applicant for a local pipe-line has to obtain planning permission from the planning authority? It appears to me that the notice for the purposes of the foregoing subsection must surely state whether planning permission has been granted or not. If he makes the application to the Minister without planning permission, what is the position of the planning authority? I am not quite clear. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to deal with that point in his reply.
LORD MILLS: I have some difficulty in understanding why this Amendment, or an Amendment along these lines, is necessary, because I cannot see any reason to suggest that owners and occupiers will be unaware of proposals for constructing a pipe-line over their land. As has been stated, in subsection (2) (c) the promoter is required in his notice to specify the rights and consents necessary for the construction of the work and to state whether such rights and consents have been or can be obtained. This means that he must first have approached all the owners and occupiers concerned. I can see there is a certain amount of feeling in the Committee that this is not sufficient, but, as I have said, I do not understand why it is not sufficient. In view of what has been said, however, I will certainly have another look at it. I do not think I can go any further than that this afternoon.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I think he discovered that in subsection (2) (c) the proposer has to
"… specify the rights and consents the grant or giving of which is so requisite and state, with respect to each of them, whether the grant or giving thereof has been, or can be, obtained;"
Perhaps that does not go so far as my noble friend intended. He wants to know when the planning authority—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Would he not agree that, as a

809
prerequisite before anything else is done, planning permission must be obtained from a local planning authority? It is no good getting to these other consents unless a planning authority has given permission, and I should have thought this should be stated specifically.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said; because, after all, each county or large borough has its own planning authority. It seems very remarkable to me (I am a member of my own planning authority) that there is no mention here, so far as I can see, of a planning authority's being consulted.
LORD MILLS: The proposer has to tell the Minister when he asks for the Minister's consent that he has permission from the planning authority.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Where is that stated?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It does not say so.
LORD MILLS: It is certainly there. Shall I let the noble Lord know?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Certainly.
LORD STONHAM: I have been trying to follow this. I must admit, as the case has been presented, that I have considerable sympathy with the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment. Nowhere in Clause 2 is there any indication, as the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has suggested, that notices are going to be given to the owners concerned. I can see only two references to the notices. One is in line 15, where it says
"… there has been given to the Minister a notice …"
and one in line 5, on page 3, where again it says:
"… a notice for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section has been given to the Minister …"
There is no indication, so far as I can see, that any of the owners should receive notice as to what is going to be done. Unless it appears somewhere else in the Bill, I think we should have this Amendment.
LORD LINDGREN: I hope the Minister will be able to clarify the
810
position, because it is not only noble Lords in this House who are at the moment mystified. If I may declare an interest, to which I am now speaking, since my arrival at this House I have had a letter from the British Waterworks Association. In reference to Clause 2, they say—and these are their words:
"Application for an authorisation brings into play the provisions of the First Schedule to the Bill providing for notice for objections to be made and for a public inquiry. This procedure does not, however, apply to pipe-lines under ten miles in length. Therefore whilst water undertakers may be themselves considered affected by a pipe-line under ten miles in length they will not have notice of it and nor will they have any opportunity of making their apprehensions known to the Minister."
If a reputable body such as the British Waterworks Association, who I assume have legal advice with regard to matters affecting the laying of pipe-lines and interference with their pipes, are not clear, then I think there is some excuse for noble Lords like myself, who are not lawyers, being also mystified. I should be most grateful if the Minister would like to look at it in the light of what the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment has said.
LORD MILLS: The requirement that planning permission must be obtained is under the Town and Country Planning Act, and that is why it is not stated in this Bill. There is no need for it to be in the Bill.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Will the noble Lord say what happens if a local authority is unwilling to give planning permission? Presumably it will be overridden.
LORD MILLS: There will have to be a public inquiry. The case will be heard and a decision will then be taken by the Minister.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Which Minister?
LORD STONHAM: Is it not a fact that, in many cases, if the Minister approves a scheme planning permission is deemed to have been given. How will notice arise under the Town and Country Planning Act in such circumstances?
LORD MILLS: I think the position is quite clear. The local planning authority has power to object and there must then

811
be a public inquiry. At the public inquiry a report is made as to whether that objection should be maintained or not. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I would say that which Minister will be concerned, depends on how the inquiry is conducted. In the case of electricity, for example, sometimes it may be conducted by an inspector from the Ministry of Power, sitting alongside one from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Sometimes an inquiry may be conducted by the Minister of Power's representative. It is arranged between the two of them how this should be done.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I suggest to the noble Lord that we should make this quite clear. Here we have an application for local pipe-line planning permission, and let us assume that it is refused under the Town and Country Planning Act. It is unknown and undefined as to who would conduct the inquiry and, more important still, which Minister would be the Minister who would finally agree to its rejection, or overrule the local planning authority. Have we here a position where the Minister of Power would, in fact, be overruling the town planning authorities' objections, or have we the position where there the Minister of Housing and Local Government would be overruling the Minister of Power's requirements for a pipe-line in the national interest? I think we ought to know which it is.
LORD MILLS: The noble Lord's first assumption is the correct one under this Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Am I to gather from the noble Lord that the prerequisite for an application is to get planning permission first, and that one cannot proceed at all unless one gets planning permission? Would it not therefore be advisable in this particular clause to have another paragraph, (f), after paragraph (e), stating whether or not he has obtained planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act? I must say that I am confused. If he has not obtained that planning consent, can he proceed to the Minister of Power with his application? And, if so, can the Minister of Power then override the local planning authority? If he can override the local
812
planning authority, why not let the man go to the Minister first and thus save himself the trouble of getting planning consent? Because if the Minister of Power says, "Yes, you can put your pipe-line down, "he can, if I may use what is said to be a vulgarism, "cock a snook" at the planning authority. Is that wise?
LORD MILLS: I do not think it is correct. The Minister has to be notified of the result of the application to the local planning authority in all cases before he gives his consent or refuses his consent.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think it is quite clear from the discussion upon this Amendment that my noble friend should look at this subject again. As I understand it, the procedure for a local pipe-line is not quite what seems to have been described this afternoon. It is really that someone who proposes to put down a local pipe-line cannot start the work without getting permission from the Minister under Clause 2. Of course he cannot do so either without getting planning consent under the Town and Country Planning Act, but that is a different matter. Where, however, the two might become confused is in this instance: suppose the planning authority refuse permission and the would-be pipe-line owner then sends his notice to the Minister under Clause 2, and the Minister, using his powers under Clause 6, treats the application as one for a cross-country pipe-line. The Minister of Power is then enabled to override the planning authority's refusal; but I think not otherwise.
LORD MILLS: But only after a public inquiry.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Only after another inquiry, I agree. It seems to me that that is something which ought to be straightened out. There is one other consideration: if the would-be pipe-line owner did not own all the land along which he wished to put his pipe-line, he would, under the 1959 Town and Country Planning Act, have to give notice to the owner of that land that he was going to make a planning application, so that the owner would get notice that way; but the occupier would not. Therefore I think there is a case

