Sitting of 8 May 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  KENYA

    Civil Service (Designated Officers)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the criteria which govern the inclusion of locally recruited European officers in the Kenya civil service among the designated officers under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The criteria for designation are set out in Clause 1 of the Overseas Service (Kenya) Agreement 1961 and I am sending the hon. Member a copy. A copy is already in the Library of the House.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that there are about 1,000 European officers in Kenya who were locally recruited, in many cases were locally born, who were not recruited by or on behalf of the Colonial Secretary but who have been designated on the ground that they were employed before the publication of Colonial 306? Are there not a number of Asian officers in exactly the same position, but who have not been designated simply because they had not reached the salary stage arbitrarily fixed for the right to convert under the Lidbury provision? Is not this a quite unjustified distinction, and will the right
    188
    hon. Gentleman look at the matter again?
    Mr. Maudling: This is a very complicated matter, but the provisions for deciding who should be designated were worked out in consultation with the staff associations and were approved by the full Kenya Whitley Council.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the staff association is protesting against this discrimination? Members of Parliament have received a lot of correspondence on this point. They are totally unsatisfied with the answer, and will not the Government look at the matter again?
    Mr. Maudling: I am always prepared to consider any problem again, but these things were worked out very carefully with the staff association, and as far as I know, having looked at the matter carefully, they are fair.

  SARAWAK

    Chinese Middle Schools
    Mr. Turnerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the number of Chinese middle schools in Sarawak and the number in receipt of grant-in-aid.
    Mr. Maudling: There are sixteen Chinese middle schools of which eleven are in receipt of grants-in-aid.
    Mr. Turner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the refusal of the management boards of these few Chinese middle schools not receiving grants-in-aid to come into the conversion scheme is acting considerably to the detriment not only of the children themselves but of the teachers who had to accept a reduction in pay? What is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage these few remaining schools to come into the scheme?
    Mr. Maudling: I understand that these schools stayed out or went out of the scheme because they would not accept the new policy about the use of English as a common medium of instruction. They were closed for a time, but now they are all open again. If at any time they agree to adopt the policy they will be eligible for assistance.

  HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES

    Public Capital Expenditure
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will state in respect of each of the High Commission Territories the estimated percentage increase in public capital expenditure during the coming financial year compared with the last financial year.
    Mr. Maudling: I am consulting the High Commissioner on the subject and will circulate the information required in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Thomson: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the special circumstances in the High Commission Territories justify a very high degree of priority in terms of capital help at the moment, and will he ensure that a substantial increase takes place in the coming financial year?
    Mr. Maudling: I will look at the figure when I get the report, but I agree that these problems are considerable because of their latent natural resources.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Has the right hon. Gentleman given any consideration to the recommendations of the Morse Committee's Report?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir, but before answering what the result was, I should like to see a Question on the Notice Paper.

  THE WEST INDIES

    Federal Civil Servants (Compensation)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement about compensation for the civil servants made redundant by the break-up of the West Indies Federation.
    Mr. Maudling: Her Majesty's Government have now communicated to the Federal and Unit Governments detailed proposals relating to the dissolution of the Federation. These include a compensation scheme for Federal servants who cannot be absorbed into other public service or for whom alternative
    190
    public service is only available on terms substantially inferior to their present terms. Arrangements are also proposed for safeguarding the pension rights earned by Federal officers during their Federal service.
    Mr. Thomson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he can give the House an assurance that there will be a proper meeting with the Federal civil servants themselves before the Federation is dissolved? Can the right hon. Gentleman make sure that the House is given the full details of the proposed scheme of compensation? Could he say what the cost will be, how it is divided up, and what the share of Her Majesty's Government will be?
    Mr. Maudling: I will certainly give the House the full details and an estimate of the cost. I cannot do so at the moment because the proposals have been given in confidence to the Federal Civil Service Association. I believe that its members will find them acceptable, but as soon as the discussion has taken place I will make the information available.
    Mr. Thomson: On my first point, may I plead for an answer because it is important in the matter of maintaining trust? Will there be a meeting with the civil servants in advance of dissolution?
    Mr. Maudling: We have told them the details and if they ask for a meeting there certainly can be one.

    Federal Prime Minister (Pension)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a pension is to be paid to the Prime Minister of the West Indies when he retires upon the dissolution of the Federation.
    Mr. Maudling: Yes Sir. Such provision has been made in the laws of the Federation.
    Mr. Fisher: Without asking my right hon. Friend to go into the details of the amount and so on, may I express the appreciation of both sides of the House at this recognition of Sir Grantley Adams's long record of public service in the West Indies, to which I am sure we would all wish to pay tribute?

    Small Islands (Future)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what further developments have taken place in respect of the future administrative position of, and economic assistance to, the smaller British West Indian islands.
    Mr. Maudling: I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to his Question on the 15th February and to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) on the 16th April. We shall be discussing the future of these islands at the conference which opens at Marlborough House tomorrow.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a certain amount of disquiet? Cannot something be done to indicate the direction in which the Government want this to lead?
    Mr. Maudling: That is the purpose of the conference.

  BASUTOLAND

    Child Offenders
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies at what age children can be charged in adult courts and sentenced to imprisonment in Basutoland; and what provision is made for the reformative treatment of child offenders.
    Mr. Maudling: Under the terms of the Basutoland Criminal Procedure and Evidence Proclamation, no child under the age of 14 may be sentenced to imprisonment. The law also provides that the trial of any child who is, in the opinion of the court, less than 16 years of age, be held in camera, and in some other place than an ordinary court room, the parent or guardian of the child having the right to be present.
    Special training and instruction of a reformative nature is provided for juveniles at a separate centre and the Government have a scheme in hand for the building of a juvenile detention centre on borstal lines.
    Mr. Brockway: Whilst appreciating that the right hon. Gentleman has only recently had responsibility for this area, may I ask whether it is not the case that
    192
    children of 8 years of age in Basutoland come before the courts? Is there any reformative measure at all in borstals for juveniles who are sentenced, or are they not just sentenced to ordinary imprisonment? Should we not put this right in view of the closeness to the Republic of South Africa, which we so frequently criticise?
    Mr. Maudling: It seems to me that the hon. Member's supplementary question is a little in conflict with the Answer I gave to the original Question. If the hon. Member provides me with evidence I shall be glad to examine it.
    Mr. Brockway: I will do so.

  BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS

    Economic Survey
    Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will publish the conclusions and recommendations of the recent economic survey of the British Virgin Islands.
    Mr. Maudling: I hope it will be published shortly by the Government of the British Virgin Islands.
    Mr. Peyton: While I welcome the Government's initiative in having the survey made, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would agree that the time for action has now come and that it would be quite intolerable to allow these islands to continue as a kind of derelict annexe and that they should be developed partly because of the invidious contrast which exists between them and the high state of development reached in the neighbouring American Virgin Islands?
    Mr. Maudling: We are very grateful to Dr. O'Loughlin for making the survey and preparing the report. She is coming to this country this month to discuss it with us. We are grateful for the opportunity, and after that I hope to be able to say something about it.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Would my right hon. Friend consider whether the survey to be published by the British Virgin Islands should also be published here and so be available to hon. Members?
    Mr. Maudling: I will certainly look at that.
    Mr. C. Royle: Would the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear on the Virgin Islands to join the Little Eight?
    Mr. Maudling: I doubt whether it is my job to put pressure on them.

  ADEN

    Mr. Alswadi and Mr. Latif
    Mr. R. Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the reason for the arrest and imprisonment of Ali Alswadi, Deputy General Secretary of the Aden Trades Union Congress.
    Mrs. Hartasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the reasons for the arrest and imprisonment in Aden of Mr. Abdul Latif, the President of the British Forces Local Workers' Union.
    Mr. Maudling: Both men were sentenced to three months' imprisonment for encouraging a strike in contravention of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The charges arose out of speeches by the accused which showed that the strike of the Forces Local Employees Union on 11th April was planned in defiance of Aden law.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Aden T.U.C. is affiliated to the International Federation of Free Trade Unions? Is he also aware that the imprisoned leaders of the Aden trade union movement are now being described as the "Tolpuddle martyrs of Arabia"? Is not this policy the nth degree of stupidity, because it has failed everywhere in the British Commonwealth so far?
    Mr. Maudling: The fact is that this Ordinance was passed by the Legislative Council which has an elected majority. In 1960 there were complaints by the International Federation, as a result of which the governing body of the I.L.O. examined the provisions of the Ordinance and found that they were not incompatible with the international labour convention on the right to organise collective bargaining.
    Mrs. Hart: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that as recently as 13th March he said in the House
    194
    that he did not believe that there was industrial unrest in Aden? Is he further aware that, following the imprisonment of these two trade unionists, a forty-eight hours' strike is being called as from tomorrow by the union concerned? Does not the right hon. Gentleman regard this as a matter of the utmost gravity and would not he agree that, whatever the I.L.O. says, it cannot be satisfactory to the trade union movement in this country that strikes should be illegal in Aden? Will the right hon. Gentleman institute an immediate inquiry and order the release of these men?
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. I think that the due process of law has been gone through and the Ordinance itself is satisfactory and working well. In reply to the first part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question, I cannot remember the exact words off the cuff, but I think that she was alleging much wider industrial unrest in Aden than in general existed.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his comment that the Ordinance banning strikes was working well is a very shocking one indeed in contemporary circumstances? Although the Legislative Council may have had an elected majority, is he not aware that the Act under which the Tolpuddle Martyrs were made martyrs was passed by a Government which also had an elected majority? Will the right hon. Gentleman take action to ensure that if the law forbids strikes it is changed and brought into line with modern conditions?
    Mr. Maudling: I said that this Ordinance was working well. It is promoting the successful settlement of disputes by agreement, which is what we want.
    Mr. Edwards: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    Departmental Staff and Overseas Officers
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the contraction of British Colonial possessions and administrative responsibility,

    195
    to what extent his staff and the number of overseas officers have declined during the past ten years; and what further reductions and reorganisation are contemplated.
    Mr. Maudling: As the Answer is long and contains a number of figures I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Sorensen: The Answer, I assume, at least indicates that there has been a considerable reduction in the right hon. Gentleman's staff in view of the contraction of our previous colonial responsibility. In view of this and of the still further contraction that is possible in the future, may I ask whether any further consideration has been given to the possibility at the same time of transferring the Colonial Office to a sub-department of the Commonwealth Relations Office?
    Mr. Maudling: There has certainly been a contraction of staff. I am publishing the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Some of the reduction has been due to contraction of responsibility and some because of transfer. The second point in the hon. Member's supplementary question raises something rather wider than the usual Question.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the French territories which received independence recently, civil servants remained servants of France? The result is that they do not feel that their careers are at stake if they train successors and they have been able to stay on in the newly independent territories in far greater numbers than civil servants have been able to stay on in ours. Will the right hon. Gentleman try to do something about this?
    Mr. Maudling: I will look at that. I cannot understand how an independent country could have its civil servants employed by a separate nation. I do not think that that would be acceptable to our tenets.
    Mr. Thomson: As the right hon. Gentleman is relatively new to his responsibilities, may I ask whether he could take advantage of this fact to have a look at another problem? Is he aware that there is a desperate need among the new countries for trained experts of various sorts? Is it not tragic that when
    196
    a man has gained expertise and has done good service in the Colonial Service he should have to give up that jab to become secretary of a golf club in Surrey?
    Mr. Maudling: I absolutely agree. This is one of the reasons why we supply finance through the Overseas Aid Scheme to enable these countries to employ these expatriates. What the hon. Member said is that we should continue to employ people working in Tanganyika. I do not think that that is practicable.
    Following is the Answer:
    The staff complement of the Colonial Office was 1,664 in the financial year 1952–53 and is now 874; but this reduction reflects the net position after taking account not only of reductions arising directly from the independence of former Colonial territories but also of certain changes in the organisation of Government business affecting the Colonial Office, i.e., the transfer of work previously done by the Colonial Office in respect of territories which are still dependent to the Department of Technical Co-operation and the Central African Office and the taking over by the Colonial Office from the Commonwealth Relations Office of responsibility for the South African High Commission Territories. A reduction of approximately another 50 on the Colonial Office establishment is expected by the end of the current year. The rate of contraction beyond that time cannot at present be foreseen.
    As regards the Overseas Service, in 1955, the earliest year for which general statistics are available, there were about 25,000 officers classed as expatriate officers. The present numbers are much the same despite the fact that several territories have since become independent and of this total about 14,000 are designated officers under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme serving in dependent territories.

  MALTA

    Naval Dockyard
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the transfer of the naval dockyard at Malta to Messrs. Bailey has now been completed; and if he will give to the House details of the financial and other terms of the agreement as now completed.
    Mr. Maudling: Bailey (Malta) Limited took over the dockyard on 30th March, 1959. On the second part of the Question may I refer the hon. Member to the agreement of 11th September, 1959, a copy of which has been laid on the Table, and to my predecessor's statement in the House on 18th May last about the revision of the original plan.
    Mr. Awbery: Am I to understand from that that the agreement with Malta was concluded three years ago? Is it not the case that it was proposed to transfer the naval dockyard into a commercial one and that no start has been made so far? Is it not the case that machinery and plant have been removed from the dockyard, and that men in Malta are becoming concerned because the employment position will be affected? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this now?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that there has been some disappointment over progress. If I remember correctly, contracts have recently been let and work will be starting soon.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend at a convenient time publish the report about the workings of Messrs. Bailey in the Malta dockyard? Does he realise that there is much dissatisfaction? Will he tell the House what the position is?
    Mr. Maudling: As the House is aware, I am making an inquiry into the workings at Malta dockyard. Someone has been appointed to do this. We have also appointed a Government director. As to publication, we must wait and see what emerges.

    Employment
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that there are now 6,500 unemployed on the island of Malta, and that this number is increasing weekly; and what further steps are being taken to provide new industries on the island.
    Mr. Maudling: I understand that the last official return of registered unemployed in December last gave a figure of 4,367. Primary responsibility for the provision of employment rests with the Malta Government, but Her Majesty's Government are providing substantial sums to assist industrial development.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of men do not sign at all because they cannot get employment? Is he aware that a few days ago it was reported in Malta, when I was there, that 6,500 men are unemployed? Is he also aware that at Messrs. Bailey a number of people have
    198
    recently been dismissed, and that, as I understand, the firm intends dismissing another 1,000 in the course of the next month or so? Will he look at the question, because unemployment is becoming very acute there?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir; I am concerned about the unemployment situation in Malta and am trying to find any method I can of improving it.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Would the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Government of Malta that they might offer their territory as a base for the world force under the security authority which Her Majesty's Government hope to set up?
    Mr. Maudling: I feel that that is a somewhat wider question.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the right way to deal with the surplus labour in Malta is to encourage emigration, and what steps is he taking in that direction?
    Mr. Maudling: Traditionally, there is a good deal of emigration from Malta, but I think that on the whole the Maltese prefer to obtain work in their own country if they can.
    Mr. Lee: In view of what has been said by hon. Members behind him, would the right hon. Gentleman care to have a look at the Commonwealth Immigrants Act now?
    Mr. Maudling: What has been said affects not the Act but its operation.

  SEYCHELLES

    Airfield
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what further investigations are taking place with regard to the possibility of building an airfield in the Seychelles.
    Mr. Maudling: The report of the reconnaissance team which visited Seychelles in 1961 is now being examined.
    Mr. Williams: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that these islands are in need of assistance from this country and that it might well be possible for us to give help by combining the strategic

    199
    need with social responsibility and opening up these islands by providing transport facilities via an airfield?
    Mr. Maudling: We are considering the airfield possibilities, and the strategic possibilities are certainly not being overlooked.

  BRITISH GUIANA

    Independence Conference
    Mr. Peter Emeryasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the proposed constitutional conference for British Guiana.
    Mr. Maudling: In January Her Majesty's Government agreed with the Government of British Guiana to hold an Independence Conference in May. Subsequent events have now made this impracticable. A Commission, under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Wynn Parry, will begin an inquiry into the February disturbances in Georgetown in the middle of this month. We are discussing with the British Guiana Government measures aimed at enabling the Conference to have before it a formulation of local ideas for an Independence Constitution, with initial areas of disagreement narrowed as far as possible. The two Governments are also undertaking a joint examination of financial matters. To enable these measures to be completed some deferment of the Conference is needed. I propose to hold it in July provided the necessary preparatory steps are completed in time. The Government of British Guiana has been so informed.
    Mr. Emery: While all hon. Members must be disappointed about the delay in holding the Conference, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that when it does arise everybody would wish to show it encouragement? Will he say whether the political parties and political leaders have been fully consulted on this step and are in agreement over it?
    Mr. Maudling: I have, of course, consulted the Government of British Guiana on this subject. I think it is apparent to everyone that it would be
    200
    quite impracticable to hold an Independence Conference at this moment.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement that the Conference is to be postponed will be received with very great disappointment in British Guiana? In view of the serious situation there, does he appreciate that the most effective way to obtain stable government there would be to allow the Government in British Guiana to announce an early date by which independence would be achieved?
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir I entirely disagree. It is precisely because of the serious situation to which the hon. Gentleman referred that I think it would be unwise to have a Conference at the moment.
    Mr. Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the very real fears of many people in British Guiana that independence without proper and effective safeguards can lead only to the domination of that country by Communists and the establishment of a new Communist centre in South America?
    Mr. Maudling: I am very anxious to get a Constitution for British Guiana on independence that will guarantee the rights of individuals. I think that the best way to do that is through the maximum possible agreement between the political parties. I also think that the atmosphere for such an agreement is not particularly favourable at the present moment
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Dr. Jagan and the British Guiana Government have agreed to the date in July which he has suggested? Can he give an assurance that the report of the committee of inquiry will be published in this country as well as in British Guiana?
    Mr. Maudling: On the first point, I think it would be unfair to Dr. Jagan to say that he has agreed but it would be right to say that he was fully consulted and has acquiesced in the postponement. I want the report of the committee of inquiry to be available as soon as possible. I will look into the question of publication.

  BRITISH HONDURAS

    Hurricane Damage (Financial Aid)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's financial contribution to the rehabilitation of British Honduras following the recent hurricane.
    Mr. Maudling: Subject to the approval of Parliament, Her Majesty's Government have decided to make available to the Government of British Honduras aid totalling approximately £5 million. Of this amount about £1 million has already been incurred on emergency assistance immediately following the hurricane. Of the balance of £4 million, which will be spread over four years, £2½ million will be towards the general programme of reconstruction, and £1½ million towards the cost of building a new capital, subject to the approval of a satisfactory plan. If during the four-year period it appears that further funds will be required for reconstruction, Her Majesty's Government will consider making an additional contribution of up to £750,000.
    Mr. Fisher: I was not quite clear from my right hon. Friend's Answer whether the new capital is to be reconstructed inland, for which so many of us have pressed, and which I believe would be generally acceptable to British Honduras. Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether this is so or not? If it is so, does he consider the sum of £1½ million which he mentioned in connection with the capital to be adequate to make a good job of this very important project?
    Mr. Maudling: The case for the new capital is, clearly, a very strong one. Of the aid that we have in mind, £1½ million will be towards the cost of building a new capital. We are not providing all that we were asked for, but I think that the sums involved are fairly substantial in view of our other commitments in the form of aid overseas.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the capital be inland?
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Can my right hon. Friend say how the sum
    202
    compares with the assistance that we gave on the occasion of the last hurricane, some four years ago? I know from my visit there that that sum was very welcome. Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of at least one hon. Member upon having extracted this substantial sum from the Treasury for British Honduras?
    Mr. Maudling: I am afraid that I cannot say without notice exactly how the sums compare, but if my right hon. Friend would like to know, I will look up the figures and let him have them.
    Miss Vickers: Is it proposed to put the new capital at the site 50 miles inland? If so, will my right hon. Friend encourage the use of the site? It is a very good one, and it would help to open up the country.
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think that final decisions have yet been reached on the exact new site, but we must get that done soon.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Hyde Park (Statue)
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Works whether, in the interests of road safety, he will consider removing the statue sited in Hyde Park by the Duke of Edinburgh Gate.
    The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): No, Sir. The siting of the statue was agreed with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I am considering in consultation with him whether the position of the traffic signals and stop lines can be improved.
    Mr. Dance: Has my noble Friend used this gate recently? I can assure him that I was very nearly "written off" myself the other day. Is he aware that the plinth of the statue is vast, that it is high, and that it is quite impossible to see to the right when travelling eastwards? Admittedly, there are traffic lights, but, unfortunately, people jump traffic lights, and I was nearly jumped on myself the other day by a sports car. As, in the view of most people, this is not a beautiful statue, and as it would not deprive the British public of anything beautiful if he would consider

    203
    moving it, will not my noble Friend reconsider the matter?
    Lord John Hope: It is a bit hard to blame it on the statue when people want to jump the lights, but I think there is a point here. We may be able to help considerably by putting the stop line further forward, so that one can get beyond the plinth.

    1A Kensington Palace
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Works why £7,000 has been provided for contingencies in his expenditure at 1A Kensington Palace; and how that figure was arrived at.
    Lord John Hope: Estimates for major schemes of this nature normally include a contingency allowance. This figure was considered reasonable to cover the costs arising from defects in the building which would only come to light during the progress of the work.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that that does not seem to be a very scientific way of estimating, particularly in view of the stringencies which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is exerting on other Ministries? Does not the Minister think that this £7,000 would be much better spent on three or four of the families now homeless in London?
    Lord John Hope: The point is that if nothing unforeseen comes about, it will not be used at all.
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Works what proportion of the total cost of all the work on 1A Kensington Palace is being met out of public funds.
    Lord John Hope: Of the estimated cost of £85,000, £65,000 is to be met from Subhead C of the Royal Palaces Vote and £20,000 from funds at the disposal of the Sovereign from the Grant-in-Aid under Subhead A of the Vote. The cost of boilers, a boiler-house, kitchen equipment and some of the decorations and special fittings, not included in the total of £85,000, is to be met privately by Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is it not the normal practice with historical buildings of this kind for the owner or occupant to pay half the cost? In view of the fact that the family which will occupy this build-
    204
    ing is well able to pay that 50 per cent., why do not they do it?
    Lord John Hope: This is not a comparable case.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Is it not the general policy of the Government that subsidised houses should not be occupied by people who can afford to buy houses of their own?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Dr. Stross: Is it not a fact that this is a Wren house, and that if there had been no occupant available at all, it would have had to be restored and kept in good condition because of its historical importance, and thus the whole cost would have fallen on the taxpayer?
    Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir.

  POST OFFICE

    Commonwealth Communications Cable
    Mr. Masonasked the Postmaster-General whether he has consulted the Commonwealth countries who are taking a direct interest in the laying of the Commonwealth communications cable regarding its date of completion: and, whether, in view of the progress being made in space satellite communications, it is intended to halt expenditure on this project.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): Satellite communications offer great promise for the future, but there is still much development work to be done, and it will be some years before a commercial satellite communication system can be established. Commonwealth Governments have recently agreed to the provision, by 1966, of a submarine telephone cable system between Australia and South East Asia. The position will, of course, be fully reviewed as and when further extensions of the Commonwealth cable system come to be considered.
    Mr. Mason: Am I to understand from that reply that by 1966 only half of the round-the-world cable will have been laid, at a cost of approximately £40 million, shared between the Commonwealth countries and the United Kingdom? Is the hon. Lady aware that

    205
    by that time we shall have sattelite links between this country and the United States of America? In view of the fact that we shall have spent £40 million on half of it by 1966, and that it would take until 1970 to complete the rest, is it not worth considering that we should halt the expenditure on the project at that point?
    Miss Pike: I think that this money is very well spent. The recent Commonwealth Communications Conference agreed that underground cables should be complementary to the sattelite system. It recommended that research and development work in the submarine cable field should be continued. The volume of world-wide inter-continental traffic is expected to increase very rapidly during the next decade, and it is expected that existing and planned submarine telephone cables will be fully utilised.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this is a matter which is causing concern and disquiet on both sides of the House, and that very many people take the view that this expenditure will prove to have been completely redundant when the sattelite system becomes effective?
    Miss Pike: We will keep this matter under consideration, but we do not accept that point of view. We think that these systems will be complementary for some time to come.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Civil Defence (Dispersal Plans)
    Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what policy he has now adopted for the evacuation of mothers and children from towns and cities in the event of war; and to what parts of the country they will be sent.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The Government's policy is that dispersal plans should be prepared in case they were needed in an emergency. Under the dispersal scheme for England and Wales, the reception areas are in parts
    206
    of west England, south-east England and Wales.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friend to let the House have an intelligible statement about what his policy is? Is he aware that at present there is great confusion and anxiety in the minds both of local authorities and of the general public because of the vague statements which the Government make?
    Mr. Rippon: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at Circular 15 of 1962 issued on 28th March, he will see a general statement of policy, which is pretty clear. We are considering with the local authority associations a further circular on the detailed arrangements which they may be called upon to make.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have looked at that circular and find it most unsatisfactory?
    Mr. Rippon: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find the next one more satisfactory.

    Agriculture (Rating)
    Mr. E. Taylorasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will now take steps to discontinue the rating privileges given to agriculture by the Local Government Act, 1929, in view of the fact that the parallel privileges given to industry by the same Act will soon be removed.
    Mr. Rippon: No, Sir.
    Mr. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend, in the interests of fair play, reconsider this question in 1963?
    Mr. Rippon: Apart from any question of the merits, it would be quite impossible to do anything before 1968, because of the lack of any evidence of existing values in respect of agricultural properties.

  HOUSING

    Improvement Grants, Stoke-on-Trent
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many houses in Stoke-on-Trent have received

    207
    improvement grants since 25th November, 1961; and how many of these were made to owner-occupiers.
    Mr. Rippon: Between 1st December, 1961, and 31st March, 1962, grants for the improvement of 113 private houses in Stoke-on-Trent were approved, of which 95 were to owner-occupiers.
    Mrs. Slater: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the very small number of houses improved by landlords means that the Ministry must again consider how much compulsion can be put on these people to make them take advantage of these grants so that these houses may be prevented from becoming slums in the future?
    Mr. Rippon: In regard to compulsory powers, I can add nothing to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on 1st May. We are certainly anxious that the improvement grants should be used by landlords, and, indeed, the percentage is rising.

    Improvement Grants, Salford
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many houses in Salford have received improvement grants since 25th November, 1961; and how many of these were made to owner-occupiers.
    Mr. Rippon: Between 1st December, 1961, and 31st March, 1962, grants for the improvement of 87 private houses were approved, of which 10 were to owner-occupiers.
    Mr. Allaun: Is not that a miserable response for a city in which five out of every ten houses have no baths? Is it not extraordinary that, despite the still more generous grants introduced for landlords in November, the figure, nationally, has actually declined since then? In view of the failure of financial inducements and publicity, how long will it be before the Minister uses the compulsory method which he said he did not rule out?
    Mr. Rippon: At least, the hon. Gentleman cannot complain that in Salford too high a proportion of the grants have gone to owner-occupiers. We certainly want to see these improvement grants
    208
    fully utilised. In the past three years, the numbers have risen from about 30,000 to 120,000 a year.

    Houses and Flats
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will give an estimate of the number of new houses and flats built for sale, which were completed six months ago or over, and still remain unsold and untenanted.
    Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend has no material on which to base an estimate.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Surely, the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend could have asked the local authorities for this information? Is not this a challenge to the Government, inasmuch as there must be thousands of houses and flats which have been built but which remain unsold and unoccupied, and, at the same time, hundreds of thousands of people living in indescribable and indefensible conditions? Why does he not do something about it, so that the needs of the people are married to the labour force and the materials that are available?
    Mr. Rippon: I do not think it would be reasonable to ask local authorities to walk round their towns and cities collecting statistics of that kind. Generally, one finds there is a high demand for new houses and flats built for owner-occupation.

    Local Authority Houses (Rents)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what was the average rent, inclusive of rates, of two-and three-bedroomed council houses in 1951 and 1961, respectively.
    Mr. Rippon: The average rent received for local authorities' dwellings in England and Wales in 1960–61 was approximately 21s. exclusive of rates.
    I regret that we have not the information to give separate figures for two-and three-bedroomed houses or a represesentative figure for 1950–51.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Is it not possible that the Minister was not very anxious to find the information I was seeking

    209
    because it would have been such an embarrassment to his Government?
    Mr. Rippon: Since 1951, as the hon. Member will appreciate, we have greatly improved the statistics at our disposal.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Sport (Wolfenden Committee's Report)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on his discussions about the Wolfenden Report on Sport.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): As the Answer is rather long, I propose, with permission, to answer this Question at the end of Questions.

    Post-War Credits
    Mr. Hunterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of post-war credits repaid up to the latest convenient date; and what is the amount still unpaid.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): At 28th April, 1962, about £415 million had been paid and about £325 million was outstanding. Both these figures relate to the amount of credit originally created and they include no element of interest.
    Mr. Hunter: Will the Financial Secretary ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer again to consider this matter, for many people have now been waiting nearly twenty years for repayment of their postwar credits?
    Sir E. Boyle: I quite agree about the importance of this matter. My feeling is that in 1960 we probably went as far as we could in isolating hardship categories. I am bound to say that experience in dealing with hon. Members' correspondence convinces me that that is so. My right hon. and learned Friend did not feel that he would be justified in increasing the rate of payment of these credits this year, but of course we recognise that this is an obligation to be met.
    Mr. Cleaver: Will my hon. Friend consider converting these credits into Premium Bonds?
    Sir E. Boyle: That is another suggestion of which my right hon. and learned
    210
    Friend will take note. I think that there are no satisfactory dodges for getting round this problem. It is a matter of some difficulty, because it has not been easy since the war to take a measure which stimulates the rate of consumption at home, but we should never forget that this is an obligation for the whole nation.

  EDUCATION

    Royal Society (Research Committee's Report)
    Mr. Mitchisonasked the Minister of Education whether he accepts the recommendations of the report made by the ad hoc biological research committee to the Council of the Royal Society and presented by that Council to the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Scientific Policy in November, 1961, so far as those recommendations relate to schools; in particular, whether he accepts recommendation No. 2 on page 21 of the printed report: and what progress has been made in the implementation of that recommendation.
    The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): I understand that this report was prepared at the request of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy and it is now under consideration by that body. I am not yet in a position to comment on its recommendations.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was a note of urgency about the recommendations and that action was recommended by the proper authorities, which I think include the right hon. Gentleman himself? How long is he going to wait?
    Sir D. Eccles: I have to wait until the Council has advised my noble Friend the Minister for Science, who in turn will communicate with me.

    ALGERIAN REFUGEES (TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. RANDALL: To ask the Lord Privy Seal what was the response of Her Majesty's Government to the request of the United Nations High Commissioner

    211
    for Refugees for the immediate supply of 15,000 tents as a first measure to organise the orderly return of the Algerian refugees now in Morocco and Tunisia.
    Mr. Speaker: Questions to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Awbery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your advice? I put down a Question yesterday about tents and the Minister replied:
    "I expect, however, to be in a position to add to this statement when I reply to a further Question on this subject tomorrow."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1962; Vol. 659, c. 11.]
    That meant today. As I was precluded from asking a further Question yesterday, may I ask a supplementary question today?
    Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member referring to Question No. 34?
    Mr. Awbery: No, Sir, to Question No. 35.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) is not here to ask that Question.

    PRIME MINISTER, PRESIDENT KENNEDY AND PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA (TALKS)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister, if he will make a statement on his talks with President Kennedy and Mr. Diefenbaker; and to what extent he discussed the effects of Great Brtain joining the Common Market on the Atlantic Alliance, the Commonwealth and the prospects of the general lowering of tariff barriers.
    Mr. Walkerasked the Prime Minister if, in his talks with Mr. Diefenbaker, he discussed the increase in Canadian imports from the United Kingdom during the period that Mr. Diefenbaker has been Prime Minister; and whether he discussed ways in which Anglo-Canadian trade can be further increased.
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Prime Minister what representations he made on behalf of the shipping industry to President Kennedy during his recent visit to the United States of America; and what were the results.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister what consultations he had with President Kennedy during his recent visit on the admission of China to the United Nations.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister what further action is proposed following his talk with President Kennedy on the difficulties confronting British shipping.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer right hon. and hon. Members to the replies which I gave on 3rd May to Questions about my talks with President Kennedy and Mr. Diefenbaker.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that now that the House has had an opportunity of studying the two communiqués, it is quite obvious that they do not go beyond bland platitudes? Are not the House and the country entitled to more than this? Is he aware of the great concern in the country that Britain will be pushed into the Common Market before the public, and, indeed, the House of Commons, have had an opportunity adequately to consider the terms and conditions agreed? Will he at least indicate what were the details of those terms and conditions discussed in America?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think the position about the Common Market negotiations is quite clear. Those negotiations are proceeding. We hope that they may be concluded in the course of the summer in which case, of course, the Government will be in a position to put their policy before the House of Commons.
    Mr. Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. McEwen, Deputy Australian Prime Minister, has stated that in his talks in Washington he was unable to obtain from the Americans an assurance that they were not working towards the disappearance of Imperial Preference? May I ask if my right hon. Friend was more successful in obtaining such an assurance in his talks in Washington?
    The Prime Minister: I put, of course, the British point of view and as a result of this negotiation we shall see where we get to.
    Mr. P. Williams: As far as shipping matters are concerned, can my right hon. Friend agree that he and the Government regard British shipping as the economic jugular vein of this country which must not be tampered with, and must not be allowed to be tampered with, by any other country? Will he not agree that what has transpired from his conversations with President Kennedy appears to be remarkably unfortunate for British shipping? Will he take it—I suspect from both sides of the House—that there would be a general consensus of opinion that if the Government wish to take enabling powers to enable them to retaliate against any particular measure taken by the Americans, this would be welcomed?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, the position is a serious one and, as I told the House, we are continuing to press our views as strongly as possible upon the American Administration.
    Mr. Rankin: When the right hon. Gentleman was talking to President Kennedy did he not urge upon him to follow the wise course of the British Government and agree to the admission of China to the United Nations? Did he fail to do so because of the fact that it would appear that our military policies, our shipping policies, our trading policies are now becoming like our international policies, subordinate to the general policy of the United States?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would not have thought that was true at all. We try as allies to co-ordinate our policies wherever possible. It is clear that our trading policies with China are different from those followed by the American Administration.
    Mr. Shinwell: On this shipping matter, will the Prime Minister exclude from his mind any suggestion about retaliation, however tempting it may be, because of the dangerous repercussions which might flow from it? Is it not obvious now that, while he is under pressure from hon. Members on both sides of this House and shipping interests in the country, equally President Kennedy is under pressure the other way from interests in the United States? As it is obvious that both the right hon. Gentleman and President Kennedy can-
    214
    not resolve this problem, would he suggest to the British Chamber of Shipping that it might now propose to enter into negotiations with the American maritime interests to try to solve the problem?
    The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Member has stated very fairly what are the many considerations we all have to keep in mind. The very high position of British shipping in the world makes any form of retaliation much more dangerous than if it held a less strong position, but in regard to trying to accommodate these questions, we shall use every means, both official and unofficial, for the purpose.
    Mr. Peyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware how very welcome it was to many people in this country that the shipping problem was evidently so prominent in his mind, despite the existence of many others? Would he agree that it is very unlikely that this extremely complicated problem can be solved by anything other than at inter-governmental level? Could he do something to secure the co-operation of other maritime nations to put the Americans in their place and make them play fairer than this, because they are guilty of sharp practice?
    The Prime Minister: I think we should be careful how we use those words, but we try to co-ordinate our activities with those of other maritime countries.
    Mr. Gaitskell: May I take it that the Prime Minister's discussions with President Kennedy on shipping made particular reference to the demand of the United States Shipping Commission that British shippers should produce documents to the Commission? Can he tell us what advice the British Government are giving to the shipping companies in this matter?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has already dealt with the second part of the question. On the first part, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the complications of the American constitutional setup are such that these matters are not wholly within the responsibility of the United States Administration, although its good offices may be of the greatest value to us.

    GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Prime Minister if he will now appoint a Minister of Cabinet rank to co-ordinate the Government's information services.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave him on 13th February.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are now four Ministers, namely, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Secretary for Technical Co-operation, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who are responsible for the co-ordination of information services? Can he say why this is and whether it is one reason for the cut in our expenditure overseas this year?
    The Prime Minister: It seems a very reasonable division. The Secretary for Technical Co-operation deals with foreign overseas information services and the other Ministers with home services. There is no doubt that questions of co-ordination sometimes introduce rather delicate problems.

    NUCLEAR TESTS
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on the steps taken to limit the concentration of radioactive fall-out from the present United States series of tests and the estimates which have been made of the yield of radioactive fall-out in repect of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics tests of last September and October and the present United States series of tests.
    Mr. Gordon Walkerasked the Prime Minister (1) what information he has received about radioactive fall-out in this country as a result of the recent Russian nuclear test;
    (2) what information he has received about radioactive fall-out in this country likely to result from the present series of United States nuclear tests.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the deposit up to date of
    216
    fall-out in Great Britain from the Russia nuclear test last autumn; and what future level is anticipated.
    Mrs. Hartasked the Prime Minister what scientific advice he has received on the possible effects of the present series of nuclear tests on Christmas Island.
    The Prime Minister: This series of Questions deals with the natural concern lest the fall-out from the American tests should add to the existing anxiety due to the fall-out from the last series of Russian tests. It may be convenient for the Houe if I summarise the position as follows.
    Fall-out is divided into two categories —the immediate fall-out that follows within a week or two of atmospheric tests, and the long-term fall-out which is spread over a much greater period. After the Russian tests we had certain anxieties about possible harm due to iodine and we made special provisions in case this should reach an unacceptable degree. It proved, however, unnecessary to enforce these precautions. This fallout has now passed away. With regard to the long-term strontium fall-out from the Russian tests, this is still persisting but it is well below the level recorded in 1959 which was the comparable period when fall-out from the tests conducted by all nuclear Powers in the previous year became effective. There is therefore no immediate anxiety about this. With regard to the American atmospheric tests of this character, the immediate short-term fall-out will be very small and is likely to disperse in the same way as the fall-out from the Russian tests. With regard to the longer term effects, there is no reason to suppose that it will reach any serious level. As the President has already said precautions have been taken to reduce this to the minimum and it will be less than 1/50th of the difference which can be experienced as a result of variations in natural radioactivity simply by living in different parts of the United States.
    Mr. Henderson: We are told that the present American series of tests will be followed by another Soviet series of tests, and meanwhile the test ban conference in Geneva continues in a state of deadlock. Will not the Prime Minister make every effort to bring about an