813
for further consideration of this point. However, in view of what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 45, after ("them") insert
("that the grant or giving thereof has been sought, and").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney).
LORD MILLS: I think this Amendment is really redundant, if we consider it in relation to Amendment No. 9. I would suggest to your Lordship's that you await the results of my further inquiry into this matter before we agree this Amendment.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: In view of what the noble Lord says, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Power of the Minister to secure the removal of works executed in contravention of section 1 or 2
(2) If a person on whom a notice is served under the foregoing subsection fails, before the expiration of six weeks from the date on which the notice was served, or such longer period as the Minister may on his application allow, to comply with the requirement imposed by the notice, the Minister may enter and remove the works in question and may recover from the person in default, in any court of competent jurisdiction, the expenses reasonably incurred by the Minister in so doing.
5.14 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "six weeks" and insert "twelve months". The noble Lord said: With the Committee's permission, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 together because they hang together. Clause 4 deals with the case where a pipe-line has been put down in contravention of Clauses 1 and 2 and gives the Minister power to order its removal. It seems to me that the clause as it stands ensures the speedy removal of the pipe-line but does not pay sufficient attention to the interests of the owners and occupiers of the land. The object of my first Amendment, which increases
814
the length of time from six weeks to twelve months, is to allow for the work to be carried out at a time when it does least damage to the owner and the occupier of the land. After all, this person has suffered all the inconvenience of a pipe-line being put through his land and now it is going to be removed, and it seems to me that we ought to ensure that the least possible amount of damage is done. One does not want to take the pipe-line up in the middle of harvest or when the ground is particularly wet in the middle of the winter. My second Amendment ensures that due notice and consultation takes plaice between the pipe-line promoter and owners and occupiers, so that the same object is achieved: that the removal of the pipe-line causes the least nuisance to everybody concerned. That is really the basis of my argument. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 43, leave out ("six weeks ") and insert ("twelve months").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD CHESHAM: I find myself in agreement with my noble friend who moved this Amendment that there is something that needs doing here. If he will not mind my saying so, I think the way he has suggested of doing it is perhaps not quite the right way. I do not think there is any need for me to waste any words about the convenience, as it were, of occupiers, particularly agricultural ones; but I would say in connection with the noble Lord's first Amendment that while, from one point of view, a period of twelve months would be much more reasonable, I think from other points of view it is much too long. Where somebody has done something naughty with his pipe-line and he has to remove it, it seems that in many cases twelve months would be much too long, although it would be reasonable in others. With regard to the question of notice to the occupier, that is, I think, also a point of substance.
The final question of how the time should be decided when this offending pipe-line should be removed is a question that requires some further study. I am only hazarding a guess, but perhaps that is something that might be done under the Bill as it stands. The time can be extended on the application of the pipe-line operator. Perhaps if that

815
provision were amended to provide for it to be done on the application of the owner or occupier as well, it might meet the case; but I do not want to anticipate how it could be done. We think there are three points to meet here, and if my noble friend feels like withdrawing his Amendment I shall be glad to look at it carefully to see whether we cannot produce a Government Amendment to set down later to meet the points he has raised.
LORD DERWENT: I hope that when my noble friend considers this matter with his right honourable friend he will regard it as being more important to look after the occupier than to treat the pipe-line constructor as a naughty boy. I quite see that he wants to treat him as a naughty boy, but I hope he will look at the matter first of all from the point of view of what is best for the occupier.
LORD CHESHAM: If I may put in another word before the noble Lord opposite, as one of those over whose farm the last pipe-line under the Private Bill procedure is to be laid, I would say that I think my noble friend can rely upon it.
LORD SILKIN: I am delighted to see this new spirit of conciliation in dealing with Amendments to this Bill; it seems to indicate that the Government have not thought of everything. It so happens that this spirit is at the moment directed to one side of the House and not to the other. I hope that Amendments from all parts of the House will be considered with equal objectiveness. So far as this particular Amendment is concerned, I must say that I do not understand the need for it, because in the special case that the noble Lord has quoted where more time is wanted, the clause itself provides for the possibility of granting an extension beyond the six weeks. But in the normal case where a person has put in a pipe-line contrary to the permission that he has had, or perhaps even without any permission at all, surely six weeks would be quite a long enough period in which he should be required to remove it. Is it not the fact that this period can be extended? The Bill says:
"If a person on whom a notice is served under the foregoing subsection fails, before the expiration of six weeks from the date on which the notice was served, or such longer
816
period as the Minister may on his application allow … "
Admittedly that refers to an application by the person who has laid the pipe. I personally should not resist including words to indicate that the application could be made by the owner of the land; but I would certainly strongly resist extending the time in the Bill itself, otherwise, as the clause would stand if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, you could extend beyond the twelve months. However, I rose really to congratulate the Government on their new spirit, and I hope it will continue.
LORD CHESHAM: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for what he has just said. I hope I shall be able to reassure him that Her Majesty's Government always act in a spirit of complete objectivity, and treat every Amendment which is put down on what can be seen to be its merits. I should certainly greatly welcome the noble Lord's invitation for the future. I cannot say more at the moment than that I think he must wait and see; but, of course, as always, we do our best.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am most grateful to my noble friend for the assurances he has given that he will look into this point. I agree that my Amendment, as it stands, is by no means perfect. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I hope that I shall be met with an equally friendly response to this Amendment. It deals with a different paint—namely, that after the pipe-line which has been laid in contravention of Clauses 1 and 2 is removed, there does not appear to be any provision for compensating the owner of the land for the damage that is done in removing the pipe-line. The object of my Amendment is to ensure that when the pipe-line is removed full compensation is paid for any damage that is done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, at end insert—
("(4) Full compensation shall be made by the person in default to any person who suffers any loss or damage by reason of any entry upon land or anything done to remove works pursuant to the provisions of this section.")—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MILLS: We accept this Amendment in principle, and we will consider the necessary words to bring it about.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I should like to thank the noble Lord, and to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Power of the Minister to direct that section 1, instead of section 2, shall apply to local pipe-lines
6.—(1) The Minister shall have power (exercisable by statutory instrument) by order to direct—
(a) that section one of this Act shall, to the exclusion of section two thereof, apply to works for the construction of local pipe-lines of a class specified in the order (other than pipe-lines for whose construction works have lawfully been begun, or might lawfully have been begun, before the date on which the order comes into operation) as it applies to works for the construction of cross-country; or
5.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1) (a), after the second "of" to insert, "any local pipe-line or". The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is the second limb of the way in which I envisage local pipe-lines ought to be dealt with under this Bill. I have already adverted to this point in the remarks that I made on an earlier Amendment. We do not know at this stage to what extent local pipelines will be required to be laid or the conditions under which they will be laid. There are many things in the future pattern of pipe-lines in this country which are not at all clear at the moment and, as your Lordships have already heard, the limit of ten miles which makes the distinction between the complicated machinery under Clause 1 and the relatively simple machinery under Clause 2 is purely arbitrary.
This arbitrariness is cured by the Minister's being given power under Clause 6 of this Bill to treat what would otherwise be a local pipe-line as if it were a cross-country pipe-line, and by so doing he will require it to go through the full machinery prescribed under Clause 1 and the First Schedule of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister should have the widest possible power to do
818
this. As the clause is at present drafted, his power is severely circumscribed because he can use it only if he has by order specified either that it is "a class" of pipe-line (whatever that may mean) or that it is a special sort of area through which the route of the pipe-line goes. I suppose that both of those things are bound to be general: the second one would be if the pipe-line goes through part of the country which is of high landscape value or is a National Park, and the "class" might be a pipe-line containing petrol or something highly inflammable and dangerous.
None the less, regulations will presumably be laid as the result of this clause, and they will be comparatively inflexible. My Amendment gives the Minister an extra and, as I believe, an important power. It would enable him, if there were sufficient need for him to do so, to treat one specific pipe-line as if it were a cross-country pipe-line, and would require it to go through the full procedure. I do not think he can do this under the Bill as it now stands. I am convinced that it is something that he ought to be able to do. Therefore I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 36, after the first ("of") insert ("any local pipe-line or").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD MILLS: As the noble Viscount has said, this would give additional powers to the Minister, which might be thought objectionable on the grounds that he should not be empowered arbitrarily to force on to an individual promoter more onerous requirements than those generally applicable. I realise that it is important that the undertakers of local pipe-lines should know where they stand at the outset. As the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has said, it is important in many cases that the construction of pipe-lines is put through urgently. I am prepared to look into the matter further, although I cannot accept any commitment to put down an Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank my noble friend very much, and I hope that as a result of his reflections he will feel that this is a point that ought to be met, because I do not believe that the power that exists at present is going to meet the case when