    217
    early meeting between President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev with a view to ending the suicidal race in the development of nuclear weapons?
    The Prime Minister: There are two quite separate questions. One is the danger from fall-out, which I have tried to put into perspective, and the other is the importance of trying to bring about an acceptable agreement among the Great Powers to cease these tests altogether.
    Mr. Allaun: Do net the A.E.C. figures published this morning show that the full-out level in Britain today is thirty times what it was last May? If the Russian tests were wrong, as they certainly were, how can the American tests be right? If the tit-for-tat tests are likely to continue, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) says, should not the Prime Minister give a lead to the world by contracting out, certainly for British territory such as Christmas Island?
    The Prime Minister: Again, there are two quite separate questions. From the figures which I have given to the House and the advice which has been given to me, I do not think that there is any serious concern about the actual effect of either the short-term iodine results or the longer-term strontium particles which remain in the atmosphere. On the larger question, I do not accept the argument of tit-for-tat tests. President Kennedy and I made it quite clear in November that we would not enter into a contest of that kind. The only justification—and I believe it to be a real justification—for the tests now being conducted is that they are necessary to confirm the strength of the British-American deterrent.
    Mrs. Hart: May I ask the Prime Minister, on the specific point concerning the high-altitude tests, about the scientific advice which he has received? Is he aware that from all that is known of the consequences of the Argus series of tests a few years ago and from the great concern being expressed by responsible scientists in this country about the possible effects of the high-altitude tests, there is a grave onus on the military scientists, both in America and this country, to prove that there are not
    218
    involved the dangers to scientific research and the world generally which it is believed may be involved? Will he therefore ask that the high-altitude tests should not take place until we have had the kind of reassurance which we need?
    Mr. Speaker: That supplementary question inevitably anticipates Question No. Q7, which we have not yet reached.
    The Prime Minister: If it is the wish of the House, I could proceed to the next series of Questions which deal with high altitude as opposed to ordinary atmospheric tests.
    Mrs. Hart: On a point of order. I understood that the Prime Minister asked permission to answer my Question, Question No. Q21, with this series.
    Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Lady's supplementary question inevitably anticipated another Question which we have not yet reached.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House, without prejudice to the rights of hon. Members whose Questions have already been answered, if the Prime Minister were to answer the other series of Questions on the high-altitude tests, and then we could then have supplementary questions on both series of Questions together.
    Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Let us try. Mr. Driberg.
    Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order. In order to prevent any confusion, will you, Mr. Speaker, now enumerate the further Questions which are to be answered?
    Mr. Speaker: No. I called Mr. Driberg.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister if he was informed by the President of the United States of the impending high-altitude nuclear tests; and if, in view of the risk that such tests may seriously interfere with important current research by astronomers and geophysicists, he will request the President to cancel these tests or to instruct the responsible United States experts, before proceeding further with preparations for them, to consult fully with international scientific bodies.
    Mr. John Hallasked the Prime Minister what assurances he has received that the proposed explosion by the United States of America of a hydrogen bomb in space will not affect seriously the scientific study of the nature of the solar system.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will represent to President Kennedy the concern felt at the possible effects of the planned American nuclear test in the upper atmosphere on scientific research;
    (2) what steps are being taken to protect the inhabitants of British islands in the Pacific from injury to their eyesight as a result of the planned American high-altitude nuclear test.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister if he will urge President Kennedy to abandon further atmospheric and stratospheric nuclear explosions over the Pacific Ocean because of their dangerous effects on scientific experiments proceeding in that area.
    Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the danger to the eyesight of people in various parts of the British Commonwealth from the nuclear tests which the United States is proposing to conduct at high altitudes, what arrangements have been made for advance notice to be given to the world of the exact timing of these tests.
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Prime Minister, in view of the damage that would be caused to the interests of scientific research into the upper atmosphere and stratosphere, if he will withhold the use of Christmas Island for the American explosion of nuclear weapons at heights of around 500 miles.
    Mr. Pagetasked the Prime Minister what estimates have been made as to the yield of radioactive fall-out consequent upon the high altitude tests which are to be conducted by the United States Government; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: These Questions deal with the high-altitude tests which the United States authorities propose to make from Johnston Island. On this I would make the following comments.
    First, this is an experiment not connected with the agreement for the use
    220
    of Christmas Island but wholly within United States control. The British Government and our scientists have, however, been kept fully informed throughout. Secondly, from the point of view of health the fall-out from these very high-altitude tests is negligible. I understand that the Atomic Energy Commission has announced that public notice of the timing of high-altitude tests will be given about four days in advance. The responsibility for safety in the immediate area of the tests is a matter for the United States authorities. The nearest British territory is over 1,000 miles away and I am informed that there is no danger of damage to the eyes at this distance. Thirdly, the purpose of this experiment is of the greatest importance from the point of view of defence for it is intended to find out how radio, radar and other communications systems, on which all defence depends, might be temporarily put out of action by explosions of this kind. Since the whole defensive system of the West depends largely upon a highly developed method of intercommunication it will be seen that this matter is of the greatest significance to our defence. Fourthly, there is the argument that interference with the natural radiation belts which surround the world at these high altitudes will upset proper scientific investigation of their character and purpose.
    On the last point, I would only say that there are two views. The original discoverer of these belts, Dr. Van Allen, has declared that, in his view, from the purely scientific aspect, it would be an interesting experiment to introduce a disturbance into their natural features in order to see how they react. Other scientists feel that they would prefer to study them a little longer in their natural form before any artificial introduction is made into their natural life. Into this high altitude of thought I would hesitate to make any personal exploration but I would sum up in this way. The responsibility for these tests is solely on the United States Government; the fall-out will be negligible; the experiment is of the greatest importance from the defence point of view; and what will be the result from the scientific point of view is indeterminate but at any rate interesting.
    Mr. Driberg: Since the Prime Minister mentions defence as a justification for these tests, does he recall that at Geneva recently Her Majesty's Government supported the Canadian proposal that outer space should not be used for military purposes? Why has he now departed from that view? Secondly, has he seen the very strong protest by Sir Bernard Lovell and other eminent British scientists? Even if this matter is the exclusive responsibility of the United States Government, since it affects the whole world, including Britain and the Commonwealth, can the Prime Minister do nothing to restrain this cosmic madness?
    The Prime Minister: In reply to the first point, if there were complete agreement to abolish all tests, of course these, like all others, would come to an end. That would be one of the beneficial results of agreement. On the second point, however, as long as this is an important defence question—and it is a very important one—I think it right that the United States Government should make it. With regard to the purely scientific question, which is a matter very much of dispute, one can at least comfort oneself that until a very short time ago, nobody knew that the Van Allen Belts existed. If they should now be temporarily disturbed, I do not think that great harm will come to the world.
    Mr. Warbey: Can the Prime Minister say whether the scientists are able to give any precise indication of the effect upon the radiation belts of these tests? Can the scientists say with certainty that the explosion will not have consequences which may be harmful, not only to scientific research, but also to the wellbeing of the inhabitants of this planet? Instead of taking a frivolous attitude towards this deadly serious question, will the Prime Minister take steps to see that we do not have to be faced with this fearful shot in the dark?
    The Prime Minister: The scientific point is a very complicated one and much disputed. As I have said, Dr. Van Allen, who discovered these belts, takes the view that this will be an interesting and not a damaging experiment from the purely scientific aspect. Of course, however, this experiment would not have been made had it not
    222
    been for the important defence aspect of it. It is a great error to think that this is something absolutely novel. It is not the first high-altitude explosion which has been made and I think that in all the circumstances it would be not only wrong but futile for the British Government to try to urge that it should be withheld.
    Mr. Rankin: When the Prime Minister was discussing the question of high-altitude nuclear tests with President Kennedy, did the President of the United States inform him that America had secretly broken the atomic truce in March, 1959, by exploding a high-altitude nuclear device above the South Atlantic which, according to our scientists, had a serious disruptive effect upon the environment of the earth? Is the Prime Minister aware that our pure scientists, not the military ones, tell us now that the device to be exploded 500 miles above the Pacific will have an even more devastating effect than the one exploded in the South Atlantic?
    The Prime Minister: These are very exaggerated statements. I took the opportunity yesterday afternoon to have as full a briefing as possible from the most distinguished British scientists.
    Mr. Driberg: Sir Bernard Lovell?
    The Prime Minister: I can only assure the House that what I have tried to tell hon. Members is a fair picture of the meaning, purpose and likely result of a high-altitude test.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that when the United States exploded a small nuclear device in space in 1958, the eyes of experimental rabbits were burned out at 350 miles away? Is it not also a fact, as the New York Times has pointed out, that scientists simply do not know what is the safe distance from the forthcoming explosion, which will be 1,000 times as great? Is not this fact ground enough in itself for the British Government to make urgent representations to the United States to stop these tests, whose consequences on the eyesight of innumerable people who may be caught unaware of the danger are unknown?
    The Prime Minister: I am informed that that danger is minimal and that due notice will be given—and the distances are very great. I go back to

    223
    saying that I regard this experiment, it having been explained to me, as one that is necessary. I think that anybody who knows on what basis the intercommunication system on which defence depends is now operated will regard this as an important and, indeed, vital experiment.
    Mr. Brockway: May I first apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House because in my Question I thought that the explosion was taking place from Christmas Island? I apologise for that mistake. Is the Prime Minister aware that all of us hope that his anticipations about the small effects of this explosion will prove true, but is there not a tremendous responsibility with the Prime Minister in this matter? Is it not an invasion of the unknown, which may not expand knowledge, but restrict it? Is it not a grave gamble with the health and life of millions of people? If the Prime Minister has any doubts whatever about it, ought he to take this responsibility?
    The Prime Minister: I have tried to give the House as complete and accurate a picture as I can from the knowledge which is at my disposal.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of the great concern which has been shown by Sir Bernard Lovell, will the Prime Minister consider asking the President of the United States to give facilities to Professor Lovell and any other suitable astronomers to meet those scientists in the United States who are in charge of this operation? Many of us, on both sides of the House, are genuinely worried at Sir Bernard Lovell's reactions.
    The Prime Minister: I am quite ready to take that into account and do what I can. I would, however, point out that Sir Bernard Lovell did not anticipate all these terrible results. What he said was that he thought it would put back studies of the radiation belts; in other words, he did not want them to be disturbed.
    Mr. Rankin: He said more than that.
    Mr. Paget: Is the position that whilst there is a difference of opinion amongst the scientists as to whether the effects on cosmic communications and space exploration may be affected advan-
    224
    tageously or disadvantageously, there is no disagreement whatever amongst the scientists that explosions out of the atmosphere are much less dangerous to humanity than explosions inside the atmosphere?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman has summed it up completely.
    Mr. Gaitskell: First, will the Prime Minister say a little more about what appears to be the one danger to those of us who are living below the atmosphere—the flash from the explosion? Is this a serious danger? Has it been considered? What is the answer to those who express anxiety on that point? Secondly, can the Prime Minister say whether, apart from this, it is correct to say that these explosions in high altitudes will have no effect at all on humanity generally? Thirdly, will the Prime Minister seriously consider publishing as a White Paper a scientific account of the whole of this business, including the present state of affairs in respect of nuclear tests and fall-out?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: And have a debate and a Division.
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the first point, I am sure that there is no danger such as is feared. On the second point, about strontium and the rest, there is far less danger from this form of explosion than from any other. As for the third point, I will consider whether at a suitable moment some White Paper should be produced giving the results of these experiments, so far as it is possible to do so, having regard to the need for security.
    Mr. Grimond: Reverting to the defence aspect of these tests, I understand the Prime Minister to say that they may show that it is possible completely to knock out the early warning systems of the West and the East, and also to render second strike weapons useless? If so, does not this knock out the whole foundation for the doctrine of the deterrent?
    The Prime Minister: It is very important, in any defence system, to know what counter-measures could in theory be brought against it.
    Mr. M. Foot: When the Prime Minister considers issuing a statement on the

    225
    scientific aspects of these high-altitude tests will he also arrange for a statement to be made giving the names of British scientists who agree with the view that these tests are harmless and should go ahead, together with their statement of opinion, so that they may be subjected to examination by such people of Professor Sir Bernard Lovell? Is it not quite evident from the Prime Minister's last reference to Sir Bernard that he cannot even have read what he had to say on this matter? Finally, as there is obvious difficulty in dealing with a matter of this nature by way of Question and Answer, will he arrange for a debate in the House so that the House can vote on it?
    The Prime Minister: It is not the normal practice for the British Government or any Government to give the names of its scientific advisers. The Government must stand on their own decisions. As for the hon. Member's last point, the question of a debate does not rest with me. It is a matter for arrangement between the usual channels.
    Mr. Allaun: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    At the end of Questions—

SPORT AND RECREATION (INCREASED EXPENDITURE)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): During the debate on economic matters on 26th July of last year, I said that authorisations and loan sanctions to local authorities for desirable but not essential matters would have to run at a lower level. I said that the Wolfenden Report on Sport and the Community was something which would have to wait in the then circumstances.
In my Budget speech on 9th April, I said that I would start in a modest way to make good some of the deficiencies pointed out by that Report. I have, therefore, been examining the situation with my colleagues concerned.
Public capital expenditure on facilities for sport and physical recreation, including youth clubs, community centres and village halls used partly for sport and physical recreation was £15·6 million in 1960–61 and £20·1 million in 1961–62.
226
I estimate that expenditure in 1962–63 will be £26·4 million, of which about £11 million will be in connection with the school building programme. Four million pounds of this total is estimated expenditure of this nature for the Youth Service in 1962–63, compared with less than £1 million last year.
So far as current public expenditure is concerned, there has also been an increase in expenditure: for example, the 1962–63 Exchequer grant for current expenditure on social and physical training of youth in Great Britain is £1,058,000, compared with £895,000 in 1961–62. With regard to the Exchequer grants to national voluntary bodies under the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, and other legislation, the estimate for the recurrent grant in 1962–63 is £230,000, and the estimate for help over capital projects £240,000.
Against the background of these figures, I have examined the figures for starts in 1962–63 and following years. I find that the starts authorised in 1961–62 amounted to £22 million. Starts already sanctioned for 1962–63 amount to £26·5 million, of which, again, about £11 million will be in connection with the school building programme. I propose to increase that total to £27·5 million so that the starts in 1962–63 will, in fact, be £5½ million more than those in 1961–62. I have also agreed that schemes for major recreational projects by local authorities now being held up can be considered along with other public service investment.
I am also authorising my right hon. Friends the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland to make grants from the Exchequer within a limit of an additional £100,000 a year for recurrent expenditure, to national voluntary organisations for the development of schemes for coaching and to help in the administration of sport; and I am also prepared to make available an additional £100,000 a year for capital expenditure by these voluntary bodies, in other words, an increase of £200,000 upon an existing figure of £470,000.
The figures I have announced mark an advance on what was already an increasing programme for sporting and recreational facilities.
Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his statement will be warmly appreciated by sportsmen throughout the country? Is he also aware that it is disappointing that, a couple of years after the Wolfenden Report, we still have not set up a Sports Development Council and made provision for its financing? It is now two years since the Wolfenden Committee recommended that £5 million should be provided for such a council. Will the Chancellor assure the House that he is keeping this matter under review, and that he will take action as soon as possible?
Mr. Lloyd: Certainly. That is a matter for consideration.
Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that his reply will be received with some dismay in sporting circles? Is it not a fact that his long and lamentable statement, for which we are very grateful, confuses the proposals contained in the Report of the Albemarle Committee on the Youth Service with those of the Wolfenden Committee?
Is the Chancellor further aware that the added provisions now made for sport are very meagre, compared not only with the recommendations of the Wolfenden Committee, but with the specific commitment of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, immediately prior to the 1959 General Election, that we should have £5 million? Are we not to have a Sports Development Council at all, as recommended by the Wolfenden Committee, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party? Can we have—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must be aware that it is essential that supplementary questions should not be of this length.
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. Is it not rather difficult to curtail the length of supplementary questions in view of the length of a statement made under the guise of an Answer given, by leave of the House, to a Question? Does it not put the Opposition at a terrific disadvantage if matters are dealt with in this way, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: It is to everybody's grave disadvantage if supplementary questions are as long as that. We
228
simply have to make progress. We have other business to follow.
Mr. Lloyd: May I say, in reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), that I thought that I was scrupulously careful in my statement to draw attention to the various aspects of this matter. The hon. Member should remember that the Wolfenden Report referred to the Albemarle Report and suggested that these things should be considered as a consistent whole, as they are. The question of a Sports Development Council is another matter.
Mr. Milne: Is not the Chancellor aware that the figures that he has quoted merely look good when compared with the position in the past? Is not this a niggardly way of dealing with a pressing social problem? This is not what the Chancellor outlined in his Budget speech. He then said that the £50 million tax that he would draw from sweets and ice cream was in some way to be diverted to seeing that the needs of the youth of this country are considered. His statement today falls very far short of that.
Mr. Lloyd: In my Budget speech I said that I would make a modest start to remedy certain deficiencies, and I think that what I have said today comes within that definition. The hon. Member has referred to the amount spent in the past. I am concerned with the increase in expenditure, which is very substantial.
Mr. Prentice: Is not it a fact that because of the large number of births just after the war and the growth of the school population there was a larger demand for these facilities by young people in their late teens? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that he has done more than keep pace with that increased demand?
Mr. Lloyd: I think that I have done considerably more than that.
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is the Chancellor aware that hon. Members of all parties are grateful for what he said in his Budget statement and that we are grateful to him for doing something now? Is he aware that we are grateful to him for giving some modest help to the governing bodies of sport who are

229
urgently in need of assistance in their administration of coaching schemes? May I ask that next year the right hon. and learned Gentleman should give a higher priority to this matter and do more?
Mr. Lloyd: Without making any promises, I will certainly bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Chataway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, whatever criticisms may come from football referees, runners will be a good deal more grateful for the help that he has given? Will he consider seriously the question of a Sports Development Council, because I believe that when making grants to the governing bodies in sport he would find that such a council would relieve him, for one thing, of the duty of making a great many invidious choices? Will my right hon. and learned Friend also consider whether a proper programme can be carried on without such a council?
Mr. Lloyd: I will keep that matter under consideration. As I have said, it is being considered.

LAOS (HOSTILITIES)
Mr. H. Wilson(by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make on the outbreak of fighting in Laos.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): The villages of Muong Sing and Nam Tha changed hands on 3rd and 6th May. There was some fighting. Full information about the circumstances is not yet available, but it does appear that there has been a serious breach of the cease-fire by the Communist side.
Her Majesty's Government are asking the Soviet Minister for Foreign Affairs, as co-Chairman, to use his influence to persuade the Communist forces to withdraw and to arrange for an immediate investigation of the situation by the International Control Commission.
Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all of us deplore the outbreak of fighting on the part of the Communist Pathet Lao in this area? Is he equally aware—this has been the subject of a lot of criticism in The Times this
230
morning and elsewhere—that there has been a very big build-up of military forces in the area by the forces of the Right-wing element in Laos, Prince Bourn Oum and others, despite the strongest advice, as we understand it, of both the American and the British advisers in this field?
Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sooner the Right-wing element in this area carries out the proposals agreed on at Geneva the better will be the chances of a peaceful settlement in Laos?
Mr. Heath: This situation is bound to remain an extremely dangerous one until a Government of national union of the three princes is formed. We shall continue to use our utmost influence, together with the Americans, to bring that about.
Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman re-emphasise that it is still the Government's policy and, so far as is known, the American Government's policy, that we want to get not only that coalition, but a neutralist Administration in Laos?
Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. Prince Souvanna Phouma, the neutralist prince, still has the authority of the King of Laos to form a Government and, of course, we support that.
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Lord Privy Seal represent to the American Government that the C.I.A. should stop sending military supplies to the Right-wing Government which, as is made plain by The Times this morning, is the real reason why they are able to go on resisting Souvanna Phouma?
Mr. Heath: I cannot agree with the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I am certain that the American Administration are using all the influence they can with General Phouma to form a Government of national union.
Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman in possession of information that would enable him to rely on the reports of Boun Oum? Twice before he told the world that his country was being invaded by the Communists and then admitted that it was just a hoax which

231
was perpetrated in the hope that others would come in. Are we in possession of information about the facts? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House desire to see a neutral Laos?
Mr. Heath: As I said in my answer, the full information about the circumstances of the changing hands of these two villages is not in our possession. But it is not disputed by any of the parties in Laos that the change-over has taken place. However, there are several versions of what happened at the time.
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Can the Lord Privy Seal reassure us that the C.I.A. is not sending supplies of military material and military advisers in the field to the Right-wing Government in Vientiane?
Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for the C.I.A. and I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any information about it.
Mr. Ridsdale: Can my right hon Friend say whether any other Communist Power or outside intervention, other than the C.I.A., has taken place in Laos?
Mr. Heath: As I said, full information is not available. It has been
232
suggested that there has been Chinese intervention but, as far as we know, there is no evidence to support that. It is also suggested that the Viet Minh were supporting the Pathet Lao in this activity, but, again, we have no direct evidence.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would consider instructing the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) to remove from the Chamber the sort of plastic container which he has in his possession?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is not feeding in danger at the moment, I would rather take the opportunity of seeing the container before ruling upon it.
Mr. Strachey: I think that I ought to say that the "plastic container" is a brief case in which as a "shadow" Minister, have my documents relating to the debate on Central Africa which is to take place shortly. I suppose that a "shadow" Minister should have a "shadow" brief case. I shall have to think of a way of getting over it.
Mr. Speaker: Certainly, the term "brief case" as descriptive matter may not bring it within the rules of order. But I will look at the article at some time.

PENALTIES FOR DRUNKENNESS
3.58 p.m.
Dame Irene Ward: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the penalties for certain offences involving drunkenness or punishable under enactments relating to such offences.
The Bill which I seek the leave of the House to introduce is simple in content. Its object is to bring penalties which may be imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction for certain offences connected with drunkenness into line with modern values of money. In the context of courts of summary jurisdiction two categories of drunkenness would be covered by the provisions of the Bill. The first is simple drunkenness and the second is the offence of being drunk and disorderly.
At present, courts of summary jurisdiction have power to impose a fine of 10s. for a first offence of drunkenness with a maximum of £2. For the second offence the court may impose a penalty of £2, with an alternative of two months' imprisonment. The operative Clauses in the Bill seek to give powers to courts of summary jurisdiction to impose a maximum fine of £5 for drunkenness and to raise the fine for being drunk and disorderly to £10, retaining, at the same time, the power to impose an alternative punishment of one month.
The idea behind the Bill is that fines originally settled in 1872 hardly provide for the cleaning of a cell or the maintenance of blankets when a person has to be kept in a cell all night. It is felt that it would be wise to raise these fines so that they will be in line with present money values.
234
The House may be aware that a committee of the Home Office has been considering the question of fines in courts of summary jurisdiction for some considerable time—I think that the period has been over five years. That seems to me to be rather longer than necessary to deal with this very simple matter. I believe that the Bill would be for the convenience of the courts of summary jurisdiction and also of help to the police, who have a great deal of trouble, particularly with drunk and disorderly people. I thought that by asking leave to introduce this small Bill, I could provide a little personal stimulation while we are still awaiting the final advice of the Home Office committee.
There are one or two other very small points which deal with people who are drunk in Charge of children, but all the details in the Bill follow the lines introduced in the original Act of 1872, and there would be no effective change in the law as such—merely an increase in the right of courts of summary jurisdiction to impose greater fines.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dame Irene Ward, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Glenvil Hall, Mr. Speir, Mr. Short, Mrs. McLaughlin, Mr. Montgomery, and Mr. Popplewell.

PENALTIES FOR DRUNKENNESS
Bill to increase the penalties for certain offences involving drunkenness or punishable under enactments relating to such offences, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 18th May and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

CENTRAL AFRICA
4.2 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move,
That this House supports Her Majesty's Government's efforts in helping to seek a solution of the problems of Central Africa.
I welcome this opportunity of discussing Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities in the important area of Central Africa. The multi-racial idea in Africa is one which we should make every effort to foster, and my short experience has shown me that the eyes of Africa are turned on the Federation—indeed, not only of Africa but of the world.
I am grateful to the House for allowing me a little time in which to take stock of the situation and of the problems I inherited on assuming my office. I have reviewed the situation in consultation with the High Commissioner in Salisbury and the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I shall shortly be visiting Central Africa to try to find a way forward through discussions with all concerned on the spot. In particular, I look forward to resuming personal contact with the Federal Prime Minister and Government and the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. I have already met several leading political figures in London, but there are obviously many others I desire to meet and hope that I shall meet.
I want to explain today the line of approach which I think it best to follow. The Prime Minister explained, in announcing my appointment to this task on 15th March, that we have now reached a new stage in our efforts to find a solution for the difficulties facing us in Central Africa—a solution which we all wish to see evolved as soon as possible so that the ill consequences of continued political and economic uncertainties may be ended.
When the Federal Review Conference adjourned in December, 1960, it did so on the understanding that it was best to defer consideration of the future of the Federation until further progress had been made with constitutional advances in the individual territories. We have now got new Constitutions working in all three territories, and I should like
236
to survey the situation in each of them before I turn to the task ahead, which is to consider the problem of the Federation and future relationship of the territories. As the House knows, the territories are at different stages of constitutional advance. They are travelling at different speeds, but the main thing is that they are all heading in the same direction.
First, I will refer to Southern Rhodesia. It may be thought that Southern Rhodesia is lagging behind in the light of the constitutional progress being made in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I do not think that it is appreciated nearly enough what considerable progress is represented by the new Constitution. I would remind the House that the British Government have had very little say in, or control over, Southern Rhodesian affairs since 1923.
Yet, at the Constitutional Conference presided over by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, a year or so ago, all political groups in the Colony, with the exception of the Dominion Party, freely subscribed to proposals which resulted in the new Constitution. This new Constitution not only guarantees immediate and substantial African representation in the legislature—at least 15 seats out of 65—where none at present exists, but will allow Africans, by weight of numbers, to assume political responsibility as more and more of them qualify for the franchise.
The House will notice that the principle of power being assumed by the Africans is conceded in the new Constitution. Yet that Constitution secured the overwhelming support of the almost wholly European electorate in the referendum last July. As was said then, this verdict represents a revolution of European thinking in the Colony. It is a highly significant event in the chequered and, in some respects, depressing history of race relations, that one racial group should have voluntarily accepted the accretion of political power by another at the expense of its own.
Moreover, the programme for African education and the steady progress in removing racial discrimination are very welcome. The House has on several occasions debated the new Constitution, and I will not rehearse the details again.

237
I realise that many Africans are not satisfied with the present pace of political advancement, but I hope, nevertheless—as I am sure that we all hope—that they will take part in the elections and thereby take full advantage of the opportunities which the new Constitution affords them.
Here, I would like to say something about the Sub-Committee of the United Nations Committee of Seventeen which visited London recently to inquire into the constitutional position of Southern Rhodesia. The sub-committee saw my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies, and myself. We told the sub-committee, as I tell the House now, that the British Government cannot by themselves introduce a new constitution for Southern Rhodesia, nor can they set aside the 1961 Constitution. This would be contrary to the convention, which has operated for nearly forty years, of non-interference in the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia.
We are convinced, in any event—and this came up during our discussions—that the Declaration of Rights and the Constitutional Council contained in the new Constitution will be more effective than the reserve powers they have replaced. In fact, the British reserve powers have never been used since they were introduced in 1923.
The sub-committee has published its report. It is very critical of the terms of the 1961 Southern Rhodesian Constitution, mainly in regard to the franchise, but it has fairly recorded the views which Ministers impressed upon members of the sub-committee. The report states that the British Government have not indicated any change in their approach to the situation concerning Southern Rhodesia. Nor has the sub-committee. It is still asking for the impossible, namely, that Her Majesty's Government should take the initiative to have the present Constitution set aside and a new one negotiated. It has expressed many opinions which we do not accept. When this comes up for debate in the United Nations, Her Majesty's Government will again explain our attitude.
Bearing in mind the statement of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for
238
Foreign Affairs in another place on 5th April, I should like shortly to restate Her Majesty's Government's position as follows. In our view, the General Assembly and its subsidiaries can make only recommendations. Members are in no way bound to accept them. Her Majesty's Government cannot share responsibility for our Colonial Territories, nor can we shift it. In the case of Southern Rhodesia, there are special constitutional considerations.
Her Majesty's Government are always ready to give proper consideration to resolutions of the United Nations, but we cannot surrender or abdicate our own responsibility. We have submitted to searing, searching, and, in some cases, misinformed criticism in the United Nations such as I feel many other nations, especially those behind the Iron Curtain, would certainly not have taken so patiently. I was glad when it was acknowledged during our talks in London that Britain had led about 600 million people to independence over the last thirty years. We are proud of our record, and we shall carry through with it with patience, persistence, and wisdom.
I now turn to Northern Rhodesia. Her Majesty's Government's decisions for the next phase of constitutional development in Northern Rhodesia were announced in the House by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 28th February. Evolving a new constitution for Northern Rhodesia proved to be a difficult task and has taken us longer than we had hoped. It has given rise to much controversy in the territory itself, and much debate in this House. But throughout these discussions Her Majesty's Government have held fast to the objective set out by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies at the beginning of the talks in December, 1960, namely, to find a solution which would
"on the one hand, meet the natural aspirations of the peoples of the territory and, on the other, provide for the maintenance of stable government and an efficient and developing administration",
and which would also be compatible with the continued discharge by Her Majesty's Government of our special responsibilities so long as the peoples of Northern Rhodesia desired that protection to remain.
In particular, it was our aim to bring about a substantial increase in African

239
representation in the Legislature, but in a flexible way which would continue to encourage the development of a nonracial approach to politics. This I think we can claim to have achieved in the arrangement for the national seats, coupled with the 15 upper and lower roll constituencies.
The Opposition Amendment asks us to accept the majority view of the Monckton Commission in favour of an African majority. This we cannot do for the following reason, and I do not wish to import any bitterness into our debate. We have not produced a built-in majority for any race or party; but we have produced electoral arrangements which offer every opportunity to a party which can make a genuine appeal to voters of both races. This is our philosophy and we have tried to carry it through in practice.
We have also thought it right that the test of such appeal to both races should be a genuine test, whilst not being unreasonably stiff. It was over this question of the minimum qualifying hurdle for the national seats that we had most difficulty. We knew that we could not produce a constitution which would satisfy everybody in every respect, but it was essential to find something that would command a sufficient degree of acceptance to enable all parties to take part in the elections.
We therefore set ourselves to narrow the area where serious differences of view persisted, and this particularly arose, as the House will remember, over the qualifying hurdle. We made adjustments here in February last, without thereby disturbing the general balance of the Constitution or going outside our previous purpose. The House will remember that the greatest unfairness was thought to arise over the numerical alternative, and will be well aware that this was a highly mathematical problem.
African candidates were required to obtain the support of one in eight of the European voters, whereas Europeans would have needed the support of only one in 25 of the African voters. In view of this, we decided that candidates should be required to obtain the same minimum proportion of the votes. We also reduced the minimum qualification to 10 per cent. as opposed to 12½ per
240
cent. Solutions which are imposed are never greeted with enthusiasm, but all parties now appear willing to contest the elections, and we can take satisfaction in having achieved this purpose.
When I saw Mr. Kenneth Kaunda he reminded me that the U.N.I.P., his party, has attached certain conditions to its participation, but I do not think that any party need have apprehensions, as I told him. No one need fear that the elections will be delayed, and I understood from Mr. Kaunda that he was not pressing for an election before October.
The Delimitation Commission which will settle the constituencies will be impartial and unbiased, and will be presided over by a judge. Political freedom to conduct the election campaign will be accorded to all equally, subject only to the necessary measures to maintain law and order. I do not have it in mind, and this I also told Mr. Kaunda, that a Federal review conference should be called before the elections are carried through. I shall be coming later to our plans for tackling the broader problem.
On the timetable for the elections, registration of voters has begun, and the Delimitation Commission will be set up as soon as the processes of registration are completed. The drafting of the constitutional instrument is in hand, and I hope that everything will be ready for an election in the autumn, before the rainy season sets in.
I must tell the House that I have been disquieted by recent reports from the Governor about clashes between the supporters of rival political parties, which have led to a number of deaths. The Governor must maintain law and order, and he will have my full support in any measures necessary to ensure that the election campaigns are conducted in an orderly and responsible manner. Both he and I are anxious to avoid having to introduce any restrictions or restrictive measures at this time, when we believe that the new Constitution offers hope of resolving the differences between parties and races in the interests of Northern Rhodesia as a whole.
But the peace must be kept, and the Governor has thought it right to introduce regulations which will enable gatherings likely to lead to breaches of the peace to be prevented. Hooliganism

241
and intimidation of the kind that have been displayed in recent clashes must be stopped if the advancement of the territory is not to be jeopardised, so I sincerely hope that all political leaders will recognise this and bring their influence to bear so that there will be no intimidation and that violent incidents will cease.
Now, in relation to the United Nations resolution about Northern Rhodesia, I have no further general observations to add to what I said earlier. But on particular points I would say this. This territory is under the direct protection of Her Majesty's Government. We consider that progress can and will be made under its present Constitution and we are not prepared to make any further changes in the Constitution as finally amended and announced on 28th February last by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Now I come to Nyasaland.
Mr. Denis Healey: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear that his last remark does not imply that this is the last Constitution that Northern Rhodesia will have.
Mr. Butler: No. I am not looking as far into the future as that. I wish the election to be fought on this Constitution and that it why I was concentrating on the period before the election which is coming about.
Nyasaland's new Constitution was agreed at a conference in London in August, 1960. The elections under it took place in August, 1961. The result was a considerable victory for Dr. Banda's Malawi Congress Party, which gained all the 20 lower roll seats and two of the eight upper roll seats. The Malawi Congress Party then entered Government and was given five out of ten Ministries.
The new Constitution has worked well. The unofficial Ministers have worked hard to master the problems in their fields. This progress has made possible another change—a recent change—provided for by the existing Constitution, whereby two further Ministries hitherto under official Ministers have been handed over to elected Ministers. Seven out of the ten Ministries are now held by unofficial Ministers. Thus, on the constitutional front, and looking only at
242
the domestic picture in Nyasaland, the territory is in good shape and steadily consolidating.
But in Nyasaland the problems arising in the Federation as a whole are reflected with particular intensity. On the one hand, the economic and social advancement in recent years has depended to a very great extent on the advantages accruing from the association of the three Territories. On the other, there is no denying the political opposition to the present Federation from the inhabitants of the territory.
Since the Federation was established Government spending in Nyasaland on recurrent account—that is, federal and territorial—has increased to a figure of about £10½ million, as compared with a figure of £4½ million for all purposes, capital and recurrent, in 1952. It is estimated that only a little more than half of this is covered by revenue which the two Governments are at present deriving from sources within the territory itself.
Even with this external assistance, Nyasaland has a considerable budgetary problem. We have at present under consideration, after discussion with the Minister of Finance and the Parliamentary Secretary, whom I myself have met, what should be done about next year's Budget and the new development planning period which will start next July. I cannot give a final answer on this question today, but we are, of course, studying Nyasaland's problems with sympathy, given our own financial problems and other Government overseas commitments. The point I wish to make at this stage is simply that the financial and economic problems which would arise from Nyasaland's withdrawal from the present Federation would obviously be considerable.
I turn now, having said something about the individual territories, to the general problem of the future of the Federation. My thoughts will slightly expand, I hope, the Motion on the Order Paper. They are that we should seek an acceptable solution which would maintain the very real advantages of association between the three territories. There is some talk about the failure of the Federation, but critics frequently overlook the major advantages which it has brought.
On the economic side, it must be clear to everyone that since the Federa-

243
tion started there have been great developments which would not have taken place without the grouping together of the three territories into one large economic unit. The building of the Kariba Dam is an obvious example of this. I doubt whether many instances of such rapid development can be quoted, or such a high concentration of outside capital investment per head of the population. This would not have been possible if the three component parts of the Federation had been left on their own.
The House will realise that the dilemma we are in springs from the fears of the people who live in the Federation. The European has seen this unprecedented economic progress, which has been made possible by the application of his own skill and initiative. He is afraid that, if political advance of the African is too rapid, the momentum of this development will be halted. The African, who is in the vast majority, contrasts his own modest position with the far superior position of the European and feels that he has too little to say in the development of the country. Many Africans, in fact, are economically far better off than they were before the days of the Federation. They feel, however, that they are going too slowly, particularly on the political side, and the European feels that they are going too fast.
The problem has always been how to find a way forward which will allay the apprehensions of both sides and encourage the two races towards a greater realism and a better understanding of each other's point of view. I am sure that the whole House will be with me in saying that it must remain our aim to try to get the two races to work together for the advantage of both. Her Majesty's Government have certainly not lost confidence in that noble ideal.
This, then, is the situation which faces us. It remains the view of Her Majesty's Government that there are great advantages for all the peoples in Central Africa in a continued association of the three territories. At the same time, it is clear that there is considerable criticism of the present Federation. How is this two-fold problem to be tackled?
244
This is a matter to which I have been addressing myself since I assumed my new responsibilities. I am greatly indebted to the British High Commissioner and the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland for the help that they gave me when they were over here. I am now looking forward to visiting the Federation to talk things over with its leaders and those of the territories.
Her Majesty's Government have already indicated that they are open to receive suggestions from any quarter for the solution of the problems of the area. I remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations said this on 8th March:
"The Constitutions of the three component Territories having now been settled, Her Majesty's Government are giving consideration to the future problems of the Federation as a whole. In this connection, they will be ready to receive proposals from the Federal Government or any of the Territorial Governments or any interests concerned through the appropriate channels."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 92.]
I am now convinced that Her Majesty's Government must take the initiative by providing a channel through which such ideas can be presented and studied.
I have been asked on several occasions when I propose to reconvene the Federal review conference, to which I referred earlier. My answer to the Liberal Amendment is that it would not be opportune, in my view, to think in terms of such a conference now with elections pending in Northern and Southern Rhodesia. Nor do I think that a formal conference would be at the present stage the most fruitful method of procedure. But some initiative must be taken quickly if we are to make progress and put an end to the uncertainty which we all wish to see dispelled. What I have in mind is to start as quickly as possible some exploratory work which approaches the problems of the area in a composite way so that the various separate aspects of the future relationship of the territories can be examined together.
Her Majesty's Government cannot accept the terms of the Opposition Motion with regard to the secession of the territories. This is to approach a grave and complex problem in altogether too general and, what is more important, too negative a way. As I

245
have said before, I hardly think that this debate should be an occasion for dissension, or, at any rate, deep dissension, whatever differing opinions may be expressed; but if the Opposition insist on voting we shall have to vote against the Amendment, because we want to approach the problem in a rather different way. We want to take a constructive view of the future and not just pull out bricks and let the structure collapse.
The Government particularly want to take a constructive view about the future of Nyasaland. We acknowledge that Dr. Banda and the Malawi Party, supported by a firm mandate at the last election, are not prepared for Nyasaland to remain within the present Federation. On the other hand, Her Majesty's Government think it right that before any final conclusion is reached there should be a full examination, with particular reference to Nyasaland's financial needs and economic viability, both of the consequences of the withdrawal for Nyasaland and also—this is the constructive part—of possible alternative and acceptable forms of association with the other two territories.
We do not want another public inquiry—I should like to make that quite clear. What I have in mind is to choose a few advisers, attached to myself, who will be charged to examine these matters with the Government of Nyasaland. But the future of Nyasaland is only part of a composite problem, and my idea is that these advisers should also conduct complementary talks with the Governments of Northern and Southern Rhodesia to examine possible forms in which all three territories might be associated in future, or any alternative form of association that might be worked out.
My advisers would maintain the closest touch with the Federal Government throughout their inquiries, and afford them full opportunity of presenting their views on all matters of concern to them. And, of course, I shall be discussing these plans with the Federal Government and the other Governments concerned during the course of my visit. I have long been looking forward to consultation on the spot, and this should remove any difficulties or misapprehensions.
246
Her Majesty's Government are anxious that any ideas should be examined which might help towards a solution of the problems of Central Africa, and might preserve and promote the advantages of a continued association on which, in particular, the economic prosperity of the territories so much depends. At the same time, it is clear, as I indicated in relation to Nyasaland, that any association that is to last must be acceptable to the territories concerned, and must be based on the good will of their peoples. Her Majesty's Government cannot by themselves create that good will; it must be brought about by the understanding and good sense of both races.
We have no intention, as a Government, of abdicating our responsibilities towards Central Africa or, under the Preamble to the Constitution of 1953, to the individual Northern Territories. That is why we have thought it right—indeed, our moral duty—to take the initiative in seeking a solution.
And I say this to the House, because we may debate this often in the course of months or years: nobody who has listened to or read the conflicting and often extreme statements made can be in the slightest doubt that it will be most difficult to find a just solution. There is probably no such nexus of political problems that is so congregated together in one association of peoples.
In two of the territories, there is the direct contact of the protecting Power. In the third territory, the power of intervention is limited by devolution and convention. Then there is the Federal Government, in which are vested the powers of defence, foreign affairs and the other subjects in the Federal list.
I shall, with the help of the House, try to seek a just solution. In the words of Sydney Smith:
"Nations fall where there is no justice because there is nothing which the multitude thinks worth defending."
I shall depend, during my forthcoming visit, on the wisdom and experience of those with whom I confer. I shall look for a sense of realism and constructive purpose. Above all, I ask for the support of this House, for it will be to the general credit of Parliament if we can together achieve a result which is both moderate and fair.
4.34 p.m.
Mr. Denis Healey: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"calls upon Her Majesty's Government to implement the majority recommendations of the Monckton Commission that there should be an African majority in the Legislature of Northern Rhodesia and to declare its intention to permit secession by any of the territories in the Ceneral African Federation".
Let me say at the outset that I am sure that we all share the views expressed by the Home Secretary in the concluding passages of his speech. The problems with which he is now charged are probably the most dangerous and complicated and, in some ways, the most important of all the problems we have faced in our Commonwealth and colonial affairs since India was granted her independence some fifteen year ago. We all sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have more success in dealing with them than had his predecessors, whose efforts we are asked to support in the Government's Motion—a Motion whose ambiguity suggests that it was drafted by the right hon. Gentleman himself in one of his more oblique moods.
Nothing in his speech—or, to be fair, very little—suggests that he is yet prepared for the necessary changes in the attitude which Her Majesty's Government have so far assumed towards these problems, and I can only hope that his speech was influenced more by his feeling of loyalty to the past policy of the Government than by a careful study of the problems that will face him in the future.
It seemed to me that the real weakness of his speech was that it failed to recognise the African and world context within which these problems of Central Africa must now be solved. I do not think that it is possible for us to have what he called a constructive view of the future which ignores what is happening in the rest of Africa, and which ignores the intense interest now being taken in these problems by other countries of the Commonwealth, and, indeed by the United Nations as a whole.
Coming to this field from outside, like the right hon. Gentleman himself, one is bound to be struck at the start
248
by the extraordinary and tragic irony that although this country has by far the best colonial record of any Imperial power—as the Home Secretary said, over the last fifteen years we have been responsible for giving complete freedom to over 600 million people—in spite of this shining and absolutely unique record in the transfer of power to subject peoples, we now find ourselves the target of attack even from those in the United Nations whom we ourselves liberated. We find ourselves, with Portugal and with South Africa, in the dock of world opinion.
There is no doubt that the reason for this extraordinary and ironic contrast between the broad appeal of our colonial record and the obloquy to which we are now subjected in many forums is the fact that, by creating a Central African Federation in 1953, we made it inevitable that the progress of our Colonial policy in those three territories would be inhibited and distorted by pressure from the very small European minority in the area itself—a minority of only three people out of one hundred—and from its supporters in Westminster. As a result of the creation of the Federation—and, in my opinion, only as a result of that creation—our policies in that area have diverged very widely and, in my view, very wrongly, from the general trend of our polices in the rest of Africa and, indeed, in the rest of our Colonial Empire throughout the world.
There is no doubt that the arguments initially used for creating this Federation were very strong. It might have offered the chance of establishing a racial partnership that would have enabed European and African to work together in a way in which they have not so far succeeded in working together anywhere else in the continent; it certainly could have met a need for economic co-operation, and it could have helped to prevent the political Balkanisation of Africa which I think all hon. Members regard as the main threat to stability in that troubled continent for perhaps two or three generations to come.
I think that all of us, even from the beginning, recognised that the Federation could not hope to succeed in achieving those three aims unless it could win the consent of the great majority of its

249
inhabitants. It was, in fact, opposed at the start by the great majority of the Africans, because they considered that "partnership," as interpreted by the Europeans then in power in Africa, meant, as the first Federal Prime Minister once remarked, a partnership between the rider and the horse; and they had no doubt who would be the rider and who the horse. The Africans opposed it also because they feared that the economic co-operation brought about inside the Federation would be overwhelmingly in the interests of the tiny European minority; and because they felt that by adding the Northern territories to Southern Rhodesia the Federation would inevitably hold back constitutional progress in the Northern territories. My hon. Friends, knowing the strength of this African opposition, voted against the establishment of the Federation in the first place. Hon. Gentlemen opposite—and I believe that many of them were sincere in this view—although they recognised that the majority of African opinion was against the Federation, hoped that the experience of living in the Federation would succeed in time in changing the attitude of the great African majority and prove that their suspicions were unfounded.
That hope has itself proved to be unfounded. There is no doubt whatever that the vast majority of Africans living in the Federation, as the Monckton Commission found two years ago, is bitterly opposed to its existence, and all the evidence we have received since the Commission went out to examine the situation suggests that their opposition has become still more bitter in the intervening two years.
We now face a situation in which the Federation itself is in a desperate position. Its very survival is at stake. This is recognised by everyone—white and coloured, in Britain and in the Federation, by those who support Sir Roy Welensky and by those who oppose him. Responsibility for the failure of the Federation does not lie, as Sir Roy so often says, in any lack of faith shown by the British Government in London. It does not lie with any actions which we in Westminster have taken or have failed to take. On the contrary, the failure of the Federation rests on the failure of the Europeans in the
250
Federation to dispel the fears of the Africans and on the steady erosion of Britain's power to protect the Africans which, to its shame, has been again and again supported by the majority of hon. Members opposite, starting with the rejection of the recommendations of the African Affairs Board, which was set up to protect the Africans, followed by the liquidation of the Board itself and, most lately, with the surrender of the reserve powers in Southern Rhodesia.
The result is that it is even clearer today than when the Monckton Commission studied the matter on the spot two years ago that the tragedy of the Federation in Central Africa—although, in principle, it was indeed a noble aim—has been to make the word "Federation" stink in the nostrils of the majority of Africans in the area and to discredit the whole idea of economic co-operation which we, like hon. Gentlemen opposite, regard as highly desirable between these territories. Thus today Africans in all these territories will be satisfied with nothing less than total political independence in three separate states.
The best proof of this was provided, ironically enough, by the recent Federal election which was called by Sir Roy to demonstrate the strength of feeling in the area in favour of Federation, an election which was almost totally boycotted by the 8 million Africans in the area, in which the total vote was only 14,000 and which was composed almost exclusively of Europeans. Indeed, fewer people voted in that Federal election than assembled in the crowd of Africans who gathered a few days later to welcome Mr. Nkomo back from his visit to the United Nations. There was a crowd of 17,000 Africans to welcome the Southern Rhodesian Nationalist leader at the airport—yet only 14,000, mainly Europeans, voted in the whole Federal election.
Only a few days ago the representative of Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations gave a pledge that we would base our policy in these territories on the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. I suggest that we could not have had a clearer indication of their wishes than was provided in the recent Federal election. Sir Roy asked for a vote of confidence. He did, indeed win every seat—but the party which he