819
it in fact arises. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Provisions supplementary to Sections 1 to 6]:
LORD MERRIVALE: I shall be very brief on this point. It seems to me that the words proposed to be left out by this Amendment are uncertain and could be construed as meaning the addition of a second line in parallel. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the aggregate of the lengths exceeding ten miles means a linear extension of the same single pipe. Therefore, this is purely a clarification Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 9, leave out ("an addition") and insert ("a linear extension").—(Lord Merrivale.)
LORD MILLS: I had some difficulty in following the purpose of this Amendment. It appears to me to provide that the length of a new pipe-line should only be aggregated with that of an existing line for the purposes of determining whether or not it is to be treated as a cross-country pipe-line, if the new line is added on as a linear extension at the end. This would mean that short branch pipe-lines running out of an existing line would be treated as local pipe-lines. No doubt examples can be adduced to show that in certain cases it would be reasonable to treat branch lines as local rather than cross-country lines, but any change of definition in the sense proposed would be likely to cause more problems than it would solve. For example it would open up possibilities of evasion by enabling a pipe-line owner to start a branch line just short of the end of the existing line and so escape the controls to which he would otherwise be liable. Generally I think it should be recognised that in dealing comprehensively with anything so varied as pipe-lines certain anomalies are inevitable. No refinement of definition can hope to deal entirely satisfactorily with all the cases that may arise. I hope the noble Lord will feel entitled, after this explanation, to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MERRIVALE: I fail to see how by extending a single local pipe-line it may be that an applicant would not
820
come within the ambit of the provisions of Clause 1, but if my noble friend is satisfied that there will not be any cause for litigation with regard to the provisions of this clause, I am perfectly satisfied to withdraw the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Provisions for avoiding construction of multitude of pipe-lines between same points
8.—(1) Where application is made to the Minister for the grant of a pipe-line construction authorisation for the construction of a pipe-line to be designed for the conveyance of a particular kind of thing or of things of a particular class and the Minister is satisfied that there is likelihood of demand arising amongst persons other than the applicant for the grant of such authorisations for the construction of further pipe-lines to be designed for the conveyance of that kind of thing or, as the case may be, things of that class, being pipe-lines the routes to be taken by which will be the same, or substantially the same, as that to be taken by the line to which the application relates, he may, if he grants the application, grant it subject to the condition that the line to be constructed pursuant to the application shall be so constructed as to be capable of conveying, during such period as may be specified in the authorisation, not less than such quantity of the kind of thing in question or, as the case may be, things of the class in question, as may be so specified; and where a pipeline constructed under a pipe-line construction authorisation to which a condition is attached by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this subsection is constructed without conformity to that condition, the works for the construction of the line shall be deemed, for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this Act, to have been executed in contravention of subsection (1) of section one of this Act.
(2) The Minister may at any time, by notice served on the owner of a pipe-line constructed pursuant to a pipe-line construction authorisation to which a condition is attached by virtue of the foregoing subsection, impose such requirements as he thinks it necessary or expedient to impose for all or any of the following purposes, namely,—
(b) regulating the charges to be made for the conveyance by the line on behalf of such persons of that kind of thing or, as the case may be, things of that class;
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "likelihood of demand arising" and insert, "evidence of demand existing or likely to arise". The noble Viscount

821
said: Clause 8 seems to me to be another most important clause in this Bill. It enables the Minister, when construction authorisation is given, to impose certain conditions on the applicant and in regard to the pipe-line that he allows as a result. However, as the Bill at present stands, in considering whether or not he should impose these conditions he has to take into account the likelihood of demand arising among persons other than the applicant for further pipe-lines. In other words, he has to take into account that in future there may be a case for somebody else to use the same pipe-line or the same route.
As the Bill is at present drafted, all that he has to take into account is a
"likelihood". I think that for the protection in this case of the pipe-line owner himself, and in any ease for better drafting, as "likelihood" is a broad word in this context the Minister should act on something a little more concrete. I have suggested the word "evidence". My Amendment goes a little further than that, because I have suggested here that he should take account not only of evidence of demand that may crop up in the future, but also of evidence of demand that is in existence at the time when he is considering his authorisation as a result of the application. I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to Her Majesty's Government, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 21, leave out
("likelihood of demand arising") and insert ('evidence of demand existing or likely to arise").— (Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD MILLS: The noble Viscount has drawn our attention to a power that in his view should be given to the Minister. This Amendment would enable the Minister to impose certain requirements where he is satisfied that there is an existing demand as well as a future demand. I look upon this as a useful Amendment, which we can accept in principle.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the same, or substantially" and to substitute "wholly Or partly". The noble Earl said: This Amendment and Amendment No. 20, as
822
your Lordships will appreciate, refer to the same point, which to a great extent revolves around the word substantially", on which we have already had a little argument this afternoon. You will see that the effect of Clause 8 is that where the Minister has a second application for a pipe-line and the second application wishes to follow a route which is "the same, or substantially the same" as that of the first application, he can compel the promoter of the first application to enlarge the facilities so as to be sufficient to take both pipe-lines, or to put in sufficient gauge of pipe-line to carry the required amount of whatever is being carried.
What does "substantially" mean, and what, in the opinion of the Minister and his advisers, would constitute a substantial part of the route? Not having the advantages of the noble Viscount, I would say that
"substantially" means more than half; and that would rule out any pipe-line which proposed to use only a small fraction of the original route. Since the object of this whole Bill is to avoid unnecessary waste and dislocation, even if the distance to be followed by both pipe-line routes is only a small one, the Minister should, to my mind, still be able to compel the promoter to provide a pipe-line in the first instance that is sufficient to carry both. I hope I have made myself clear.
As the noble Viscount said, Clause 8 is an important Clause. In fact, I would almost say that it is the most important in the Bill, because it is the instrument by which this orderly development is going to be carried out with the prevention of waste and duplication. I can easily imagine demands for pipe-lines along routes which would intersect, and which, part of the way, would want to follow the same line. I suggest to the Minister, therefore, that it is important that the Minister should have this power and should be able to impose these conditions even if there is only a short route. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 26, leave out ("the same, or substantially") and insert (" wholly or partly").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD CHESHAM: In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said earlier on I feel very chary of answering this Amendment. However, in view of what