251
leads and which stands on a policy of Federation, uncontaminated, in its present form, got the support of only one out of every 870 members of the population of the territory. One person out of every 870 took the opportunity to vote in favour of the Federation which we are now discussing.
What is to be done against this background? The danger has been obvious for years, and that is why the present Government set up the Monckton Commission to examine the situation on the spot, as far as it was humanly possible to do so without prejudice, and to report. The Commission was set up nearly three years ago and it reported more than 18 months ago—in October, 1960. Its composition, as hon. Members know, was overwhelmingly conservative, not in the party but in the human and intelectual sense. After examining the situation closely on the spot for nearly a year, the Monckton Commission, whose secretary I am glad to see as the head of the right hon. Gentleman's new Department, found that there was no hope of saving any form of association in Central Africa unless fundamental changes were made immediately in the existing Federal structure at almost every point—changes, I think I am right in saying, primarily designed to try to restore some African confidence in the fairness and justice of the association.
I believe that the two key recommendations of the Monckton Commission from which everything else, in a sense, would follow were, first, that the coming African majority in Nyasaland should be followed immediately by an African majority in the Legislature, and reflected in the Executive Council, also of Northern Rhodesia, and that this should be carried out before the Federal Review was completed; in other words, before the end of 1962, which, at that time, was thought to mark the end of the Federal Review Conference.
The second vital step which the majority of the Commission thought essential, if any form of association was to be maintained, was that the British Government should declare their intention to permit any of the countries to secede, if so requested, subject to certain conditions related to timing and
252
constitutional advance. The Commission proposed that the British Government should make this declaration of intent. It believed that the only chance of avoiding secession was for the British Government to declare their readiness to permit it. This may, at first glance, seem ironical to some, but we are all familiar, in our political and personal lives, with the necessity, if any form of association is to be maintained, of making it absolutely clear to all concerned that it is to be a voluntary one.
These recommendations were made by a Commission which was set up by Her Majesty's Government nearly three years ago and which reported more than 18 months ago. All of these recommendations were presented as requiring urgent action on them. The Prime Minister had already recorded in South Africa his belief that the continent was being swept by a wind of change. What happened? Instead of the bold, urgent and immediate action requested by the Commission, we have had eighteen months of vacillation and dithering.
For Northern Rhodesia, we had, first, a proposal by the former Colonial Secretary just over a year ago which might just have permitted the Africans, who outnumber Europeans in Northern Rhodesia by more than 300 to 1—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to win a majority in the Legislative Council there. This proposal was withdrawn under pressure from the Europeans in the territory and their supporters on the back benches opposite, and another proposal was put forward in June last year which would have allowed the Europeans to have a majority in the Legislative Council. What we are assured by the Home Secretary is to be the final act in this tragicomedy were the proposals made by the Colonial Secretary to the House in February last which were intended to leave it uncertain whether the Africans or the Europeans would have a majority, or, indeed, whether anyone would have a majority at all. It is believed by many people in the Federation, ranging on this issue from Mr. Kenneth Kaunda to Sir Roy Welensky, that the actual effect of the Maudling proposals will be to frustrate the elections in some, if not all, of the so-called 15 national seats.
I confess that, against the miserable background of the Government's record

253
during the past eighteen months, I believe that the Maudling proposals do constitute a small advance. I said at the time, and I repeat now, that I hope that the Africans will fight the elections in Northern Rhodesia under these proposals. I shall return to that in a few minutes. I must say, however, that we still cannot be in any way confident that even these elections in October will implement the basic proposal of the Monckton Commission nearly two years ago that there should be an African majority in the Legislature of that territory.
On the future of the Federation itself, there is total confusion and obscurity, obscurity which remains as impenetrable as before now that we have heard the Home Secretary's statement on the subject this afternoon. We have not the slightest idea even now whether the Government intend to allow secession to be discussed at the Federal Review Conference, as the Colonial Secretary promised Mr. Banda it would be when he was out there a few months ago, or whether, if the territory asks for secession, it will be permitted, as recommended by the Monckton Commission.
This background of vacillation and confusion is the extraordinary basis on which the Government ask for a Motion of confidence in their efforts today. I cannot believe that there are many hon. Members opposite, whatever view they may take of what should be done, who feel any confidence in the Government's efforts against their record of the last eighteen months.
What has been happening in the rest of Africa in the meantime, during these months which the locusts have eaten? The wind of change in Africa has grown into a hurricane. Since the Monckton Commission reported, we have seen the peaceful negotiation of independence for Nigeria, Tanganyika, Sierra Leone and Somalia, some of which are in no way superior either in wealth or in education to any territory of the Central African Federation. A date has been fixed for the independence of Uganda. Kenya and Zanzibar are expected to follow within the next twelve or fifteen months. What is holding Central Africa back? On both sides of the House, we know that it is the refusal or inability of Her Majesty's Government to accord to the Africans in Central Africa the rights
254
which they have freely accorded to Africans in other parts of the continent because of the opposition of a European minority which even in Southern Rhodesia is a minority of only about 4 per cent. and which in Northern Rhodesia is outnumbered by Africans by 300 to 1.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: I do not say that it destroys the hon. Gentleman's argument, but he is wrong in speaking of a majority of 300 to 1. It is 30 to 1.
Mr. Healey: I apologise. Other people before me have had trouble with the decimals.
That is one factor emerging during the past eighteen months, independence negotiated peacefully with Britain or with other colonal powers for over half a dozen African states on the continent. But something else has happened which is bound in the near future profoundly to influence affairs within the Federation. Algeria now is on the road to independence as an African State.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What a bloody road.
Mr. Healey: "What a bloody road", says the noble Lord, and he could not be more right in saying that. In Algeria the Africans have won independence only by a long and ruthless war marked by fearful atrocities on both sides, and it is highly doubtful whether there will be any form of co-operation between the white minority there and the Africans who will dominate the new Algerian State as a result. We do not want that to happen in Central Africa. But can hon. and right hon. Members opposite imagine the attitude of the Africans who see their fellows in other countries becoming independent one after the other, through peaceful negotiations, while they see, on the other hand, that the only obstacle to independence in Central Africa, the same as the obstacle to independence in Algeria, is the existence of a large white minority?
How long do hon. Members opposite think that the present moderate leaders of African nationalist opinion will be able to resist pressure to follow the Algerian road, particularly when there is, perhaps, an independent Algerian Government egging them on? The fact

255
of an independent Algeria makes it tremendously urgent for Her Majesty's Government to move very rapidly indeed towards negotiated peaceful representative self-government in the Federation itself.
Mr. Victor Goodhew: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House, but he is going on about Algeria as if the two States were comparable. He must know that that is quite wrong and that the type of road being followed in the Federation is entirely different from that followed by the Europeans in Algeria.
Mr. Healey: There are differences and there are similarities. What I am suggesting—I make this suggestion in desperate seriousness—is that the similarities are obvious to the Africans in the Federation, and, unless something is done to remove these similarities, they may well be tempted to follow that road.
Mr. Goodhew: Mischievous and irresponsible.
Mr. Healey: It is nothing of the kind. This is a point put to me by Africans with whom I have discussed these issues. To imagine that Africans in Central Africa cannot read newspapers is to delude oneself. That is an illusion widely held by some of the Europeans on the spot, and it would be dangerous and even disastrous if Members of Parliament in this country exercised their responsibility under the same illusion.
The third big change which, I believe, may well be equally important and which has taken place in the last eighteen months is that there is now a possibility, even a probability, of external intervention in the affairs of the Federation which did not exist when the Monckton Commission first met. As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, the United Nations is taking a direct interest in what happens in Central Africa, and the subject is likely to be debated regularly at meetings of the United Nations Assembly, as it has been debated already at meetings of the committee.
We know, too, that foreign Powers which have no interest whatever in the welfare of the Africans are beginning to move in to see whether they can find organisations or persons to whom they
256
can offer support. Russia and China are now seeking points of support in Central Africa, as in East Africa, in a way which was difficult or even impossible for them a year or two ago. The real danger which I see and which I beg hon. and right hon. Members opposite to take seriously is that African leaders who, on the whole, have been trying desperately hard for the last ten years to achieve change in these territories by peaceful methods may be supplanted by others who believe in force. It has happened in other territories many times in our own colonial history. It can happen there. I feel that the Home Secretary in the remarks that he made to us this afternoon gave us no indication whatever that he appreciates the sense in which the whole climate in which this problem has to be settled has radically changed since the Monckton Commission first made its Report.
Let me make it clear that I do not blame the European minority in Central Africa for trying to preserve the privileges which at one time it assumed would never really be contested. I would give all praise to those European leaders and others who have succeeded in persuading their own community to accept African advance in the political or social fields.
One of the tragedies in this situation is that the degree of advance given to the Africans in Southern Rhodesia in the last two or three years would have seemed fantastically Utopian ten years ago, yet today I think that it must be accepted as tragically inadequate to meet their aspirations. This, again, is the sort of predicament which we find often enough in the history of empires and indeed in the whole history of politics.
I do not blame Sir Roy Welensky for fighting tooth and nail and threatening even to go the whole hog to defend the Federation in which he passionately and profoundly believes, although, sometimes, like, I suspect, most people in this House, we wish that he would give us a little less voice and more vision. To understand the interests and attitudes of the European minority in Central Africa is necessary, but it is not enough. We have in this House and in this country an inescapable responsibility to the African majority in Central Africa, a responsibility which is juridically spelled

257
out so far as the Northern territories are concerned.
Where the Home Secretary really fell short of his obligations in his speech was that he gave no sign that he was prepared to give first priority to meeting the justified rights of the Africans rather than trying to preserve the privileges of the small European minority. What I should like to do is to suggest what we on this side of the House think should be done in the Federation as a whole and in each of its territories in trying to respond to the Home Secretary's invitation to offer some constructive thoughts, though I fear that he may find some of those thoughts unpalatable.
First, I think that it is most important for Her Majesty's Government to make it clear that this country will not surrender any further powers to the European minority in Central Africa. That means, in the first place, that we will not be deflected from our course by threats of force by anybody in the European Minority or anywhere else. We have had far too many of these threats. This, I am sure, is something on which the Home Secretary will agree with me.
I am not referring simply to the perhaps deliberately vague remarks which the Federal Prime Minister has made from time to time at almost regular intervals. I am referring also to the plot which was uncovered by the British Colonial Administration in Northern Rhodesia in February, 1961, for asserting direct control by force. I am referring also to the threats made by the man who, ironically, now is the Minister for Law and Home Affairs in the Federal Government, Mr. Greenfield, threats of hard action on unconstitutional lines made at the meeting of the United Federal Party Congress in Northern Rhodesia as recently as last October. I am referring to the threats implicit in some of the Federal Prime Minister's remarks in relation to the extremely rapid and heavy growth of the Federal armed forces and police in the area. I hope that when he goes to Central Africa the Home Secretary will make it clear that we do not intend to be deflected from carrying out our responsibility by this type of threat.
The second field in which I believe some clear statement by the British Government, perhaps not in public, is
258
urgently required is to make it quite clear that this House and this country intend to retain our firm constitutional control of the Federation's foreign policy. There have been far too many suggestions in recent months that the Federal Prime Minister is seeking to develop some sort of foreign policy of his own in relations with the Portuguese Government in Mozambique and in relations with the South African Government, with the intention of creating some sort of European bastion in Southern Africa. I hope that the Home Secretary will make it clear to the House that the Government do not intend to abrogate their responsibilities and that he will make some inquiries about the activities of the Portuguese secret police in Northern Rhodesia against missionaries and others who are said to have been supporting the national movement in Mozambique.
I hope that the Home Secretary will make it even clearer than Ministers have made it in this House that we absolutely reject the old Dominion Party plan recently revived by Sir Edgar Whitehead, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, for detaching Barotseland and the Copper Belt from Northern Rhodesia and fastening them on to Southern Rhodesia. This would be a betrayal of our formal juridical obligations in the territory and a betrayal of everything that Ministers have said that they stand for.
In this matter I wonder whether the Home Secretary would consult with the Commonwealth Secretary to try to discover why the Commonwealth Secretary made his extraordinary visit to Barotseland during his recent trip to the Federation, a visit which was said in several British newspapers to have united all opinion in Lusaka against him. To unite all opinion in Lusaka is a considerable feat on which I congratulate the Commonwealth Secretary. If there was no sinister intent behind this visit, I would say that it was one of the most fatuous and irresponsible actions that a British Minister has taken in the whole chequered history of the Central Africa Federation.
Mr. Stephen Hastings: Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that before one can pro-

259
nounce on the fate of the Barotse people, who are more than 300,000 and who have an opinion of their own, it is better to visit the country.
Mr. Healey: No, I would not agree that it was a good thing to visit the country at that time when Sir Edgar Whitehead was known to be ventilating in London proposals for the separation of Barotseland and the Copper Belt from the area. To visit it in the rather furtive and underhand way in which the Commonwealth Secretary is reported to have done without giving a clear indication of the purpose of his visit is very difficult to explain. If there is an explanation, I have no doubt that the Home Secretary, who enjoys nothing more than defending his colleagues against charges of malfeasance, will defend the Commonwealth Secretary on this issue later this evening.
I turn to the future of the Federal Constitution. I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary is proposing to start exploratory talks so that when the Federal Review Conference finally meets, after the elections in Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia, a great deal of the preparatory work will have been done. I welcome again the very clear and unequivocal pledge that he gave that the Federal Review Conference itself would not be called until the elections were over.
I should like to ask him one question and put one point to him. First, does he stand by the pledge reported to have been given by the Colonial Secretary to Dr. Banda during his visit earlier this year that it will be open to the Conference to discuss the whole question of secession. I hope that he will give us a clear answer on this later.
Secondly, I ask the Home Secretary to think again about accepting the recommendation in the Monckton Report, which we refer to in our Amendment, namely, that Her Majesty's Government should declare their intention to permit secession, if requested, under certain conditions which the Monckton Report spells out. Is there not an extraordinary and inexplicable contrast between our action in the British West Indian Federation and our action in Central Africa? In the case of the West Indies, a federation set
260
up by this House, the moment one of the Federal territories declares its desire to leave the Federation, without having made any pledge to consider secession in advance Her Majesty's Government simply jump at it. The Bill dissolving the British West Indian Federation was rushed through Parliament within a few months of a declaration of opinion by one of the Federal States.
If the Government are prepared to do this in the case of the West Indies, why are they not prepared to say that they will permit a request to be made by a representative Government in the case of Central Africa? If the Home Secretary will not give us the answer to that, will he try to explain what is the significant difference between the Central African Federation and the British West Indian Federation which can justify such a difference of policy on the part of the Government?
I, together with, I think, my hon. Friends, agree that we should seek the maximum economic co-operation possible between the three existing federal territories whether the Federation survives or not. If the Federation comes to an end, perhaps we could achieve the creation of something along the lines of the East African Common Services Commission. I suggest to the Home Secretary that, in order to have effective economic co-operation, it is not necessary to have political federation. After all, this is the Government's point in negotiating for entry to the Common Market. If the right hon. Gentleman has any doubts on this matter, perhaps he will consult the Colonial Secretary, who spent two years in trying to set up a European Free Trade Area in the correct belief that economic co-operation was possible without any form of political constitution whatever.
I also suggest to the Home Secretary that he must not make agreement on economic co-operation a condition for granting political independence to any of these territories. It will be very tempting to him, when engaged in negotiations, to try to commit territories which are going to leave the Federation to economic co-operation in advance and against their will. Such a commitment, if made, would be worthless. The only chance of having effective economic co-operation in this area is for African

261
majority Governments in the territories to decide of their own free will and under no pressure that this type of co-operation is in their own national interests and in the interests of their people.
I pass to the situation in the individual territories. I imagine that Dr. Banda will ask the Home Secretary, when he visits Central Africa, if he has not done so already, to grant Nyasaland immediate internal self-government. I hope that there will be little difficulty about conceding this request. As the right hon. Gentleman himself said, the Malawi Congress Ministers have an excellent record since their electoral victory a few months ago, a record, incidentally, which belies a great deal of nonsense talked about them by hon. Members opposite before the elections took place.
I believe that, if Dr. Banda asks for it, the Home Secretary must also be prepared to promise, as I suggested earlier, that he will give Nyasaland the right of self-determination at a stated date. I hope that an independent Nyasa Government would decide on some form of economic association with its neighbours. But the economic argument is not an argument against independence. Even in 1957, the last year for which I have been able to obtain figures, the Jack Commission reported that the average income per head in Nyasaland was higher than that in Tanganyika, a country which achieved full independence last year. No doubt there are many unnecessary economic disadvantages which a wholly independent Nyasa State would undergo, but they are no greater than those undergone by Tanganyika. It must be for the Nyasas themselves to decide what their future in this respect is to be.
Northern Rhodesia is the key to the immediate future of the Federation, and that is why the Government have vacillated for so long about the conditions under which elections should be held. We must simply pray that the Maudling proposals will produce an African majority in the October elections, because we should make no mistake about it that Mr. Kenneth Kaunda is risking his political life and, perhaps, his life as a human being by agreeing to take part in these elections on the basis of a constitution
262
deliberately designed to leave it uncertain whether the great majority of Africans in the territory can produce even parity in the Legislative Council. Certainly I hope that the Home Secretary will go as far as he can towards meeting the conditions Mr. Kaunda put to him for taking part in the elections.
I was glad to hear the Home Secretary's assurances about the objectivity of the Delimitation Commission. I should like to ask him whether the judge who is to chair the Commission will be an English judge or a judge from the Federal Territory. Perhaps he will answer that point when he replies, because one of the most important conditions of winning the Africans' confidence is that they should feel that this Commission is not dominated by Europeans from the area itself.
The second condition, which, I agree, may not be easy to meet, is that there should be free activity by the African parties. I wish to ask the Home Secretary—he was not able to give an assurance on this before the Recess—whether the Governor has now agreed to the registration of the Northern headquarters of the United National Independence Party. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that an election in which the most important African party is not able to register its headquarters in an important part of the State cannot really be considered a free election.
I also ask the Home Secretary to try to give Mr. Kaunda some assurance that there will be no interference by Federal troops during the election. This is a fear which the Africans have, and I must confess that some experiences in the past, notably those investigated by the Devlin Commission, make it very difficult to believe that an election held under conditions in which there may be large-scale interference by troops of the Federation can really be considered a free election.
The Home Secretary may have thought that I was rather dense—no doubt I often am—when I interrupted him earlier to ask for an assurance. He said that there would be no change in these proposals before the election, and I asked for an assurance that that did not exclude change later. The reason

263
why I asked was this. There is a real possibility, as Sir Roy Welensky and Mr. Kaunda have told us, that these elections will not produce a majority and that elections for the fifteen National seats will be frustrated because, in some or all of them, none of the parties will succeed in achieving the qualifying vote from the opposite race. In case that is so, the Home Secretary should assure the Africans in the Territory now that if this proves to be a bad electoral constitution the British Government will immediately introduce new proposals which will assure an election in which the enormous African majority will be reflected in the Legislative Council, as recommended by the Monckton Commission.
The most difficult problem of all with which the Home Secretary started is the problem of Southern Rhodesia. The Home Secretary is quite right. We have very few powers in Southern Rhodesia and most of those which we still have were resigned last year when we agreed to the new Southern Rhodesian constitution. None of the powers has been used by us since 1923, and it would require at least a break with precedent to invoke them. It is an open question how far we do not possess these powers because we have not used them, or how far we could invoke them to do what some people ask us to do—namely to abrogate the Southern Rhodesian constitution. Even if it were possible I doubt if it would be very wise for any British Home Secretary to take that line.
I was puzzled by the fact that the Home Secretary repeatedly said in relation to the United Nations Commission that we cannot abdicate our responsibilities in Southern Rhodesia the moment after he had told us that we have no powers there. To precisely what was he referring? He knows that although we have no powers in Southern Rhodesia we still have great influence. We have great influence in Southern Rhodesia, first of all in relation to our intentions in the other territories of the Federation, and secondly because in many respects the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia are likely to depend for a long time on economic and political support from Britain.
264
Under the present constitution there is very little chance of the representative African organisations participating in the elections at all. The Home Secretary very well knows their fears. He knows that on the one hand they fear that after the elections the two-thirds majority of Europeans in the new Assembly will be able to abolish the African seats if it wishes to do so and that there is nothing we can do about it. He knows that the Africans fear that they will never get a majority under the existing electoral law because every time they begin to approach a majority compared with the Europeans on the roll the Europeans will once again raise the income qualification as they raised it ten years ago. Indeed, even under this constitution, if it were maintained, for the Africans to achieve a majority on the rolls within eight years, as Sir Edgar Whitehead said they might, would require an annual rise in the average African income of 7 to 8 per cent., and it seems to me that there is little chance of that coming about so soon.
I should like to put a suggestion to the Home Secretary which I think the United Nations Commission put to him when it was here: when he is out there will he discuss these issues with Sir Edgar Whitehead and Mr. Nkomo and see whether even at this late date there is a chance of having another look at the electoral law? It seems to me that in this situation, in which Southern Rhodesia is almost isolated in an area which inevitably in a short time will be composed exclusively of African majority Governments, it is desirable that he should aim at least at parity for Africans in Southern Rhodesia on a common roll.
I recognise that the suggestions which I have made would mean tremendous changes in Government policy and would require from the Europeans in Central Africa what they would consider to be tremendous sacrifices. But I believe that rapid changes of this nature are the only way to preserve the chance of racial partnership in those States when they become independent, as they certainly will within the next few years whether the British Parliament in Westminster likes it or not. The Government will be under vary heavy pressure in the next 12 or 18 months from their own back benchers to retreat from the

265
sort of policies which I am suggesting and which I dare say in his heart the Home Secretary wishes to push.
Let us always remember that what happens in Central Africa is no longer our private concern in Westminster. The United Nations is bound to take an increasingly active rôle, and it is already being supported by the United States Government on this issue. More important still, I believe that the survival of the Commonwealth as a multi-racial society will depend on rapid progress in Central Africa towards African majority Governments. Let us remember that there are 60 million Africans in the free Commonwealth at the present time, and all of them are deeply concerned with the fate of the 8 million Africans in the Federation. They will never forgive us if we give priorty in our policies in Central Africa to the views of the 300,000 Europeans, and I am sure that the Commonwealth Secretary of State will be able to spell this out in detail from the reports which he receives from our High Commissioners in the other African States. The main threat to the survival of the Commonwealth as an institution in Africa is the failure of the British Government to give to the Africans in the Federation the same rights and privileges as they have given to the Africans in other parts of the old Empire.
I must make a comment on the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. One of the most sinister reasons given for the new appointment of the Home Secretary as head of the Central African Department was that the Commonwealth and Colonial Secretaries were said to be identified with opposing sectional interests in the Federation. We all know that the Colonial Secretary was identified with the African interests in the Northern States. Does that mean that the Commonwealth Secretary was regarded as being identified with the European interests in Southern Rhodesia? If so, how could this be? Did he think that it was his duty when South Africa was still in the Commonwealth to be identified with Dr. Verwoerd in South Africa? Of course not. The Commonwealth Secretary's job is to see that the Commonwealth remains a vital, multi-racial society in the
266
African continent as a whole, and if he takes this rôle seriously he will be pressing even harder than the Colonial Secretary for the rights of the Africans in the Central African Federation.
I hope that the House will accept the Amendment. What we propose in the Amendment are simply the proposals made by a conservative Commission over two years ago in a situation far less acute and dangerous than that which we see today. I dare say that many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will prefer to vote their confidence in the Government by supporting the Government's Motion. Votes of confidence are very fashionable in the countries concerned in Central African affairs. The Home Secretary may get a vote of confidence as decisive in its way as the vote which Sir Roy Welensky got in the Federal elections in the territory itself a few weeks ago. But it will mean as little if he does, because nothing can prevent fundamental changes in Central Africa now, and it is up to the right hon. Gentleman to decide whether those changes will be violent or peaceful.
5.28 p.m.
Sir Richard Nugent: I am glad to have the chance to say a word of support for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and to thank him for his opening speech on this very difficult topic, which I felt, and I think most of my right hon. and hon. Friends felt, gave us a very useful lead in its review of how he hoped to deal with the difficult and complex subjects which now come under his responsibility.
As I listened to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) I recognised that the whole weight of the Opposition's attack is based on the Monckton Report, a Report which I found profoundly illuminating and admirable in every way. Where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is in his timing, although I also disagree on matters of substance. He feels, if I understand him rightly, that the Government are wrong to guide their policies of transition to African government in these territories having regard to the European population in the territories. I feel that he is wrong to suggest that these people could be disregarded. He said that in Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia the

267
Africans were growing increasingly impatient because they saw other African territories becoming independent, that they were asking why they were being held back, and that the reason was that large European populations in those territories were holding them back.
I think, if I may deal with Northern Rhodesia first, that the Government are right to be held back by them. The final solution to this question is not just a matter of handing over government to the African political leaders. For myself, I am perfectly happy that that government should be handed over to them. I thought it right that the transition should be made, but I am quite certain that for a successful State to emerge in Northern Rhodesia, in future there must be partnership between the African people and the European people who, after all, are mostly our own people.
The economy of that area depends basically, of course, on the copper mines which produce immense wealth not only for Northern Rhodesia but also for the whole Federation. These copper mines depend for their management and, to a large extent, for their workers on Europeans, and unless these people are willing to co-operate in the policy that Her Majesty's Government are following it seems to me that we are going grievously to prejudice the prospect of this country when it emerges as an independent State.
Personally, I feel a considerable obligation to our own countrymen who have settled in and developed this country. But, apart altogether from that, looking at it solely from the point of view of the Africans there, they are now dependent on a Western form of economy and civilisation, and unless Europeans are willing to remain there to help and work both in industry and commerce and in the Administration the Africans have no prospects whatsoever of operating that territory, and they know it. Mr. Kaunda is the first to say it. He wants the Europeans to remain, and I am sure he is right.
If the Government now proceeded in the transition at a pace which lost the confidence of the European community then, even if they did not turn to some form of physical resistance—I hope that they would not—but if they all pro-
268
ceeded to leave the country in large numbers we would surely be left with a situation which, apart altogether from completely destroying Great Britain's chance of discharging her responsibilities to these African people, would leave them in a very parlous state.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Leeds, East visited the copper mines when he was in Northern Rhodesia, but I am sure that if he were to talk to the leaders of the European Mineworkers' Union he would quickly find what they feel about the situation. An admirable Scotsman is the General Secretary of the union, and he finds it extremely difficult to bring along his members fast enough in accepting the changes which the management want to introduce.
The fact is that, apart from the fairness to these men and women who have made their lives and homes there and who have helped to develop the country, it really is an essential practical necessity to carry the confidence of the European community in the process of transition in order to give this State a reasonable chance in the future. I fully accept—and, of course, one cannot travel round these parts without learning this—how strongly the European community feel that we are travelling much too fast. They all feel that the Africans are not yet ready for this responsibility.
I felt, in making my assessment of the situation, that the transition must be made at a pace which would carry the confidence of the Africans and their good will so that when the time came for them to have political power their good will would still be towards the Europeans and they would still want the Europeans to remain. That, I am sure, is the touchstone of the whole situation. As long as the Africans want us to be there to work the country for them they will do their utmost to maintain conditions in which our people will wish to remain.
In this disposition in Northern Rhodesia, my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary has surely achieved everything. He has achieved a settlement which has been accepted by the Africans, on the one hand, and by the Europeans on the other. It is perfectly true that they both complained that it was not as good as it ought to have

269
been, but, surely, in the circumstances this is the very best one could hope for. As I said at the time, there was the right balance of unacceptability. Neither side liked it particularly, but both were prepared to co-operate. The Africans, particularly the major party, were prepared to say that they would join in the general election and lift their boycott. That is the vital fact. It means, I hope, that they will go ahead and fight the general election.
They will undoubtedly win seats, and then a number of them will be brought into the responsibility and experience of government. It will then mean that they as members of the Legislature, some of them, I hope, as Ministers, will have a chance to learn something about government in the remaining years of transition so that they will be ready for it when the time comes. That seems to me to be absolutely the right kind of transition. That is exactly what the Government ought to be doing, and I must say that I warmly congratulate them on having found the basis on which to do it.
Mr. Jack Jones: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the failure of the leaders of the European Mineworkers' Union to bring the African along as quickly as they would wish, would he tell the House why the Africans are not allowed to be in the same union as the people who are failing to bring them along?
Sir Richard Nugent: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would repeat that.
Mr. Jones: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are two mineworkers' unions operating in the copper mines. He stated in his speech that the leaders of the white trade union are complaining about their failure to bring the African along. What about the failure of the white trade unionist to bring the African within his own union?
Sir Richard Nugent: I was not complaining. I was simply referring to the fact that the members of the European Mineworkers' Union are reluctant to see the African's position so advanced in the mines that it is comparable with that of the white man. This is a very considerable problem for management in the copper mines, who are trying with an enlightened policy to bring the African
270
forward. I was making the point to the hon. Member for Leeds, East that these are realities, that these men are working the country. We want them to go on working the country. We want to bring them along with us. I am certain that if the hon. Member for Leeds, East had the responsibility of sitting on the Government Front Bench he would be bound to face that reality.
Mr. Jack Jones: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am associated with a company which has a steel concern in Rhodesia. In the last six months a multiracial steel union has been formed and is operating there.
Sir Richard Nugent: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I know that there are a number of firms who are following a most enlightened policy in this field.
Returning to my point concerning the hon. Member for Leeds, East, I would point out that at a meeting of the Northern Rhodesia Freedom Fund last month the hon. Gentleman charged Her Majesty's Government with hypocrisy in the constitutional settlement which they had made with Northern Rhodesia. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman really had no grounds at all for making that charge of hypocrisy against Her Majesty's Government. They have dealt most faithfully and sincerely with the realities of the situation. This may be a charge which will prove to be a boomerang to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Healey: May I clear up the hon. Gentleman's confusion? Had he been at the meeting, which was extremely well attended and most impressive, he would have seen that I was not accusing the Government of hypocrisy in general. I was simply saying that the Government were arguing that their proposals were democratic because they left it uncertain which group would win a majority—the Europeans or the Africans, who outnumber them by 30 to 1. I said that it was hypocritical to call such a constitution democratic. It seems to me that that is a fair use of the word hypocrisy.
Sir Richard Nugent: That may be the hon. Member's explanation, but I should have thought that he is in danger of finding this boomerang coming back bang on his own neck.
I was glad to hear that my right hon. Friend hopes to be ready for a General

271
Election to take place in the autumn and is now proceeding with registration and has made arrangements for a delimiting commission. I believe that we shall find in Northern Rhodesia that when we have brought the Africans into government there we shall have much the same experience as we have had in Nyasaland. People who visit Nyasaland now find Dr. Banda and his colleagues to be putting up a very good show. People who have been most critical of him in the past come back and report upon his statesmanship. This sometimes happens even to us when great responsibility comes upon our shoulders, and we usually find ourselves able to measure up to it and to behave in a statesmanlike way. I am not without hope that when leading Africans in Northern Rhodesia are brought into government they also will behave in the same responsible way.
As to when the time comes for these territories to become actually independent, I had an interesting conversation with Sir Robert Treadgold who had been to a seminar on this problem of Constitutions for African and other territories. He was of the thought, which appealed to me, that our Westminster pattern of government may be too sophisticated for them. We have evolved a form of government here, with a Government and a responsible Opposition who are ready and indeed anxious to take over government whenever the chance may offer. This is the very basis of our Constitution here, but this is something which is extremely difficult for Africans to understand and it may give them an inherent feeling of uncertainty when they come to form a Government.
In practice, when one looks round the Continent one does not see it work particularly well and it may be that some different kind of constitution might suit them better, something more on the American pattern with a system of checks and balances which provide the necessary constitutional safeguards and may then revolve about one leading personality, which I think in the main is probably something which the Africans understand better.
I notice that the Colonial Secretary has been most ingenious in his new Constitution for Kenya. Evidently his
272
thoughts on constitution-making are pretty flexible, but I make the point to the Home Secretary that it is worth thinking whether perhaps something rather different from the pattern we have here may suit them best when the time comes, and particularly in Northern Rhodesia where the tribes are very powerful, especially the Barotses, and where the position may be different from that in Nyasaland where the tribes are very weak.
As for Southern Rhodesia, I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend said about the United Nations Committee of Seventeen. It has completely oversimplified the situation. I would not for a moment disregard what a United Nations Committee says. It is very important, and the fact that my right hon. Friend, with his right hon. colleagues received it, shows the great importance which the Government attach to it. The fact is that today we do not have, and we have not had for forty years, more than theoretical control in Southern Rhodesia. It is substantially a self-governing State. There are now about a quarter of a million white people there and we cannot expect to exert direct influence over them.
I think that the hon. Member for Leeds, East recognises that and I was surprised to see the comments of a distinguished Indian like Mr. Jha, who led this Committee. After all, he and his colleagues might well be asked to go back home and consider some of the situations that exist there. But let us leave out Biblical quotations about beams in their own eyes before looking at the motes in ours.
As far as Southern Rhodesia goes, Sir Edgar Whitehead is moving fast. He is a man of inspiration and he is pursuing liberal policies. I believe that his offer of 15 seats was a generous one and I commended it to the African leaders when I met them last year. My view is that it is a pity that the franchise was made so narrow. It is quite obvious that the African leaders felt that 15 seats were enough because they accepted that number at the start. I have no doubt that their supporters when they went back saw clearly that they would get no vote and so they threw out the proposal.

273
Sir Edgar Whitehead is going on with all kinds of excellent moves to eliminate racialism in Southern Rhodesia. He has undertaken to strike from the Statute Book the Land Apportionment Act and so on, which is all very good. But the time has come in Southern Rhodesia, as in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, when black men do not want the white men to do things for them. They want to do things with the white men for themselves. We shall not see stability there until a Constitution can be found which will bring Africans in to take part in government in a way similar to that which we are now achieviing in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. I hope that when my right hon. Friend discusses this problem with Sir Edgar Whitehead he will press upon him the absolute necessity of finding some means of getting them into government so that they can learn something about it and can feel that they have a joint responsibility.
Finally, on federation, I will make one more criticism of the conduct of the hon. Member for Leeds, East at the meeting to which I have referred. He said that Great Britain is the only country in the world, with Portugal and South Africa, obstructing the movement of colonial peoples for freedom. That is a really wretched thing to say.
Mr. Healey: It is true.
Sir Richard Nugent: The hon. Member knows the tremendous problem of federation. I agree, looking back on the decision of nine years ago, that it may be that the model of federation was a 1930 model instead of a 1960 model, but the idea of federation, as the hon. Member agrees, is an excellent one. Enormous economic benefit has flowed from it in those nine years and wonderful things have been done. There is no doubt that in future the association of these three territories is "a natural" both economically and politically. There is no doubt that they will be much more prosperous economically and happier if some form of federation goes on in future.
My right hon. Friend adumbrated today the line on which he proposed to tackle this examination. He spoke of a full examination of the possible forms of alternative association acceptable to
274
all three. Of course, if it is to be acceptable it will undoubtedly have to cover such matters as secession. I am sure that it is the right approach. The Times today published a useful leading article on the subject which referred to the huge industrial, commercial, transport and financial interests which have grown up in these three Territories. There are these living organisations now which link those territories together. I would hope that my right hon. Friend might find a basis there for building up from the bottom on these existing trading institutions and forming an association at that level, and then perhaps one could go on from there to see what sort of political association one might have in the future.
But I think that the hon. Member for Leeds, East, somewhat over-simplifies the situation when he makes a comment like he did and does not fairly deal with the enormous problems which exist. Nothing could be more disastrous than that Nyasaland should just go out like that. The country is largely dependent on finance from outside. About 200,000 Nyasas have to find their jobs in Southern Rhodesia. If they seceded, Southern Rhodesia might put up a barrier against them because of employment difficulties, and my mind boggles at the thought of the hardship and difficulty which Nyasaland would experience if such a situation developed.
These are matters at which my right hon. Friend must look as realities. I absolutely accept that the Federation cannot go on as it is, and a basis must be found with the consent of the peoples of the territories so that they have confidence in what is happening and in the structure. How to find that is something of extreme difficulty. It has to carry the confidence of both Africans and Europeans because they have to work it together.
I would hope that Sir Roy Welensky has a part to play in this. He carries tremendous prestige and influence with the European community there. Everybody who knows him would agree that he has great powers of leadership. I am sure that if he would exert his powers of leadership to carry the confidence of the Africans as effectively as he carries the confidence of the Europeans, he could be a very great help to my right hon.

275
Friend in finding solutions to this problem. But he will have to enter into these tasks with a very open mind, ready to look at the facts of the situation. Then I am sure he will be a great help to my right hon. Friend.
I hope to see something built out of the present Federation which will be acceptable to the African or majority African Government in Nyasaland—and the new Government in Northern Rhodesia, which may have an African majority—and will still carry the confidence of the white people. I am sure it is possible. The community of interests there is very strong. My right hon. Friend should have the good will of this House, and I still hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press the Amendment to a division, because it really will not help in this context. What is needed here is that my right hon. Friend should go out to Africa with the support of the whole House to apply his mind objectively, with his great powers of mediation, to this extremely difficult problem. I am sure that that would give him the best possible prospects. I certainly wish him well.
5.54 p.m.
Mr. John StonehouseThe right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) has made a sincere speech. Although he made many points with which I could not agree, I recognise that he has moved a considerable way in the last few years. I particularly appreciated his reference to Dr. Banda and his confirmation that Dr. Banda and his colleagues are doing a good job in Nyasaland. This testimony should be put against the dire warnings that we had from the Conservative side of the House several years ago when Dr. Banda and his colleagues were asking for political rights.
What the right hon. Member said about Nyasaland will also, I believe, be very true of Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia when the African political leaders in those territories have the responsibility for which they are now asking. I believe that they will exercise it in the same way as Dr. Banda is doing—in the real interests of their country. I wish it were true that some hon. Members opposite below the Gangway had moved as far as the right
276
hon. Member for Guildford has. I regret very much that that is not the case. To judge from their interventions this afternoon, they have learned hardly a thing in the last nine years.
During the various debates that we have had in the last few years on Rhodesia and Nyasaland, two main points have been put forward. There have been those who thought that there should be some system which has been variously referred to as partnership or multi-racial co-operation in Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The object of it, frankly, has been to maintain in power a white minority with vested interests. That process has been diluted to a considerable extent in the last few years, but I believe that it is still evident, certainly in the Southern Rhodesia Constitution, and possibly in the interpretation of some hon. Members of the Northern Rhodesian Constitution. I very much regret this attitude of mind and the fact that it is still possible in the 'sixties, after most of Africa has obtained independence on the basis of self-determination, for hon. Members to hold the opinion that it is possible to fiddle the franchise and the Constitution to enable a small minority to remain in political control of those countries.
As against that point of view, there has been another point of view which has been accepted by most of my hon. Friends—that we should have in Rhodesia and Nyasaland universal adult suffrage. I have always taken that point of view, and I welcome the fact that many hon. Members, even on the Conservative benches, have moved in that direction. I agree with the right hon. Member for Guildford; it is very important now to continue an economic association between these two territories, and I would add to them Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya. But such an association can be achieved only on the basis of universal adult suffrage or something very near it. We cannot impose on the broad masses of African people a political system to which they have not given their consent.
I would disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) to this extent. He said that the Africans had given up the idea of economic association because they had become so suspicious of the word "federation".