823
I myself said, I am perfectly happy to go on. I was glad to hear from the noble Earl that my understanding or my anticipation of his Amendment was correct; that it is to ensure that where pipe-lines partly go over the same route there is power to see that they go by the same pipe, in the same hole, or something like that. That is perfectly right, and I think the noble Earl's point is a good one. But my view of the matter is that what he is worried about is already covered in the Bill, under Clause 8, subsection (2) (a), which, I should have thought, fairly adequately covers the situation that he visualises.
I think I must also say that in this connection the only point of even the slightest disagreement that I have with him is on the interpretation of the word
"substantially". If I were to accept this Amendment in the terms in which it has been put down, the result would be this: "the same, or substantially the same" would be replaced by "wholly or partly" which would meet the noble Earl's point. It would meet that, but it would have an unfortunate effect, as the words, "the same, or substantially the same "are there to indicate the line of the route. So that if two pipe-lines are proposed, shall we say, from London to Birmingham, the Minister has discretion to put them together to share the pipe, to impose conditions of construction, so that both will be served. I think that if those words were removed he would no longer have the power to do that, and I do not think that two proposed pipe-lines, say half-a-mile apart but serving the same centres, could necessarily be directed together. I think there would be that effect.
In that sense, therefore, I should like to resist the Amendment, which I hope the noble Earl will withdraw. But in asking him to do that, I should like to have a further opportunity to consider, in consultation with him if he so wishes, whether the existing wording in the Bill to which I referred does adequately cover the point, or whether some Amendment at a later stage would be necessary. In view of that, I hope that he will understand why I cannot accept his Amendment and will agree to withdraw it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Before the noble Earl opposite does
824
withdraw the Amendment, I wonder if my noble friend would just explain this a little more to me. I think he said that the point raised by the noble Earl would be covered by subsection (2) (a) of Clause 8, but I am not sure that that is so. If we leave in the wording of subsection (1), "the same, or substantially the same", that refers to the route. But if there were a short part of the actual pipe-line which coincided with another one going between two different places, then the routes of the two would not be
"substantially the same". Therefore, the Minister would not have power under subsection (2) to impose any conditions at all, because the routes would not be substantially the same and would not be covered by subsection (1). So I do not think that he would necessarily have powers under subsection (2) (a) to do what the noble Earl, very rightly, wants.
LORD STONHAM: I would support what the noble Viscount has just said, because, quite obviously, subsection (2) (a), which the noble Lord said meets the conditions, only allows the same thing to be done as is allowed under subsection (1). In my noble friend's Amendment we do not want precisely the same thing to be done in all cases; we want it to be possible for a part—and it may well be a part which is far less than half the total length of the line—to be used. Therefore, it is not 'possible to suggest that the point is covered. When the noble Lord looks at the point again, he might consider it in conjunction with the provisions for the diversion of pipe-lines.
I would make a special plea for him to look at this again, in view of the extraordinary drafting of subsection (1) of this clause. It is not possible for me to remember a subsection of this kind, which consists of 266 words in one sentence, 197 of them before one gets to a semi-colon. It is the most amazing drafting that I have seen for a very long time. I should have thought it would he a good thing to ask the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill to get up and see whether he could read this subsection in one breath. I am quite convinced that he would want a new pipe-line before he succeeded in doing the job. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cheslham, will accept from me, and

825
from his noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, that this does not meet the point in mind; and I hope that, while he is having another look at it, he might consider breaking this subsection up into a reasonable number of sentences. when I think we might all understand it a good deal better.
LORD SILKIN: As I understand the suggestion of the noble Lord, it is that he will look at the principle of my noble friend's Amendment, although he says, and it may well be so, that the actual words of the Amendment are not suitable. But I should like to support the noble Viscount when he says that subsection (2) does not really meet the problem which my noble friend put forward. Subsection (2) seems to indicate that the Minister will act when it is too late to achieve what is required. What is wanted is that the Minister should be in a position to make certain conditions at the time of the application as well as at some future time. The result of requiring that a pipe-line should be used jointly might mean that it would have to be a much bigger pipe-line than would otherwise be the case, and if the Minister had thought of it only after the pipe-line had been constructed, it might not be the most convenient or economical way of achieving it.
I am glad my noble friend made his criticism of the drafting; it is very difficult to follow. I myself tried to find out what it meant, but by the time I had got half-way through subsection (1) I had lost the thread of it, and had to start over again. Would not the noble Lord look at the whole clause again? Even though I recognise that the Government have given it every consideration and that they have no doubt satisfied themselves that it is perfect in every respect, I still think it would be worth while looking at it again, not only from the point of view of the Amendments that are down but also from the point of view of the actual drafting.
LORD CHESHAM: I have now had three pleas to look at this thing again very carefully since I said that I would do just that. Therefore, I think it is only for me to repeat the assurance that I will look at it extremely carefully—I said only "carefully" before, I think—
826
to see that the point of principle which the noble Earl has made is covered, because I think it should be covered. That I will most certainly do, and be convinced, if that is the case, that the existing wording does cover it, or, if not, propose suitable action at a later stage. So far as the drafting is concerned, I do not understand in the slightest what are the problems which Parliamentary counsel is confronted with when he is drafting such matters, and I should therefore prefer not to comment on it except to say that it may, of course, be an example of continuous-flow drafting suitable for a pipe-line Bill.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.54 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the second "may" and insert "shall". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. It may be that when the noble Lord is looking at this clause again he will consider whether it needs amendment along the lines that I am putting forward. Clause 8, as has already been said, is a clause which provides for the joint user of certain pipe-lines. It provides that the Minister may require the joint use if certain conditions are satisfied, and there are three of them. The first is the likelihood of there being a demand—that will be strengthened, I hope, by the words of the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, namely,
"evidence of demand existing or likely to arise",
or words of that kind. The second requirement is that it shall be for the same or similar kinds of products; and the third is that the route should be the same.
Now if those conditions are satisfied, then one would think, "Here we have a clear case of the Minister's making the requirement that there should be joint user"; but, under this clause there may be nothing of the kind. It is still left at the discretion of the Minister to make an order or not to make an order. He may or, presumably, he may not. If he does, then the clause goes on, in the later parts, to say what conditions he may lay down; but, equally, he may I not make an order in spite of the fact

827
that all the requirements are met. He is not required, even, to state why he does not make an order, or to give the person who is refused the opportunity of using the pipe-line jointly the chance of making a case, of having an inquiry or of doing anything about it. Under this clause, the Minister is not obliged even to inform him that he is not using the powers that have been conferred upon him. My Amendment is therefore directed to ensure that, if the conditions are satisfied, then the Minister shall make the order for the joint user of a pipe-line. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 28, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD MILLS: This is a somewhat clearer issue. We think it is undesirable at this stage to remove the discretion in the way the Amendment seeks. We think there may well be—experience will prove—occasions when it will be unnecessary or undesirable for the Minister to impose multi-user conditions even though he is satisfied that there may be a subsequent demand for additional authorisations. We take the view that this is a matter which is better dealt with according to the circumstances of the individual case, and I should hope that the noble Lord would agree to leave the Minister this discretion by withdrawing his Amendment.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I am amazed at the noble Lord's request. I thought that the Bill was designed to prevent unnecessary duplication. Where it is proposed that two pipe-lines shall use the same route, or two users propose to use a pipe-line between two points, it would surely be contrary to the object of the Bill for the Minister to exercise his discretion and not to require the two pipe-lines to be constructed in one. As my noble friend has pointed out, under Clause 1 the Minister has a discretion whether to grant an authorisation at all, and, having done so, if, under Clause 8, he has to consider a second application for an authorisation, surely he can again exercise his discretion there. But, having established that there is a demand for larger facilities, it seems to me contrary to the whole object of the Bill that the Minister should not have to make the requirement as laid down.
LORD MILLS: I do not think I can add anything to what I have said. The Minister has discretion under Clause 8 (1) to impose conditions, and we would rather keep it as a discretion till we know more about the conditions he will meet, than make it obligatory.
LORD SILKIN: I just do not understand what is the case for leaving it to the discretion of a Minister. Under what principles could he exercise his discretion? He is already satisfied under Clause 8 (1) that there is a need. He is satisfied that it is for the purpose of carrying similar goods. He is satisfied that the route is the same. What is the discretion he wants to exercise, and on what ground could he possibly want to refuse? We feel that if the Government are really genuine in desiring that the fullest possible use should be made of these lines, then the Minister should be required, in those circumstances, having been satisfied of all the essentials, to make an order. He can make any conditions he likes, and that is provided for in other subsections of the clause. But the noble Lord has not explained why he wants a discretion to be given to the Minister; he merely says that it would be desirable at the present stage. But at what stage does it cease to be desirable? Really, the noble Lord must explain. If he rejects an Amendment, he must explain why a little more circumspectly, otherwise he will really be open to the allegation I made earlier. I do not want to persist in this.
LORD MILLS: It sometimes appears to me that, unless the noble Lord's point is met, there is no satisfactory explanation given to him.
LORD SILKIN: No. I have withdrawn Amendments in my time.
LORD MILLS: Clause 8 (1) deals with the likelihood of something arising, and gives the Minister power to specify the construction of the line, the size, and so on. We think it is far better to deal with every case on its merits, and for that reason we think the Minister should have discretion either to lay down regulations or not. It is as simple as that.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: If the noble Lord agrees that all the things which have to be done are right, and the same sort of thing, or a substantially similar thing, is to be conveyed

829
through the pipe-line, and so forth, then it seems to me that it is a fairly hefty responsibility to leave it to the Minister entirely to say whether or not full use is to be made of this new transport system, and that the Minister alone should have the power to decide. It seems to me that those words preceding "he may" may just as well be withdrawn from the Bill as wasted words and wasted print. I regard this as one of the most important things about the non-cross-country pipe-lines and the function they are going to fulfil.
If we are to avoid duplication—the very thing which I am sure every noble Lord wishes to avoid—then certainly we ought to hesitate before we leave this power purely permissive, for the Minister to determine. I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord has examined the matter properly in advance, but perhaps he has not quite seen the possibility which we think we can see—although we may be wrong, of course. But the noble Lord could not be wrong if he undertook to look at this question again in case there may have been a mistake; and I hope he will.
LORD MILLS: I do not think there has been any mistake. I said it was the simple issue whether it was desirable to compel the Minister to have pipe-lines constructed in such a way because of the likelihood of something else arising among people other than the promoter. I still think that is right, but I will consult my right honourable friend to see what he has to say about the matter.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord has shocked me. He is beginning to show signs of some kind of resilience to the arguments which are being put forward. But I do not want to discourage him, and I hope she will consider it. In those circumstances, I have great pleasure in asking for leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2) (b), to leave out "conveyance by the", and to insert:
"use or availability of the line for the conveyance".
The noble Viscount said: Among the conditions that the Minister may, under subsection (2) of Clause 8, impose upon the owner of a pipe-line which is constructed is one which regulates the charges to be made for conveyance along the pipe-line of various things of various classes. I wonder whether there may not be a lacuna in this case by which a great deal of abuse might be let in or might "float", since if you regulate the charge that is made for the conveyance you do not necessarily regulate the charge that is made to book the pipe-line. An unscrupulous pipe-line owner might be prepared to accept a charge in line with that regulated by the Minister for the actual conveyance, but might none the less require somebody who wished to convey his substance through the pipe-line to pay such a large booking fee that the whole object would be defeated. Moreover, of course, it does not necessarily mean, even if the pipe-line is booked by somebody, that he would actually send any of his material through it, and in that case it would be unjust if the owner of the pipe-line did not receive some form of payment for the booking, which presumably kept the line empty at the time in question. Therefore, I think that the conditions which the Minister is capable of imposing should certainly include one to regulate a booking fee as well as a charge for the actual conveyance along the pipe-line, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 3, leave out from the second ("the") to ("line") in line 4, and insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Colross.)
LORD CHESHAM: It seems to me that the argument my noble friend has put forward again contains a sound point. It seems to me that if the availability of the pipe-line is to be what one might call commercially equitable, there should be such payments, and I would accept the Amendment in principle. I am not convinced of the Parliamentary soundness of the drafting, and I should like to look at it again. In other words, if he will withdraw the Amendment, as I accept the principle of it, I should like to look at the drafting.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The Minister is giving way very gracefully and very quickly to this demand. I should like enlightenment as to what it really