277
That is not strictly true. The representatives of the main political parties in Rhodesia and also in Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda recently met at Addis Ababa in Ethiopia and pledged themselves to work towards a close economic association of all their countries. They want to have not only economic association but political association as well. That can be achieved, I reiterate, only on the basis of the self-determination of the people concerned.
It is a pity that the House today has a one-man band performance from the Home Secretary. I do not believe for a moment that he has not the capacity to do the extra job which has been thrust upon him, but I think it is a great pity that at this late stage responsibility has been taken away from the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Africans are certainly, very suspicious about this, because they have in the past, although they have been let down by some Conservative Colonial Secretaries, looked on the Colonial Office as a protector of their rights. Now they see one Minister coming into this field and taking over the whole responsibility, and some of them are suspicious.
However, I was very pleased to detect between the general phrases of the Home Secretary's speech an indication that he appreciates that it would not be possible to ram the Federation down the throats of the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. This has at last been recognised by the Conservative Party. The Conservatives have been very slow to do it, but I for one express appreciation of the fact that they have come round to this point of view.
I should like to turn to the problem of Southern Rhodesia, because I do not believe that in Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland the major problem is to be faced in the next few years. The real problem will be in Southern Rhodesia, where the Europeans have been entrenched with some power, and, in a great many cases, a great deal of economic power, which they will be very loth to give up. I believe that, provided that the Government stick firmly to their intentions, Northern Rhodesia will see the emergence of an African majority in the next year or so. Cer-
278
tainly, if it does not emerge, there will be trouble in Northern Rhodesia, where the white minority is far too small to seize power there. It would be impossible in certain areas for Sir Roy Welensky's Federal troops to intervene, because this would be an invitation to the United Nations to invite Ghanaian. Egyptian or any other troops to intervene in order to protect the Africans in that country. I do not think that that is very likely, although the danger of it has been pointed out.
In Southern Rhodesia, we have a tiny minority—less than 10 per cent. of the population—in effective control of the Government, and those Europeans represented by that minority will be very loth indeed to give up their power. I think it is regrettable that the Home Secretary passed so quickly over the report of the United Nations Sub-Committee on this problem. After all, it was composed of representatives of India, Mali, Syria, Tanganyika, Tunisia and Venezuela, and it reached unanimous conclusions. It paid a tribute, which I think the whole House would be pleased to endorse, to the United Kingdom Government for the way in which they had co-operated with it, but it reached the conclusion that
"the situation in Southern Rhodesia was serious and difficult and might become very harmful for the whole of Africa."
The vast majority of the Africans, according to the sub-committee, are opposed to the new Constitution. So much for the Home Secretary's bland comments that this Constitution was reached by unanimous agreement. It was not. The sub-committee goes on to say that the Constitution of 6th December, 1961, needs to be rescinded and a fresh effort undertaken in consultation with the people to devise a constitution based on the principle of equality and acceptance of the principle of universal adult suffrage.
It is wrong for hon. Members to think that this point of view is being pressed on the United Nations merely by the African people in Southern Rhodesia. That is not the case. There are many Europeans in Southern Rhodesia who believe that this is the only way out of the tremendous dangers that will exist in Southern Rhodesia if a white-dominated Government attempts to take

279
Over complete power. If the Africans are not admitted into the Government of that country to a very considerable extent, there will almost certainly be some uprising. There will be disorders, with the possibility that South Africa will be invited to send in her troops to assist the Southern Rhodesian Administration to put down the trouble by force. If the Africans appeal for outside assistance, who can expect that the United Nations will refuse to intervene? I believe that it will, and many Europeans in Southern Rhodesia are concerned about these possibilities.
Someone mentioned Algeria earlier in this debate. There is a danger that the Algerian story—the terrible, bloody story of Algeria—could be repeated in Southern Rhodesia, and it is because of that that Europeans as well as Africans have appealed to the United Nations to intervene. In fact, Europeans have visited New York, and a visit was made by Mr. Garfield Todd, a former Prime Minister of the country, appealing to the United Nations to intervene. He is by no means the only European making this plea.
I press on the Home Secretary that, when he arrives in Salisbury, he should meet some of these Europeans and hear their point of view, because their opinion is as important as that of other Europeans whom he is to meet. The Home Secretary referred to the economic conditions, the necessity of maintaining stability, the progress that has been made, the Kariba Dam and so on. He went on to say that this sort of economic development would be placed in jeopardy if Africans had political power thrust upon them too quickly. I do not believe that that argument can be sustained in any way. In Ghana, for example, economic development has been very much faster than before since that country became politically independent. Indeed, the per capita income in Ghana will very soon exceed that of Portugal, because of the tremendous advances made. Let us take the case of Tanganyika. That country has been pointed out as having a lower per capita income than Nyasaland. A year ago it gained political independence, and is now going ahead with developments far faster than those territories which are
280
still kept in a colonial condition or are still under rule by a minority.
That brings me to a further point. If a minority race is in political control, it can so organise the economy of the country as to ensure that the minority gets most of the rewards from economic progress. The Home Secretary referred to the Kariba Dam. When I was in Rhodesia some years ago, I remember that there was a strike while the Kariba Dam was being constructed, because the workers refused to work for the paltry wages they were offered, and because there was a great deal of hazard involved in the job. I believe that several of them were killed.
Mr. Jack Jones: Seventy of them.
Mr. Stonehouse: A considerable number were involved, and because of that paltry wage they went on strike. The strike was put down by the use of Federal troops. The workers did not have free trade unions to protect their rights, and they were not paid fair rates. It cannot be said that the dam gave benefits to the men working on the job of building it. The dam itself created no benefits for the workers engaged in constructing it. The electric power it produced was not going into African homes, but into the industries and the homes of Europeans. The Africans are not participating in these benefits.
I cannot go through all the statistics in a short speech, but the Home Secretary should look again at the statistics in the appendix to the Report of the Monckton Commission. He will see that the major part of the national income of Rhodesia and Nyasaland goes to the European minority of less than 3 per cent. of the population, even if we include subsistence agriculture. Even in the industries run by Europeans and Africans, the division of income is such that on the average the Africans receive only 10 per cent. of the income.
This stems directly from the political conditions in the territories concerned. It is no good our telling the Africans to be patient and wait until political advances have been made, and that then they can enjoy economc progress, because they see all round them evidence that political power gives the Europeans most of the "cake". We

281
have an allocation of land which has not been changed to any significant extent, although many promises have been made about it.
The fact is that, as the Home Secretary will see on page 234 of the Monckton Commission's Report, only 41 million acres are allocated to Africans, whereas 48 million acres are allocated to the Europeans. Over half the land—an area equivalent in size to the total area of England and Wales—was allocated to a European population smaller than that of a medium-sized town in England. It is no good saying to the Africans, who have suffered the effects of the native land husbandry Act and have been forced from the farms to work on European land at very low wages or forced into the towns where they get very low incomes, that they must wait for political advance. They see political advance around them. They see the vote as a key to open the door to more of these economic advantages for them.
I do not blame them. I strongly believe that if they had political advance their incomes would go up, but the European incomes need not be significantly affected. Of course there are many artisans who get highly inflated rates of pay who would suffer. There is no doubt about that, but most of the Europeans would be able to continue if they were prepared to accept prevailing political conditions. After all, in Ghana there are more Europeans now than there were before the country gained independence. I suppose the same is true of Nyasaland. I cannot say, but I should assume that there are as many or more Europeans there than there were before Dr. Banda achieved power.
I do not think we should necessarily accept all the assumptions that political advance on the part of Africans would stop economic progress. I believe the reverse to be true. If we give political advance to the African people, not only will that thrust responsibility on to leaders like Dr. Banda, but it will give more responsibility to the African people themselves, the people on the farmlands and in the factories. These people would feel a greater sense of responsibility and anxiety to work harder for themselves and for their own country.
282
I hope that the Home Secretary will go to Rhodesia and Nyasaland with a really open mind and will come back determined to act rather than to continue to give out these vague platitudes about multi-racial partnership which in the last nine years have not amounted to a real policy in the best interests of these countries.
In particular, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise after his visit that it is possible—indeed necessary—for Britain to intervene in the case of Southern Rhodesia on the lines that the United Nations Sub-Committee has recommended, and as no doubt will be endorsed in June by the United Nations General Assembly—to intervene to prevent this fraud of a Constitution being implemented. That Constitution will most certainly lead to a reactionary Dominion Party in Southern Rhodesia making utterly worthless all the promises made by Sir Edgar Whitehead and his colleagues. It will make it all the more likely that the African people will demonstrate and rise against this new rule.
The only way to prevent that disaster is for the Home Secretary and his colleagues to intervene, to suspend the Southern Rhodesian Constitution and to call back these parties for fresh talks and ensure that we do not abdicate responsibility. The Home Secretary said that we did not want to abdicate responsibility to the United Nations. Nor do we want to abdicate it to a tiny white minority in Southern Rhodesia. I hope that he will act in the interests of all communities in the next few years.
6.14 p.m.
Mr. Henry Clark: I could hardly have been more depressed after hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and having heard from a "Shadow Minister" such very shallow and Sunday paper appreciation of the situation. One would honestly think that the problems could be solved by him in one tour and possibly a couple of months' consideration thereafter.
Does not the hon. Member appreciate that the easy problems in the Colonial Empire have been already solved, particularly in the last few years and that the real hard nuts are left to be solved, and that the Federation is probably the hardest to solve? In those circum-

283
stances, which he himself admitted, to say that we have done nothing in the last few years is nonsense. We have had a new constitution for both Southern and Northern Rhodesia and now responsible government for Nyasaland. If that is not progress since the Federal Review Conference, I do not know what is. What does the hon. Member expect to have happened? His whole speech struck me as having been swotted up largely from the back pages of the cheaper Sunday newspapers.
As The Times has told us, we are gathered here today to send off my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his trip to the Federation, to send him to do a job which we know is extremely difficult but which we have great faith in his ability to perform. I was as surprised as probably anyone in this House when his appointment was announced. I have had certain dealings with him on a number of other subjects and to think that he was taking on another concern was surprising. But I was surprised largely because of the decision of the Prime Minister to appoint him, which was a bold unconventional one, and I accepted that his choice was sound. As a Member sitting for a Northern Ireland constituency, I know the great wisdom of my right hon. Friend and I am sure that he will show the same quality of wisdom in Central Africa as he has shown over rather tricky Irish questions.
There are a number of warnings and other advice which one would wish to give to my right hon. Friend before he goes. The first warning I give to him is about statistics. Statistics are blunt instruments in this country, where we are all on a reasonable level, but in Africa statistics are almost useless. The figures have been quoted only too often that the income of an African in Nyasaland is £10 or £15 a year and the income of a European there is £1,000 or £1,500 a year, but these give no good basis for a comparison. All it means is that the African and the European are living entirely different ways of life.
Mr. Jack Jones: The hon. Member can say that again.
Mr. Clark: These are the statistics which roll so glibly off the tongues of some people, though not so glibly off the
284
tongues of others, about the proportion of Africans to Europeans in various countries, but again they give no fair basis for comparison. The figures are 12 to 1 in Southern Rhodesia, 33 to 1 in Northern Rhodesia and 500 to 1 in Nyasaland. If we took these figures and used them as a basis for comparison one would think that Northern Rhodesia was more akin to Southern Rhodesia than to Nyasaland by a considerable margin, but the statistics produce no proper picture of the situation.
In Southern Rhodesia the European minority has an immense impact on the whole of the country's economy. In Northern Rhodesia, which is very thinly populated by either Africans or Europeans, in one small area only the Europeans have made a large impact and over the rest of Northern Rhodesia Europe has probably made less impact than in Nyasaland where the connection is much longer and the type of European who has gone there has probably been in closer contact with the African because of the type of job he has been doing. Any plan to combine Northern and Southern Rhodesia is, I think, doomed to failure.
To give more advice to my right hon. Friend—I hope he will give an ear to it—I suggest that a great deal of the secret of the solution of this problem is a clear understanding of what African nationalism is. Thank goodness it is not necessary today in this House to assure people that such things as African nationalism exist. Nationalism is not the best name for it, but it is the name by which we all know it. Today we know very well that African nationalism is an immense force. It is neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad, but it is a force which is quite inevitable and quite natural. It is one which grows like every other big movement—like Christianity, the co-operative movement, trade unionism or Socialism—starting from a very small number of people in a particular area.
Mr. Jack Jones: Trade unionism started because of exploitation.
Mr. Clark: And Christianity as well.
African nationalism starts with a small number of people, with one area, and at that stage it is easy to criticise it and say that it is bogus. This is the stage which has been reached in the

285
Federation in the last year or possibly two. African nationalism then begins to be a movement which means something to all the people and not just to the educated people. The trouble is that it is too often presented in too simple terms, and too often misrepresented by the Opposition as a question of the haves and have-nots.
African nationalism may be presented in that form because that is the form in which the Africans think that we can understand it, but the Africans are not by any manner of means so dominated by economics in their political thinking as we are. It goes almost without saying that the objective of every political party in this country is to increase the standard of living of the people, but to the African the suggestion that the standard of living is to be increased is a completely meaningless phrase. The African has had exactly the same standard of living for thousands of years and has been fairly content with it. To suggest that one is to make a permanent increase in his standard of living is something which he is hardly capable of understanding. He has known the good days of good harvests and the bad days of bad harvests, but he has no tradition, as we have, of a steadily increasing standard of living, what our Victorian ancestors called progress and what we call percentage rates of growth. What African nationalism does mean to the ordinary African is an increase in his prestige, and increase in his status.
Mr. Jack Jones: A better life.
Mr. Clark: Not necessarily a better life. He wants to become a more important person in the community. The Africans have a great feeling for status and when there is a continent filled with people of one colour and with a remarkable similarity of habits and customs from North to South and East to West, inevitably this desire for status in the world and status in their own countries grows into a very great movement.
I suggest sincerely to my right hon. Friend that when he talks of African nationalism he should not muddle it with an economic desire of the African people. It is a desire for status. Wealth is of very little importance in African tribal communities, but status is immensely important and it is this status
286
for which the ordinary African is looking when he becomes nationalist. The trouble is that these issues, even among the Africans, are not simple and straightforward.
Europeans brought a very materialistic point of view to Africa. The majority of them went there to make their fortunes. Many Africans have adopted this more materialistic European point of view. But to represent African nationalism entirely in terms of economics is immediately to hand the argument to the people who oppose African nationalism and who say that economic advance is more likely under European rule. The Africans can quite honestly say that they would rather have a poor Nyasaland than one ruled by Sir Roy Welensky. It is this strange mixture of motives—the European materialistic one and the African desire for status—which produces the very great problem in the Federation today.
I ask my right hon. Friend to look into this as carefully as he can. The difficulty is that the motives become muddled as the Africans begin to enter our cash economy and some of them, often in large numbers in Southern Rhodesia move into the middle class and tend to support the status quo. The whole business then becomes much more difficult, because those Africans are drawn, on one side, by the desire to rise up in the society which exists in Southern Rhodesia and, on the other, by their obvious attraction to African nationalism.
Those are the problems which have to be solved and if we can find some form of constitution which to some extent divides the actual business of ruling the country from that of organising the country's economy, possibly an economic community of Central Africa with independent Governments in each of the States, as The Times rather suggested this morning, that may be the solution. If the control of the economy and the ruling of the country can be divided, if we can find some solution of separating control of the economy from the administration of justice and the supplying of services, and so on, we shall be getting nearer a solution in which Europeans and Africans can go on living together in the Federation.
I do not want to speak for very long because I resolved not to speak for more than fifteen minutes, but there is one

287
other thing which I should like to say to my right hon. Friend. In Africa opinions are strange things. There are very few of us who have not changed our minds, even the most fiery of us, over the last ten years. I change mine almost daily and I am not in the least ashamed of doing so. If anybody can honestly say that his views on Africa have remained identical over the last ten years, he had better come to this side of the House and become a high Tory.
Opinions change in Africa and if my right hon. Friend comes across firm opinions with which he cannot agree, he can hope that they will change as time goes by. We must give the greatest credit, and not damn by faint praise, to what has been done and what has been accepted by Southern Rhodesians. They have accepted the most fantastic changes which two or three years ago would have seemed out of the question, but the rate of change must continue and I am confident that it will. There must be more and more change in Southern Rhodesia towards power for the Africans and a share in their country. I think that these things will come, and if my right hon. Friend finds that the problem looks insuperable today he may find that tomorrow opinions will have caught up, for opinion is catching up very fast.
I wish my right hon. Friend the very best of good luck when he goes on his trip. I am confident that he will find a solution. I have the highest regard for his knowledge of human nature and it is my experience that human nature in Africa is not very different from what it is in this country.
6.28 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clarke) has said some very wise things as signposts for the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I can underline what he said. I am sure that he will agree that he comes from a country which is proof of the fact that if through the fears of the minority there is an indefinite postponement of political freedom for the majority, the end is an explosive situation—and in the case of Ireland a partition which may now be permanent.
288
The Home Secretary rightly said that we have had may debates on specific aspects of the Federation. We have debated either the constitution of the constituent territories, the Monckton Report, or the Devlin Report, or many other subjects, and I wish merely to touch on one or two points which are relevant to the problem which the right hon. Gentleman will have when he goes to discuss the future of the Federation as from this moment. I join with the hon. Member for Antrim, North in wishing the right hon. Gentleman all possible success. This is an incredibly complicated political situation. I do not think that it would be possible to have evolved a more complicated political situation and it will be very difficult to find a solution which will meet with the support of even the minority of the population.
I must confess that I think that the question of whether the Federation can survive is one which has to be faced. I do not think that that is pulling out the bricks. There have been problems in the Federation over the past ten years because the majority of the population are opposed to federation, or at any rate federation in its present form. That is why I believe that the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was right and that is why the Liberal Party has mentioned consent in its Amendment as being a condition precedent to federation. This is something which has to be squarely faced.
The Liberal Party Amendment is to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add:
"is of the opinion that the Federation of Central Africa cannot continue without the support of the majority of its inhabitants and accordingly recognises that no Federal Review Conference should take place until after elections have been held in the three territories which would fairly record the opinions of all the inhabitants."
The second question which the right hon. Gentleman must ask is on what terms it is possible to get African consent to a form of Federation. The third question which he must ask is the lengths to which Her Majesty's Government are prepared to go to impose a federal solution against the wishes of the majority of the population.
This is not the moment to go into the history of the Federation, but I and my colleagues were apprehensive from the

289
very moment when the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), on behalf of the Labour Government, went out in August and September, 1951, and started the machinery of federation slowly creaking over. At that stage, many of us felt that we should declare that African consent should be a condition precedent to federation. I believe that if we had worked along the lines of an expanded East African High Commission, such as is to be found further north—
Mr. John Strachey: I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that the two former Ministers of whom he has spoken said quite clearly that African consent must be obtained.
Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman is strictly correct. Of course, the Victoria Falls Conference was boycotted by the Africans from Southern Rhodesia. No African was present. Notwithstanding the clear opposition of Africans and African representatives, those two Ministers came back and set in train the organisation for the London Conference which was to take place the following spring. The Labour Party was then defeated and the Conservative Government adopted and carried on the Conference.
It is not true to say that the Labour Party was so impressed by the strength of African opposition that it dropped the scheme. It did the reverse. It loaded the Run, and the Conservative Government then pulled the trigger. The only reason why I mention that is that it is essential to accept the principle that the consent of the majority and the protection of the minority is vital to any political solution in the Federation.
One must be perfectly fair. If the Federation is dissolved, there will be grave consequences. The Federal Civil Service, totalling approximately 36,500 people, 22,500 of whom are African, would no doubt have a moral right to look to this country for reimbursement and for pension provisions. It is also true that this country has underwritten debts and international loans on a very large scale—some £28 million in the case of Kariba, for example. Some £40 million has been raised in the market in London alone on the basis of a continuing Federation. Indeed, there would be
290
considerable investment problems. Anyone who advocates, as I do, that there may be a need to dissolve the Federation has to be logical and to accept the grave implications that would follow.
Again, as has been mentioned, Nyasaland depends upon a considerable amount of federal financing. Southern Rhodesia's secondary industries are geared to a great extend upon her export trade to the two Northern Territories. Indeed, Southern Rhodesia itself has benefited considerably from Northern Rhodesian revenues, particularly in regard to the income from the copper mines.
I agree with the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) that the future of the Federation depends upon the attitude of the two Northern Territories to Southern Rhodesia and that, therefore, it is by the actions of Southern Rhodesia that the future possibilities of federation will be judged by the two Northern Territories.
I do not want to go over the recent history of the Northern Rhodesian Constitutions. It has been a shameful, prevaricating history of three Constitutions in one year. The first Constitution, in February, was accepted by the A.N.C., U.N.I.P. and the Liberal Party of Northern Rhodesia, but was opposed by the United Federal Party. By the time that the June proposals came forward, the rôles were completely reversed. In the face of that, the former Colonial Secretary, now Leader of the House, persisted in saying that there was no change in the situation. We all know that it was quite obvious to everyone else that there was a change and that there was a retreat.
We finally had the February proposals, which the Colonial Secretary might like to have taken further, but it was a face-saving operation for the present Leader of the House. We know that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is particularly antipathetic to faceless men and, therefore, this was a necessary political exercise to save his face. It is still short of the Monckton proposals and of the February, 1961, proposals.
Great tribute is due to the two African parties in Northern Rhodesia for agreeing to try to make the Constitution work. It is a great tribute to them that they

291
are trying to operate the Constitution. I am delighted to hear that the delimitation will be completed to enable the Constitution and the election thereunder to operate in the autumn of this year.
I hope that the absence of any reference to Barotseland means that that is now a dead issue. I believe, however, that a Northern Rhodesian majority should have the right to secede. Here, I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, East. The fact that the right exists may well be the only guarantee that it will not be exercised. If there is a black African majority and it wants to secede, it will secede unless Her Majesty's Government are prepared to impose continued federation by force.
With regard to Nyasaland, I hope that we shall hear much more from the Home Secretary when he replies to the debate. I hope that he is not seeking to create an African equivalent of the National Economic Development Council or an economic body which can start arguing about economic realignments and possibilities which will be an excuse for failing to face the political realities of the situation.
I hope that we shall know whether the new body will be composed exclusively of United Kingdom nationals or whether it will be partly Nyasaland and partly United Kingdom, whether there will be Federal representatives and where it will do its work, whether here or in Nyasaland. Will it have scope to consider the possibility of some form of economic alignment with Tanganyika and any of the other East African Territories? Can it consider the possibility of a Nyasaland-Northern Rhodesian economic link? In short, will the terms of reference be more precisely drawn and who will be the personnel?
Will the Home Secretary tell us something, too, in regard to Nyasaland, about the suggestion of the Phillips Committee that much more money has to be spent—£1½ million—as a matter of urgency on secondary education? Would he like to consider the possibilities of economic association with Southern Rhodesia as opposed to a political linkup? There was great significance in the visit which the Southern Rhodesian Minister of Labour paid two months ago to Nyasaland, when, apparently, friendly
292
discussions took place. Again, in that case, I suggest to the Home Secretary that it is vital that there be a right of secession.
Our responsibility is to make progress in the two Northern Protectorates. We cannot shirk that responsibility. It will then be for those territories to consider the situation in Southern Rhodesia. The indications are that Sir Edgar Whitehead has made formidable advances in the last year or eighteen months. As one hon. Member has said, they would have been unheard of ten years ago. If some of these measures had been implemented in the time of the premiership of Sir Godfrey Huggins, who, I believe, would have been the one European who would have got away with them and obtained support for them, part of the present opposition to federation would never have existed. We are faced with a situation in which although Sir Edgar Whitehead claims that 50,000 Africans will register by the spring, so that there will be 50,000 African electors, compared with 80,000 Europeans, so far only 4,200 Africans have signed; at any rate, that was the April figure.
I do not believe that this Constitution can now be changed until after the October elections. Sir Edgar Whitehead obtained a two-thirds majority in a referendum based on this Constitution. After the elections the Southern Rhodesians must consider widening the franchise. This is not juridically possible from this end; it has to be done under Paragraph 6 of the new Constitution, by a two-thirds majority of the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Christopher Chataway: How does the hon. Member square what he is saying with the terms of the Amendment which the Liberal Party has placed on the Order Paper, which I assume he supports? He has been arguing that the elections in Southern Rhodesia will not fairly record the opinions of the inhabitants, but the Liberal Amendment says that there should be no Federal Review Conference
"until after elections have been held in the three territories which would fairly record the opinions of all the inhabitants."
Does he mean that he does not think that there should be any Federal Review Conference ever, or simply not this year?
Mr. Thorpe: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) was here when the Home Secretary opened the debate.
Mr. Chataway: I was.
Mr. Thorpe: Then perhaps I can refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory. The Home Secretary said that it was certainly not his intention to have a Review Conference until the Northern Rhodesian and Southern Rhodesian elections had taken place.
I was going on to say what I meant by "fairly record". I am not suggesting that a Federal Review Conference should be put off until there is complete universal suffrage. If the hon. Member will read the Liberal Party Amendment again he will see that that is not suggested. But I believe that it should be open for the two Northern Territories to opt for secession when there is an African majority in those territories. It is clear that, as at present drafted, the Southern Rhodesian Constitution does not fairly record African opinion. It does not go one-tenth of the way towards representing it. There are a mere fifteen seats for Africans as compared with fifty seats for the European minority.
If the franchise were extended by a two-thirds majority in the Legislative Council after the elections, so that it were possible for 50,000, 60,000 or even 70,000 Africans to qualify, African nationalism, as it now exists in Southern Rhodesia, would, I think, be prepared to accept it as a first step.
Mr. Chataway: That means having a second election in Southern Rhodesia before holding a Federal Review Conference.
Mr. Thorpe: It would be wholly wrong to have such a Conference until there was a black African majority in the two Northern Territories. We may have to have a further election, unless we have direct rule by the Governor.
When the Africans in Southern Rhodesia are prepared to accept and work the Constitution, as they are in Northern Rhodesia, then will be the moment for a Review Conference, in which the Africans will be partially although even then not wholly represented, and in which the Northern territories can consider whether or not the
294
Europeans in Southern Rhodesia have shown themselves sufficiently sincere in their support for African advancement to make them—the Africans of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland—wish to remain within the Federation.
We have great bargaining power with Southern Rhodesia. The Southern Rhodesians would like the United Kingdom Government to shed some of their reserve powers, but no further powers should be given to Southern Rhodesia until there is a proper franchise and there is at least parity between the Africans and the Europeans in the Legislative Assembly. That is what I mean by "fairly recording" the African viewpoint. There must be at least parity in Southern Rhodesia.
If the two Northern Territories chose to secede—as they have a right to do—they might well decide to put up tariffs against trade from Southern Rhodesia in order to protect their own industries. It would certainly be in their economic interest to import more freely from India and Asia. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is learning that that is not good Liberalism.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It is good Liberal doctrine.
Mr. Thorpe: That may be the noble Lord's Liberalism, but it is not mine. It is an economic possibility, and the Southern Rhodesians realise this. This country has considerable bargaining power with the Southern Rhodesian Government, and it is for the Southern Rhodesian Europeans to decide whether or not the Federation is to survive. Unless they liberalise their regimé there is no doubt that the black African majority in both the Northern Territories will want complete and immediate secession—and if they want it they should have it, if it can be shown that Southern Rhodesia is adamant in her refusal fairly to record African representation in the Legislature.
There is a suggestion that Sir Edgar Whitehead has realised that federation in any form is now unacceptable, and that he has been negotiating for an outlet with Mozambique and would prefer to defend what he has and cut his losses by shedding the two Northern Terri-

295
tories. In this he is in complete opposition to Sir Roy Welensky. If Sir Edgar continues with a policy of this sort there is a risk that Sir Roy may throw up Federal politics and return to territorial politics. That is a real possibility if Sir Roy feels that the Federation is breaking up.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will inquire Why Sir Roy felt it necessary to raise the estimates for the Federal Army, and will make it plain that no political solution can be arrived at as a result of bullying by Federal troops. The Northern Rhodesian plot, disclosed in February last year, may be repeated if Sir Roy Welensky feels that the Federation is likely to break up.
If the Federation is to survive—and, quite candidly, I believe that there is only a slim hope of that—there must be black African majorities in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and there must be a dramatic change in Southern Rhodesia, at any rate to the extent of producing parity between Africans and Europeans in the Legislative Council. Only when that has happened should there be a Federal Review Conference. If the Southern Rhodesians can show that they are prepared to make partnership work there is a slender hope that the Federation will survive, but if they are not prepared even to produce parity the Federation will inevitably have to be dissolved.
I hope that the Government will for once realise the political realities of the situation and will not wait until 5, 10 or 15 years' bloodshed have forced them to take the obvious decision.
6.48 p.m.
Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: The House has discussed the affairs of Central Africa many times during the past ten or twelve years. The more we discuss it the more I feel that the problems which are thrust up are almost insoluble. The conception of federation in its original form was a sound one. I am glad that the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) reminded the House that the Labour Party was in power at the time, and had something to do with it. He was correct in saying that the Labour Party loaded the gun and that we pulled the trigger. If the
296
truth be known, I am not certain that the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) when Colonial Secretary—or it may have been the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) when holding that office—gave the conception of federation a very good start
Through motives which were entirely well-meaning but, in my view, singularly ill-advised, the Labour Government prevented district commissioners from explaining federation to Africans who, all their lives, had come to district commissioners to seek advice. The Africans mistook the silence of the district commissioners for disapproval. That added greatly to the strangling of the concept of federation. A great many Africans did not know what was meant by federation. There was no word for it in many of the dialects. The Africans did not know whether federation was an agricultural machine or a new wife. This was one of the difficulties which we encountered at an early stage. I know that the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) acted with the best possible motives.
Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: For five years I was utterly opposed to the conception of federation. I supported the conception of Mr. Oliver Stanley of a closer association by the three Territories in Central Africa. I toured the whole of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland and I was made aware of the stubborn opposition of the Africans to any conception either of amalgamation or federation. I also read the Report of the Bledisloe Commission which was published on the eve of war. The Commission definitely stated that Africans everywhere were utterly opposed to federation. During my period of office as Colonial Secretary I was in opposition to federation; first, because the Africans would not have it, secondly, because it could not be imposed in the face of African opposition, and thirdly, because Southern Rhodesia was demanding a form of federation which gave virtually all the power to the European minority in Southern Rhodesia.
I met the Southern Rhodesian Cabinet and the view of the members was perfectly clear, that federation would be a possibility only if they were

297
in a position strictly to control its working. Therefore, I want to make it perfectly clear that I have always opposed federation, because I have always regarded it as a tremendous political blunder.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Had I known that the right hon. Gentleman was proposing to take so long with his intervention, I doubt whether I should have given way to him. It may be that I have done the right hon. Gentleman an injustice. It may have been one of his colleagues who gave the instructions to the district commissioners and no doubt the advice was well-meant. But in my view the action was singularly ill-advised. Be that as it may, we are now in a new phase. The whole map of Africa has changed a great deal in the last ten or twelve years. But whatever views we may hold, we all wish the best of luck to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the extremely important voyage upon which he embarks tomorrow.
I thought that my right hon. Friend dealt with the activities of the United Nations Special Committee on Colonialism very courteously. I do not admit the right of the United Nations to try to tell us as a sovereign Parliament how to alter the Constitution given to Southern Rhodesia in 1923, even had we the power to do so. I consider that an intrusion into our sovereignty and I am surprised that hon. Members opposite, who seem so sensitive about our sovereignty in respect of the Common Market, did not pick up that point. Perhaps there is one concept for the United Nations and another for E.E.C. But we do not need to take the report of the committee too seriously. It is simply another example of the double standards to which some of us have become painfully accustomed.
The United Nations Committee of six, or of seventeen—I forget which—recommended, among other things, that in Southern Rhodesia, and I think in Northern Rhodesia too, there should be a constitution based on the principle of one man, one vote. The Constitution in Mali lays down that there should be one man and one vote, but that is largely irrelevant because there is only one party for which to vote. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that the other countries represented, namely India, Syria and Tunisia,
298
in addition to Mali, were unable to squeeze up enough courage to vote for the United Nations resolution condemning Chinese aggression in Tibet. Suffice it to say that this is another aspect of power politics played at the United Nations Organisation according to United Nations rules, mainly by Powers without responsibility and without much experience. But that is a side issue. Today we are discussing an actual problem.
As I see it, hon. Members on both sides of the House have embarked upon a path which, one hopes, will lead to a multi-racial society—or, as my right hon. Friend prefers to call it, a nonracial society—in Central Africa. They both mean the same thing. It is true that the lessons of history are against us. I think the verdict of history would be that when two races are trying to live together, separated either by violent religious differences or by great divergencies of civilisation and background, they can do so only if there is a third Power holding the ring. That was certainly the case with the Muslim and Hindu, with Greek and Turk and, in a different context, with the Malayan and the Chinese. But I do not think that need be a reason for not trying to succeed with this vital experiment in Central Africa; provided always that we realise in Africa, when the central administrative control is removed, power fragmentates to the tribe; that the tribe becomes the power unit, and that the tribe is what we call the party in our Western political nomenclature.
I think that the multi-racial experiment can succeed only if we have regard, first, to the economic facts of life of the Central African Federation and, secondly, to the realities of African politics. The economic facts of life are quite simple. There is about £2,000 million invested in the Federation, of which about 90 per cent. is in Southern Rhodesia and in the Copper Belt. Of that amount only about £125 million is represented by African investment. I am not saying whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. I am simply stating the fact.
The second fact of economic life is that almost all the power for the Copper Belt is from Kariba, which is in Federal control. The only supply of coal for the smelters comes from Wankie,

299
which is in Southern Rhodesia. Thirdly, the Federation is landlocked and its only outlet for trade is either through South African or Portuguese territory. These are economic facts which I beg my right hon. Friend to bear in mind. They cannot be dissipated by mere oratory. They are economic facts.
Now we come to the political realities which are singularly inconvenient. Of course, we cannot use force to compel Dr. Banda to stay in the Federation if he does not want to. Equally we cannot compel Sir Roy Welensky to dissipate a very large slice of the £2,000 million investment. We have to recognise that the multi-racial experiment cannot succeed unless we devise some Constitution which gives a chance to the African and European moderates to play their part. I think that we should be dishonest with ourselves and dishonest with the public if we did not admit that under present circumstances moderate Africans in the political context have not much chance. Many Africans are moderate. They may well be numerically in the majority. But in the political context, in their capacity to obtain votes at an election, they stand little chance. This is partly due to the organisation of the nationalist parties and partly due to the degree of intimidation which they practice. The African of moderate opinion now tends to climb on the Nationalist band wagon, partly to save his skin and partly as a form of reinsurance against anything that might happen in the future.
If we try to build a multi-racial or non-racial society upon what I would call—and I was very glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) mentioned this—too rigid a Westminster system, I am terribly afraid that we shall not have a multiracial society at all. We shall have something quite different. We might well have a black and white barrier along the line of the Zambesi which would leave the Copper Belt without power; which would be goodbye to any form of European-African partnership; goodbye to any future investment, and goodbye to any further build-up of the economic life of the Africans which we all wish to see.
As one of my hon. Friends has said, it is very largely the economic facts that
300
are so difficult to put across to the African, who thinks in completely different terms. None the less, we believe that the political ambitions of the African and the economic know-how of the European must be complementary. To seek to destroy the one and to hold on to the other is probably to lose both.
We seem, at the moment, to be lurching rather uneasily between the economic and political realities of life. Mr. Kaunda may well say that he wants his country to be independent, and so may Dr. Banda. I do want my right hon. Friend to do his best to explain to them, and to other Africans, that one cannot just say that one wants to be independent. Independence is just not a condition. It is based on certain economic roots.
I am inclined to agree that we have to clothe the Federation with some different garment; perhaps call it by a different name. I do not care whether it is called an economic union, or something else, but I do not see why Dr. Banda or Mr. Kaunda should think that they can just say, "We will be independent", and then expect the British taxpayer to foot the bill for an increasing deficit when neither territory will be viable for long—
Mr. Healey: Northern Rhodesia.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Can the hon. Gentleman imagine Northern Rhodesia, deriving its power from Kariba, with the boundary right across the gorge, remaining economic? Let us be a little realistic about what would happen to the economy of Northern Rhodesia without European technical know-how—
Mr. Healey: Does the hon. Gentleman really suggest that it is impossible for an independent Northern Rhodesian to derive power from another State? That happens all over Africa, and all over the world. The question is whether the advantages of a certain economy can be gained without political federation, and the whole tendency now is based on the assumption that it can.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: My point is that the economic life of Northern Rhodesia and of the Copper Belt, on which that economy so largely depends, rests, in turn, to a very large extent on the economic know-how and technical

301
advice which, at the moment, only the European can produce. Therefore, I do not see much future for Northern Rhodesia on its own with the boundary between Northern and Southern Rhodesia going right up the Kariba Gorge. However, as other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall not pursue that point.
Finally, when my right hon. Friend goes to these Territories tomorrow I would ask him just to consider a point that has not so far been made in this debate. The Colonial Overseas Service has, as he knows, a long and honourable record, and nowhere has that record been more honourable than in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Governors, provincial commissioners, district commissioners, assistant district commissioners, police officers, and so on, are all expected to administer vast territories, and to maintain law and order in them as long as we in this House retain the responsibility for these Territories. We expect them to do that, and well have they done it.
But I believe that they have recently been moving into a phase that is well-nigh intolerable. When they take firm action to prevent a riot becoming a major disturbance and someone gets his shins bruised or his clothes torn, they are accused of brutality. There are headlines in the Press and in the B.B.C. news, and there are Questions in this House—
Mr. Thorpe rose—
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: No, I shall not give way. If on the other hand, they delay taking action until a minor riot becomes a major disturbance they are again criticised—and, I think, in that case, rightly so. But at the present moment there is the danger that whichever way round it is they will be wrong. They feel they are getting the worst of both worlds.
That atmosphere is thoroughly unhealthy, and I would ask my right hon. Friend, when he is in those territories, to convey a message from at least some of us in this House to these honourable, courageous and single-minded administrators that we understand their difficulties, that we have the utmost admiration for the way in which they conduct themselves in very difficult circum-
302
stances, and that they have our full support.
7.6 p.m.
Mr. Jack Jones: In many respects, the speeches we have so far heard today have been very different from those we have heard in the past on this very vexed problem. First, as an individual, I would wish the right hon. Gentleman the best of luck on his trip. I hope that nobody at home looks for a reprieve while he is abroad, because that would be an additional burden on him.
This problem and that of the Common Market are two of the biggest this country has ever had to solve, and if we on this side were in power we should still have them to deal with. The fellow who believes that handing a vote to every applicant—who will vote at the behest of every hoodoo or witch doctor, or Dr. Banda—will solve this problem at the ballot box, must think again. There are tens of thousands of educated Africans who are doing a good job of work—and quite a few are doing quite a good job for themselves. There are hundreds of thousands of Africans who are striving hard in the universities, colleges and schools to learn the use of writing paper, but there are still millions of Africans who have yet to learn the use of toilet paper.
To hand out ballot papers, willy-nilly, seems to me to lend itself to terrific exploitation of Africans by Africans. It would be the easiest thing in the world for African politicians, and even for European politicians, to go into the hinterland and, with a couple of bags of salt and a load or two of meal, get thousands of votes overnight. That is the situation in the hinterland, as I see it. I want the right hon. Gentleman to look not only at the leaders of the political parties but to try, if possible, to make contact with the industrial leaders, the trade unionists.
What worries me is that suddenly, in the eyes of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), Dr. Banda becomes a great statesman. I well remember that when we formed a Labour Government some of us who were trade union poachers were immediately transformed and became rather good gamekeepers, and Dr. Banda, instead of riding about in jeeps, as he did,

303
with money from outside and not from inside Rhodesia, was telling his constituents that all they had to do was to put their thumb-mark where he wanted it and next day they could draw money from the bank as Europeans did. Today, of course, it is a different story. The same Dr. Banda ran around telling people that if they had their children vaccinated against smallpox they would become sterile. We know that he himself was vaccinated just a few months before making those sort of statements.
It must be realised that responsibility, once accepted, must be followed by statesmanship. My hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) today made one of the most useful and statesmanlike contributions I have heard from him. However, the days are over when people could shout and persuade others to pander to their particular ideologies. I want to see everyone in the world having the right to vote, being sufficiently well educated, being mature physically and being able to decide what is best for their nation and the rest of the world. We have not reached that position yet.
I would be interested to know why the Home Secretary has got this job. Is it because the evidence produced by the Colonial Secretary and the Commonwealth Secretary was so wonderful and represented such an achievement of success that the work could be put on the right hon. Gentleman's shoulders as being an easy task? It cannot be all that easy in view of the glorious mess that the other two right hon. Gentlemen left for him. As to the exact reason, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will whisper in my ear later in the corridor. He certainly has a big job. This is not altogether a party matter, for unless we can solve this problem as a nation there will be no future at all for these territories.
Much comment has been made about the Copper Belt, but I would inform hon. Gentlemen opposite that without it both this country and America would look very small indeed within ten years. Let us make no mistake about that. The idea that if the Europeans pulled out of the Copper Belt tomorrow or next week—or even if America pulled out of it—there would be a complete
304
failure to produce copper is absolute nonsense. We should get that idea out of our heads, because there is someone else, the big brother, who is waiting patiently, hoping that the situation will arise when he can step in. These are the sort of things about which the Africans should be fully informed.
It must be remembered that the African has a perfect right to want to know why a European can stand and watch him work and receive 17s. or 19s. an hour for doing just that while he gets 8s. or 12s. a shift. As hon. Members can see, I get down to brass tacks when I am speaking. I realise that I do not live in the territory, but I regularly meet people who know a good deal about this part of the world and who regularly visit it. Further, the company with which I have been associated since before the First World War has a stake in that country. I take notice of the ordinary trade union man, the housewife, the ordinary traveller who brings evidence back from that land. The trade unionist will tell me what he thinks about it all and I know that we have in this territory of the Copper Belt the fantastic situation in which two unions exist—a trade union for whites who are mining copper ore and a trade union for blacks who are mining exactly the same commodity.
The white trade union leaders say that they want African advancement. Are they not aware that the quickest way to achieve it is for there to be one union with the same brains advocating the same case for people doing the same work? Without mentioning any names, I refer to one union—not a black one—and ask hon. Members to see from whence its leaders were imported. The answer gives one a lot of information. We know these things; from whence they came and why they are there. So I urge that we get this matter into its proper perspective. Since affluence came to Rhodesia one cannot expect a native boy who leaves his habitation and comes to the town to work not to relate to his less well-educated friends just what is happening. Having seen the Europeans and Americans enjoying their form of life, the native boy has a natural desire to enjoy the same sort of thing. Is that not to be expected?
The many Africans in this position return to where they lived—perhaps in

305
the hinterland—and tell of what they have seen. They return with or they tell stories of having seen decent silk shirts, good shoes, cleanliness, etc., and, apart from these sort of things, they know how to cook and how to conduct a household. As I say, how can one expect them not to return home and inculcate into the minds of those living in primitive surroundings the desire for the same standards? How can these people not have these desires when, perhaps after working in an hotel in Salisbury, they return to their primitive dwellings?
When I told the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) that exploitation had brought trade unions and Socialism into being, he said, in effect, "Nothing of the sort". But, if it did not, what did? If the "boss" class had been the decent Christian gentlemen and employers 100 years ago that they now claim to be there would have been no need for people to band together to demand better conditions. It is a fact that the African now knows in his heart that he is being exploited to a considerable extent. It is that knowledge that brings about his demand for something better.
I appreciate, however, that the copper owners have done a tremendous job. They have made tremendous strides forward in the last fifteen years and hospitals, houses, football fields, libraries and even beer halls have been provided, and all these things are signs of progress. These actions and these people have given the Africans the knowledge that they should have the right to vote. When looking at the questions asked in examinations which had to be sat for jobs in the State Railways—and in this case a multi-racial trade union operates—we were able to see European school teachers, because they were not being sufficiently well paid, deciding to go on the railways. They were sitting for their examinations alongside young Africans and, amazing though it may seem, many of these young Africans were getting higher marks than were the Europeans. Is it not right, in view of this, that they should have the right to vote? If they are able to pass this type of examination and hold the job of stoker, fireman and so on on the railways, should they not have the right to vote?
It is a peculiar situation in which people have the right to vote merely
306
because of their democratic status while others who are sitting alongside them and passing examinations ahead of them in open competition are not able to do so. This makes one think of the wonderful university in Salisbury, and there is not a finer one in the world. It is a marvellous building in which African students work alongside whites, studying, eating and doing their homework together. But six months ago they could not even go to the local cinema together. They can now, for a move forward has been made. It is amazing that this sort of silly restriction should have been placed on decent, educated people.
In the hinterland there are millions of Africans still living in the most primitive conditions. In this part of the country one frequently sees the medical authorities inoculating up to 300 of them in one morning. These Africans queue up to have their sores cured, to be treated for malnutrition and venereal diseases and fevers. They are extremely grateful for the treatment given them, and this is a great step forward.
The Monckton Commission stated that they were entitled to have a black or native majority. I prefer "native" to "black". The question is; how soon is this to be brought about? "When" is a simple word, but when it is asked in relation to this question it becomes an extremely vital one. The world is moving forward quickly and the people in this territory are pointing out what happened in India and elsewhere. However, we are living in a rather different sort of world today, for pressure is being brought to bear by another great power —greater than ever before. I urge hon. Members not to have the impression that pressure is not being employed in Rhodesia. It is, both among the illiterate and the educated sections of the community.
While some of my hon. Friends and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), speak about the miserable efforts that have been made by the Government, it must also be remembered that there have been several different forms of constitution suggested and no one has been able really to decipher any of them. One has to have some sort of solution, but the sort of computations involved in the