831
amounts to. I thought that noble Lords opposite approved of the free play of the market. I thought it was a question of supply and demand; somebody supplied facilities for transport, and charged those who wished to use them. I am surprised to hear any talk of booking fees, because I have never heard of booking fees on railways, on the telephones, or on anything else. You just pay for transport at so much a mile.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not think the noble Earl is quite right. One pays booking fees on all kinds of things and for all kinds of transport and one does not usually get the fee back if the facility is not used. There are powers in the Bill to regulate certain aspects of pipe-lines when jointly used, including charges that may be made for sending goods up the pipe-line. Surely that cannot be done without some form of prearrangement between the parties concerned; and if the pipe-line is not in full use, as it is hoped all pipe-lines will be, I think that there should be some provision for the pipe-line owner to have some kind of protection, if the person with whom he has arranged to use it sends nothing up the line. That, I understand, is the principle behind this Amendment, which I find acceptable. I would add that I should not have used the expression "booking fees ".
LORD STONHAM: Hire charges.
LORD CHESHAM: Perhaps some expression like that. But I think that the principle is properly conceived and should be acceptable to your Lordships.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS:
I apologise if my phraseology has been at fault. I believe that there is a real point here and I should like to tell the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, the sort of thing that might happen. If one company owned a pipe-line and another company had an arrangement by which it could send oil (for the sake of argument) up that pipe-line from a dock to their refinery, it would be necessary to make the arrangement to do that some time in advance, and that would be capable of a separate charge from the actual charge for the conveyance in the pipe-line. Suppose that a tanker was held up and could not arrive at the dock
832
to discharge, the pipe-line would be empty for the entire period for which the arrangement was made and not producing anything in the way of revenue to the owner, so a separate charge should be made for hiring the pipe-line as well as the charge for the actual conveyance per ton per mile. I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Chesham for promising to put this into correct form and re-introduce it at another stage, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 8, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
6.13 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR or INCHRYE: There is a point of substance, of which my noble friend has had some notice, which I should like to submit to the Committee, in the hope that when the Government reconsider this clause, as they have said they will, they will take this particular point into consideration. It is the completely inadequate penalties in subsection (3) for offences against the Minister's powers, given to him in subsection (2). He is given power to impose requirements in regard to, first, the other user; secondly, reasonable charges and thirdly, no obstruction. In fact these powers given to the Minister aim at fulfilling what the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said was the main purpose of the Bill—which is, the orderly development of pipe-lines in this country. If these powers are defined and the offender is taken to court, he is liable under the Bill to a fine not exceeding £100, and then, if he continues the offence—that is to say, refuses to allow someone to have other user or tries to impose exhorbitant charges or obstructs alternative user—he is liable to a fine of only £20 a day.
In this Bill we are dealing with big money interests, and £20 a day is a derisory sum. It means, in fact, that for an initial £100 fine and a penalty of not more than £6,000 a year the Bill in this particular respect could be nullified. I sincerely hope that the Government will consider stiffening these fines very much. I should like to see an initial fine of £1,000, and £100 a day subsequently, which would begin to mean something to the large oil interest concerned with this business. I put this

833
point forward now, hoping that the Government will be good enough to consider it during their reconsideration of this clause, which has already been promised to the Committee.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has said and ask the noble Lord to consider not merely the penalties in Clause 8 but those in Clauses 1 and 2, because both the original sum and the extra amounts per day if the offence continues are really derisory. What on earth is such a fine to a company like Shell or the Imperial Chemical Industries? Even a fine of £1,000 does not go very far with companies of that magnitude, and therefore I hope the noble Lord will look into this point.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I, too, should like to support my noble friend.
LORD SILKIN: I wish to do the same as the noble Viscount, but also to point out that these fines are the maxima—that is, they will be imposed in the extreme case. I should imagine that in less serious cases it could be as little as £5. I fully endorse everything that the noble Lords have said.
LORD AIREDALE: I should not like the opportunity to pass without its being said from this section of the House that we on the Liberal Benches also support what has been said.
LORD MILLS: I would just explain that these penalties follow those in Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, for breaches of planning control. I have no doubt that that was the reason why these penalties went into this Bill. But I will consider the views of noble Lords and see whether anything can be done.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The world has changed since 1947; so has the value of money, and so have the assets of the big companies.
LORD SILKIN: And so have the matters we are dealing with. We are dealing with much bigger things than we normally deal with under the Town and Country Planning Act. The penalties in that Act may have been appropriate at that time; I do not remember any
834
objection being raised to them then. But even those penalties would not be appropriate to-day.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: 1947 penalties are no longer relevant.
LORD MILLS: I have already said that I will have this point considered.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause
Provision for making full use of pipe-lines
.—(1) On the application of a person desiring to make use of an existing pipe-line, the Minister may at any time, if he is satisfied that the pipe-line has sufficient unused capacity and could properly be used for the conveyance of the thing or, as the case may be, things of the class proposed by the applicant, by notice served on the owner of the pipe-line require him to make the pipe-line available for the conveyance of the thing or class of things specified in the notice; and the Minister may in the notice impose such requirements as he thinks it necessary or expedient to impose for all or any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2) of section eight of this Act.
(2) The Minister shall not serve a notice under the last foregoing subsection without first affording to the owner of the pipe-line an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose and considering the report of the person so appointed.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (3) of section eight of this Act any requirement imposed under subsection (1) of this section shall be deemed to have been imposed under subsection (2) of section eight.
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment attempts to plug what I believe to be another gap in the Minister's powers to control properly the complex of pipe-lines which may, and I hope will, spring up under this Bill. The Minister's power to make regulations under Clause 8 have already been discussed by your Lordships and they take into account all the important matters upon which he should have powers to instruct the pipe-line owners where pipes are being used by more than one firm. There is, however, the great disadvantage under the machinery in Clause 8 that he can impose conditions of that sort only if he thought about it at the time when he first gave the pipe-line construction authorisation. Suppose, therefore, that the Minister, as soon as this Bill is passed, were to give such an authorisation for a pipe-line from London to Birmingham, and at

835
that time there was no other user in the field and no possibility that one might come on the scene, and there was no reason for the Minister to impose any conditions under Clause 8; and suppose, further, that later on another potential user arrived on the scene and wished to share the pipe-line, which had a capacity to be shared by that second person; then the Minister would have no power under the Bill to do anything whatever about it, and would have no option but to allow the second person who came on the scene later to build another pipe-line for himself or not to have a pipe-line at all.
I have tried to draft a clause (I know it to be deficient in many respects) in order to raise the issue, which would allow the Minister at that later stage to find out whether there is excess capacity in any pipe-line he has already authoraised, and then to propose that that excess capacity should be used and shared by somebody else, at the same time giving the original owner of the pipe-line an opportunity to make a valid objection to the proposal. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider this to be an important and valid point; otherwise I see the very duplication of which your Lordships have talked so much this afternoon and about which you are so worried. I hope that, even if the particulars of the Amendment are not very precise or accurate, none the less its principle is acceptable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the said new Clause.— (Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD MILLS: It may be necessary to give further consideration to the drafting of this Amendment to ensure that it carries out the intentions of the noble Viscount. From that, your Lordships will probably gather that the Government accept the principle covered by the Amendment and will give it attention with a view to putting down a Government Amendment at a later date.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am obliged to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MILLS: I believe it has been agreed that we should adjourn the Committee stage at this point and resume on Thursday. That being so, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: House resumed accordingly.

COMMONWEALTH SETTLEMENT BILL
6.24 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords,
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a modest but important measure, the fifth in a series which had its origin in the Empire Settlement Act of 1922 and which, through the succeeding Acts of 1937, 1952 and 1957, has continued to give expression to the policy of encouraging and facilitating Commonwealth settlement. The purpose of the present Bill is to carry on this policy for a further five years by enabling Her Majesty's Government to contribute to emigration schemes, in partnership with other Commonwealth Governments or private organisations. It has long been the faith of successive British Governments that a steady flow of Britons to other parts of the Commonwealth not only benefits the individual settlers themselves but strengthens the ties of sentiment which bind our family of nations together. It is also clear that the Governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Rhodesia value the addition to their growing populations of British emigrants, with their diversity of arts and skills, and that they will continue to seek a substantial proportion of their new settlers from Britain.
The British Government have from time to time been urged to do more to stimulate the flow, either by increased expenditure or by public statements designed to give a lead to prospective emigrants. But those who support that view tend to forget that under modern

837
conditions the scale of emigration from this country depends on other factors. First, the receiving country must assess its absorptive capacity and frame its immigration policy accordingly. Secondly, it is for the emigrant himself to decide whether, on balance, the advantage lies in making a fresh start in a new land. The decision, when he takes it, must be, and can only be, his alone; there can be no question of compulsion by Governments. The rôle of the sending Government, always assuming an attitude of encouragement towards emigration of its citizens, is the important but largely ancillary one of collaboration and assistance in schemes of administrative arrangements—of "oiling the wheels" of machinery operating by mutual consent. In this situation, the expenditure of large sums of money by the sending Government would not significantly affect the volume of emigration; nor would it be right for that Government to exert pressure on its citizens in order to persuade them to settle overseas.
It is with these thoughts in mind that I should like to take a look at the events of the last five years in the field of emigration. The Oversea Migration Board have estimated that from 1957 to 1961 about 750,000 Britons went overseas to settle or to work for periods of a year or more—and here I might observe, in passing, that an emigrant is one who leaves this country for a period of not less than one year. Of these 750,000, some two-thirds went to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Rhodesia, and, until the end of 1960, to South Africa, while another 100,000 made their way to other Commonwealth countries. The average annual rate of emigration of 155,000 over this period is somewhat inflated by an exceptionally heavy outflow in the first year of the five-year period, 1957, when the figures were 230,000. Since then, movements have varied between 140,000 and 120.000 a year. The statistics that are available of movements by the long sea routes indicate that rather less than half were wage-earners, the balance being made up of dependants.
Emigration of this order makes an impact on our manpower resources. The main Commonwealth receiving countries naturally seek young and vigorous settlers who will contribute towards the
838
development of their new country. Commonwealth immigration policies are therefore primarily designed to attract skilled and professional workers under 45 years of age—although their policies do not normally exclude people over that age who are part of a family unit. The emphasis is, however, increasingly on skills, rather than on numbers. These are, of course, the very people whom we in Britain also need to meet our obligation to provide technical assistance, particularly to developing countries of the Commonwealth. There is thus growing competition for these skills, and in some trades and professions in Britain there are continuing shortages which are giving cause for concern, because they affect particularly sensitive sectors of our economy. To some extent, immigration to this country relieves this situation, but there are certain skilled occupations—for instance, in the building and engineering industry—where losses by emigration,.
however small the numbers, are keenly felt.
I think there will be general agreement that in problems of this kind it is in the best interests of the Commonwealth as a whole, to avoid any undue strain on the economies of the sending and receiving countries, and we shall as necessary consult with them on this matter. I am aware of criticisms of the attitude I have outlined, on the grounds that unless we in this country are prepared to provide sufficient numbers of skilled men to go to the Commonwealth then we are not fulfilling our obligations as founder of the Commonwealth. I must confess that I do not consider such criticism as valid. The figures I have already given show the scale of emigration in the past, and I have no reason to suppose that it will not continue in much the same way in the future. But we must remember that if this country is to play its proper rôle in fostering the Commonwealth, the economy of this country must remain strong, and too great a wastage of those with vital skills can lead only to a weakening of the economy with all its attendant evils. I cannot believe that anyone who has the true interests of the Commonwealth at heart would wish this to happen.
I think the House would wish me to say something on the matter of emigration statistics—or perhaps some of your

839
Lordships might say that I should put it better if I referred to it as "lack of statistics". Here I must confess to finding myself in a situation of some embarrassment. In my capacity as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations I am chairman of the Oversea Migration Board, and in that capacity I am naturally very much aware of the Board's views on the need for obtaining, with the minimum of delay, accurate statistics of those emigrating from this country. At the same time, as a member of the Government I am in accord with its views on the same subject. While having great sympathy with the views put forward by the Board, I would venture to suggest that our lack of information as to the numbers of people leaving this country is not as serious as is sometimes suggested. We do get adequate statistics from the main receiving countries of those who leave our shores for a period of not less than one year. I admit that this information of necessity takes longer to be assimilated than it would do if we were to compile statistics ourselves.
Now I turn to what we do. The major contribution which Britain has made to the cause of emigration, and the one which in present-day conditions involves some considerable sacrifice on our part, lies in the emigrants them- selves. The investment in their education and training cannot be assessed with any accuracy. It must, however, particularly where the immigrant has undergone skilled training, represent a very substantial sum. This is all to the benefit of the receiving country. In addition to this, we also assist emigration in other ways.
Under the terms of the Commonwealth and Empire Settlement Act—which, incidentally, is in future to be known as the Commonwealth Settlement Act—we are partners in two types of scheme: the Assisted Passage Scheme and schemes of child migration, both of which affect Australia. The United Kingdom/Australia Assisted Passage Agreement between the Australian Government and ourselves provides that any approved settler can travel to Australia at a cost to himself of £10 if he is nineteen years of age or over, or free if he is under that age. Passages are mostly
840
provided by sea, but a limited number are available by air, at the same cost to the migrant. This represents a very considerable saving on one of the major expenses of emigrating. The full fare-paying passenger would have to spend on average between £120 and £180, depending on the season, for the journey by tourist class sea route, while an economy class air fare costs nearly £250.
Between 1946 and 1961 some 364,000 people benefited under the scheme, and the current annual rate is about 33,000. The Australian Government are to be warmly congratulated on their very successful operation of the scheme, which involves complex administrative arrangements for selecting migrants here in this country, moving them to Australia and ensuring that they settle in and obtain employment with the minimum of difficulty and disturbance. For those assisted migrants who have not been sponsored by a family guaranteeing accommodation, temporary housing in Government hostels is available at very reasonable rates. The Commonwealth Employment Service also makes its facilities available to put migrants in touch with prospective employers. Moreover, the Commonwealth Government guarantees, under the terms of the Assisted Passage Agreement, that normal social service benefits will be available to migrants.
The great majority of new settlers travelling under the scheme have no difficulty in making a success of their new life. It is not to be expected, of course, that every single migrant will find the change entirely to his liking, but very few fail to take in their stride the problems which arise in a major move of this kind. The Australian Government bear the major share of the expenses of the scheme, to which our contribution is £150,000 a year. It is also a source of satisfaction to us that the migrants who travel under the scheme have represented a fair cross-section of our population. We know that the Australians wish to renew the Agreement for a further period, subject to the passage of this Bill, and the matter is under discussion between the two Governments.
We also have agreements with eight voluntary societies in this country who arrange for the migration, training and after-care of children in their homes in