307
last suggestion are almost beyond my comprehension, as, I am fairly certain, they are beyond the comprehension of many who have even had the opportunity of a university education. All the business about getting one vote against eight native votes and all the other nonsense is really ridiculous.
I make the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that if a fellow is fit to go to work, if he can satisfy a European, an American, a South African or any other boss that he is fit to be employed, if he is fit to be married and fit to be rearing a family, then, even though he may not have the rate of earnings calculated as necessary according to some constitution, he is fit to have a vote. There should be some liberalisation in the present position. It can be brought about.
As for Sir Roy Welensky, whose name has been bandied about a good deal today, he makes mistakes, but, heaven knows, no one can say that he has not got "guts". He may be sometimes wrong, but I always admire a fellow who lets one know exactly where he stands. Sir Roy Welensky has said in no uncertain terms that if the Federation is tampered with he will go to the extent of using force. That was all right twenty or thirty years ago, when all this country needed to do was to send a gunboat to some place where there was trouble and everybody kow-towed, raised their hats, and did what they were told. But those days have gone. We have the United Nations now. In any case, we do not want that sort of thing to be necessary.
If the right hon. Gentleman inquires, he will find that the farmers of Rhodesia are a fairly well organised military force. It may sound remarkable, but he will find that there are storehouses laid up, the commandants for certain areas have all been arranged in case force has to be used, and they are well organised and well drilled. This applies also to Dr. Banda's forces and to others. What one sees one can believe.
I hope and trust that, with the advent of a new individual moving into the arena, a solution will be brought about. This country cannot afford any longer to lose economic potential. Africa
308
represents economic potential for us. Without doubt, the Rhodesias contain some of the greatest mineral wealth in the world. There are mountains of iron ore and limestone by the million tons. I am a steel man, as everybody knows, and I have seen modern steel furnaces and blast furnaces there. I know that there has been talk of the problem of bring coal from Wankie 200 miles away, but it is brought quite easily overnight on the railways. The Kariba dam has been mentioned. It was Italian labour that built the Kariba dam, not British, and the Italians lost 70 men in the process. The power now being made there is being sent out as far as 90 or 100 miles away and it is being used, among other things, to illuminate mainly the homes of those who can afford to have it.
I am sure that everyone in the House will agree that it is ridiculous in 1962 to say that the native ought not to have electric light, be able to use an electric iron to put a decent crease in his trousers, or have the other benefits of modern industry. These things should be made possible. The question is how, and how soon. This is the problem. It is no good saying, with the voice of nationalism, that they can have the vote and tomorrow everything will be all right. The world does not work like that. But I honestly believe that these things will come, and that there can be a liberalisation of the present position and an extension of the vote.
The 15 African members in the Legislature whom we hear about could be just like Keir Hardie and his small band in this House years ago, a few fellows proving that the average ordinary man could help to govern his own country. It is for them to prove that they can, and, by proving that they can, to make it possible even for Europeans to support and vote for native candidates. That is what we want to see happening there.
There is tremendous economic potential in Central Africa which we cannot afford to lose. If we mess about much longer with the problem and add strength to the forces of nationalism, this in turn will create discontent and lead to disaster. I have a list about 15 pages long taken from Press reports during the last month of arrests of members of the U.N.I.P. and the other various political

309
parties who have gone about preventing the right of free speech and all the rest. If we could get the African honestly to believe that the White European is his best friend in the final analysis, as many of them already do, we could make a success of it. But if we try by any means whatever to use force or intimidation or jiggery-pokery with the form of Constitution which denies the Africans the ultimate right to control themselves, they having learned what is right far themselves and what is right for those whom they employ, there will be trouble.
The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) said that there were more Europeans in Nyasaland today than before the election. That does not tie up with the statements which Dr. Banda was making before the election about the Europeans having to get out. He has learned that, without the European, he cannot get ahead. His philosophy today and the speeches he makes, like the speeches we should be making, are centred upon the need to work harder so that there is something to export and produce an income for his country. He now tells his people that only when they do work harder and produce an income for their nation will they be able to have the education he promised, the better homes, villages, agriculture, lighting, irrigation and all the rest. That is the sort of thing that Dr. Banda is saying now that he has reached the position of power which, I hope, he now enjoys.
I hope that something will come out of this debate. It is not a matter of the vote tonight. We know how the vote will go. That will be just a numerical assessment. It is one of the pities of the House of Commons that numerical assessments are taken for granted. I hope that, as a result of our debate and of the visit which the Home Secretary is to make to the area and the contacts he will have in an endeavour to bring to the vexed problem of this harassed country a spirit of wanting to do what is right, we shall move towards a solution which is right for all.
7.27 p.m.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: It is always a delight to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) even when one does not necessarily
310
agree with everything he says. He always gives the impression of talking common sense which in itself is beguiling, and also, of course, he speaks with great sincerity and no little knowledge, even though, as he said, he has not lived in Central Africa. Several of the points he made will, I believe, be very valuable for the Home Secretary to take note of before he goes out.
I confess that this is for me a rather sad occasion. When I was first elected to the House ten years ago, federation was almost the first subject in which I took an interest, naturally, since I had lived in those parts before I came to Westminster. I have always believed that federation was the right answer for that part of the world, and I still believe so today. When I pledged my faith to that solution, I did not do it just for economic reasons but because I saw in that part of Africa, almost alone, an opportunity for a non-racial political solution to emerge because there were enough Europeans there to make it necessary for the Africans as well as the Europeans to agree to some form of non-racial solution, provided that there was sufficient vision and goodwill on all sides.
It is common knowledge that we have all been disappointed at the course of events. The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) blamed all that has happened not on this country, not on Westminster, not on one party or the other, but on the conduct and lack of vision of the European electorate in the Federation. I do not consider that this is fair. On many occasions, I have said, as I did in Rhodesia as recently as two weeks ago, that, if only the Europeans there had done five or six years ago what they are prepared to do now, we should not have had the circumstances which have given rise to this debate tonight.
But let us not stand in a white sheet ourselves. There is a grave measure of responsibility upon us for the unsatisfactory developments within the Federation. It may be that some of us have been too strongly concentrating on the Federation as such, and nothing else. Perhaps some of us have pursued lines of argument which were too rigid in changing circumstances. Every hon. Member who has spoken has confessed

311
that opinions have changed. Mine have changed. Opinions have to change because Africa itself has changed in the last ten years. But the Opposition themselves have a grave measure of responsibility in this matter, too. Throughout the past ten years, they have done nothing to help the situation out there. Indeed, they have done a great deal to hinder. If we are allocating blame, I say unhesitatingly that it is not for the Opposition to declare that it is all the fault of the European electorate in the Federation that things have not gone as we had hoped.
I have just returned from the Federation. At first sight, the impression on me was depressing because things seemed to have become worse since I was out there in December last, but, thinking it over, I feel that there are encouraging signs which should bring a real ray of hope to us in our debate tonight. Until now there has been a sort of three-way struggle, with the African Nationalists pushing one way, a rearguard action by the more reactionary Europeans over there, and varying degrees of British interference one way or the other. Now, at long last, it is generally appreciated that what has been in force there over the past few years cannot continue in its present form. I say that there is a general realisation there that this is, in fact, the case, whatever may be said to my right hon. Friend when he goes out.
In the situation which has developed, the Rhodesians and the Nyasalanders themselves of all races are beginning to realise that a solution must be found. There is nothing more salutary than finding that one has to produce a solution to a really practical problem. I had a very interesting plane trip with some of the African Nationalist leaders on my way down from Tanganyika to the Federation in December. I tried a tactic which I also found to be very satisfactory on my last visit, that is, to stop talking about federation as such and to ask people what items they were prepared to agree, forgetting about the institutions involved for the moment, must be dealt with by some central organisation. It is surprising how the most vigorous African nationalist if one takes him through a list, will say, "That
312
is quite sensible. It obviously must be dealt with by some central body".
I made a note of some of the items that I mentioned. They included fuel and power, transport and communications, posts and telegraphs, overall economic planning, a currency board and university education. Those were some of the items that I spoke of, and in every instance the Africa reaction was that some central body would have to exist to deal with them. When my right hon. Friend goes there he might, perhaps, think in terms not of trying to prepare a Constitution and then allocating functions to it but, first, of gaining agreement on what functions should be dealt with centrally and then thinking about the institutions afterwards. That, in my humble opinion, might be the right way to achieve his aim for a lasting settlement.
This is not the time for Members of Parliament here to suggest detailed constitutional proposals. We all have our ideas concerning voting qualifications and the like. I have my own particular fads and suggestions too. But it is, perhaps, now appropriate just to state a few of the principles on which a future federation or future association of countries in that part of the world will, I believe, have to depend.
I have mentioned already the desirability of contrating on fields of agreement rather than the institutions which will deal with them afterwards. Secondly, the economic links must above all be borne in mind. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has left the Chamber because I have rarely heard such nonsense as he talked about economic matters. To talk as he did ignoring the existing economic pattern of debts and obligations which have been incurred about currencies, the banking system and all the rest and then to imagine that, at a stroke, one can have three separate nations is to show no knowledge of the economic facts of life.
If we are to achieve satisfactory economic links, a measure of political co-ordination will be necessary as well. I appreciate as a good debating point the remark of the hon. Member for Leeds, East when he said that what we were trying to do in the Common Market is precisely the opposite of that.

313
Yet it has not relevance to these three countries who are not only economically weak but politically weak in themselves as well. It is no good comparing them with the possibilities of continuing political sovereignty for countries making up the potentially European Common Market at the present time.
If we are to achieve any form of co-ordination, political as well as economic, there is one reality that we have to face. First of all, if we start by saying that there shall be a right of secession, every nationalist politician worthy of the name who wants to get into power will go hammer and tongs for secession because invariably it is the extremists who will try to be more nationalist than everyone else and say that they alone are right. This is a perfectly normal fact of political life in Africa at the present time.
I am wondering whether, whatever central legislative organ results from any future association that my right hon. Friend may be able to bring about, we could have some system under which, unless legislation going through the central government had an overwhelming degree of support by representatives of all three territories, there could be a built-in right of veto under certain circumstances for legislation affecting the individual territories to which it applied. I know that there are disadvantages in this, but, at least, it would make the question of the right of secession or otherwise irrelevant. If it could be known that in certain circumstances their fears could be allayed by the central laws not applying unless they carried the assent of a large number of their own people, we should be able to make the question of secession irrelevent. I am not only speaking about African nationalists or extremists. I found the Europeans of Southern Rhodesia having enough trouble with domestic African nationalism. They are not at all anxious to find themselves subordinated in all respects to a central legislature dominated by the two Northern Territories over a period of time. I find just as great a reluctance among Europeans in Southern Rhodesia to central domination as there is among any other inhabitants.
There are two other points that I should like to make. First, I endorse
314
what was said earlier about the dangers of ignoring tribal feelings in Africa and of pinning one's faith on what is called the Westminster type constitution. Invariably in Africa in almost every other emergent dependency since the last war Africans unite only as long as by so doing they can rid themselves of white domination and white rule. The moment that they see white rule disappear, the ordinary tribal allegiancies begin to assert themselves. We make the mistake—we have all made it—of picking a particularly distinguished, successful, virulent or vigorous African—almost like a totem pole—to whom we try to hand independence.
In every territory where we have made this mistake we have learned to rue it afterwards. We are still seeing this in Kenya and we shall see it increasingly in Northern Rhodesia. The moment the Northern Rhodesians think that there is no need to gang up against the Europeans divisions will start among the Africans in exactly the same way as we are seeing them elsewhere today. Anyone who imagines that this will not be so does not know the tribal set-up in Northern Rhodesia. We shall make the same mistake all over again if we think that just because we hand over power to Mr. Kaunda and to the party he represents that will ensure allover African allegiance to him in Northern Rhodesia. Indeed, inter-tribal strife is already starting, because warring U.N.I.P. and A.N.C. are not really political parties as we understand them at all. Yet we are again in danger of fooling ourselves. I wish that we could get away from the atmosphere of referring to tribalism as though it is something unpleasant.
As I have said before in this House, we do not talk about the Luxembourger, Lichtenstein or Swiss tribes, but as races living in their own countries.
We should not assume that, because Africans' faces in a particular part of Africa are black, they all love one another and wish to live together. Their being in one so-called country is no more than the coincidental result of colonial domination only fifty or sixty years old. To suggest any intrinsic unity is like suggesting that when the Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian Empires broke up, all the constituent parts

315
wished to remain united and not at once to start, as in fact happened, to reassert their own separate sovereignties.
My right hon. Friend's main job will not, however, be in any of the fields that I have mentioned. It will be to restore confidence in Her Majesty's Government, in this country and in this Parliament—in our integrity and even more important, perhaps, in our consistency. We know that a large number of people in that country of all races greatly distrust this Government and the Opposition, and the right hon. Gentleman's job will be to restore confidence. To be a visiting M.P. of any party here to Central Africa is not nowadays a pleasant one.
I endorse what every Member has said on this side of the House about United Nations intervention. It really is grossly irresponsible, at a time when these people have got to learn to live together and settle their own differences, that yet another outside body should be knocking at the door. I began by saying that it was much more likely that we should get a settlement once we have managed to achieve a fair degree of stability on the spot. After all they will all have to live together one of these days. For the United Nations to chip in at this stage is only making everybody's job more difficult and making tensions worse. The biggest service that this United Nations Sub-Committee could do would be to shut up and adjourn for a year and give us one final chance of getting this part of the world firmly on its political feet again.
7.41 p.m.
Mr. Richard Marsh: To hear the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) ask for a chance to get this part of the world on its feet again ties in very well with his opening remarks, when he appeared to apportion blame for the situation which exists in Central Africa between Her Majesty's Opposition and the Europeans in Central Africa.
Mr. Bennett: That is grossly unfair. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at the report of my speech tomorrow. What I said was that we must all accept a measure of blame, and I specifically mentioned the Government and backbench Members of the Government.
Mr. Marsh: I apologise if I have misrepresented the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to know that he at least accepts that the Government should bear some responsibility for the situation in this part of the world. After all, they have been in a fairly influential position for the last eleven years if they wished to change the direction in which things were going.
The hon. Gentleman, like most people, offered best wishes to the Home Secretary in the real and arduous responsibilities which he must undertake. Obviously, hon. Members on both sides of the House wish him well. No one would want to see anything other than a peaceful settlement of an extremely difficult and highly dangerous problem. However, some of us perhaps feel rather unhappy that the Home Secretary has this job. We cannot help wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman's very real ability as a political fixer was not more valuable in overcoming some of the things which one of his predecessors, the present Leader of the House, did in that part of the world. I have no doubt that when the Leader of the House underwent a great deal of criticism by his own party for the views which he expressed and for differences of approach which he adopted he upset and alienated many, although not all, people in his own party.
I think that the Africans, in particular, perhaps had more faith in the Leader of the House than they had in any other Conservative Minister. It is equally true that many of them were highly suspicious about the Home Secretary's elevation into this sphere. We have heard nothing from the Leader of the House in this matter, and of course we shall not do so. His lips are sealed. We can only hope that those people who supported the views which he very courageously put forward in the past will continue to support him in future on these matters.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) made some interesting points. He said that we must not move too fast because Northern Rhodesia needs the Europeans. This was a view which was repeated by several hon. Members on both sides. I think that most of us would readily agree with much of the hon. Gentleman's analysis.

317
Where we part company from him is when it comes to the conclusions which he reached. I cannot help feeling that the only possibility of losing European assistance and "know-how" within the Central African Territories is if we continue to pursue the present policies.
I have no doubt that Mr. Kaunda would be the last person who would wish to see the removal of Europeans from Central Africa. I also have no doubt that the African leadership in all three territories is fully alive to the need for European "know-how" in those territories. But I cannot help feeling that if the present situation is forced to a crunch, forced to some sort of conflagration, then we might well lose the present African leaders, such as Mr. Kaunda, and with them the Europeans, because those who follow the present leadership will have a very different attitude towards Europeans.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) referred to the mineworkers' unions. He said that there was a need for plain speaking in these matters. As one whose trade union background is crystal clear, I willingly do that, because I think it needs to be done.
The biggest danger from the unions comes from the manual unions, because it is the European manual worker who knows that he is enjoying a standard of living which could be enjoyed by Africans. The manual mineworker knows that Africans could do his job. The senior professional mining engineer is not so worried because he knows that in the foreseeable future the African cannot, in large numbers, do his job.
The degree of reaction in the European unions within the Central African Federation, particularly among the manual workers, is frightening. It is certainly not something which should receive support from this House. One of the great tragedies in all parts of the world—we accept this as loyal trade unionists—is that there is always a very difficult and narrow margin in the difference between revolutionary fervour and reaction within the trade union movement, because naturally there is a desire to conserve that which one has.
I cannot believe that many of the utterances of the Northern Rhodesia Mineworkers' Union will make a help-
318
ful contribution to the problem. I have talked to some of them. I have heard them say that they will fight if they are forced to do so. Of course, they are in a minority, and, if they were to fight, it would be a tragedy as much for them as it would be for everybody else. One of the sad things is that so often there is this talk of fighting among people whose only future, particularly that of the European, lies in the acceptance of certain facts which he might find unpleasant or unpalatable but, nonetheless, practical.
As always, there has been a great deal of talk about the need for multi-racial partnership and for rule by moderates. What this frequently means is a desire to maintain the status quo. Moderates are those who disagree with the African nationalist leaders. On the whole, they are those Africans who conveniently have dark skins, but are members of the United Federal Party and acceptable to Europeans. This is what we mean by moderates—people who do not follow the Kaundas, the Nkomos and even the Bandas.
I firmly believe that, first, we must accept that a belief in the status quo is the most dangerous thing. The situation is tolerable only because the Africans are, at the moment, thank God, convinced that the status quo cannot be maintained and will be changed. One example of this is the new attitude towards Dr. Banda. Hon. Members have expressed some surprise that it is now being said that he is a respectable chap. After all, he went to a good university. He did not go to the right schools, but he got to a British university in the long run. It is being said that he has become a much more responsible fellow. The number of times that we have heard this said is rather depressing in view of the tragedies which have been thrown up by independence in these countries.
Terrible things were said about Archbishop Makarios, but after the change in Government he was staying at Claridge's at the Government's expense. We can never get the Government to pay more than 40s. a night when we go to N.A.T.O. But this is the position with all our ex-nationalist leaders. Obviously a point of which all politicians should be aware—it is

319
frightening if they are not—is that a man who is fighting for independence says things publicly which he does not say after he has achieved independence. That is one of the realities of life. Hon. Members should not laugh at it, for it is an important reality. If it had been recognised in the beginning it might have avoided some of the tragedies which occurred in India, Cyprus and other parts of the world and which we hope will not occur in this part of Africa.
Several comments have been made about the United Nations sub-committee. As a Socialist I believe that, "My United Nations, right or wrong", is just as stupid as, "My country right or wrong". I do not think that one should accept any organisation without looking at it. One should accept it on the basis of what it says and does, and on one's own views about where its actions and views lead.
But I am surprised and distressed that the views of an independent body comprised of persons of at least some international repute should have been dismissed quite so cavalierly by the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have been intrigued by the fact that although the report has been discussed with hardly any discussion at all, the Home Secretary and other members of the Government felt sufficiently highly of the composition of the sub-committee that it met not only one Minister but four very senior Ministers. I understand that members of the sub-committee were met very courteously and that there was a long exchange of views.
The Home Secretary seems to accept that there will be major changes in the fundamental basis of the Federation, and presumably he accepts that Nyasaland will secede from the Federation. This only speeds up all the problems which face the Central African Federation, because I cannot believe that the independence of Nyasaland will do anything other than greatly increase the difficulties which already exist among Africans in Southern Rhodesia. The more they see of independence in other parts of the Federation, the less likely will they be to accept the present situation.
320
One of the things which worries me is that time and time again independence under British Colonial rule, which in many ways is very enlightened, has been the reward of bloodshed. Independence has been given after the uprising, after the difficulties and after the horrors of internal conflict. I disagree completely with the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and others about writing into the constitution a right of secession from the Federation. Either the Federation must be accepted and forced to work or the quicker it is broken up the better. We cannot continue in a state of complete insecurity where one never knows from one year to the next what its future will be.
We have had a long experience of the Central African Federation. The hon. Member for Devon, North has a fascinating ability to find good Liberal compromises to compromises, but the idea that we should send the Federation forward on the understanding that at any time somebody might drop out of it is not wise; surely it is impossible to run any Federation of nations in that way. We must settle at this stage, or as soon as possible, exactly what is to be the future of the Central African territories.
I think that Southern Rhodesia is a major problem—probably the key problem. Most people to whom I have spoken from the Central African Federation, including Africans, agree on the need for some economic alignment between these Territories. They are no more foolish than are hon. Members, and they are as well aware as is any hon. Member of the fact that they cannot exist on their own. But what they detest and abominate, as everyone who has been there will confirm, is that Southern Rhodesia should exist as a sort of internal South Africa. They are not prepared to accept that.
It is true that the Southern Rhodesian Government have moved a long way. It is equally true that every concession which they have made has been wrung out of them step by step and year by year as a result of pressure from all sorts of quarters. I think that the African in Southern Rhodesia today still believes that it is not intended within the foreseeable future to surrender real power to him. As long as he believes that it

321
is not the intention of the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia to surrender real political power to him, he will never accept any constitutional jiggery-pokery or any bromide phrases about multiracial partnership and marching forward into the future hand-in-hand together.
If one looks behind various things which undoubtedly have been done by the authorities recently, one can see that even now the picture is not good. It is accepted that where the African is enormously at a disadvantage is in education. This is the prime basis of European superiority. For example, the local government spends £5 million a year for the 40,000 European children in school. For half a million African children it spends £2 million a year. In other words, for every African child £4 a year is spent on his education and for every European child £150 a year is spent on his education. This causes no one to believe that here is a Government which is running a crash programme to educate a large section of the population in the belief that it is to take power in the near future. I understand that less than 20 per cent. of the original African enrolment complete six years at school. This is very much a built-in problem of the African himself, no doubt, but clearly if we learned anything from the Congo it was the duty of any colonial Power to concentrate everything it has on increasing the educational status of the Africans.
The most important fact in Southern Rhodesia is that for every European there are about fifteen Africans, and all history shows that a minority cannot indefinitely rule a majority without bloodshed. The argument against African representation at the moment on a wide scale, or even in terms of parity, is one of illiteracy and poverty, but the existence of illiteracy and poverty among the mass of the population is not an argument against an extension of the franchise, because the people who will take power in these areas will frequently be university graduates—most of them because no other field is open to them. An African leader once informed me with great indignation that most of the African Governments eventually had far more graduates in them than had European Governments, because there was no way in which an educated African could obtain a major occupation except in politics.
322
But it may produce a different type of Government, and we should be rather wary before we condemn authoritarian Governments in countries in which there is no alternative to such Governments. While these may well be Governments which would not be acceptable in this country, and while this is perhaps an argument for trying to educate the Africans, it is not an argument against permitting them to accept the power of Government—a power which is inevitable merely because of their numbers.
I will be brief, because many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. The report of the United Nations subcommittee was centred around the argument whether the British Government had any authority over Southern Rhodesia. Unquestionably there is a system of Government in that country which by no standard could be regarded as democratic.
There is no question that there is a white minority rule in Southern Rhodesia and that the African has not anything anywhere near political equality. The Government's answer seems extraordinary and a very worrying one. What they appear to be saying is that, since the constitutional reform last year, Her Majesty's Government have no concern with and no powers at all in Southern Rhodesia and that there is nothing they can do about it. They have not attempted to defend the position in Southern Rhodesia. They have said they cannot accept any intervention in terms of what is happening there, and yet the Home Secretary when he was speaking today about the activities of the United Nations committee specifically said that Her Majesty's Government cannot share responsibility or shirk responsibility.
I agree entirely with that. What happens in Southern Rhodesia is still fundamentally the responsibility of the House and of the Government, and what the Government are doing is precisely dodging their responsibilities. I suggest that when we surrendered the reserve powers, and everybody on this side of the House was violently opposed to it, we clearly retained ultimate power over the Constitution. It is interesting to compare the Southern Rhodesia (Constitution) Act, 1961, with the Tanganyika Independence Act, 1961. The Southern Rhodesia Act sets out in its first Section the power to provide a new

323
Constitution for Southern Rhodesia by Order in Council, in itself a classic indication that the Government here retain ultimate power.
The Tanganyika Act carries the words in its first Section:
"… and as from that day Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the Government of Tanganyika."
There is a clear difference, therefore, between Her Majesty's Government's position vis-à-vis Tanganyika, or any other independent Territory, and that which exists in Southern Rhodesia at present. The Government try to hide behind an idea that there is a third constitutional position which is a twilight period with neither a self-governing Territory nor one for which Her Majesty's Government here have any responsibility. Paragraph 35 of the Constitution would be intolerable to any nation over which we did not have ultimate control, and the same goes for paragraph 78 of the same Constitution.
Our powers are basic, but, of course, they are only ultimate powers. We cannot introduce detailed legislation. The sole power we have now is over whether or not we abrogate the Constitution, and this is the power which I suggest it is now time to exercise. We have reached a situation in which I think the British Government are now in a position to abrogate the Constitution, because they have ceased to have any intention in the long-term of producing a democratic franchise. Any attempt to abrogate the Constitution, of course, would be a matter requiring serious thought before taking any action on it, but there is a considerable indication that there is a great and growing anxiety about the prospect of some sort of clash in Southern Rhodesia.
One cannot help but be extremely worried by talk in terms of bigger and better defence budgets by Sir Roy Welensky. There have been many inflammatory speeches by leaders on both sides about what they would do if they did not have their own way. It is criminal if the attitude of the British Government is that what happens is no concern of ours. When a United Nations Committee is set up by resolution of the United Nations and it goes there to examine the situation and it
324
produces a unanimous report and says that a highly dangerous and inflammable situation exists in that territory, it is criminal to say that the House need not be interested in discussing the situation there.
The most dangerous politician is a gutless one. All history has shown that to be so every time there has been trouble in the world. M. Guy Mollet, who used to be a Social Democrat, was faced with a similar problem in Algeria. Some hon. Members opposite seem surprised that there should be any attempt to draw any comparison between the situation in Algeria and Southern Rhodesia. Comparisons now are not possible, but it is possible to compare the position in Southern Rhodesia today with that in Algeria many years ago. It is possible to make many unhappy comparisons with that time when M. Mollet went to Algeria, as many people believe with the intention of taking power, when, faced with the crunch, he caved in and tens of thousands of people died as a result. The tragedy could have been avoided if there had been politicians with the guts to face the problem.
There is a highly dangerous situation in Southern Rhodesia at present which may have unhappy results for everybody. I do not think that the House does itself justice if it refuses even to discuss the situation which exists there and claims that because it now has a new Constitution in Southern Rhodesia what happens is no longer the concern of this House.
8.6 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Hastings: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) very far in the debate, but I must take up a few of the remarks which he made towards the end of his speech. I find it difficult to believe that he is advocating that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, setting forth as he is on one of the most difficult missions with which any statesman could ever be charged in Africa, should arrive in Salisbury and announce that he proposes to abrogate the Southern Rhodesian Constitution for a start. If the hon. Member thinks that out I do not believe that he will be prepared to put it forward seriously as a suggestion.

325
The hon. Member mentioned education and quoted various statistics. I shall I hope deal in my speech with many of the things to which the hon. Member referred, but I had not intended to deal with that subject. Two points, however, seem to me to reflect the other side of the situation. There are more African children in school in Southern Rhodesia today than there were African inhabitants of these territories when the columns arrived seventy years ago. That seems to me no small justification for the rule that has obtained there since.
It seems to me that the principal need in the educational field in the Federation today is for further education. In the non-racial university in Salisbury, to which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) referred, a third of the 300 students are Africans. The hon. Member will say that that is not in strict equity, but given the background in Southern Rhodesia it is an extraordinary advance to which we should pay due tribute.
It has been asserted, and as a broad generalisation I believe it to be true, that there are basically three racial attitudes in Africa. In the North there is exclusive black African nationalism. There are degrees of it, but that is broadly true. In the South there is apartheid and in the centre there is the bold experiment to produce a non-racial State. There seems to be little disagreement in the House that that is desirable. It is desirable not only for the benefits which it will bring to the people of these territories, but also because of the influence for moderation which this great complex could have to North and South if it succeeds. Also, because of the spectre which failure conjures up in my mind, of a frontier hardening along the Zambesi between black and white with all the horrifying consequences which that could bring.
We agree broadly on these things but we differ on two points—first, our concept of racialism and non-racialism, and second, on timing. I want to say a word about these two aspects. My view is quite simple racially. I believe that the Europeans in these territories, particularly the Rhodesians, who are genuinely and unselfishly working for non-racialism have a right to expect, and to ensure so far as they can, that as they
326
hand over power, they should do so to men who are moderate and reasonable in character. After all, this concerns their future and the future of their children, and not ours.
By any normally acceptable standards, I should have thought that there must be doubt about whether the three Pan-African parties in these territories—the Zimbabwe, U.N.I.P. and the Malawi—are led by a majority of men who can be regarded as moderate and reasonable. After all, they demand—I am not saying that all of their leaders do, but the majority—immediate power. To the Europeans in those territories this cannot seem reasonable today or for some time to come. Secondly, they condemn non-racialism, which is the lynch-pin of the whole experiment, as a disguise for retrenching European power.
There are those who argue that these parties nevertheless represent the only effective body of African political opinion and that the moderate, who has been mentioned by several hon. Members, is a myth. If this is so, it is perfectly logical to argue as well that the non-racial ideal is totally unrealistic and not worth pursuing. A split on lines of colour is, therefore, inevitable, and the Choice will simply lie between black and white. That, I suppose, can be represented as a logical argument, although I do not happen to agree with it.
What I find it difficult is to accept the position of those who say "Yes, these racialist parties are the only really representative bodies, and, therefore, we must deal with them", and who at the same time pay lip-service to non-racialism. This is a position which is untenable. That is another way of saying that for non-racialism to succeed we must take account of moderate opinion, and the basis of my thesis is that it exists, and I shall try to analyse it briefly.
Mr. Chataway: I am probably one of the offenders in this respect in the eyes of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). But I do not take non-racialism to mean the same as multi-racialism or progressing by means of a qualified vote over a long period of years. I thought that we introduced the term "non-racialism" about a year or two ago to distinguish it from the qualified vote situation and to

327
describe a country in which races live together fairly happily.
Mr. Hastings: My understanding of "non-racialism"—here I am open to contradiction; these are subtle and important differences—is a situation in which a man is awarded a post or an advance or is not on the ground of his own personal ability and talents, and not because of the colour of his skin, and that would seem to be consistent with my argument.
It is not surprising that the African moderate has not made more impression in this country than he has. He has no lurid threats to make. His television value is a good deal lower than that of some African nationalist leaders who come over here. But he exists. There is, after all, a wide membership of Africans in the United Federal Party, particularly in Southern Rhodesia. The hon. Member for Greenwich poured some scorn on this. When I was there last autumn they were joining at the rate of about 100 a week. It also remains a fact that as a result of Sir Edgar White-head's "Build a Nation" campaign over 8,000 Africans had signed the Southern Rhodesian electoral roll by early April. The rate of signing was 29 a day in March and 64 in April.
These are not amazing figures thought of in our terms, but what we have to remember is that every one of those men who signed did so in the certain knowledge that he would be condemned by Zimbawi as a traitor. They are under constant threat of intimidation. These are brave men and are not to be discarded or overlooked.
There are also certain balancing factors in the Federation as a whole, of which account should be taken in the same context. In Northern Rhodesia, first of all, is the second nationalist party, of which we have heard little mention today—the African National Congress. It is a question whether the A.N.C. is as powerful as the Zimbabwe. The election in October will tell. But in the south of Northern Rhodesia and in the West, it represents a very real power and competes well with U.N.I.P. Furthermore, in the Copper Belt as well it is a force not to be disregarded.
328
It was tragic that Mr. Katelungo, the leader of A.N.C., was killed last year. But Mr. N'Kumbula, an able man, has taken over. It has never shown itself unduly unreasonable. Although it has disagreed frequently with the Northern Rhodesian Government, it has never refused to co-operate and can be regarded as a moderate or balancing factor in Northern Rhodesia of great importance.
As another I cite the Barotse nation of 300,000 people who live a pastoral life on the banks of the Zambesi. They are well ruled by an African Government. They are reputed to have requested that they should be allowed to become independent, perhaps within the framework of the Federation. Whether or not their economy is viable is open to question, but I know that considerable mineral resources exist there. I know for a fact, because I spent a short time among them, that by and large their life is happy and contented. I also know for a fact that their leaders are determined to resist the incursions of extremists from Northern Rhodesia.
Is this a crime? Is their request to be turned down out of hand? I have heard from the other side of the House fairly heated objections to this proposal. Why? Will it damage the future of these territories? We are considering proposals for secession for, for instance, Dr. Banda in Nyasaland. It seems to me that this is a balancing factor which cannot be flung out without further consideration.
Before leaving the question of the moderate African I want to dwell on what I would call the ordinary mass of rural Africans. We have heard from a number of hon. Gentlemen to the effect that such and such a course is necessary or inevitable because of the view of "the majority of Africans". What does this majority consist of? When I was cut there I tried very hard and genuinely to determine to what extent this conscious political decision had been taken. I should say that at a conservative estimate 70 per cent. of the rural population of the Rhodesias—not Nyasaland—are not yet committed in this affair. What is their position? What are they thinking at this stage? This is no time or place for a lecture on psychology, and in any case my

329
knowledge of African affairs is too limited for me to attempt it. But it is reasonable to consider for a moment what may be going on in the minds of these people. These are simple people, even primitive, and in many parts living near to the subsistence level. For centuries the African has been, I am sure it is true to say, morally bound to what I may refer to as a form of compulsory conformism. Anything unusual to him was suspicious, to get rich or to succeed was evil. I came across a saying in Mashonaland, that if a man found a wild bees hive on the veldt he was lucky, that if he found one a second time he was a very lucky man, but that if he found one a third time it was witchcraft.
These checks and balances are removed as time goes on, and they are in process of being removed now. Yet our own Western checks either have or have not yet been absorbed, and it seems to me that this leaves the ordinary rural African in a very disturbed and uncertain frame of mind. From my own contacts, I am convinced that this is the case. He feels himself released from the old moral restrictions and sees the Western way of life simply as a thrusting worship of ambition and success. It is not perhaps in this connection without significance that more and more Africans in these territories are turning back to witchcraft in their bewilderment. This is a frame of mind which we have to take account, and it cannot be represented as capable of articulate political opinion, pro or con.
I should like to tell one short story which I heard from a very respected African moderate leader—a brave man who fought a crowd of extremists in a political riot in Southern Rhodesia with his fists. When the police sent a car to take him away, he sent it away with contempt, claiming that he did what he had done because he believed in it. He was no stooge. For half-an-hour, in a poignant interview with me, he described the tremendous pull of the old way of life and the difficulties for Africans in turning over, not simply to the outward appearance of the Western way of life, but to the moral value that lay beneath.
He used this very remarkable phrase to me: "if your son asks for a gun and
330
does not know how to handle it and you gave it to him, is that kindness?" This impressed itself on me, and I am sure it represents the view of many African people who are trying to find the moderate way. We should surely, if only there were a handful—and there are more—not forsake that course in any circumstances.
I turn now to one last aspect of the racial question which has not been mentioned in the debate and which bears upon relations between the Federation and South Africa. Many of us in this House, particularly hon. Members opposite, are always ready to show revulsion at apartheid. I share it. But surely it is our duty to try to alter that situation, and the key in South Africa is moderate white opinion. This exists. There is one member of the South African Parliament who is on record as putting forward the immediate abolition of all racial distinction in the public sphere, at least, and also a minimum voting qualification, which should gradually spread to all Africans in the Union.
In Cape Town or Johannesburg, this is revolutionary, but the ruling party—the U.F.P.—in the Federation represents this, and far more than this. It is the moderate South Africans who are trying to bring about a more liberal position there, and it is cruelly discouraging to hear the leaders of the U.F.P. in the Federation continually blackguarded as tyrannical reactionaries, as they far too often are, in my view. If we are sincere and sensible in trying to alter the position in South Africa, we should take account of that.
If I may now pass to the question of timing, it is constantly asserted in regard to handing over power in these territories that we have no time or too little time; that such and such a course is impossible because of the time factor, or that it would be correct if we had enough time. I think we need to get our objectives straight here. Is it our objective to hand over power or to influence others to hand over power to Africans in the shortest possible period of time, or is it our objective to create a non-racial Federation? If it is the latter, which I believe it should be and is, timing seems to me to fall into place to some degree. If one sets out on any course of action with the conviction that

331
one cannot achieve the object because time will not allow, one will not achieve anything at all.
Pressures there are, from Afro-Asia, from the United Nations, perhaps from the United States, from would-be "do-gooders" and some evil-doers in this country, pressure from African nationalists, but the existence of pressure, even great pressures does not necessarily mean that there is no time.
It seems that the only peaceful way to arrange the transfer of power from a white minority to a black majority in these territories, at least in an advanced industrial economy such as that of the Rhodesias, is to press forward with the economic and intellectual development of the African to a point where universal suffrage ceases to be the dangerous absurdity which in fact is what it is today. This should be the criterion of timing. I think many of us in our hearts know that that is sense. If it is, we should not allow ourselves to be ridden off our convictions by pressure from people from whom we have nothing to learn when it comes to democratic practice.
Apart from the risk of political agitation, which of course is constant and I admit it, most of the other problems become easier with time. African education, the finance of African businessmen, African agriculture and land tenure, African housing, non-racial community development, in which a great voluntary effort is being made in Salisbury at the moment—all these things will improve with time. Last and most important as the months go by, more and more young Africans will be leaving Salisbury University, to which I referred earlier, with full graduate education behind them, having studied and lived with their white compatriots. It is they who will provide not only the political leaders but the civil servants and businessmen of the future and among them I am quite sure will be men of far greater ability and experience, and indeed worth, than many Africans who play a leading part in pan-African politics in these areas today with regard to the future of the Federation.
Most of the points I wished to make have been covered already, but I would
332
like to go back to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe). He centred his argument on the economic facts of the situation. I believe that what he said is entirely true. He referred to the gigantic investment—a figure of £2,000 million was mentioned—as being concentrated more or less in Southern Rhodesia, on the line of rail and on the Copper Belt. He emphasised that any development worth while in those territories must depend on the successful exploitation of that.
He pointed out that there are only three outlets to the sea, only two in fact, Lorenzo Marques and Beira, for the Lobito Bay route is frequently interrupted by the United Nations. Thirdly, he mentioned that practically all the power for the Copper Belt came from the Kariba Dam situated across the border between Northern and Southern Rhodesia and that the coal for the smelters comes from the Wankie Collieries in Southern Rhodesia. He represented that this vast industrial complex must be preserved and held together in any new solution which comes about.
He was interrupted at one stage by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who pointed out that surely it was possible to arrange for power to be exported from one territory to another. That would not involve political control. No, but imagine the situation developing in such a way that there was a black/white political frontier along that border. What guarantee could there then be for the continued prosperity of Northern Rhodesia?
I believe we must take account of that in any solution which is reached. There is certainly room for flexibility and change perhaps; in certain circumstances for association rather than federation as it is at the moment; but this economic complex must be preserved at all costs. The cost of giving it up would be ruin for these people. I maintain that, despite what may be put forward by political leaders there, at the moment it is something which we with our experience should avoid.
I want to make one additional plea to my right hon. Friend on the question of a new solution. I hope that he will at least not disregard the possibility,

333
perhaps not now but some time in the future, of what has come to be known as a regional solution in Northern Rhodesia. If I did not misinterpret him, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) hinted at something of the sort. We have the beginnings of a regional solution in Kenya. It is a balance of this kind which, I think it fair to say, keeps Nigeria stable. I hope that at least as a concept it will not be discarded in the Federation.
I was delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend that consolidation is taking place and that things are going well in Nyasaland, but the ultimate judgment will be whether Dr. Banda decides to leave the Federation and cut off completely without even an economic association. On whether he is prepared to co-operate will depend the future of his country. I shall not emphasise—it has been said many times already—that if Nyasaland breaks away the country will be virtually "broke". The people of that country will then be left not far from the starvation which Dr. Banda threatens. He has said it often enough, he said it to me when I visited him—that he would rather see his people starve than remain in the Federation.
A day or two after meeting him I spoke to an African farmer near Zomba, and asked him what he thought of federation. There was much talk about it, and I asked him what he felt. He scratched his neck with his panga and said, "That will depend on the price of tobacco". I then asked him what he felt about the Malawi Party taking over. I asked him whether he thought that this would bring great changes and a mighty future for the country. He thought again, and said, "That will depend on the price of tobacco". That seems to be the down-to-earth sort of answer which might be expected from any farmer under these circumstances, but hardly the words of a man prepared to starve rather than federate.
The United Nations Committee of the Federation has been mentioned several times. I, too, have read its report. Whatever solution we finally reach, one thing absolutely certain is that it must be as a result of the consultations between the Governments of these territories and Her Majesty's Government and not with any outside body. Several
334
things in the report struck me. First, it is truly biassed in that only two Africans were interviewed; both belonging to the Zimbawe Party in Southern Rhodesia. I saw in the newspapers this morning that a telegram had been sent to the Committee by Mr. Nkumbula, leader of the A.N.C. in Northern Rhodesia, which was written off by the United Nations as "inconsequential". Why should that be so? He is an African leader of great influence and I should have thought that the Committee could have afforded to take note of what he had to say.
I should like to conclude by saying something about democratic practice in these territories. When stability is assailed and challenged in the Federation it is generally in the name of democracy. It seems to me that we are in danger of confusion here. Democratic practice rests on two propositions—that there can be no true democracy unless it is based on liberty, and that liberty in turn depends on the rule of law and upon responsibility. If we permit wide intimidation in these territories we betray these principles. When we get these two propositions in correct order, we are true to ourselves and to the people with whom we deal. When we do not, our example is meaningless and all the work that we have undertaken in these territories worthless.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. R. W. Sorensen: I, too, before I forget it, must express my very good wishes to the Home Secretary on his journey out to a very difficult problem which I earnestly trust he will, if not solve, at least begin to solve. I know full well that he will need tremendous patience, great mental flexibility, a great deal of the "guts" to which reference has been made already, but also, I trust, a good deal of another and much higher portion of his anatomy. I am sure that with his great ability, the right hon. Gentleman will make progress. No one will be more pleased than myself or members of my party than if he were to come back with the assurance that he had succeeded somehow in getting general agreement among all those concerned.
I am, however, sure that the right hon. Gentleman will heed the warning of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) who, towards the end of

335
his speech, dealt briefly with democracy. The Home Secretary, going out to the conference, will be fighting on behalf of democracy. I know that there are many paradoxes and inconsistencies, but what we are able to do in Central Africa in the immediate months ahead depends upon whether we can implement the spirit of democracy, if not its actual framework, as against those in another part of the globe who stand for just the reverse. This battle for democracy goes on year after year in a variety of ways and it will go on for many years to come. As I see it, in this part of Africa we are called upon to implement and vindicate the democratic principle in spirit, in order that thus, elsewhere in the world besides Africa, democracy can become stronger.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire stressed, as other hon. Members of his side of the House have done, the necessity for respecting the moderate. May I ask him to ponder on what is meant by the word "moderate"? Is it not rather ambiguous as well as being comparative? Would he say, for instance, that in 1946, we were negotiating with moderates like the late Mahatma Gandhi or with Jawaharlal Nehru, who as an agitator and extremist had spent thirteen years in a British prison? Going back still further, would the hon. Member say that George Washington was a moderate at the time that he defied the domination of this country over the American settlers? Would he say that Nkrumah or Dr. Azikwe were moderates? Would he say that Lee Kwan U of Singapore was a moderate? Will he tell me, not now but afterwards, whether he thinks that Sir Alexander Bustamente is less or more of a moderate than, say, Mr. Manley?
In other words, I merely point out to the hon. Member that those are moderates who, in many cases, fit in with their awn moderate views, whereas we have to deal with facts and realise that the leaders of great movements of nationalism who are awakening in many parts of the world are deemed extremists.
We have to deal with people as they are. The leaders of my own party in the early days were all condemned as extremists. Keir Hardie, who spoke in
336
this House, was a leader of my party but was dubbed as one of the extremists. No doubt when the Home Secretary goes out to Central Africa he will meet many of these extremists, some of whom will, no doubt, repeat flamboyantly many times the kind of things that some of us on this side of the House have done in bygone days.
If the Home Secretary is a wise and shrewd man he will penetrate beyond that in order to find out what these people are trying to express—these people whom we are inclined to dismiss as extremists and agitators. He must understand that the wind of change is an impersonal thing. It is often apparently irrational and impalpable. One cannot argue with a wind, or a typhoon.
"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth."
To understand the meaning of the symbol employed by the Prime Minister when he talks about the wind of change, we must realise that what is happening all over the world is that the human spirit—and the term "spirit" is a synonym for the wind—is coursing through communities in such a manner that we dare not resist it. On the ground of sheer expediency, quite apart from any ethical or moral considerations, we must deal with this wind of change with wisdom, or that wind will sweep us away into oblivion.
I think that all hon. Members have come to accept the fact, over the last few years, that the British Empire, built upon the domination of this country, must pass away. Nowadays hon. Members opposite join with us in trying to help the transition from Empire to Commonwealth. Many hon. Members opposite who now speak in support of that transition would have been looked upon as extremists in the extreme by their forefathers.
There is today a world-wide tremendous spiritual awakening, which will often take crude and violent forms. That is why it is necessary for us to be wise in our own generation, and try to find appropriate avenues through which this wind can pass, or, to change the metaphor, channels through which this stream that arises from the discontent of man can find its proper expression. I

337
say that because if we preserve an attitude of patronising condescension towards our fellow human beings in central Africa and elsewhere we shall get nowhere. We must realise that they are struggling for life.
Undoubtedly, many of them are extremely illiterate. They have not our educational advantages or experience. They have not our knowledge, or our technology. The Kariba Dam, the Copper Belt, and the various technical devices and institutions which have been created there, are all reminders to the Central African peoples that they have a long way to go before they can be as expert in modern industrial science as we are in the Western world.
But then one asks, in the colloquial sense, "So what?" We must deal with the fact that these people are awakening. We have helped to waken them. We have set them examples, and have taught them our democracy. Practically everything that has been said by hon. Members opposite in criticism of the indigenous peoples of Central Africa and their limitations could have been said about other parts of the world. That is the difficulty. How can one concede the right and the necessity for Nigeria, Ghana, Malaya, India, Burma and Ceylon—all, at one time, dependent territories—to govern themselves, work out their own salvation, and deal with their appalling problems of poverty and illiteracy, and, at the same time, say, "But this part of Africa must remain segregated from the rest of the world"? We cannot do it.
By bitter experience this has been borne home to many hon. Members opposite. They are gradually realising, not necessarily as a result of enlightenment, or a greater perception than formerly, but because of sheer expediency that they must change their traditional point of view and accept the principle that people should be allowed to learn by their own mistakes and, in the end—we hope—move forward towards a stabilised society. The experiment may fail. Democracy is constantly on trial and it always will be, because it depends, in the ultimate, upon the integrity and ability of the individual, and if there are not a sufficient number of individuals with the capacity, spiritual honesty and sense of responsibility to make democracy live, it will collapse.
338
Surely, however, it is not for us to issue warnings here against people who are dark-skinned. Let us look at Europe where at one time democracy was supposed to be progressing from stage to stage. What happened in Italy? What happened in Germany, in Spain, in Portugal, or what has happened in France? Are we really saying that here were splendid examples of democracy flourishing? We know full well that democracy can easily collapse even in the so-called Western world as well as elsewhere. There is always that danger, and the price of our devotion to democracy is constant vigilance. All we can do for these emergent peoples is to give them every encouragement. We may point out mistakes and errors, but at the same time we must set them on their way and fill them with hope and encouragement and, if possible, give them our co-operation.
I lament the passing of federation in Central Africa as must all who understand the meaning of preventing the Balkanisation of the world. Nkrumah in Ghana is a pre-eminent advocate of pan-Africanism which can never take continental unitary form. It must be federation. Nigeria is a federation. India is a federation. The United States is a federation. We regret the imminent passing of the Federation of the Caribbean and Dr. Williams, who has intimated that he will secede from the Federation, seems in favour of a wider federation confined not merely to British Territories but including others.
I mention this because everyone of us believes in the principle of federation. But we want it on a sound foundation. Earlier in the debate there was an interchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) and the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) regarding the responsibility of the Labour Government and their Colonial Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield has already made clear that he was hostile to federation. But more than once it has been deliberately stated that the Labour Party helped to instigate federation. That is not true.
What happened was that when, unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield was defeated at an election he was succeeded as Colonial Secretary by my right hon. Friend the

339
Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) who discovered that there was strong pressure towards federation. My right hon. Friend accepted the idea of conferences at Victoria Falls and at other places. But he made perfectly clear at that time, and he has made clear since, that "consultation" did not mean merely listening to what was said. In my amateur and humble way I tried in this House to press Ministers about the meaning of the word "consultation". It is one thing to ask for the opinion of other people, it is another to get their consent. Therefore, I wish to make it abundantly clear that although my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly consented to the meeting at Victoria Falls, and the subsequent meetings, in order to explore the idea of federation, he never, at least to my knowledge, consented to the introduction of that principle unless there was effective agreement not merely among the few who happen to possess pallid skins but among all those with sable skins as well.
The passing of the Federation may have a certain economic disadvantage, but do not let us exaggerate it. As has been pointed out more than once, if there are economic facts, those economic facts will still remain. Copper Belt will not disappear if the Federation disappears, and those who manage the Copper Belt will still require labour. They have not had Nyasas working there because they like them more than other Africans but because there is an economic necessity for Nyasa labour. That economic necessity will still exist.
I do not, of course, say that the passing of political federation will not have some effect, but I would endorse what has been said today that the advantages of some kind of economic co-ordination can be achieved in some other way, as they have been achieved in East Africa by the High Commission. I want to see economic co-ordination continued, but we must face the fact that there are those, and they are not merely in Central Africa, who, even if it were demonstrated that they would lose economically if a certain political structure disappeared, answer by saying, "Very well, we will accept that".
Not very many years ago, we were pleading with the Irish people to remain
340
part of the United Kingdom. Now, Ireland is not even in the Commonwealth. With the exception of Northern Ireland, it is an independent republic. If secession was to the economic disadvantage of the Irish, it has not made the slightest difference to them. The great mass of Irish people say, "We prefer to remain poor and free rather than to have the economic advantages of union with the United Kingdom and not to be free as we understand the word." So it is with the people in Central Africa now.
I know that Dr. Banda has sometimes employed rather hyperbolic language, by talking about his people starving rather than remain within the Federation. We know that may be rather extravagant language and we have to make allowances for it. I remember, as a youngster, standing on Tower Hill and hearing Ben Tillett, an agitator, one of the leaders of the old Dockers' Union to which I once belonged, call on 10,000 dockers to raise their hands and say, God strike Lord Devonport dead." Lord Devonport, of course, lived for years after that. We realised that Ben Tillett's extravagant language was just froth, though beneath it was real feeling and substance. Dr. Banda's extravagant language must not be allowed to excuse the evasion of facts, and one fact is that the people of Nyasaland say that they will not be in the Federation.
If we do not accept the right of secession, which is contained in our Amendment, what do hon. Members propose? Do they propose to compel Dr. Banda and his party to remain inside the Federation? Do they propose to send out troops and aeroplanes to do to the Nyasas what we are not prepared to do to the Ghanaians, the Indians, the Pakistanis or the Ceylonese? We do not now assert that because it would be economically better for those countries to remain in the same association with us as they once were they must be forcibly coerced; we know that it would be nonsense to say that.
We may think the attitude of the Nyasas regrettable, but here we have a people who, as a people, are determined not to remain inside the Federation, and we must face that fact. That being so, I hope most earnestly that the Home Secretary will go to Africa

341
tomorrow accepting the spirit of our Amendment, even if he votes against it tonight, because it re-emphasises that the majority decisions of the Monckton Commission should be implemented, and that there should be an African majority in the Legislature of Northern Rhodesia. The Opposition Amendment states:
"… and to declare its intention to permit secession by any of the territories in the Central African Federation."
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to accept this as a fact and as a means, politically and economically, of securing closer association. If he cannot accept it I trust that, for the sake of this country and of democracy, he will at least accept the principle behind it.
With my eye on the clock and realising that the Front Bench spokesmen wish to expound their views, I will content myself by saying that the Opposition Amendment could be accepted by the Government as a basis. It does not mean that we want people to secede or that we want all the possibilities to be certainties. It merely means that we want the principle accepted so that in that better atmosphere we may be able to encourage response from our African brethren out of which, in the end, may come the good will and trust on which democracy rests.
8.56 p.m.
Mr. John Strachey: The Home Secretary, when opening the debate, noted that there were four main aspects of this whole subject of Central Africa, with its almost terrifying complexity. There were the three Territories—the two Rhodesias and Nyasaland and the Federation itself. It is almost inevitable to deal with each one of these separately, although I am well aware that their problems and dangers interlock at every point.
I begin by saying something about Northern Rhodesia. That, of course, brings up the first point, with which both our Amendment and the Monckton Report—from which, in effect, it is taken—are concerned. It is that Her Majesty's Government should see that there is a franchise in Northern Rhodesia which makes possible an African majority. That, I think, is the clearest way of putting it but we should, frankly, recognise that if a franchise makes possible
342
an African majority there will, in fact, be an African majority. Thus the two ways of expressing it come to almost the same thing.
It may be, of course, that the Government have done that. The franchise that has been introduced is of such a complexity that no one is sure whether or not it has done that. It seems to me that unless it has done it will have to be amended again because nothing that was said today can possibly refute the conclusion of the Monckton Report that that must happen. That is not only right but also inevitable. Why do we say that it is inevitable? Essentially, it is because anything else, any attempt to govern Northern Rhodesia with a white majority in the teeth of an African electorate, is completely at variance with everything else that the Government are doing in Africa.
It is really impossible to take one line in East and West Africa and, indeed, in Central Africa itself—in the other part of the Federation, Nyasaland—and permit the election of African majorities, and then to have exactly the opposite policy in Northern Rhodesia. It becomes an anomaly which surely everyone must see is untenable. Therefore, in asking for this in the Amendment we are really only asking that the Home Secretary should recognise and acknowledge in words something which surely every hon. Member knows that the Home Secretary and Her Majesty's Government must do sooner rather than later.
I was struck—indeed, I was a little pained—by the tenor of the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). The hon. Gentleman made a very able speech but one which seemed to me in many respect to fail to face realities. He spoke a great deal about the difference between the African nationalist leaders and the so-called moderate Africans. Is he sure that the African leaders with whom we are dealing at the moment, for instance, Mr. Kaunda, Dr. Banda and Mr. Nkomo, are not the moderates? I think that he will find that it is they who are precisely the moderates.
The hon. Gentleman was inclined to say that these leaders are not representative. In one sense, I fear that that may be true. As the Secretary of State

343
for Commonwealth Relations found in Southern Rhodesia, Mr. Nkomo was not able always to carry his supporters with him. But he was not representative in just the opposite sense from that which the hon. Gentleman meant. Mr. Nkomo was attempting to lead his supporters into much more moderate courses than they were willing to follow. It is in that sense that these men are the moderate leaders for whom the hon. Gentleman was seeking, and for that reason, also, there is great urgency in these matters.
The hon. Gentleman pleaded with us to take the view that there was no hurry, that the development educationally, economically and otherwise of the African could go quietly on. I fear that almost exactly the opposite is true, that solutions which are highly desirable and which we still trust can be achieved today will become quite impossible in the coming months or, at least, in the coming years if the opportunities which still exist are not seized.
We put it very earnestly to the Home Secretary that it will help enormously to reach the moderate solutions which we all seek if he will frankly say tonight that he considers an African majority in Northern Rhodesia to be one of the keys—only one but an important one—to any agreed solution of the problem in Central Africa.
I pass now to the place where one can be relatively optimistic, to Nyasaland. I was very glad that the Secretary of State himself said that the African majority which has been conceded there, which has been elected and which now, as he said, mans a majority of the Ministries, was working well. This is very encouraging to us and to all who seek a moderate solution in these matters. We contrast it with the dire forebodings we used to hear about what would happen if these African leaders were allowed to take office in Nyasaland.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) was saying, there is a real transformation in the nationalist leader when he becomes a Minister. Anyone who follows events even to the extent that I have knows that this is so, and colleagues of mine who have followed them for much longer assure me
344
of its truth. For instance, if one compares the declarations appearing in the organ of Dr. Banda's party some years ago in Nyasaland—the tone of his propaganda and the attitude of his mind then—with what appears now in the publication which he issues—I have several copies of it here—one finds a very great contrast.
A subject of the utmost importance in Nyasaland, agricultural development and improvement, was represented some years ago as little better than an imperialist plot. Those same improvements in agriculture are being most warmly and ably advocated by Dr. Banda's own party organ today. We say this is no scoffing spirit. It is a transformation which, quite naturally and inevitably, comes when men are trusted and given responsibilities. It shows that this advance which, of course, can never be free from some risk, can work and gives the best possibility of a successful solution being achieved.
I do not suggest for a moment that Nyasaland is out of the wood. I realise, as the Home Secretary said, that that very poor country faces grave economic problems.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to be too naïve about this. He knows that Dr. Banda, before the elections, boycotted the anti-malaria spraying campaign, but since he has come to power he has forcibly advocated it so that the benefits of improvement, so to speak, may accrue to his advantage.
Mr. Strachey: The hon. Gentleman is repeating my speech. That is exactly the point. A great transformation takes place in these leaders when they are given power and responsibility, and that is a strong argument for giving them power and responsibility. That is all I was saying. However, I am far from saying that the problems which Dr. Banda and his administration face are not very grave.
The Home Secretary went so far as to say that, if Nyasaland seceded from the Federation, the economic results would be catastrophic. I ask him to reflect on the notable speech made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) on his own side of the

345
House. The hon. Gentleman has a great deal of firsthand experience in these matters, more than most of us. He said some very shrewd things about the nature of African nationalism. He said that this was not primarily a movement driven by the desire for economic improvement, that the concept of an improving standard of life was fairly remote from African nationalism, and that it was much more a movement driven forward by the desire for status, the desire to be an equal citizen with every other man.
That explains, perhaps, the rather extreme statement of Dr. Banda that rather than stay in the Federation he would make what seem to us most painful economic sacrifices. I thought that the hon. Member was right in saying that the tremendous weight of African nationalism, which he emphasised strongly, was almost independent, to a considerable extent at any rate, of directly economic motives. It is idle to think that fear of the economic consequences is likely to restrain one of the Governments based on an African majority in the Northern Territories if that Government wished to secede from the Federation.
I now come to the Federation. It seems to me that we had better face the fact that the Federation, in its present form and under its present name, has no future. That brings me to the second point of our Amendment, which is to acknowledge the right of secession for any territory which has become self-governing and which wishes to secede.
The Federation in its present form—one must put it brutally and frankly—is, in effect, dominated by the small European minority in Southern Rhodesia. That is a state of affairs which has existed in the Federation since it was formed. Surely this nine years' experience of it are conclusive that that simply cannot continue. The Home Secretary went a long way towards acknowledging it. I am not sure whether his hon. Friends realised it, but the right hon. Gentleman used the phrase that the Federation must be acceptable to the great majority of its inhabitants. When one thinks of it, that is very near to doing what we ask him to do, namely, to concede the right of secession to any self-governing unit of the Federation. It seems evident from his remark
346
that he knows that. It would be much better if he acknowledged it tonight.
As was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and by many other hon. Members, if, as we on this side wish to do, we want to preserve all that can be preserved of the value of the Federation, of the economic parts of it, surely it is obvious that a frank acknowledgment of the right of one of its constituent bodies to secede from it is much the most likely way of preserving some valuable economic co-operation.
The only alternative to a voluntary federation is a federation held together by force. What form would that force take? It could be only two kinds of force. It could be the local force of the European minority in Southern Rhodesia. We on this side, at any rate, are bound to consider with great concern statements like those of Sir Roy Welensky by which he introduces a budget proposing that £8 million should be spent on defence and which refer to the necessity for that measure. We can hardly believe that he really intends to attempt the forcible preservation of the Federation by his local forces.
I call the Home Secretary's attention to the ghastly prospect which that would open up of racial war in the heart of central Africa. That would be the beginning of a situation for Britain parallel to that which faces France, with such disastrous consequences in Algeria. The only other kind of force would be by British Regular Forces. If they were employed, which I believe is unthinkable, we should have the full Algerian situation. What possible alternative is there to an acknowledgment that the Federation can be nothing but a voluntary association and that its constituent parts must have the right of secession, as the Monckton Commission recommended?
I may be asked whether anything can be saved from the Federation. I do not know. I think that the economic advantages of it are undoubtedly very great. A common market or a tariff-free area for Central Africa with common services, perhaps, on the lines of the East African Common Services Commission would unquestionably be highly desirable. But surely the Home Secretary realises that the only way in which he can achieve

347
these things is by persuading African opinion freely to desire these things and to realise their benefits. However desirable, this cannot be pushed down the throats of unwilling African nations—this is the decisive factor. It seems to us that one of the factors on which any success in preserving these common economic services and common economic benefits must depend is an acknowledgement of the right of secession. It also depends on the progress made in Southern Rhodesia.
That brings me to the most difficult question—the future of Southern Rhodesia. What is to happen to Southern Rhodesia when—I think we must say "when" and "if"—the Federation in its present form dissolves? It is a crucial question. It is not one which can be decided by the Home Secretary or the British Government in the sense that they have power to enforce exactly the solution which they would like—no one supposes that—but they have very great influence and they can exercise it wisely or unwisely. It is therefore a subject which the House must discuss.
The situation in Southern Rhodesia is governed by the fact that ever since 1923 the country has been ruled predominantly not by this House and the British Government in Britain but by a Governmen founded on the white minority in Southern Rhodesia. That is the fundamental reason why the problems of Central Africa are proving far more intractable than the sufficiently difficult problems, in all conscience, with which the Government are wrestling in every other part of what was British Africa. We on this side of the House make no bones about it: we think that the transfer of power to the European minority in Southern Rhodesia, the main step in which took place as long ago as 1923 but which was almost completed, although not quite completed, last year, has been a profound error.
The new Constitution for Southern Rhodesia which this House has just passed gives up almost the last, though not quite the last, of the reserve powers, as they were called, of the House over Southern Rhodesia. In return, certain safeguards are given. In reading and studying the debates on the subject—
348
and there have been three in the last twelve months, or perhaps a little longer—I was only too struck with the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends had little difficulty in showing the limited value of the safeguards which have been written into the new constitution. On the other hand, they had far more difficulty in showing that the reserve powers which were given up had been of very much use, either. I think that they have been of some use; the fact that they have never been used in practice is not conclusive, because they stood in the background and certainly had a restraining influence.
Nevertheless, in spite of some economic achievements, which no one doubts, the Southern Rhodesian Government, all through the period since 1923, has, I am afraid, passed some of the worst discriminatory legislation of any society outside the Republic of South Africa. I am afraid that that is what counted and what made the Africans in both Southern Rhodesia and the two Northern Territories, which matter so much on the question of federation, feel that is was a Government profoundly alien to them.
We come to the question whether that situation has not been changed. Several speakers opposite have suggested that the Southern Rhodesian Government have greatly changed their attitude and have begun a process of liberalisation. We must remember that however much we welcome these changes, they are very recent. They have taken place in recent months, not even in recent years. Surely we must not be altogether surprised if therefore they have not yet had an enormous impact on African opinion. But far be it from me to belittle the changes which Sir Edgar Whitehead's Government have begun to make in Southern Rhodesian government and society. Undoubtedly Sir Edgar Whitehead has made a real effort to start a process of liberalisation.
Undoubtedly the election, when it takes place, of fifteen African members to the Southern Rhodesian Parliament will mark an advance, and no one wishes for a moment to belittle that. The promise to repeal the Land Apportionment Act is a promise, if carried out, of very great importance. Something else

349
which would make an immediate impression would be the release of those African nationalist leaders who have been in gaol for three years now without a charge—surely a very serious situation. I know of no evidence that these men are more extreme or intractable than the African leaders with whom the Home Secretary will be dealing on his visit. I should have thought that if the Southern Rhodesian Government wishes to back up its liberalisation that is a very simple further step which it could take.
The question is what standards we are to judge by. All things are relative in this life. If we compare what has been begun and what has been promised in Southern Rhodesia with apartheid in South Africa the improvement is very real. An hon. Member opposite mentioned the one member which the Progressive Party in the Republic of South Africa has in the South African Parliament; and he mentioned the Progressive Party's programme. It is interesting, if we study that programme, which seems so extreme to most South Africans, with its limited franchise, its Bill of Rights, its entrenched protection for minorities in the Constitution—but without going to the fundamental principle of one man one vote. We see that it is very similar to what has been enacted or has been proposed in Southern Rhodesia. I suppose that it would be true to say that if only the Progressive Party could come to power in South Africa it would produce a situation rather like what is being produced in Southern Rhodesia today.
Mr. Stonehouse: Would my right hon. Friend agree that some of the measures to which he has been referring are regarded by many informed observers as being window dressing in order to ensure independence for the Territory but that from our side of the House it would be quite wrong to agree to that independence unless there was genuine self-determination?
Mr. Strachey: I will come in a moment to what I think to be the limitations of what is being done in Southern Rhodesia.
I think it is true to say that if the Progressive Party in South Africa—and I am using that as a standard of comparison—carried out its programme with
350
all its limitations, and not going nearly as far as we would have thought in equity or justice it should go, we would regard it as quite transforming the situation in South Africa, ending apartheid and moving South African policy in quite the opposite direction to that in which it is going today. We would therefore regard it with enormous pleasure and we should hope that if that could happen it might be possible to create a situation in which South Africa could be welcomed back into the Commonwealth. [Interruption.] I do not know why the Noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) finds that so funny. I should have thought it was something that he would welcome. Or has he now become a staunch supporter of apartheid in South Africa? That is the only thing one can suppose from his scoffing at any suggestion that we want to see come to power a South African party which is opposed to apartheid.
If we compare what is being done in Southern Rhodesia with what is being done in South Africa, then it is an enormous advance in liberalisation. But if we compare what is being done there with what is necessary to save the situation in Central Africa, then we have to compare it with the situation not to the south of Southern Rhodesia but to the north of it, to the two Northern Territories of the Federation, certainly, but also, of course, to all the ex-dependent territories of the rest of Africa.
We must point out that throughout almost the rest of Africa the concept of one man, one vote, of adult suffrage, has been conceded. I do not say that in all the new countries they will work a democratic system and an adult franchise successfully—it would be far too optimistic to suppose that—but on the part of the British Government there has been an assumption that the constitutions of the newly-independent territories would be on these lines.
Therefore, how can it really be supposed that the situation can be saved by what is the very limited advance of Southern Rhodesia—on this standard of comparison—by an advance which leaves on the Statute Book the discriminatory legislation to which I referred just now? For example, the Vagrancy

351
Act, which as I read it, makes unemployment an indictable offence for which one can be sent to prison for three years. Again, the Land Apportionment Act is also still on the Statute Book. As long as legislation of that sort exists, it makes it simply impossible for the African Leaders of the two Northern Territories to associate with the third potential partner, Southern Rhodesia.
Am I suggesting that the only step which could put this right, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) just now, would be the immediate introduction of complete adult suffrage on the principle of "one man, one vote" in Southern Rhodesia? I should have thought that for historical reasons which we frankly deplore—I do—but which we must recognise, that was impossible in one step.
I should have thought that nevertheless some franchise and some constitution very much in advance of the present one is a necessity if there is to be a tolerable future for the three territories in any kind of association. I should have thought that, more even than the franchise in Northern Rhodesia, the question of the future of Southern Rhodesia and the character of Southern Rhodesian society, which largely depends on the franchise, was the key.
I was struck by the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that something in the nature of a franchise which produced a rough parity of numbers between African and European voters on a common rôle, and thus avoided the appalling complexities of all the fancy franchises which are being suggested and, indeed, implemented in Central Africa would mark an advance which would at any rate open the door to co-operation between the three territories. That is the same thing as co-operation between the three races. There are three races; the Asian race in Southern Rhodesia has to be considered as well as the Africans and the Europeans.
I should have thought that some franchise of that sort, which fell short of the full "one man, one vote" but was also an enormous advance on the proposed franchise under the Constitution, which still leaves an entrenched Euro-
352
pean two-thirds majority, was the only thing which would make possible peaceful and constructive co-operation and a solution to the problem of the three territories.
The Home Secretary is just about to go out to visit the three territories. We put to him the suggestion that he would enormously strengthen his own hand during the negotiations which he will begin out there—but which, certainly, he will not be able to conclude in one visit, because it will be an immensely difficult task—if he would, either by accepting our Amendment, or if that is difficult for him, by making a declaration saying what he half-said already today, but saying clearly and in a way that would be understood, that he believes in and intends to implement a franchise in Northern Rhodesia which makes possible an African majority, and that he fully acknowledges that the territories, as they come to true self-government, with Governments representing a majority of their population, have the right to secede from the present Federation if they so wish. I believe that, on the basis of these two acknowledgements, he would, at any rate, stand a chance of solving what is unquestionably and undeniably an agonisingly difficult problem.
Who can doubt that over our debate today, as over former debates on this subject, there has been a heavy sense of foreboding? We have been told, not today, but in former debates, from the other side, that at all costs we must avoid a Congo situation in Central Africa. We must avoid the breakdown of human society in the terrible chaos which undoubtedly arose when the Belgians left the Congo. I think that that danger, as a matter of fact, as the example of Nyasaland shows, is a fairly remote one; but there is something else which must be avoided. If we think of the danger of a British Congo, and it is a terrible one, in Central Africa, I suggest that an even more terrible danger that is possible is the danger of a British Algeria in Central Africa—the danger of a race war, which, by a failure to bring the necessary minimum of agreement on a solution might bring long-drawn-out racial violence in Central Africa.
I am not suggesting that the white population there could not defend them-

353
selves for quite a long time; but what possible future would they have? What possible results could there be except years of blood and shame, both for them and for us? [Interruption.] It is all right for the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South to groan, but what alternative has he to offer? We have an alternative, in the offer of conciliation between the races on the basis of the right of the Africans to progress towards self-government, and to do so rapidly. I suggest to him that there is no other course. These are the alternatives.
We say to the Home Secretary, who has never faced a more difficult problem—we realise that—that we wish him well on his visit; indeed, that is understating it. Our prayers go with him, because the whole future of Africa may be at stake. He will need all his sagacity, and he has sagacity, but he will need boldness also.
9.35 p.m.
Mr. R. A. Butler: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) for his concluding remarks. I certainly accept from the House their good wishes in the tour I am about to undertake. I am certain I shall need those good wishes and, as indeed the right hon. Member said, the prayers of those who wish for some solution to be found.
I noticed that in the speech of the right hon. Member he did not expect me to come back with a solution. I should be deluding the House if I caused hon. Members to think that in a short time—and I shall try to return to my duties as soon as possible—I could come back with an already fixed solution. That would be impossible. I am visiting all the territories concerned, and the mere physical movement will mean that there is a great deal of ground to cover, so I do not think I could come back with a fixed solution.
Nevertheless, I think the contacts I shall be able to make will be reinforced by this debate. There was some doubt about whether a debate before I went would be a good thing, but I was always under the impression that it would be a good thing as it would enable me to speak to the House and the House to speak to me. I have listened to the advice which has been given and taken
354
full note of it. It will be of extreme value to me.
There have been a variety of speeches in the debate, to nearly all of which I have listened. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) referred to the right pace of advance and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim. North (Mr. H. Clark) also referred to the same point. Of course, much depends upon the timing, as it always does in politics as we politicians know. Timing is the vital thing. The approach to this question is absolutely vital and timing will be the vital thing. The right hon. Member for Dundee, West referred to the Congo. I think some of my hon. Friends will reflect that the timing there was absolutely wrong. Therefore, we have in mind the very great importance in these discussions of timing.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) referred to me as being a one-man band and was in some doubt whether I would inherit the noble traditions of the Colonial Office and be able to translate into my person the traditions of that Office. I would only say that my first contacts with the African leaders—which are much too few up to date, but which I hope now will be increased—have shown me that they understand the position. I am dedicated, as my predecessors were, to the Preamble of the Constitution of 1953. I shall inherit my duties and, I hope, carry them through in the spirit in which I have taken them over.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North referred to the importance of status, his point being that the African attaches more importance to self-advance, which I think is quite natural, than he does to pure economic advance. That enables me to raise a point made in the speech of the right hon. Member for Dundee, West when he said that I thought that the conclusion of Nyasaland leaving the Federation might be catastrophic. Those words were his. They are, I think, an exaggeration. I did not actually use them; I simply drew attention to the possible results. I shall be referring to Nyasaland later and I hope to take up that point and explain it. The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) raised various points with

355
relation to Nyasaland and I should be dealing with those in the course of my speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) put before the House some very important economic facts, namely, the almost indissoluble connection between Northern and Southern Rhodesia. The Kariba Dam, which spans the gorge, might otherwise, as he said, be a boundary. He drew attention to the Wankie Colliery and rail freights which affect the situation as between North and South. I should like him to know that in dealing with this situation I shall have fully in mind, as I said in my opening speech, the economic value of the Federation or of some future association between the Territories.
He also referred to the Colonial Service. I should like to take the opportunity of telling him and the House that I shall certainly take a message from the House to the administrators that we ask them to continue with their good service. We acknowledge what they have done and I shall be meeting them and considering their point of view when I am there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) referred to the importance of confidence. I am sure that an important feature of my tour will be to restore confidence not only between the House and the Federation and the Governments concerned, but also between the House and some of the personalities in Central Africa. I attach first-class importance not only to my hon. Friend mentioning this point, but also to the fact that I have to carry it through.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), in a typically forthright speech, referred to the importance of my meeting trade unionists. I am going to Kitwe as well as to other industrial centres, and I am also going to Bulawayo, because I think that it is important that I should not stick only at the administrative capitals but should try to meet some of those really doing the work of the country.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) made a very forthright speech and wanted the position posed like this: "Should the Federation be dissolved or
356
made to work?" It is valuable to have from him the fact that we must face the situation clearly and firmly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) referred to moderate opinion, which was somewhat scoffed at by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West. But, as was evinced by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, my hon. Friends attach importance to moderate opinion being given a chance to express itself, and that is why we attach so much importance to stemming intimidation from whatever source it may come. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) spoke of the importance of the democratic principles, and to that I subscribe.
After referring to the main speakers in the debate, and I think I have referred to all of them, the major part of my speech will deal with questions asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). His first point, on which I agreed with him, was that all the faults were not with the British Government. I am very much obliged to him for this one testimonial, about the only one he gave us in the course of a very long speech. I entirely agree with him that the faults do not lie with the British Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not only with the British Government."]—not only with the British Government.
At the same time, the British Government have done their best, and will continue to do their best, to help with the limited powers at their disposal. The hon. Member went on to say that 60 million Africans did not want us to betray 8 million Africans in the Central African area. With that I warmly agree. He went on to say that they would never forgive us if we gave priority to a minority of Europeans.
There is no question of our giving priority to any race or section of opinion. It is important for us to be absolutely just and to face the emergent tide of African nationalism with fairness but, nonetheless, to face the legitimate claims and contribution of the European community to this area. It is in that spirit that I approach the hon. Gentleman's speech in dealing with some of the matters to which he wanted me to pay attention. First, I do not propose to go backwards and consider the past record, to which he devoted a large portion of his speech. I propose to concen-

357
trate essentially on the latter part of his speech when he asked a series of constructive questions.
He said that we should not surrender any further powers to the European minority, and directly he said it there was a cry from this side of the House, "Nor to anyone else". That is exactly what I feel. We have no intention of surrendering further powers to any particular section. We intend, so to speak, to keep the ring. As for the references to statements about force, made by either European or African leaders, Her Majesty's Government do not intend to tolerate any statements which refer to a settlement by force of the intricate problems of the Federation. I referred in my speech to the importance of stopping intimidation on the African side Equally, the use of force in any way to solve this problem is inappropriate at the present time.
The second point made by the hon. Member related to foreign policy and whether we could control the foreign policy of the Federation. He said that he did not expect me to make a public statement about this, and I do not propose to do so. There are considerable intricacies in dealing with the foreign affairs of the Federation. I will certainly discuss the matter with my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary and, no doubt, I shall discuss it when I get out there, but I cannot go further with the House tonight.
The next point made by the hon. Member related to what he called the Dominion Party plan, namely, the withdrawal of the Copper Belt and the possible isolation of Barotseland and North-Eastern Rhodesia. All I would say about that is that I gave an answer on this subject to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson)—Dundee seems to be very strongly represented in this debate—in which I said, on 29th March, that I was
"asking the Governor to explain … that Her Majesty's Government are not committed to such a plan, or indeed to any particular solution of the problems in the Federation; but they are ready to receive proposals, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations said on 8th March. The solution to be sought should be one that can obtain general acceptance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1962; Vol. 656, c. 134.]
That remains the view of Her Majesty's Government in relation to what is some-
358
times described as the Dominion Party plan and to which the hon. Member referred as having been put to hon. Members by Sir Edgar Whitehead.
I would like hon. Members to realise, however, that there are variations to this plan. It may well be that some of them would fall within the bounds of possibility. All I propose to do when I get out there is to listen to any suggestions that are made. I must, however, rehearse to the House at this stage, so that no faith is lost, the terms of the Preamble to the Constitution.
The Preamble to the Constitution of 1953, introduced by our own Government, runs as follows:
"whereas Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland should continue, under the special protection of Her Majesty, to enjoy separate Governments for so long as their respective peoples so desire".
I must pay attention to that Preamble in considering any plans for the future that may be brought forward. I should like to reserve my position in regard to considering any plan when I go out, subject to those considerations.
The hon. Member for Leeds, East referred to Barotseland. The position there is important and I shall certainly give it my personal consideration when I arrive in the territory. The present situation is that the new constitution for Northern Rhodesia and how it should be applied is being discussed between the Governor and the Litunga. When I get out there, I shall meet the Governor and ascertain his feelings. I do not doubt that the future of Barotseland will come up during my tour and deserves, in the opinion at least of my hon. Friends, really personal consideration, which I shall certainly give it.
The hon. Member criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations about why he had visited Barotseland. All I can say is that his visit was extremely valuable to the Government and, I think, to the Litunga and people of Barotseland. I see no reason why he should be criticised in any sense for that visit.
The next point raised by the hon. Member was a welcome to my exploratory talks. I am grateful for this. It shows that the line I am taking is received by Her Majesty's Opposition as well as by the House itself. The hon.

359
Member for Devon, North in his speech asked me in more detail how the talks would develop. He asked in particular about the examination which I am making into the future of Nyasaland. The procedure in the case of the Nyasaland examination will be informal.
I propose to discuss all the details on my visit to Nyasaland—which I have never had the opportunity of visiting. It is proposed to associate the Government of Nyasaland with the inquiry. Therefore, I wish to discuss not only with the Governor but also with Dr. Banda how they should be associated with the inquiry. I shall not frame any terms of reference—and this is in reply to a question which the hon. Member asked—until I have discussed the matter with the Governor of Nyasaland. I shall also discuss the matter with all concerned when I am out there. Therefore, I cannot go further into the methods I shall employ until I have visited the Federation, and Nyasaland in particular. That indicates the limitations which must be imposed upon both my opening and concluding speeches. It would be wrong if I came to final conclusions before going out to discuss these matters.
The hon. Member asked me several questions about secession. That subject was also referred to by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West. I have nothing further to add to what I said in my opening speech. It is no good my forecasting what is likely to be discussed at a possible future Federal Review Conference. The House will be aware that secession was discussable at the last Conference. I will just repeat what I said about secession in relation to Nyasaland, namely, that Her Majesty's Government acknowledge the position of the Malawi Party, which wan the last election on the firm mandate that it was not prepared for Nyasaland to remain within the present Federation.
As I announced in my opening speech, the Government feel that before a final conclusion is reached there should be a full examination not only of the financial position—and it is a very serious one—but also of the consequences of withdrawal and the possible alternative forms of association with the other territories. The hon. Member said that he
360
hoped that Nyasaland would forge some economic association with its neighbours. In the speech made by the hon. Member for Devon, North he referred to the contact made between the Minister of Labour in Southern Rhodesia and Dr. Banda. I was aware of this, and the hon. Member has given it full ventilation in the House. These are healthy developments. That is why the Government want to take a constructive attitude in the matter and to see whether, with agreement, we cannot forge economic and other associations for the future. I do not wish to prejudge this matter at this stage.
The hon. Member suggested that no commitments should be made against the will of the people. In this connection I will simply repeat what I said in my opening speech, namely:
"At the same time it is clear, as I indicated in relation to Nyasaland, that any association which is to last must be acceptable to the territories concerned and must be based on the good will of their peoples."
I hope that hon. Members will accept that as being as far as I can go tonight on the question of secession. If we have to have a vote on the subject I hope that we can do so realising that there is a legitimate difference of opinion between us without there being any violent dissension on these important matters.
The hon. Member asked whether we could grant Nyasaland any further advance in its internal constitution. I cannot say any more about that tonight, because I have not yet met Dr. Banda. I am meeting him immediately after I go to Salisbury, and I am visiting Nyasaland before I go to Northern Rhodesia. I must restrain myself from discussing these matters before I visit the territory and the Governor. The hon. Member asked several questions relating to Northern Rhodesia, including the question whether the Delimitation Commission would have an English judge. I think that he meant to ask whether it would have an independent judge. All that I would say on that is that we shall appoint a judge who is independent to perform this extremely difficult task. I cannot go further in that connection tonight.

361
The hon. Member also asked whether the Governor had agreed to the registration of the northern divisional headquarters of U.N.I.P. I am informed that an appeal is pending, and the undertaking that I can give to the House is that, pending the result of the appeal, I shall hope to discuss this matter when I reach Northern Rhodesia in the latter part of this month. The other question raised by him about the national seats I think raised a certain amount of apprehension. In the case of Northern Rhodesia, we propose that there shall be no frustration in connection with the national seats. We propose that if the national seats do not succeed in the first round there will be by-elections to fill them. In answer to Mr. Kenneth Kaunda's question, we do not propose that nominations shall be made by the Governor to fill the national seats. We do not think that a new Constitution will be necessary, such as was referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but we think that it may be necessary to have extra elections on a second round if the national seats are not filled on the first round.
Regarding the next point raised in relation to Southern Rhodesia, I think that the hon. Gentleman went a bit wide of his brief because he gave the impression to the House that the Europeans might destroy the African seats and might alter the income qualifications to the detriment of the Africans. I have examined the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia since the hon. Gentleman spoke. While I should not like to give a final answer on something so complicated, if the hon. Gentleman will examine Section 9 (2) of the Constitution, he will see that this aspect of the franchise is entrenched in the Constitution and the entrenched portions of the Constitution require that a referendum shall be held of all racial groups voting independently before the franchise could be altered in this way. That indicates that there are in the Constitution entrenched features which makes such a contingency most unlikely.
I think that I have covered most of the points raised by my hon. Friends, by the right hon. Member for Dundee. West and by the hon. Member for Leeds,
362
East. I should like to refer to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman in relation to Southern Rhodesia, which has been so controversial with U.N.O. The right hon. Gentleman referred to discrimination and was in some doubt whether anything had been done about it. In paragraph 221 of its Report, the Monckton Commission gives some indication of the way discrimination has been dealt with in Southern Rhodesia. The Report states:
"While these are only beginnings, they do mark a trend which is accelerating and is moving in precisely the opposite direction to the trend of the present government policy in the Union of South Africa."
That is encouraging and confirms what the right hon. Gentleman said. So far as I can ascertain, it is the intention of the Prime Minister to deal with the Land Apportionment Act, and that will be a further step in non-discrimination which is so vital a feature of the development of Southern Rhodesia. So I think we may take hope that that Constitution will develop as the other Constitutions are doing.
To conclude this debate, the position is that while outside opinion in the world and outside opinion in Africa would like us to go more quickly with individual Constitutions we have, as has been said in this debate, made considerable progress with the individual Constitutions. We do not propose, either under the articles of the United Nations or anybody else, to alter these Constitutions. We propose to go ahead and have the elections. I think that is the sensible thing to do in the face of all the difficulties which confront me. We are now, therefore, facing the Constitutions. Let us hope that they will produce suitable results. We are now in fact approaching the next stage.
In the face of the Liberal Amendment, I am not prepared to summon a Federal Review Conference. I think that is right. But I am prepared to do some exploratory work, to hear views and to carry this matter further. It is my conviction that we can obtain a moderate and firm solution and if we can, the House will have the credit for having had a good and a sensible debate.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 195.

Division No. 176.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Allason, James

Errington, Sir Eric

Leburn, Gilmour

Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Arbuthnot, John

Farr, John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Fisher, Nigel

Lilley, F. J. P.

Atkins, Humphrey

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lindsay, Sir Martin

Barber, Anthony

Forrest, George

Litchfield, Capt. John

Barlow, Sir John

Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

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

Barter, John

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Batsford, Brian

Gammans, Lady

Longden, Gilbert

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Gardner, Edward

Loveys, Walter H.

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Gibson-Watt, David

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

Bell, Ronald

Gilmour, Sir John

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Glover, Sir Douglas

MacArthur, Ian

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

McLaren, Martin

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Bidgood, John C.

Goodhart, Philip

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

Biffen, John

Goodhew, Victor

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Biggs-Davison, John

Gough, Frederick

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

Bingham, R. M.

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

McMaster, Stanley R.

Bishop, F. P.