841
Australia. We help out with the operating costs by contributing £4 towards an outfit for each child and 10s. a week (this is shortly to be increased to £1) towards his maintenance until he becomes sixteen. I should like to pay a warm tribute to the splendid work these societies have performed over the years. It is, of course, a reflection of increased prosperity in this country, and of the national system of child care established by the Children Act, 1948, that fewer children now come into the care of the voluntary societies, and consequently there are fewer available for emigration. Some of the societies have extended their activities and are now helping whole families to emigrate.
In addition to the foregoing schemes, which operate under the Acts, we also contribute, outside the Acts, to the administrative expenses of two other voluntary organisations, namely the Big Brother Movement and the Women's Migration and Oversea Appointments Society. Before I leave the subject of Government assistance, I should mention that the Ministry of Labour, through its Employment Service network, provides, on request, interviewing and other facilities to help Commonwealth Migration Offices in their selection of prospective emigrants. The Service also carries stocks of publicity material and application forms issued by Commonwealth authorities.
As your Lordships will be aware, annual expenditure during the last five years has not been anything like the £1½ million authorised under the Acts. The principal reasons for this have been the vital need to exercise strict economy in Government expenditure and the fact that some Commonwealth countries have preferred to operate their immigration programmes separately. But I wish to assure your Lordships that it remains the firm policy of Her Majesty's Government to assist emigration from this country to the Commonwealth in any practical way, believing, as we do, that by this means a significant contribution is made both to the development of the Commonwealth and to the strengthening of the ties which hold it together. In the Bill, we propose that the annual upper limit on expenditure should remain at the figure I have already given, of £1½ million. Although this is, as I have indicated, a figure very much higher than
842
the scale of our existing commitments we should like to be in a position to ask Parliament for up to that amount should the need arise and if our financial situation permitted. In order to preserve the right degree of flexibility in planning, we suggest that this legislation should operate, as in previous Acts, for five years, when the position should again be reviewed.
Before concluding, I should like to acknowledge the invaluable help that my right honourable friend and I have received from the members and officials of the Oversea Migration Board, over which I have the honour to preside. The other Member of your Lordships' House who is a member of the Board is the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and I should like to say how very sorry he is that he cannot take part in this debate on Second Reading owing to a previous very important commitment in Scotland. I for one am very sorry that he has not been able to take part, knowing that he would have talked to us with great knowledge and authority and that this debate would have gained considerably from a contribution from him. Since its inception in 1953, the Board has given much thoughtful study to a number of migration problems, and the wide knowledge and experience of its members is reflected in the seven reports so far published. Emigration has played a vital part in the development of the Commonwealth and will undoubtedly continue to do so. The Bill which is before your Lordships reaffirms the significance which Her Majesty's Government attach to the subject, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Duke of Devonshire.)
6.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Duke for the very full report he gave us on the Commonwealth migration situation, and much that he told us was full of interest. The thing that strikes one is the remarkably consistent level of migration from this country to some of the Commonwealth countries, with the exception of the year 1957 when there was a large increase. The great preponderance of what he said concerned interest in Australia and help from Australia in this problem—in fact, almost everything the

843
noble Duke told us was about Australia—and therefore he left it to us to guess what happened regarding the remaining effort towards Commonwealth settlement. It would be interesting to know how the experiences in other countries compared. Canada, we know, has had economic troubles and the climate there rather militates against anything like a regular flow of migrants.
We are also told that the great bulk of the annual expenditure on migration is devoted to the Australian sector—I think on the number of 150,000 a year on an average out of about 160,000—and the assisted passage scheme is of course extremely helpful. But I wonder whether the noble Duke could tell us how much of the money, apart from the passages and other such expenditure, is kept in reserve, so to speak, to assist settlement and establishment of emigrants in their new country. One has often heard of emigrants running into trouble where there is, as there is in almost all parts of the world, a shortage of housing. Is anything done from these funds to assist emigrants in setting themselves up in houses of their own or in making other arrangements for these migrants when the temporary housing under the Government arrangements in the host country comes to an end? We are glad to know that the Australians extend social service benefits to our emigrants, but I wonder whether any of the money that this Bill is going to authorise is designed to assure the emigrant's future after he arrives in his new country.
Finally (I am not sure whether, on this point, I caught the words of the noble Duke very clearly) I should like to say a word on the question of whether dependants, particularly elderly dependants, were accepted in these Commonwealth countries. There have been complaints that the host countries very naturally welcome young, able-bodied, skilled men and workers, and perhaps their immediate families. But what about the elderly and the possibly rather infirm relations? Are they allowed to go, too?—because it must make a big difference to a family's decision whether or not to take the big step of migration to know whether they can or cannot take their elderly relations with them. So one hopes that there is a two-way traffic;
844
that we in this country will admit the elderly relations of the wage-earners and the skilled workers and that the other Commonwealth countries will act reciprocally. Perhaps reciprocally "is the wrong word, because the countries from whom immigrants come to us are not those which receive migrants from here. Nevertheless, the principle to my mind should be the same: that if migration is a good thing, we must allow family groups to come here, whether it suits us or not. I hope Her Majesty's Government have that thought in mind and that other Commonwealth countries take the same view and co-operate. Subject to those few paints, I would say, on behalf of my noble friends, that I welcome this Bill.
6.49 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, very warmly for the kind way in which he has received the Second Reading of this Bill. May I answer the two points he raised? On housing, no part of the Assisted Passage Scheme money, the majority of which is provided by Australia, with a proportion by ourselves, is used towards housing; it is all used for the Assisted Passage Scheme. The noble Earl will be aware that the question of whether we should provide money for housing has been raised on a number of occasions in this House during the past year. I will not go over the whole background of this problem. I would content myself with saying that there are very real difficulties in such a course.
First of all, it is perhaps hardly right that as a Government we should provide money for people who are leaving this country when at the present moment there is no direct Government help for people getting houses in this country. It is true that until the middle of last year there was some help in regard to old houses, but not new ones; now that has been suspended. That is one of the very real difficulties. There are also very real difficulties in any system by which the building societies might help in this field. If the noble Earl would like me to pursue the matter in greater detail, I will gladly talk to him at some time; but I give him an assurance that this matter has been gone into and it is not considered a practical possibility.

845
With regard to the question of the family, I would point out that when we are talking of immigration under the Assisted Passage Scheme, with this very Substantial assistance given to immigrants by the Australian Government they must be allowed to select the immigrants they wish. But, as I said when introducing the Second Reading, although the Australian Government prefer young, skilled labour, under 45, they are prepared under the scheme to accept immigrants over that age in order to complete the family unit. Of course, in the case of those emigrating to Australia or any other country unassisted, it is quite a different matter; I am speaking only of the Assisted Passage Scheme.
The noble Earl said that the people emigrating to this country come from different countries than those to which people emigrate from this country. That
846
is true, but I should like to go on the record the deep gratitude we feel to the people of the Commonwealth countries who come here and play a very important part in the economy, particularly in the professions. One example springs to mind; there is a very large number of dentists in practice here from Australia and New Zealand. I should not like your Lordships' House to think we consider it a one-way traffic; that we are pouring these people out and getting nothing in return. The economy of this country benefits particularly in the professions, from people of the Commonwealth countries coming here to practise their particular skills. I think that has covered the two points the noble Earl raised, and I would now ask that the Bill he given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
House adjourned at seven minutes before seven o'clock.