Green, Alan

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Black, Sir Cyril

Gresham Cooke, R.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Bossom, Clive

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Bourne-Arton, A.

Gurden, Harold

Maddan, Martin

Box, Donald

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Maginnis, John E.

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hare, Rt. Hon. John

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Marlowe, Anthony

Brooman-White, R.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Marten, Neil

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Bryan, Paul

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Buck, Antony

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Bullard, Denys

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Mawby, Ray

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Hastings, Stephen

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Burden, F. A.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

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

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Mills, Stratton

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Hendry, Forbes

Miscampbell, Norman

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Montgomery, Fergus

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Hiley, Joseph

Morgan, William

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Morrison, John

Cary, Sir Robert

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

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Channon, H. P. G.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Nabarro, Gerald

Chataway, Christopher

Hirst, Geoffrey

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Hobson, Sir John

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Hocking, Philip N.

Noble, Michael

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Holland, Philip

Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

Cleaver, Leonard

Hollingworth, John

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Cole, Norman

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Collard, Richard

Hopkins, Alan

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

Cooke, Robert

Hornby, R. P.

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Cooper, A. E.

Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Cordle, John

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Corfield, F. V.

Hughes-Young, Michael

Partridge, E.

Costain, A. P.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Coulson, Michael

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Peel, John

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Iremonger, T. L.

Peyton, John

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Critchley, Julian

Jackson, John

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

James, David

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Crowder, F. P.

Jennings, J. C.

Pitman, Sir James

Cunningham, Knox

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Pott, Percivall

Curran, Charles

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Currie, G. B. H.

Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Joseph, Sir Keith

Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

Dance, James

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Prior, J. M. L.

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Kerans, Cdr J. S.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Deedes, W. F.

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Proudfoot, Wilfred

de Ferranti, Basil

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Pym, Francis

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Kershaw, Anthony

Ramsden, James

Doughty, Charles

Kimball, Marcus

Rawlinson, Peter

Drayson, G. B.

Kirk, Peter

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

du Cann, Edward

Kitson, Timothy

Rees, Hugh

Duncan, Sir James

Lagden, Godfrey

Renton, David

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Lambton, Viscount

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

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

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Ridsdale, Julian

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Leather, E. H. C.

Rippon, Geoffrey

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

Studholme, Sir Henry

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Robson Brown, Sir William

Summers, Sir Spencer

Walder, David

Roots, William

Tapsell, Peter

Walker, Peter

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Ward, Dame Irene

Russell, Ronald

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

Webster, David

Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Whitelaw, William

Scott-Hopkins, James

Teeling, Sir William

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Seymour, Leslie

Temple, John M.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Sharples, Richard

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Shaw, M.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Shepherd, William

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Wise, A. R.

Skeet, T. H. H.

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

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

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Woodhouse, C. M.

Smithers, Peter

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Woollam, John

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Turner, Colin

Worsley, Marcus

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Stevens, Geoffrey

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Vane, W. M. F.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Stodart, J. A.

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Mr. Chichester-Clark and

Storey, Sir Samuel

Vickers, Miss Joan

Mr. Finlay.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Greenwood, Anthony

Oswald, Thomas

Ainsley, William

Grey, Charles

Padley, W. E.

Albu, Austen

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Paget, R. T.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

Pargiter, G. A.

Awbery, Stan

Gunter, Ray

Parker, John

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Paton, John

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Pavitt, Laurence

Beaney, Alan

Harper, Joseph

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Bence, Cyril

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Peart, Frederick

Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Hayman, F. H.

Pentland, Norman

Benson, Sir George

Healey, Denis

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Blackburn, F.

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Popplewell, Ernest

Blyton, William

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Prentice, R. E.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hilton, A. V.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Holman, Percy

Probert, Arthur

Bowles, Frank

Houghton, Douglas

Proctor, W. T.

Boyden, James

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hoy, James H.

Randall, Harry

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Rankin, John

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Hunter, A. E.

Redhead, E. C.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Reid, William

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Janner, Sir Barnett

Reynolds, G. W.

Callaghan, James

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Rhodes, H.

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Chapman, Donald

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

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Cliffe, Michael

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

Collick, Percy

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Ross, William

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Kelley, Richard

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Kenyon, Clifford

Short, Edward

Cronin, John

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Crosland, Anthony

King, Dr. Horace

Skeffington, Arthur

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Lawson, George

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Darling, George

Ledger, Ron

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Small, William

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Sorensen, R. W.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Loughlin, Charles

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Delargy, Hugh

Lubbock, Eric

Spriggs, Leslie

Dempsey, James

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Steele, Thomas

Diamond, John

MacColl, James

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Dodds, Norman

MacDermot, Niall

Stonehouse, John

Donnelly, Desmond

McInnes, James

Stones, William

Driberg, Tom

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Swingler, Stephen

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

McLeavy, Frank

Taverne, D.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Evans, Albert

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Fernyhough, E.

Marsh, Richard

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

Finch, Harold

Mellish, R. J.

Thornton, Ernest

Fitch, Alan

Mendelson, J. J.

Thorpe, Jeremy

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

Millan, Bruce

Timmons, John

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Milne, Edward

Wade, Donald

Forman, J. C.

Mitchison, G. R.

Wainwright, Edwin

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Monslow, Walter

Warbey, William

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Moody, A. S.

Weitzman, David

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mulley, Frederick

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Ginsburg, David

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

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Oliver, G. H.

White, Mrs. Eirene

Gourley, Harry

Oram, A. E.

Whitlock, William

366

367

Wigg, George

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Wyatt, Woodrow

Wilkins, W. A.

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

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Willey, Frederick

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Winterbottom, R. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Mr. Charles A. Howell and

Mr. McCann.

Main Question put and agreed to,

Resolved,

That this House supports Her Majesty's Government's efforts in helping to seek a solution of the problems of Central Africa.

CAMBRIDGE WATERWORKS ORDER, 1962
10.12 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to move,
That the Cambridge Waterworks Order, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th March, be annulled.
By moving this Motion, I give an opportunity to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) to move the Amendment which is on the Order Paper and which, I believe, he will move if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that a Petition of general objection which has been presented in respect of this Order should be referred, as the Act permits, to a Joint Committee of both Houses. If it should prove that the Government are so obstinate that they are not prepared to do what the hon. Gentleman will ask them to do and let the Petition be referred to a Joint Committee, then we should, from this side of the House, very strongly take the view that the Order ought to be annulled. The Government could avoid a vote on the Order being annulled if they show themselves willing to accept the proposal which will be made by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire.
However, in our view, there is a reason of major policy why, if that procedure is not followed, the Order should be annulled, namely, that it is proposed by the Order to take several public water undertakings and transfer them to a private company. It is a "giveaway" Order.
The first ground of objection to the Order is that its purpose appears to be totally against the wishes of all the persons served by the public undertakings mentioned in it. If it could be shown that those served by the water undertakings did not want to be served by public water undertakings but wished those undertakings to be handed over over to a private company, the Government might be on stronger ground, but, as will appear from the Petition, this is not so.
I would point out to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that
370
what it is proposed to do in this Order conflicts with one of the general principles of local government which the Government have declared themselves to favour. The Government have attempted to justify some of the things which they are doing, or attempting to do, in the field of local government, on the ground that it is desirable to make the process of local government fuller and more satisfying to those who take part in it. Yet here is an Order which will take away from certain local authorities or joint boards of local authorities useful and important functions which they now perform and which it is proposed shall be handed over to a private company.
Thirdly, this proposal is in conflict with our general idea of the proper conduct of water undertakings. The great majority of water undertakings are public concerns. There are no grounds for supposing that this is not a satisfactory arrangement, and it is a breach of that general principle to take public concerns and hand them over to a private company. It is not open to the Government to justify that proceeding solely on the ground that some of these public concerns are small and that the water undertakings in the neighbourhood ought to be regrouped. If it were thought right to do that, that could be done and the new grouping could still be a public authority, a joint authority recruited from public authorities. There is no need, merely because reorganisation is necessary, to make this transfer from a public authority to a private authority.
This action of taking public water undertakings and handing them over to a private company is a very bad augury for what any future more general policy for water undertakings may be on the part of the Government. I believe that the proposition that it is wrong to transfer public undertakings to a private company will commend itself to all of my hon. Friends and, I think, to many hon. Members who have experience of water undertakings, irrespective of party affiliations. I say that about the general question of the handing over of public properties to a private company.
We must now notice this point. If the question of handing over of public

371
property to a private company were all that we were discussing tonight, I would agree that it could be properly dealt with by argument and vote in the House. If that were all that there were before us, we could have a straightforward debate and a vote at the end of it. But this is by no means all. Quite apart from the general principle, there are important local and detailed questions with which the Order deals. I put, therefore, to the Government the proposition that before they oblige the House to decide the main issue on whether the substance of this Order and the transfer to a private company shall be carried out, they should give an opportunity for the detailed local questions concerned in the Order to have proper examination before a Joint Committee of both Houses. While it may be reasonable to discuss a broad general issue such as public or private undertakings for water by a straight debate in the House, detailed discussions of what kind of water undertakings are suitable for a particular area of Cambridgeshire is a technical matter, the proper examination of which would require maps and plans, and could more properly be done in a Joint Committee of both Houses than in this House. No doubt the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire will develop that matter in more detail.
I wish to say a few words about the procedural questions involved. The Petition which we shall be asked to refer to a Joint Committee of both Houses is called a Petition of General Objection as distinct from a Petition of Amendment, which would merely be a request to alter one or two details in the Order. It is important that we should recognise that the phrase "Petition of General Objection" does not mean that the Petition is concerned with great national issues which should be debated merely in the House and not before a Committee. I think I am right in saying that, if only one of the local authorities concerned in this matter had objected, it would have been a Petition of Amendment only which would have been obliged to go to a Committee. If the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire does not accept that proposition, let me say this. If it had been proposed by any of the parties concerned that some small alteration should be made in the scheme, that would have
372
been a Petition of Amendment which would, under the Act, have had to go to a Select Committee. However, because all the authorities concerned dislike the scheme, that makes it a Petition of General Objection and it therefore has not an absolute right to go to a Committee. It is for this House to decide whether it goes to a Committee.
As I say, the fact that it is called a Petition of General Objection does not mean that it can be described as dealing with a matter of great national importance. Apart from the earlier point which I mentioned about public or private ownership, it is very much a local and a detailed matter, the sort of matter which should go to a Committee, because that was clearly the view of both sides of the House in 1945 when the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, under which all these proceedings take place, was discussed.
That Act received its Second Reading on 18th October, 1945. It was recommended to the House by Mr. Herbert Morrison, as he then was, now Lord Morrison of Lambeth. He was at some pains to make clear to the House that there should be refusal to allow a Petition against an Order to go to a Committee only if very great national issues were involved. That proposition won the general assent of the House.
Lord Kilmuir, then Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, speaking from the Opposition side of the House during the Second Reading debate, said that, if it were an Order to transfer one of the great London railway termini to some other place, the Government might reasonably say that that matter was so large and expensive that it should be decided by the whole House. There was, however, great anxiety on both sides of the House that in matters of specialised local interest, matters of great concern to the people in the locality but definitely local matters, hon. Members who knew the problems of the locality should have the opportunity to present their case in detail before a Committee in a way in which it could not be presented to the House as a whole.
This point was particularly referred to by Lord Molson, then Mr. Hugh Molson, who described, I think almost prophetically, the difficult position in

373
which the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire may find himself tonight. On 18th October, 1945, Mr. Hugh Molson, as he then was, described the position of a Member who has the opportunity to argue a specialised local issue like this only before the House as a whole and not before a Committee. As reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 18th October, 1945, column 1398, Lord Molson said,
"He has to go round and try to persuade his friends and acquaintances, who are not interested in the concerns of his constituency, to stay behind late at night when a House is being kept by the Government Whips, and then to divide against the Government, with all the opprobrium that always involves and the castigations that come afterwards, from the Front Bench."
The Government ought not to put the hon. Member in that position, and they can avoid doing so by accepting the Amendment and letting this matter go, as it should go, to a Select Committee of both Houses.
Lord Kilmuir, then Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, was even more emphatic about the undesirability of making it difficult for Petitions of this kind to be sent to a Joint Committee of both Houses, His comments, reported at column 1392, were:
"If this procedure"
—he meant the procedure which we are now operating, envisaged under the Act—
"once degenerates into one by which Orders which ought to have further consideration are pushed through on the Floor of the House by the Whips in order to save time, I do not think it will work, and it will certainly not carry out the intentions which the right hon. Gentleman"
—that was Mr. Herbert Morrison—
"has so fully and eloquently put before the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 1392–8.]
He deprecated, rightly, any attempt to push through on the Floor of the House, by an action of the Whips, Orders which ought to have further consideration.
That is our position tonight. On the one hand, there is a general objection of major policy to the Order, to the idea of taking the property of the public and handing it over to private persons. But before the House is asked to pronounce on that question there ought to be a fair opportunity for the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire and other
374
hon. Members who have a special local interest to argue their case where it can most properly be argued—before a Select Committee.
I can see no reason why the Government should object to that. In view of what eminent Members of their party said when the (Special Procedure) Bill was debated, it would be improper for them to say that they are doing it to save time. They cannot say that this issue is vast and that this procedure is not appropriate to it. It is an issue, as we shall be told, of very great concern to the people in the locality, but it is a local, detailed and technical issue—exactly the kind of case in which, in my judgment, it was intended under the (Special Procedure) Act that the House should consent to its going before a Joint Committee of both Houses.
I think that I need say nothing further. I hope that the Government will listen to what is said in support of the Amendment, and I hope that they will consent to the procedure outlined in the Amendment being followed.
Mr. Denys Bullard: On a point of order. There is, I understand, a Petition in connection with this Order. Ought not that to be available to hon. Members?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The question before the House is quite clear. I propose to call now the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) to move his Amendment, and I think that the debate can continue on that basis.
Mr. Bullard: Further to that point of order. I am interested in this Order, and I should like to know what the local authorities, who are presenting the Petition, have to say. I have not that document in front of me, and as far as I know there is no method of my obtaining it.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry that the hon. Member finds himself in a difficulty, but I understand that all the correct procedures have been complied with according to the Standing Orders and I do not think he will find that he has any justification for complaint.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. There is a Petition

375
against the Order. We are considering the questions raised in that Petition, and they have already been mentioned by my hon. Friend. Whatever the technical position may be, surely it is not fair to this House that copies of that Petition should not be available when it so materially affects the very question that we have to consider tonight. If the procedure does not oblige us to have copies of the Petition, surely some change ought to be made. Is this a case where we ought to be denied the requisite knowledge because there is no specific Order obliging us to have it?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I take full account of what the hon. and learned Member has said, but I understand that we are proceeding in an orderly fashion, and I should like to continue.
Mr. Mitchison: Further to that point or order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It may be orderly but it is ill-informed. If we cannot have before us the very material which we are discussing, will you accept a Motion for the adjournment of the debate until the matter is put in order and copies of this Petition are made available, particularly to the hon. Members who for local reasons are concerned in the matter?
Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Further to that point of order. Is the position not this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? What we have before us at the moment is the Cambridge Waterworks Order, 1962, against which a Prayer is moved that it be annulled, to which an Amendment is to be moved that a Petition be considered by a Committee of both Houses, and that this House is not being asked to consider the merits of the Petition? It is being asked to refer the Petition to a Joint Committee of both Houses. Subject to what you say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it would seem that we are perfectly in order.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand this to be a Prayer against a waterworks Order. I have got the waterworks Order here, and I understood the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) to be praying against it. So far it seems to me that nobody in the House could take exception to that. Is it the Petition mentioned in the Amendment that has not yet been moved that the hon. and learned Member is objecting to?
Mr. Mitchison: I understand so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Perhaps you would prefer me to raise the point of order again when the Amendment has formally been moved. As the Petition has already been referred to and is necessarily, as I see it, referred to in a matter of this sort, I still submit with respect that we are entitled to have copies of the Petition made available to hon. Members. If my hon. Friend prefers to discuss the Order without discussing the Petition, he is, of course, at liberty to do so, but some of us would like to know what the objections to the Order were.
Mr. Francis Pym: Further to that point of order. Would it help if I mentioned that I am confident that the Private Bill Office has copies of this Petition? I have acquired a number of copies from that source and have sent them to hon. Friends of mine. I have no doubt there are many copies there. I do not know if that answers the problem, but they do exist.
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Further to the point of order. I think that those of us who have had a good deal of experience in dealing with private legislation know that these sorts of matters are dealt with mainly through the Private Bill Office, and although the Order is available in the Vote Office because it is a matter for the whole House, the Petition comes under Private Bill procedure, and that is why the Private Bill Office is dealing with it. If hon. Members wanted copies they could have got them there.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would seem to me that the point of order has been met, not perhaps entirely by myself, to the satisfaction of the House to allow us to continue with the debate.
Mr. Mitchison: Further to that point of order. I have seen and have in my possession a copy of the Petition which I obtained from the Private Bill Office. I am not complaining on my own account, but we have just had an objection from an hon. Member who apparently, although he is a local Member, has not a copy. It is not enough to say that copies may be made available in the Private Bill Office. I

377
submit that they should be made available at the entrance to the Chamber, exactly as the Order in question is available. I have said what I want to say, and let us for the moment leave it at that.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for what he has said, but time is running out and I think that we ought to get on with the business. I call Mr. Pym to move the Amendment.
10.36 p.m.
Mr. Pym: I beg to move, to leave out from "the" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"Petition of General Objection of the Cambridgeshire County Council and the Chesterton and South Cambridgeshire Rural District Councils against the Cambridge Waterworks Order, 1962, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses".
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) for the broad issues on procedure which he has raised, but we must grapple with our business tonight within the limits of procedure as they now are. This Order concerns the grouping of a number of comparatively small water undertakings in my constituency into a larger group. It is made in pursuance of the duty imposed on the Minister by the Water Act, 1945, I think there is general agreement throughout the country that there are too many small organisations at present to carry out the task and that grouping together into larger units is a necessary step.
The area involved in the Order covers the City of Cambridge and the whole of Cambridgeshire, except the Newmarket rural district. The Order also extends over the border of Cambridgeshire into Huntingdonshire, to include the neighbourhood of St. Ives and of Ramsey. With the exception of the South Cambridgeshire rural district, the principle of joining these undertakings together is accepted as either desirable or inevitable, or both. The advantages that flow from a larger scale of operation are understood and accepted.
South Cambridgeshire submit that no case for a transfer of their undertaking has been made out. They say that their undertaking is adequate and, moreover, is self-sufficient.
378
One can quote as evidence in support of their contention a statement made in a report given to the Minister of Housing after the public inquiry that was held in Cambridge last year. Paragraph 17 (5) of the report states, of the South Cambrideshire undertaking:
"The completion of the works in hand would ensure effective distribution of the ample supply of water available and it could not be said that the undertaking at that juncture would be in any material way deficient or unsatisfactory from the consumers' or ratepayers' point of view."
South Cambridgeshire go on to submit that if their water undertaking must be swallowed up for reasons beyond their control or responsibility they share the view of the other Petitioners as to how that should be done.
Accepting, then, the principle of the merger of water undertakings involved in the Order, we come to the real dispute, which is about the nature and form of the enlarged organisation. This Order, representing the Government's proposal, is in effect a complete and compulsory take-over by the Cambridge University and Town Waterworks Company. There are no "ifs" and "buts" about it, no conditions or frills. It is a straight take-over.
This company, although a private company, is a statutory private company, and this means that certain limitations are imposed upon its activities. It is also true that it is the largest undertaking in the area envisaged in the Order, supplying as it does more than 60 per cent. of the water used in the enlarged total area covered by the Order. It is also an efficient company following a progressive policy. Whatever anyone says about this take-over, all are agreed that the company as such is an excellent organisation. But the councils in my constituency do not wish to see their undertakings devoured by this company which is, indeed, the biggest fish in the pond. This is what they are objecting to. They want it done another way, and I want to present their case briefly.
The Petitioners, who are the Cambridgeshire County Council and the two rural district councils, would prefer the operation to be carried out by a joint board, and I should like to quote a

379
sentence from paragraph 11 of this Petition. It says:
"No good reason has been put forward as to why the local authority undertakings should not be transferred to a Joint Board rather than to a Private Company whose present area of control would be extended from an area of approximately 60 square miles to an area of approximately 450 square miles thereby leaving the local authorities concerned completely unrepresented."
In other words, they feel that the consumers in their districts should have a voice in the management of the water supply through their elected representatives. I should like to quote one more sentence from paragraph 13 of the Petition, which reads:
"If the public service of the supply of water is to be taken from local authorities, your Petitioners most strongly contend that the service must be maintained by a popularly elected representative body and not by a Company."
The Petitioners have held these views consistently from the moment when the idea behind this Order was first mooted; they maintained these views when the draft Order was published, at the public inquiry that then ensued, and again now. I think, too, that the Minister has been consistent and has not altered significantly the original proposal. Thus we have this substantial division of opinion.
It is not part of my task tonight, as I see it, to propound the merits or the demerits of any particular scheme or schemes of reorganisation. My task is to establish that sufficient grounds for objection exist to warrant the setting up of a Joint Committee. The choice is essentially between, on the one hand, control by the private company, albeit a statutory company and albeit an efficient company, and, on the other, control by a locally elected body. Speaking for myself, I cannot say that the Petitioners' idea of a joint board is necessarily the right solution, weighted as such a board must be in favour of the City of Cambridge. But local representation is the nub of this debate.
Last July, in an attempt to bridge the gap between the two sides, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and represented to him that the appointment to the board of directors of the company of one representative from each
380
of the two rural district councils might be a possible and acceptable solution. The company has offered to increase the membership of its board from eight to ten, to include one new member resident in the south of the county and one new member resident in the north of the county, but these appointments would be made by and nominated by the company and not by the district councils. Naturally, therefore, the district councils, who are the Petitioners, are not satisfied with this offer, and I do not think that any one of us would expect them to be satisfied with this arrangement.
Water is a very important public utility and must always be, I am sure we are all agreed, a subject of great interest and significance to local authorities. I think that local authorities in my constituency ought to be commended for their concern about this matter.
In presenting the Petition, I should like to make two more points. The first relates to the weight and importance of this objection. Under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, Section 3 (3) contains the following words:
"… if the Chairmen"
That is, the Lord Chairman of Committees in another place and the Chairman of Ways and Means.
"are satisfied … that the petition discloses a substantial ground of objection to the order, they shall certify that the petition is proper to be received …".
The Chairman of Ways and Means has certified that this Petition is proper to be received. It follows, therefore, that there are substantial grounds of objection in this case. Tonight I pray in aid the action of the Chairman of Ways and Means as firm evidence that this is no light matter and is fully worthy of further consideration.
My last point is a plea for speed. There is much work to be done in the way of development and extending water supplies in Cambridgeshire. We want to get on with it, but on the right lines. It is a matter of urgency. I should have thought that it would have been possible to establish a Joint Committee and get it to complete its work within a comparatively short time—about three months—and I hope this will be done.

381
I have no wish, in moving the Amendment, to delay the progress of bringing water supplies to the country areas. But we want to be sure that we have the right machinery to do the job. In the last analysis, we are all concerned to bring adequate supplies of water to the maximum number of homes as quickly as possible. The Petition asks for another look to be taken at the framework upon which this work is to be built in the future. It is on the basis of the reasonableness of this request, and the modesty of it, that I move the Amendment and ask for a Joint Committee to be set up.
10.48 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): There is no dispute that the fact that this Order which comes to be made under Section 9 of the Water Act, 1945, is in accordance with a policy which has been approved and reaffirmed by the House on a number of occasions. No one doubts the need to permit the most effective use of water supplies by regrouping existing water undertakings wherever appropriate.
What the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said on behalf of the Opposition is that it is in some way objectionable in principle and contrary to that policy to promote an Order which involves the undertakings of local authorities being handed over to a company. But it has been repeated over and over again that it is the Government's policy that this regrouping should be on the basis of the strongest existing undertaking, where such a strong undertaking exists, regardless of whether it is a company or a local authority.
It was made clear, first of all, in Circular 52 of 1956, paragraph 6 of which indicates the various possible methods of regrouping. Several local authorities may join together to form a joint board, or an existing joint board may vary its limits of supply. Two or more companies may amalgamate. It also states that:
"A local authority or a company may take over one or more neighbouring undertakings and so extend its limits of supply. This method is likely to be appropriate where the acquiring undertakings are substantially stronger than those acquired, and particularly where the acquiring undertakers are already giving sub-
382
stantial bulk supplies to their neighbours. In such conditions this may often be the most convenient way of making full use of an existing organisation. It may involve company areas passing into local authority control, or vice versa, according to whether a local authority or a company is the major undertaking in the area".
This was reiterated in paragraph 5 (5) of Circular 41 of 1958 which stated:
"There are some areas where the most efficient regrouping would be achieved by water companies taking over the undertakings of neighbouring authorities; and elsewhere there are companies which ought to be bought out by joint boards of local authorities. The Minister will consider proposals affecting companies on their merits as they affect the efficient supply of water to the area."
This policy of looking at regrouping proposals on their merits regardless of whether it is a take-over by a company or a local authority has been followed time after time in practice. It is true that this is the first compulsory Order which has been made by which the undertakings of local authorities are absorbed in a company. We have made many Orders, on the other hand, both for the voluntary regrouping of companies and for the absorption of local authorities' undertakings by companies. Since regrouping started, forty-eight Orders have been made transferring local authority undertakings to other local authorities, forty-six have been made setting up joint boards of authorities, twenty-five extending joint boards, and sixty-two transferring local authority undertakings to companies. In addition, seventeen Orders have been made transferring companies to boards and three transferring companies to local authorities.
The reason for this policy of building up on the strongest organisation is very simple. It is much easier to build a new organisation around an existing unit rather than to amalgamate units into a totally new organisation. By this policy, which the Government have been following, it is possible to maintain to a great extent continuity of staff and practice.
I start by inviting the House to consider the merits of the Order rather than the doctrinal considerations, which I think the hon. Member for Fulham had largely in mind. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) pointed out in his admirable

383
speech putting forward the case of his constituents, the merits of this Order, which has quite a long history, have been canvassed on many occasions. They fall to be considered under two heads, the area of the proposed undertaking and the form of the undertaking which should cover the area. The proposal in the Order stems originally from a survey undertaken in 1950 by Mr. C. H. Spens, one of the Minister's engineering inspectors. There have been developments since then. Part of the area he surveyed now forms part of the area covered by the Ely, Newmarket and Mildenhall Joint Water Board, but the bulk of the area proposed by Mr. Spens is comprised in the proposals in this Order.
The main purpose of the Order, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is to transfer to the Cambridge University and Town Waterworks Company the water undertakings of St. Ives Rural District Council, Ramsey Urban District Council, South Cambridgeshire Rural District Council, St. Ives Rural District Council, Chesterton Rural District Council, the Chesterton and St. Ives Joint Water Board, and the Ramsey and St. Ives Joint Water Board. It is relevant to say that we have now reached a stage in which we have only South Cambridgeshire and Chesterton councils maintaining their objection, supported by Cambridgeshire County Council which is not a water undertaking.
Discussions have been going on for five years among the authorities concerned and the undertakings and the Ministry, all of which now accept that the area must be considered as a whole with the exception of the South Cambridgeshire Rural District Council, which from the start has been against the proposal of any kind of transfer. The South Cambridgeshire Rural District Council claims that it is self-sufficient—it does not take water from anyone or need help from anyone. It claims with justification that it is an efficient undertaking and supplies water at reasonable charges.
My hon. Friend referred to the inspector's report but quoted only part of it. The inspector went on to say:
"There were, however, features of staffing, supervision and the conservation of water
384
resources which in the longer term would make it to the council's and consumers' advantage to let the company take over now. In the circumstances the inclusion of the council's undertaking in the proposed group seemed wise and proper."
That is the view which my right hon. Friend has taken.
There would be no future for a water undertaking of this size in the years ahead, and it would therefore be quite wrong to postpone this necessary integration into the larger unit. In these circumstances, I suggest that there is no case for an annulment of the Order. There is, as was pointed out, agreement on the area and agreement on some form of reorganisation.
Such dispute as still remains centres on the form of the organisation and the merits of the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire. In his survey, Mr. Spens did not recommend any particular form of organisation, but if hon. Members study the matter they will see that there are only two alternatives—either the company takes over the area, or there must be a joint board. The various local authorities, again with the exception of the South Cambridgeshire Rural District Council, always opposed to regrouping, tried originally to form a joint board without the company. My right hon. Friend refused to accept this proposition on the ground that the board would not be a viable unit.
Eventually, after discussions and correspondence which went on throughout 1958 and 1960, my right hon. Friend announced his intention to make a compulsory order and decided that the best form of organisation would be the company extended to take over the local authority undertakings. My right hon. Friend based this decision on the statements in the circular, which I have already quoted, about the carrying out of regrouping on the basis of the strongest undertaking, regardless of whether it was the company or a local authority.
There can be no doubt whatever about the strength of the company. It covers 80 per cent. of the rateable value of the area and 60 per cent. of the population. My hon. Friend referred to paragraph 11 of the Petition, which shows the disparity in area, but if he looks at the position as a whole he

385
will see a different picture. At present, the company supplies in detail a population of about 115,000 spread over an area of about 59 square miles with an approximate rateable value of £2,235,000. If this Order becomes effective, it will supply in detail a population of about 190,000 spread over an area of 450 square miles and with an approximate rateable value of £2,910,000. There is no dispute about its being an efficient and progressive company. It has already supplies a large area of the Chesterton Rural District with bulk supplies, and it also gives bulk water supplies to the two joint water boards.
My hon. Friend also referred to that paragraph of the Petition which says that there is no good reason why there should not be a joint board. I have explained why my right hon. Friend thought that the company was the right body to take over. It would be impossible to constitute a joint board effectively. It would have to buy out the company and in this case it would mean a very substantial rate burden from the outset on the authorities concerned. Cambridge Borough Council, which was perfectly satisfied with the company and has not had any water responsibilities of its own, would, probably quite unwillingly, have to share in the responsibilities of the joint board, on which it would have almost inevitably the larger part of the representation.
The hon. Member for Fulham said that all who would be served by the proposed new undertaking objected to the Order and that if the Government could show that they were not they would be in a stronger position. I think that he now understands that the majority of undertakings concerned do not object to the Order. In the end, all of them, except the South Cambridgeshire Rural District Council, saw the force of the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend and agreed that the company should take over their undertakings. A public inquiry was held on 11th and 12th July, as a result of which my right hon. Friend accepted the inspector's recommendations and made the Order which is now before the House substantially as drafted.
However, three authorities have persisted in their objection—Cambridge
386
County Council, Chesterton Rural District Council and the South Cambridgeshire Rural District Council—and have invoked the special Parliamentary procedure, as they have every right to do. We have recently had two debates in the House on this procedure, one on 14th February and another on 13th March on the Llanelly and District Water Board Order, and I will not weary the House by covering the ground all over again.
The hon. Member for Fulham pointed out, quite rightly, that a Petition of Amendment goes automatically to a Joint Committee of both Houses. It could be put forward by one authority. No one has chosen to do so on this occasion. Petitions of General Objection are, however, sent to a Joint Committee only if either House so resolves. Technically, this can be a quite cumbersome procedure in any event. It can only be done by this Amendment to a Motion to annul the Order. That sometimes involves—it did in the case of the Llanelly Order—two Members in a sort of collusion. This is a little difficult when the Government and everyone else are willing that the Petition should go to a Joint Committee.
We have therefore said—it was made clear in both debates—that we are ready to introduce legislation to make the sending of Petitions of General Objection to a Joint Committee rather easier and also to extend the petitioning and the resolution periods. One of the main objects of this special Parliamentary procedure, however, is to ensure that the question of general policy should be left to be defended on the Floor of the House. I tried as far as I was able to emphasise this in both the debates to which I have referred.
Perhaps I may quote briefly what I said. I hesitate to put my views against those of Lord Kilmuir and my old friend Lord Molson, but they represent the policy which has been accepted for a good many years. I said on 15th February:
"What would certainly be wrong would be to send Petitions of general objection automatically to the Joint Committee. If the Minister regards an Order as being so critical to his policy that he is prepared to introduce a Bill, as he can under Section 6 of the 1945 Act, even if the Joint Committee upheld the Petition of general objection, it would obviously he quite wrong to put a Petitioner to

387
the expense of going to a Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 1473.]
I said again, on the Llanelly Order on 13th March:
"The procedure gives the Minister an opportunity, in an appropriate case, to tell the House, 'I am prepared to defend this part of my policy at all costs, so I advise the House to reject the Motion and the Amendment.' In certain circumstances, that would save a lot of money …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March. 1962; Vol. 655, c. 1275.]
The object of the procedure is not to save time, as the hon. Member for Fulham suggested, but to save money.
The position in this case is that the Minister would be prepared in any event to promote a Bill under Section 6 of the Water Act, which means that if the Joint Committee accepted a Petition of General Objection, what happens is that the Minister annexes the Order to a confirming Bill, I think it is, and it is then treated as if it had passed through all its stages up to and including Committee stage.
The principal ground of objection to the Order set up in the Petition is that the transfer of the water undertakings of these two petitioning rural district councils would be a retrograde step and that the form of organisation should be a joint board on which they should be properly represented rather than by a statutory water company on which they would not be represented.
For the reasons which I have set out, the Petition strikes at the very root of the Minister's policy that regrouping should be on the basis of the strongest undertaking, whether it is a private company or a local authority. It may be argued that the South Cambridgeshire Rural District Council should be allowed to put its detailed arguments to the Joint Committee. That would have been a proper procedure for a Petition of Amendment, which would have gone there automatically. For their own good reasons, however, the petitioning rural district councils have decided not to do that. They have all decided that they want a root and branch objection to the Government's policy. It is a general attack upon a principle which has been accepted. I therefore hope that, in these circumstances, the House will reject both the Motion and the Amendment.
11.5. p.m.
Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I think it rather unfortunate that the Parliamentary Secretary should have chosen to reject this very reasonable request out of hand. We do not at this stage wish to argue the merits of the particular organisation. The Minister will be aware that on this side of the House there is a good deal of objection to public undertakings of this kind being taken over. One has only to recollect the objections which were raised when some municipal electricity undertakings were absorbed to appreciate how deeply this divides the two sides of the House.
In this case we have an undertaking covering 60 square miles extending its activities to 450 square miles, and that is a salient feature. It is not a case of the strength of an undertaking. One has to look at the strength and influence it will have over such a wide area. The important question is whether it is to be a public or a private body. The Cambridgeshire County Council could not by any stretch of imagination be regarded as opposing private enterprise. But it takes the view that such a large area ought to be covered by a public authority of some kind. In that it supports the objectors, and it is on their behalf that I support the Amendment.
It is a pity that we have to go through this type of procedure. I agree that it is difficult to have to do so by way of Prayer and Amendment, but this is the only way in which it could be done. Having regard to the fact that this matter has gone on for so long, I should have thought that the necessary time for a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the representations made would have been much less than the time already taken; so that there is no particular objection on grounds of time.
Is it the case that the Minister, having made up his mind, is afraid that by the objections being considered by a Joint Committee, his position might be shaken, and so, having made the Order, he is going on with it? I should consider that an unfortunate line to take, and I do not think that it would do the Government any good. At least in this matter justice should be done and be seen to be done. Because successive Governments have found it necessary to restrict the activities of private undertakings, there is no case for doing the

389
same with public undertakings. I hope that the Minister will think about this again and allow the matter to come before both Houses so that objections may be properly considered.
11.8 p.m.
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), who is also my political neighbour. I have no constituency interest in this matter, but I have had the experience of being chairman of Committees which have considered a number of water Bills. One Committee considered a water Bill for a longer period than any other Committee. As a result of my experience I have come to the conclusion that it is almost impossible to decide on the merits of a water Bill or an Order without going into the whole of the engineering problems, and having the maps and the financial figures available and giving someone the opportunity to study the matter in great detail. What I find most disturbing in this Petition is that we find in paragraph 13—and this my hon. Friend did not mention—the following words:
"Your Petitioners submit that insufficient consideration has been given to the proposals which will deprive many water consumers of any voice in the management of their water supply."
That is a fairly substantial charge. My hon. Friend did not attempt to justify it tonight, although I think that he implied much the same thing.
As far as one can see, a public inquiry was held only on 11th and 12th July, 1961—two days to consider what must be a fairly complex matter. I am very conscious of the enormous cost of promoting water Bills. If I were not so conscious of that I should be very strongly in favour of water Bills rather than water Orders, but I do not think that in a desire to save ratepayers vast expenditure on the promoting of Private Bills it would be right to be so addicted to water Orders that we allowed, for a single minute, the Minister to get away with what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary told us tonight; namely, that even were there to be set up the Joint Committee for which the Amendment asks, the Minister has so made up his mind that he will bludgeon the Order through,
390
anyway. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is one of the most courteous of people, and I know that he had no intention of affronting the House or the people of Cambridgeshire, but his words were singularly unfortunate.
I know the Cambridgeshire people fairly well, and I know that they rival in their independence of mind the fen men in my constituency. Sometimes we find it very hard to coincide those two independencies of view but, on this occasion, I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider this matter. It is not because I believe that he is necessarily wrong in saying that this amalgamation should take place—I do not challenge that for a moment—but I do say that even if the Minister and the Department are convinced that this is a just decision, to those who are likely to be affected by it, it does not seem to be just, and if this House does not stand for seeing not only that justice is done but that it is seen to be done, what else does it stand for?
I would therefore beg my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to concede the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire. I know that it is very difficult for a Parliamentary Secretary to change Government policy once that policy has been decided before a debate—that is one of the weaknesses of our procedure—but, as the Leader of the House is here, I would ask him most sincerely to see whether he could find a way of enabling the views of the Cambridgeshire people to be made more explicit, and some of their anxieties put at rest. I believe that the only way in which we can do that is by having the Joint Committee my hon. Friend has proposed.
11.13 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I agree with every word the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) has addressed to the House. I also agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). They are, in the one case, the local Member and, in the other, a Member well acquainted with local conditions, and particularly well versed, as he told us, in matters relating to Private Bills and water Bills.
This Order is about water, and what we have to consider is not who is right

391
and who is wrong—it is not a question of whether a water company or a joint board should take over these water undertakings—but simply whether these three local authorities who have petitioned against this Ministerial Order are entitled to be heard. If the House turns down the Amendment, it will be denying to the Cambridgeshire County Council and the two other local authorities concerned the right to be heard; they will not be heard at all.
There is no question of the hearing and the conclusions of the Select Committee taking the whole matter out of the hands of the House. On the contrary, it will later come back for decision here. If hon. Members think that it is entirely governed by some general principle, they will then have an opportunity of saying so, but meanwhile the question, and the sole question, I repeat, is whether three local authorities are entitled to be heard on a matter affecting a public service in their own area, and it is very strong meat indeed for us to say tonight that because the Minister tells us so and because the Government Whips may be on, they are not to be heard on any account. That is what it comes to, and is exactly what Lord Kilmuir was apprehensive about in his speech which my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) quoted.
I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary and I noted one point—and I am sure that the House noted it, too—in his conclusions: there was a stage in the no doubt protracted negotiations about this matter at which local authorities were intent on having a joint water board. I am not saying whether they are right or wrong; that is not the question which we have to consider. But when they reached that conclusion the Minister turned it down on the ground that that arrangement would not be viable. I quote the Parliamentary Secretary. That is exactly what he said. We are in no position to consider whether that was right or wrong, but in so doing he defeated the then views not only of these local authorities but of a number of other local authorities concerned; he has over-ruled them on that point.
We have just heard from the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely that one of
392
the things which he thinks it appropriate to consider—and I respectfully agree with him—on any matter of this sort is the financial position of the undertaking in question—in short, the viability. That is exactly the question which the Minister took it upon himself to decide without allowing the views of the local authorities concerned, including those of the three Petitioners in this case, to be heard by the House in any way.
I suggest that this is pushing Government dominance over local authorities far beyond what it ought to be. Surely hon. Members opposite, as well as my hon. Friends, are concerned in the interests of their own constituencies, and the local authorities whose districts are in their constituencies, to maintain some degree of independence for local authorities. Is there any more appropriate case than the case of a public service in which that comparatively non-Socialist body, the Cambridgeshire County Council, ardently desires that the water services should be directed and managed by authorities with local responsibility to the inhabitants?
I should have thought that it was as plain as a pikestaff that if this Government or any other Government are allowed to get away with procedure of this sort, they are over-ruling the local authorities in a matter which is primarily the concern of local authorities; under this special procedure they are denying them a right to be heard to which surely, if they were individuals, we should all agree that they were entitled, and which they ought not to be denied simply because they are representative elected local authorities standing in the shoes, as it were, of all those who use water in their areas.
I suggest to the House that it is a monstrous thing if this procedure is to be used in this way. If it is, then it may well fulfil all the apprehensions and all the anxieties which were expressed by the Tory Party when this Act was being passed. What do the Tory Party believe in this matter? Do they believe what Lord Kilmuir said? Do they believe what has been said by their hon. Friends tonight about the right of a local authority to be heard in a matter of this sort? Or, on the contrary, have

393
they no belief at all and do they simply follow blindly the Government Whips and the Minister of the day to any degree of dominance over local authorities which the Government choose to exert?
Surely we must draw the line somewhere. Have we not reached the paint of deying these people this right and therefore in effect handing over the whole business, which surely ought to be a local authority concern, to the Government of the day? Talk about some general principle in the matter! The general principle of the Government appears to me at the moment to be that if there is any question to be decided between a statutory water undertaking on the one hand, in the form of a company, and, on the other, the elected local authorities, then so long as a Tory Government are in power that question shall certainly be decided against the elected body and in favour of the company.
11.21 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: There is not much time left, and I hope that we shall have another word from the Minister or from the Leader of the House. I came here particularly to "sit in" on this debate tonight because I felt some measure of concern as a matter not dissimilar to this concerning my own constituency is coming forward in due course. I must say that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in his usual efficient and gracious way, has led me to believe that the concern that I felt was well founded.
In view of the discussion that we have had tonight, the House is entitled to some further word on this matter because there is distinctly a principle involved. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), who has had much experience of these matters, confirmed by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). It is not the merits of the Order which are involved. It is the question whether or not these authorities should have the opportunity of having their case examined when placed under a compulsory Order.
It is not quite as it should be for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to argue the matter of expense and to say, "Of course, we should like at some time or other to introduce legislation to make
394
this easier, but as it is not easier people must lump it." That, in straight language which some people will understand well enough, is precisely what this means, and I say frankly that people should not "lump it" and the Tory Party should not ask people to do so. There are a few minutes left for the Government to try to save their face in the matter.
11.23 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: I was hoping to hear something, if not from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, then from the Leader of the House. If he wishes to intervene at this moment I will gladly give way.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Of course, I am ready to respond to what has been said. I have heard every word of this debate. I did not particularly mean to do so at the beginning, but I listened to it because it was extremely interesting. I heard the moving of the Motion and of the Amendment, as well as the reply given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
I think the House will admit that, whether or not they agree with the flow of the argument, and whatever conclusion may be arrived at in the Division Lobby if we divide on the matter, my hon. Friend's reply was patient, detailed and courteous, as we should expect.
We have reaffirmed the policy on these matters on a number of occasions. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary outlined it in his speech tonight, and I hope that the House will accept the reasons that he gave for rejecting the Motion and the Amendment.
Mr. Ross: I hope that we do not take the advice of the Leader of the House. What are the local authorities doing? They are exercising a right that was specifically put into the procedure under the 1945 Act. From all the arguments of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, no general objection should ever be sustained by this House. After all, the Order was brought forward by the Government—
Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman ought to be fair. Only a few weeks ago

395
the Llanelly Water Order, after a similar debate to this, was referred to a Joint Committee after the House accepted the Amendment. We must take each case on its merits.
Mr. Ross: Yes, but what was the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument? He did not address himself properly to the detailed points—in fact, he could not—in relation to the position of the county council which has a double objection, so far as I can see, besides the general objection.
It would be only the right and most sensible thing to do to give the local authorities concerned their right to a Joint Committee. One of the deplorable things about this is that we are governed by the ordinary rules on Motions and that we must end the debate at 11.30 p.m. without having discussed anything other than the Amendment. As has been said, there is an important principle relating to the actual Prayer against the Order itself which we have not discussed.
I address myself to the Leader of the House in connection with the Committee on Procedure in saying that this kind of thing should not be dealt with in this way.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he had not meant to listen to the debate. Neither had I, but the matter is not just fascinating; it enshrines a principle in which every hon. Member has a right to be interested—the question whether or not a locally elected person should have some say on a matter concerned with the local authority, and that is the provision of water. This is the fundamental point of the objection, and it was to discuss it that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) moved the Amendment. I will gladly support him in the Lobby.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 68.

Division No. 177.]

AYES

[11.27 p.m.

Aliason, James

Glover, Sir Douglas

Nicholls, Sir Harmer

Atkins, Humphrey

Goodhart, Philip

Noble, Michael

Barter, John

Goodhew, Victor

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Batsford, Brian

Green, Alan

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Bidgood, John C.

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Peel, John

Biffen, John

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Bingham, R. M.

Hastings, Stephen

Pitman, Sir James

Bishop, F. P.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Pott, Percivall

Black, Sir Cyril

Hendry, Forbes

Prior, J. M. L.

Bourne-Arton, A.

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

Rawlinson, Peter

Box, Donald

Hocking, Philip N.

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Boyle, Sir Edward

Holland, Philip

Rees, Hugh

Brooman-White, R.

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Renton, David

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Buck, Antony

Hughes-Young, Michael

Rippon, Geoffrey

Bullard, Denys

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Roots, William

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Kimball, Marcus

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Channon, H. P. G.

Kirk, Peter

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Chataway, Christopher

Kitson, Timothy

Russell, Ronald

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Scott-Hopkins, James

Collard, Richard

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Shaw, M.

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Litchfield, Capt. John

Shepherd, William

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Longden, Gilbert

Skeet, T. H. H.

Cordle, John

Loveys, Walter H.

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

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

MacArthur, Ian

Smithers, Peter

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

McLaren, Martin

Stodart, J. A.

Cunningham, Knox

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

Studholme, Sir Henry

Curran, Charles

McMaster, Stanley R.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Currie, G. B. H.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Tapsell, Peter

Deedes, W. F.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Maddan, Martin

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

du Cann, Edward

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Teeling, Sir William

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

Marten, Neil

Temple, John M.

Errington, Sir Eric

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Farr, John

Mawby, Ray

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Fisher, Nigel

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Gammans, Lady

Mills, Stratton

Turner, Colin

Gibson-Watt, David

Miscampbell, Norman

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Gilmour, Sir John

Morgan, William

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Walker, Peter

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Wise, A. R.

Mr. Chichester-Clark and

Webster, David

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Mr. Finlay.

Whitelaw, William

Worsley, Marcus

NOES

Bence, Cyril

Hilton, A. V.

Probert, Arthur

Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Ross, William

Blackburn, F.

Holman, Percy

Short, Edward

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

Houghton, Douglas

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Cliffe, Michael

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Small, William

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Spriggs, Leslie

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hoy, James H.

Steele, Thomas

Cronin, John

Janner, Sir Barnett

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Crosland, Anthony

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Wainwright, Edwin

Delargy, Hugh

King, Dr. Horace

Ward, Dame Irene

Dempsey, James

Lawson, George

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Fernyhough, E.

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

White, Mrs. Eirene

Forman, J. C.

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Whitlock, William

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Loughlin, Charles

Wilkins, W. A.

Galpern, Sir Myer

MacColl, James

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

McInnes, James

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

Gourlay, Harry

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Grey, Charles

Marsh, Richard

Woof, Robert

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Mellish, R. J.

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

Milne, Edward

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Mitchison, G. R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hayman, F. H.

Paget, R. T.

Mr. Pym and Mr. Pargiter.

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Popplewell, Ernest

Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 136.

Division No. 178.]

AYES

[11.36 p.m.

Bence, Cyril

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Ross, William

Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Hilton, A. V.

Short, Edward

Blackburn, F.

Holman, Percy

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

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

Houghton, Douglas

Small, William

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Spriggs, Leslie

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Steele, Thomas

Cronin, John

Hoy, James H.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Crosland, Anthony

Janner, Sir Barnett

Wainwright, Edwin

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Wells, William (Walsail, N.)

Delargy, Hugh

King, Dr. Horace

White, Mrs. Eirene

Dempsey, James

Lawson, George

Whitlock, William

Fernyhough, E.

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Wilkins, W. A.

Forman, J. C.

Loughlin, Charles

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

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

MacColl, James

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mclnnes, James

Woof, Robert

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Gourlay, Harry

Mellish, R. J.

Grey, Charles

Milne, Edward

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Mitchison, G. R.

Mr. George Thomas and

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Popplewell, Ernest

Mr. Pargiter.

Hayman, F. H.

Probert, Arthur

NOES

Allason, James

Chichester-Clark, R.

Gibson-Watt, David

Atkins, Humphrey

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Gilmour, Sir John

Barter, John

Collard, Richard

Glover, Sir Douglas

Batsford, Brian

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Goodhart, Philip

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Green, Alan

Bidgood, John C.

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Biffen, John

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Bingham, R. M.

Cunningham, Knox

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Bishop, F. P.

Curran, Charles

Hastings, Stephen

Black, Sir Cyril

Currie, G. B. H.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Bourne-Arton, A.

Deedes, W. F.

Hendry, Forbes

Box, Donald

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

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

Boyle, Sir Edward

du Cann, Edward

Hocking, Philip N.

Brooman-White, R.

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Holland, Philip

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

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

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Buck, Antony

Errington, Sir Eric

Hughes-Young, Michael

Bullard, Denys

Farr, John

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Finlay, Graeme

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Fisher, Nigel

Kimball, Marcus

Channon, H. P. G.

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Kirk, Peter

Chataway, Christopher

Gammans, Lady

Kitson, Timothy

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Tapsell, Peter

Litchfield, Capt. John

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Longden, Gilbert

Pitman, Sir James

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

Loveys, Walter H.

Pott, Percivall

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

MacArthur, Ian

Prior, J. M. L.

Teeling, Sir William

McLaren, Martin

Rawlinson, Peter

Temple, John M.

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

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

McMaster, Stanley R.

Rees, Hugh

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Renton, David

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Maddan, Martin

Rippon, Geoffrey

Turner, Colin

Markham, Major Sir Frank

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

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Roots, William

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Marten, Neil

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Walder, David

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Walker, Peter

Mawby, Ray

Russell, Ronald

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Scott-Hopkins, James

Ward, Dame Irene

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

Shaw, M.

Webster, David

Mills, Stratton

Shepherd, William

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Miscampbell, Norman

Skeet, T. H. H.

Wise, A. R.

Morgan, William

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

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Smithers, Peter

Worsley, Marcus

Noble, Michael

Stodart, J. A.

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Studholme, Sir Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Peel.

INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING (GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE)
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
11.44 p.m.
Mr. John Howard: I have sought to raise this subject on the Adjournment for some time and it is perhaps opportune that it has been selected for debate at a moment when the attention of the Press and the public has been focussed on the latest menace to British and foreign shipping, namely, the regulations implementing the amendments to the United States Shipping Act, 1916.
The welfare of shipping and its important contribution to the United Kingdom economy as an earner and saver of foreign currency is all too frequently overlooked. Perhaps because this vital industry is too seldom in our thoughts too little time is devoted to debates on shipping in the House of Commons. We still have the largest ocean-going merchant fleet in the world and a merchant navy of approximately 150,000 officers and men. This is a priceless asset and we must see to it that when we compete for the world's freight the dice are not heavily weighted against us.
Tonight, I wish to draw attention to the twin problems of flag discrimination and the recent shipping legislation introduced by the United States. It is important to distinguish between these two forms of Government interference in
400
international shipping. Flag discrimination relates to cargo preferences imposed by Governments for the benefit of their own shipping, while recent American legislation seeks to impose unilateral control over liner shipping and liner conferences. Both are contrary to the interests of British shipping.
There are other forms of Government interference with normal commercial considerations, such as payments by certain Governments, including the United States, of subsidies in the form of contributions towards the building and operational costs of their own merchant fleets, but I am not proposing to deal with that tonight.
Flag discrimination is the most serious and intractable of our problems. It arises from a wide variety of Acts and pressures by governments designed to direct cargoes into ships of the national flag, regardless of commercial considerations. This particular form of nationalism arises for several reasons—for defence considerations as in the case of the United States, considerations of national prestige, as in the case of India, Burma, Brazil and Ceylon, and also balance of payments difficulties. Nevertheless, whatever the reason, the result is that liberalisation and co-operation so evident elsewhere in the free world's trading policies are notably absent from shipping.
The move towards national goods in national ships has produced undesirable results. For example, the free competitive field must continue to contract since efficiency alone in the operation

401
of ships is no match for new entrants who are supported by discriminatory practices and subsidies. Cross-trades will be progressively eroded and it is on these trades that the economic working of the shipping industry and, in turn, cheap world freights depend. Ultimately, this could lead to the elimination of ships of the genuine maritime countries whose owners have to cost their operations. This clearly cannot be for the benefit of world trade at large.
The United States looms large in this problem created by flag discrimination and subsidies. I recall that on a visit to the United States in 1959 I talked to a number of American audiences on flag discrimination and subsidies. These Americans were surprised by the existence of the problem and, moreover, all expressed sympathy on a matter which was clearly of vital importance to Great Britain.
Flag discrimination varies from bilateral trade treaties which reserve the whole or much of the trade to ships of the two flags concerned—that largely embraces the Communist countries, the South Americas, Japan, Pakistan and Portugal—through the manipulation of import licences, customs duties and exchange controls for the same purpose, to more easily identifiable discrimination, namely, direct legislative controls.
For example, apart from aid cargoes, the United States by Public Law 664 stipulates that in any case where the United States gives defence funds, credits or guarantees convertibility of currency in respect of goods shipped abroad, 50 per cent. of those shipments must be in United States ships. These examples give some indication of how rife and diverse flag discrimination has become.
Countries looking to the West for liberal trade and generous aid are amongst those adopting shipping policies which are harmful to those from whom they seek help. International organisations such as O.E.C.D. should be induced to give support to the proposition that the same principle of liberalisation should be applied to the provision of shipping services as to the exchange of goods.
The maritime nations which operate commercially have enough to contend with, as, I hope, I have demonstrated. They now have these new regulations,
402
which have been brought in by the United States to give that Government control over all common carriers plying to and from the United States regardless of the nationality of the flags of the carriers. In the case of Great Britain, it is almost as though the United States sought to extend its territorial waters into Southampton Docks and to extend its jurisdiction into the forwarding agents' offices. The new law is aimed at freight rates. It seeks unilateral regulation of the liner conferences and the liner trade generally. It requires the production of documents relating to contracts executed outside the United States.
The International Chamber of Shipping, at a meeting last April, had something to say about this problem. It mentioned that if policies similar to those of the United States were adopted by other countries, nothing short of chaos in international trade and shipping would follow and this would cause serious harm not only to the foreign commerce of the United States, but also to countries trading with her.
I appreciate that strong anti-trust views are prevalent in the United States, but the regulations based on the new law get the whole system completely out of hand. The interpretations and investigations of the Federal Maritime Commission are so elaborate that they have been described as bureaucracy gone mad. I appreciate that these cases are being disputed in the courts, but, nevertheless, there is no reason why they should not be raised here.
The anti-trust aspect of shipping charges was subject to discussion at the International Chamber of Commerce in July, 1961, when it was found that the conference system was to the advantage of the users of sea transport services. It supported stable freight rates, which were inherent in the conference system. More recently—only yesterday—the International Chamber of Commerce held a further meeting in Paris because it felt that developments were extremely grave in relation to the basic principle of the International Chamber of Commerce on the liberalisation and the freedom of commercial enterprise from governmental interference.
As a result, the International Chamber passed a resolution, which on this occasion specifically referred to the United

403
States legislation. Among other things, the resolution referred to the
"basic principle that the free circulation of goods and services is of paramount importance to the orderly development of a healthy world economy".
It recorded its "gravest concern" because of the difficulties that would arise from the
"increased and wide powers … to intervene in the domestic and commercial affairs of the shipping and trade of other nations".
It concluded by stating that
"actions by any country attempting to … control … international shipping are so serious to the free movement of world trade and the efficiency and economy of international shipping services as to require the urgent review of the whole situation and justify the need for a revision of … the U.S. shipping legislation."
The question of Her Majesty's Government taking powers to retaliate has been raised both in this House, by Questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today, and in the Press. This certainly ought to be considered, but we must accept that other nations are involved besides Great Britain and that we ought to carry the genuine maritime Powers with us in any action that is taken. Certainly, in other spheres of international affairs, pressure of world opinion is supposed to count. There is little doubt about the opinion of the free nations in regard to this legislation of the United States. Eighteen of the shipping nations expressed themselves as being gravely concerned and only one dissented—needless to say, the United States representative, who abstained from voting. I hope that this pressure of opinion will lead to consultations with the Americans and eventually to conciliation. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport chaired a meeting of ten shipping nations as recently as 3rd May when collective action was discussed. May I ask when he anticipates that a final decision will be reached?
May I remind my right hon. Friend of a speech he made in July, 1961, when he referred to the fact that the prosperity of shipping depended on close co-operation between the Government and the industry. He described the job of the industry as being efficient and competitive, and that of the Government as holding the ring and enabling the Indus-
404
try to operate under conditions of free and fair international competition. That was an admirable sentiment and tonight I seek a progress report from my right hon. Friend on the job of the Government in holding the ring. May I ask what progress is being made towards the prohibition of hitting below the belt in international shipping trade?
11.58 p.m.
Mr. R. G. Mellish: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard) on his good fortune in being able to raise this important issue tonight. By his appearance in the Chamber the Minister of Transport has emphasised the importance of the matter and I will not stand in the way of the right hon. Gentleman in answering the debate for more than a few moments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) would have intervened to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Test, but may I get on the record on behalf of the Opposition our appreciation of the fact that the situation we face is that our merchant fleet is being discriminated against by an ally and a friend. It is too much to ask that we in this House should take that lying down. The majority of hon. Members are the friends of the American alliance. We recognise that the friendship of America is important in the field of foreign affairs and that without it there is no hope for the survival of the free world.
But the Americans must recognise that we have certain economic problems to overcome. We do not ask for preference from them and we never have done. We are prepared to stand on our own feet and fight our own battles. But we do ask for a chance to compete in a fair and honest manner. Legislation has been introduced by the Americans which has the effect of causing us to be treated as a foreign nation. We are being discriminated against in order to support what are called American shipping interests and certain American trusts. It may be that President Kennedy is unhappy about this and is against it, but we are asking that action be taken.
The American law is such that we are not being allowed to compete fairly

405
and honestly. I know the problems facing the Minister. It is easy for me to tell the right hon. Gentleman what he ought to do, but I recognise his difficulties. Questions have been put to the Prime Minister and I appreciate the delicate balance which the right hon. Gentleman has to hold. But there are times when Britain must speak out loudly, whether it be to the Americans or to the Russians or anybody else. There is a limit beyond which we shall not go, and if the Americans continue this course of action we shall have no alternative but to consider discrimination against them, in conjunction with other nations of Europe. That would be disastrous for us all and the situation would be exploited by our enemies. If the Minister can assure us that he is doing all he can to defend the interests of our shipping fleet, we shall be satisfied. If he cannot, we as an Opposition intend to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity in a full-scale debate.
12 m.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I should be most grateful to the Opposition if they could raise this subject in a full-scale debate, because an Adjournment debate does not afford me sufficient time to deploy my case. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard) for raising this question, and to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for being so kind as to make his points so lucidly.
Frankly, the Government have no wish to conceal their deep anxiety over the present difficulties of our shipping industry. Those difficulties are numerous and varied, and include interference by foreign Governments. I do not for a moment suggest that that is the only, or, indeed, the most serious of the industry's troubles, but it is certainly one that arouses widespread and justified indignation.
There are two distinct kinds of interference, and I want to say a word about each. First, there is what is usually called flag discrimination. Secondly, there is the attempt by other countries to regulate the operations of freight lines and their conferences. May I stress to the House and to the country that those are two separate and distinct issues, and each should be discussed quite
406
separately from the other. To treat them as one issue only is to confuse and muddle any discussion. So I repeat—they are two separate issues, and should be treated as such. I will deal first with the interference which is called flag discrimination, referred to by my hon. Friend, and then I shall deal with that interference that consists of other countries attempting to regulate the operation of freight lines and their conferences.
In modern times, flag discrimination takes many different forms. The first example is that many countries reserve their coastal trade exclusively to their own ships. That is a relatively simple device. The second example is that many countries reserve for their own shipping the whole or part of any import or export traffic which is owned, financed, or otherwise controlled by Governments. The cargo preference system of the United States is the best known example of this, but it is not necessarily the most important.
Discrimination of this sort is exercised by Statute, and is therefore open for everyone to see, but there are other forms of discrimination that are less obvious and not easy for everyone to see. For example, both import licensing and exchange control can be used to give concessions in respect of port duties or other charges, and many fertile minds concentrating on methods to bring other pressures on shippers have no difficulty in finding all sorts of possibilities of concealed pressures.
How do we deal with this type of flag discrimination? The General Council of British Shipping has pressed the Government to take new powers, but it would not be in order for me to speculate on what those new powers might be. Perhaps I might repeat what I have said in our last two debates on shipping, which is that before we move we should first be clear about what precise action we could take in particular cases, and secondly we should be sure whether or not such action would be advantageous to our shipping generally and to the national interest as a whole. We must never forget that although our merchant fleet is not such a large percentage of the world fleet as it once was, it is still very large. We carry not only more than half of our own trade but a good

407
deal of the trade between other countries. It is vital that we should consider very carefully whether we might not have more to lose than to gain from retaliation.
The first point I mentioned is to be clear what precise action we could take in a particular case if we had the powers. I therefore asked the General Council of British Shipping, which asked me to take powers, to furnish me with full details of what powers we should take in a particular case. Naturally, the Government must have details of how any power would be used. I realise that it will take time for the General Council to reply, but when it lets me have its answer I shall be able to make a precise assessment of what the country stands to gain or lose by taking action. Remember, I have to take into account not only the gains and losses to shipping in particular but the gains and losses to exports and imports in general as well. I await the General Council's answer with interest. So much for flag discrimination, which is the first form of interference.
I now turn to the second form of interference, which is absolutely separate from flag discrimination—the attempt by foreign countries to regulate the operation of freight lines and their conferences. The most notorious example of such regulation is that now being attempted by the United States of America in their Public Law No. 87–346. I should like to say three things about this American legislation. First, we cannot accept the principle that any one country, however powerful and however friendly, should unilaterally regulate international shipping. I have stated this before and I state it again, and it is a view which is shared by the leading maritime European nations and also by the Japanese Government.
Secondly, while we recognise that there may be a risk of conferences becoming unduly restrictive, we consider that the dangers are greatly exaggerated in the American mind. The real safeguard against conferences offending in this matter is that their trade would be taken away from them by enterprising tramp line owners and also by more efficient lines outside the conference. American tramps could always step in and steal
408
the traffic if they could give better terms and service. But could they give them? If they could, why do not they do so? It is very interesting that even the Americans have not taken the view that conferences should be abolished.
Thirdly, we are disturbed by the fact that although the American law is ostensibly aimed at possible abuses by shipping conferences, the Act itself provides that the regulation is to be carried out in the interests of United States commerce. Why only the interests of the United States? What about the interests of the United Kingdom? What about the interests of the European countries? Are they to be sacrificed? Indeed, statements made by members of Congress and by United States officials also imply that it is to be used in the interests of United States shipping. What about our shipping? What about the shipping of other countries? Is that to be sacrificed? What about efficiency? What about free enterprise? What about service for the customer? These are not mentioned. But what is mentioned is that the regulations are to be carried out in the interests of the United States.
How do we deal with this problem? It has been suggested that sooner or later the leading maritime nations will be obliged to arm themselves with powers comparable with those already taken by the American Government, with the object of exercising a degree of control and thus bring all countries, including the Americans, to the conference table.
Against this, on the other hand, there is the strong possibility that such a course of action would lead eventually to some form of international control over liner conferences and eventually perhaps over all international shipping. It would indeed be ironic if the United States, that bastion of free enterprise, were responsible for laying the foundations of an international, Government-controlled, Socialist shipping policy. And if the result proved to be higher freight costs for the customer plus a more inconvenient and inefficient service, then, alas, we should have struck a blow at the philosophy of private enterprise. State regulation on this scale does not seem believable in a land of free enterprise. It may well be that history will record that the United States will have

409
been responsible for the birth of a world socialised shipping industry.
But one thing is clear to me from the several meetings of the leading European maritime nations. If we can hammer out a collective policy between us, we shall be in a stronger position to act. I shall strive in Europe for a united front and a collective policy. I hope and pray that we shall succeed. Our last meeting on 3rd May leads me to think that we shall. If we in Europe succeed, we shall be backed by massive strength and great bargaining power.
I have already dealt with flag discrimination and with the American attempt to regulate the operation of freight lines and their conference. I turn to my last point, which is entirely separate from the first two. I refer to the clash between the demands by the United States Federal Maritime Commission for documents located in the United Kingdom and the requirement of the Minister—myself—to the British lines concerned not to produce those documents. The United States Federal Maritime Commission demanded the production of documents which were located not in the United States but in the United Kingdom. Therefore, in a letter dated 9th March I told the shipping lines concerned that the documents in question related to transactions effected wholly within the United Kingdom and as such they were not within the substantive jurisdiction of the United States. Consequently, I went on to say that the production of such documents would be contrary to the public interest of the United Kingdom.
This issue is solely and starkly one of jurisdiction. Of course, the matters in the documents may be complicated or they may be simple, but what is crystal clear is that the narrow issue of principle is whether the United States can demand documents relating solely to transactions effected wholly within the United Kingdom and not within the substantive jurisdiction of the United States.
The issue is purely one of jurisdiction. But this case brings out the issue very clearly, and it is only one aspect of the whole set of problems raised by the American legislation about the liner conferences. Whatever the outcome of this case, it will not solve all the wider problems.
410
Perhaps I may now say a word about the narrow aspect of the matter. This case of jurisdiction may be referred to the courts. Therefore, it would not be proper or appropriate for me to comment on the substance of the matter at issue between the British lines and the Federal Maritime Commission, and it would not be advisable to say how the case may be handled or decided.
But leaving the narrow point of jurisdiction, I would mention that the practice of paying forwarding commissions on shipments to certain selected United States ports, to which objection is now taken, has a history going back to shortly after the First World War. But in any event, the fundamental issue for Her Majesty's Government is one of jurisdiction.
Despite all the difficulties and hesitations which I have mentioned, there are many who have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the growth of flag discrimination on the one hand and of regulation by foreign Governments on the other hand is bringing to an end an era of freedom in international shipping. It may be right, or it may be wrong, but I believe it is being brought to an end by the intervention of Governments overseas. Nevertheless, we feel strongly that the prospects of preserving liberal policies in international shipping depend upon those who believe in them—that is to say, the leading maritime nations acting in concert.
My Parliamentary Secretary and I have done our best to bring the European nations together. We have striven hard both here and on the Continent, and we shall continue to strive to bring them together so that we act in concert, because I believe that if we act alone we shall be weaker than if we act collectively. If the European maritime nations act together, we shall have greater strength and bargaining power, and we may ultimately prevail with our views on shipping.
One thing is clear, that my Parliamentary Secretary, who has devoted himself to this cause, and I will lose no opportunity to make sure that our views are known in the United States, however unpopular we may be in developing and

411
forwarding those views, because we believe that no single nation can dictate to the rest of the world how its shipping—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening
412
and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

FALKLAND ISLANDS
  Argentine Claims
  Argentine Claims
ANTIGUA
  Trade Mission
  Trade Mission
  Trade Disputes Act
  Trade Disputes Act
MALTA
  Bailey (Malta) Limited
  Bailey (Malta) Limited
POST OFFICE
  Sub-Office, Huddersfield
  Sub-Office, Huddersfield
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Aberdeen
  Aberdeen
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Housing Services Administration, Greater London
  Housing Services Administration, Greater London
  ALGERIAN REFUGEES (TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION)
  ALGERIAN REFUGEES (TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Works Loan Board (Interest Charges)
  Public Works Loan Board (Interest Charges)
  Fruit Imports (Tariff Yield)
  Fruit Imports (Tariff Yield)
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
EDUCATION
  University Students
  University Students
HOSPITALS
  Pay Claims
  Pay Claims
  Nurses and Midwives
  Nurses and Midwives
  Research Expenditure
  Research Expenditure
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  District Nurses
  District Nurses
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Anti-British Films
  Anti-British Films
HOME DERARTMENT
  Mental Health Act, 1959 (Psychopathic Disorder)
  Mental Health Act, 1959 (Psychopathic Disorder)
EMPLOYMENT
  Workshops for the Blind (Northumberland)
  Workshops for the Blind (Northumberland)
  Disabled and Blind Persons
  Disabled and Blind Persons
ROADS
  Eastern Avenue Extension
  Eastern Avenue Extension
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  New Office and Hospital Accommodation
  New Office and Hospital Accommodation
  No. 10 Downing Street (Central Heating)
  No. 10 Downing Street (Central Heating)

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

I.T.A. AND PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS
2.35 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that persons disqualified under Section 5 (1) (b) of the Television Act, 1954, have become programme contractors, and to ask what powers Her Majesty's Government have to require the I.T.A. to carry out its statutory duty that such persons do not become or continue as programme contractors.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords, nor do Her Majesty's Government need specific powers to take up matters of this kind with the Independent Television Authority. If there were evidence that the Act was being contravened they would certainly take the matter up.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they would regard a cross-directorship, a directorship of an advertising agency and of a programme contractor, as a disqualification?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, that sort of cross-directorship would be a contravention.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? As the Chairman—that is, Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick—is reported to have said, "We have no attitude to cross-director ships and are interested only in con trolling interests," is it then suggested that the Government and the I.T.A. take a different view on the interpretation of the Act?
LORD ST. OSWALD: What is perfectly clear is that a director in an advertising agency would be a disqualified person under the meaning of the Act. That is the point the noble Lord is raising and that is the only sort of cross-directorship to which I have been referring.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I had hoped for a more forthcoming attitude from the Government and to avoid giving names, but in view of the fact that Mr. Prince Littler is a director of A.T.V. and Radio Luxembourg, London, whose Memorandum of Association states that it exists to carry on, whether as principals or agents, a general advertising and publicity business, may I ask whether he might not be disqualified? I have the names of three others, all of whom are directors—I have checked this to-day—of advertising agents.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord has been singularly unsuccessful, if I may say so, in not giving names, as I read his views in the Sunday papers. I think I ought to tell him that in fact, out of the four names he gave on that occasion, to which no doubt he is referring to-day, three are not advertising agents, and the fourth, although he did at one time belong to an advertising agency, in fact resigned from the board of that advertising agency before he took up his post with a programme company.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, could the Minister say when an agency for advertising is not an advertising agency?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I could in fact go into that at some length, but I do not think the House would wish me to. It is a fact that an advertising agency is not defined in the terms of the Act. The description and the characteristics accepted by the advertising profession are observed in the matter of disqualifying directors of advertising agencies.
2.38 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to

81
obtain the cancellation of the contracts of A.T.V., Scottish Television, and Southern Television, as required by law, in view of the fact that persons are, or have been, directors of these programme contracting companies while being disqualified persons under Section 5 (1) (b) of the Television Act, 1954.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: None, my Lords. Under the Television Act, 1954, the question of contracts with programme contractors is a matter not for Her Majesty's Government tout for the Independent Television Authority, which has power to cancel. The I.T.A. has told me, however, that no disqualified persons are directors of the three programme contractors mentioned by the noble Lord.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can help by telling us what the relevant section of that Act means? Section 5 (1) (b), which is one of the disqualifying categories, refers to a person who:
"being an individual or body corporate … carries on business as an advertising agent (whether alone or in partnership) or has control over any body corporate … or is a director or officer. …"
In view of the fact that some of these firms, such as Rank Screen Services, state as their first objective in their Articles, "To carry on business as advertising and publicity agents"; that Theatre and General Advertising Company—which seems to me to sound like an advertising agency of some kind—states, "To carry on business of advertising agents and contractors"; and the Highland Advertising Company described themselves as "advertising agents and contractors ", is there a new version of the English language?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords. The noble Lord is, I am sure not on purpose, muddling things. He mentioned earlier one firm of advertising agents, Highland Advertising, from which a director resigned before taking up his post on a programme company. The others he has referred to are not advertising agencies within the meaning of the Act. I can go into it at slightly greater length. I am not an expert on these things, but, in short and to be very brief, the distinction is between the
82
organisation whose function is to sell space Which it owns or otherwise bas a right to dispose of, and the organisation whose function it is to place advertisements in media in which it has no such rights. The latter alone is the advertising agency.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord who it is exactly who has ruled that these organisations are not within the meaning of the Act?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, my Lords; I had tried my best to explain that before. There is no definition of it in the Act but it is the accepted definition within the advertising profession by which we are guided.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not a fact that when this Act went through we were in both Houses most anxious that advertising agents or directors of advertising firms should have nothing to do with contracts issued by the Authority? Is that not a fact?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I was not of course a Member of either House of Parliament at that time, but I have in fact read through the one-and-a-half-hour discussion of eight years ago, mainly carried on between the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, when he was in another place, and Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, now the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, then put forward his views, which were described just now by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, but it seems to me that possibly the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is under the illusion that it was his views which were accepted on that occasion and became part of the Act. Rightly or wrongly, they were not; and he might put up a case claiming that Shackleton's law had been transgressed but he could not put up a case that the law of England had been transgressed, which is the law which the Independent Television Authority has to apply.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that there is considerable apprehension about this matter? In view of the fact that many of us feel that the Act has been breached would it not be possible to get an authoritative opinion or inquiry into the

83
whole matter? There is an allegation that at least four people are directors of advertising agencies as well as of programme companies. Is it not right that that allegation should be finally dispelled or dealt with?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not want to be too repetitious, but the Government are satisfied that three of those named gentlemen are not on the board of an advertising agency. The fourth was, but resigned before he went on to the board of the programme company.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is not that what the noble Lord said to us just now; that it is accepted that they are not within the law? Now I understand from a supplementary answer to us that this is not being specially put up to the Government to give us to-day an opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. The noble Lord says that it is the rule accepted within the advertising industry. I think that is most unsatisfactory.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition will not put words into my mouth. I never said it was the rule accepted by the advertising profession; I said that the Authority were guided by the definition accepted by the advertising profession.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House if he could help us? Perhaps within a day or two we could have a ruling of the Law Officers of the Crown in detail.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am not sure it is any part of the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown to act as a sort of British law ascertainer. I should have to consult with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack before I gave an undertaking of that kind. I have not looked at this matter myself, but I had supposed it might be conceivable the courts might rule on it, apart from anything else.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not a fact that if you rely on the definition of the advertisers to decide whether they
84
are within the bounds it is like asking the wolf to decide whether he should enter the sheep-run?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think there is very understandably a confusion in some minds between advertisers and advertising agents. There is in fact a clear distinction between advertisers and advertising agents. The advertiser is the man who wishes to advertise a product; the advertising agent undertakes to place the advertisement and he then goes to the owner of the medium or media in which he thinks that advertisement could best be placed. There are three distinct categories in this process.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is it not the case that, as regards the three companies the noble Lord referred to, they each undertake to place advertisements; it is part of their articles of association that they undertake to place advertisements and not that they are themselves advertisers? Is that not a point which ought to be looked into?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, what is quite certain is that they do not act in that capacity. I cannot keep up with the noble Lord; I have not read the articles of association. They do not act in that capacity; the three companies to which I have referred as not being advertising agents are owners of media.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, are not the articles of association of these companies misleading if the Government are to accept the advertisers' own definition? They are described as "to carry on business as advertising agents." If the noble Lord looks at the articles of association he will see that all these things which he says they should not do and do not disqualify them are in fact contained in the articles. Is not the argument the same as the housemaid who had an illegitimate baby and said, "It is only a very little one"?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think possibly the noble Lord is referring to the memorandum rather than to the articles in this instance. In any case I think both of us are in pretty deep water when we start speaking of legalistic points of this nature.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: As there is a certain debate coming up to-morrow, may I ask

85
whether any questions asked to-morrow may get more considered answers, based on legal advice?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I was going to put the same point to the noble Viscount. The law is a very technical matter and I will ask my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who has been present throughout, to consider the legal points raised. He is, as your Lordships know, going to reply for the Government. I should have thought it much better to see what he had to say about it rather than press my noble friend unduly, because although about 30 years ago I did myself pass an examination on company law and I think I could answer a good many questions now, I should far rather it was handled by the proper authority.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, will the noble and learned Viscount consider also the counsel's opinion I have taken on this point in support of my views?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If the noble Lord will give me the counsel's opinion, I will gladly hand it to the noble and learned Viscount.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): And of course the instructions. The opinion is completely valueless without the instructions asking for his opinion in the first place.

ESSEX WATER SUPPLIES
2.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider how the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government—required for the agreement in regard to the financial arrangements between the Metropolitan Water Board and the South Essex Water Board—can be hastened to meet the urgency of the shortfall imminent in water supplies to Essex.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, my right honourable friend will consider these arrangements as soon as they are submitted to him for approval. I understand there is already agreement, in principle, between the two parties. In the meantime my right honourable friend has made an Order conferring powers on the South Essex Waterworks Company to carry out the works involved in their proposed agreement with the Board.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for a most satisfactory Answer. It shows that no time has been lost and that they have got on with the matter.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for a most satisfactory supplementary.

EGYPT: FINANCIAL AID AND THE COMPENSATION FUND
2.50 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: 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:—

(1) whether they can give any information on the reported visit to London by Dr. Kaissouni, Egyptian Minister of Economy and Finance: and his talks with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Privy Seal on the subject of financial aid to Egypt; and

(2) in the event of Her Majesty's Government contemplating any such assistance, will this be made conditional upon Egypt's full compliance forthwith with the terms of the Anglo-Egyptian Financial Agreement of 28th February, 1959, on which Egypt is up to the present in serious default.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the United Arab Republic Minister for Economy passed through London on May 2 on his way

87
back to Cairo from Washington. Dr. Kaissouni called first on the Lord Privy Seal and then on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to acquaint them with the result of his visit to the United States of America and, in particular, his discussions with the International Monetary Fund about support for the United Arab Republic balance of payments this year and other connected arrangements. No doubt the United Arab Republic Government will be making details of these arrangements known in due course. Dr. Kaissouni told the Lord Privy Seal of the United Arab Republic's need for further assistance under the auspices of the International Monetary Fund during 1962.
As regards the second part of my noble friend's Question, discussions were initiated in Cairo last month between Her Majesty's Ambassador and Dr. Kaissouni regarding the execution of those parts of the Financial Agreement where action is still delayed. The United Arab Republic authorities explained that delays in the transfer of assets were due to shortage of sterling. Ways and means of helping to overcome this and other difficulties are under consideration. Discussions are continuing in Cairo, and a statement will be made at the appropriate time. The views which have been expressed by your Lordships on this matter are certainly borne in mind by Her Majesty's Government in their handling of this question.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his, as always, most courteous and informative reply. But I did not catch from it that during this visit of the Egyptian Finance Minister the question of these claims was raised. I ask the formal question: during his visit here on May 2, was the question of the default under the 1959 Agreement raised with him or not?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords; and it has been raised on many other occasions.
LORD KILLEARN: Yes, I followed that, but that was in Cairo. Was it raised with Dr. Kaissouni during his visit here?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My noble friend means in London?
LORD KILLEARN: Yes.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes; and it has been raised in Cairo, too.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, was any progress made?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think your Lordships are aware that Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly stated to the United Arab Republic Government that the failure to implement the 1959 Agreement has prejudiced our relations, both financial and otherwise, and that if they can manage to implement their undertakings it will have a good effect on those relations. I do not really think it would be helpful if I were to say anything more than that at this moment.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, one final shot, reverting to the second part of my Question. I there ask whether, in the event of the Egyptian Minister's coming here in search of money, it will be borne in mind that their request should not be granted until we receive from the Egyptian Government guarantees that the Agreement of 1959 will be implemented. That is the second part of my Question.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I have said, I think, as much as I can helpfully say about that: first, that your Lordships' expressions of opinion on this matter will always be borne in mind by the Government; and next, that we have in the past expressed, and now express, the view that the failure hitherto to implement the undertakings of the 1959 Agreement has prejudiced our relations, and that their implementation would greatly improve them.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, before I leave this matter, may I ask whether those were our views or the views of the Government? I am sorry to press this, but I could not make out whether the views which had been imparted to Dr. Kaissouni were the views of your Lordships, or whether they were imparted as the views of our Government.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, all the views imparted are the views of the Government. What I said was that the Government would bear your Lordships' views in mind.

BRITISH GUIANA INDEPENDENCE CONFERENCE
2.56 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, it may be for your Lordships' convenience if I repeat a statement made by my right honourable friend in another place, in reply to a Question. The statement is as follows:
"In January Her Majesty's Government agreed with the Government of British Guiana to hold an Independence Conference in May. Subsequent events have now made "his impracticable. A Commission, under the Chairmanship of Sir Henry Wynn-Parry, will begin an Inquiry into the February disturbances in Georgetown in the middle of this month. We are discussing with the British Guiana Government measures aimed at enabling the Conference to have before it a formation of local ideas for an Independence Constitution, with initial areas of disagreement narrowed as far as possible. The two Governments are also undertaking a joint examination of financial matters. To enable these measures to be completed some deferment of the Conference is needed. I propose to hold it in July, provided the necessary preparatory steps are completed in time. The Government of British Guiana has been so informed."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, apparently this is a short adjournment, and I think the best thing we can do is to wish the Government progress in their examination.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount.

HEALTH VISITING AND SOCIAL WORK (TRAINING) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ANIMALS (CRUEL POISONS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOUTH AFRICA BILL
2.59 p.m.
Order of the day for receiving the Report of the Amendment read.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now Received.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I am taking this opportunity, which I believe is the only one at this stage of the Bill, to revert to the detailed but most important question which I mentioned on the Committee stage—namely, the need for safeguards for British protected persons from the High Commission Territories who go to work in the South African Republic. On May 1 the noble Earl, replying to a point of mine, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol 240, col. 1010] that he agreed that it was a most important question. He went on:
"… the opportunity for Africans from British protected Territories to work in South Africa is a matter which we have discussed with the South African Government. We have been assured that the South African Government appreciate the problem and will consult with us about any arrangements which are in force, so far as their own labour requirements permit."
I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government, following on that quite satisfactory declaration, whether this could not be embodied in an exchange of letters, or some such diplomatic operation, between the two Governments on the passing of this Bill. It seems to me that the future of these British-protected persons is so important that it should be committed to writing, and that the agreements between the Governments should also be put in writing. I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would agree.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I certainly appreciate the noble Earl's anxiety on this matter. I wrote him rather a lengthy letter about it this morning—which perhaps has not yet reached him.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: It has not.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: But since the noble Earl has raised it, I hope he will forgive me if I make, not a long, but a carefully considered reply to what he has

91
just said. I can assure him, my Lords, that the Government are anxious to achieve the firmest possible understanding with the South Africans on this matter. We are already engaged in getting as many as possible of the many facets of the future relations between the Territories and South Africa set down in exchanges of aide-memoires and Notes, which I think is what the noble Earl is suggesting we should do. But I am sure he will understand that not all of these arrangements are susceptible to this sort of treatment. In many cases it may be a question of the application of general broad points of principle; in other cases the arrangements are matters of cooperation at working level in the technical field whioh we may wish to be free to vary with the minimum of formality and the maximum of speed.
While I can promise that in every way that it is possible and prudent to do so we shall get these arrangements firmly recorded, in whatever form may be appropriate, I do not think we could undertake to have each and every one of them set down in one single exchange or in a single series of letters. I am sorry that my letter, which is rather more full than this statement, has not yet reached the noble Earl; but, for the sake of the House, I am glad to have had the opportunity of making this statement in reply to what he has said.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I thank the noble Earl very much for that very satisfactory statement. I must apologise if it is my fault that I have not yet seen his letter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Nationality, etc.]:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "sixty-five" and insert "sixty-six". The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will remember that when I moved this Amendment during the Committee stage of the Bill the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack was good enough to say that he would look into it and let me know his views before the Report stage. He sent me a long letter in which he set out, in very much greater detail than he was able to do in his reply, the Government's objections to this Amendment, but I must confess, with the utmost respect, that I
92
was not converted by the noble and learned Viscount's arguments. For that reason I have again put down the Amendment for your Lordships' consideration. I do not want to repeat what I said in Committee in support of this Amendment, but I should like to answer some of the objections that have been, or might be, advanced against this Amendment.
Your Lordships will remember that it is a simple proposal to extend from one year, from 1965 to 1966, the period of time during which South Africans can choose British citizenship if they so desire. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, suggested that these citizenship provisions might be part of a wider agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Union of South Africa, but the noble and learned Viscount made it clear that that was not the case. So we may be assured, I think, that nothing we do in relation to the citizenship provisions—even if we alter them—will in any way invalidate something else which we have agreed with the South African Government.
Another point is this. It may be said that if these citizenship provisions are amended now, it will be too late for consultation with other Commonwealth Governments. That, of course, is probably true, because the Bill has already been through an another place; it is completing its passage through your Lordships' House, and there would hardly be time. But, my Lords, is it necessary? I should have thought that, in view of the fact these citizenship provisions do not affect the citizens of other Commonwealth countries, consultation is not really essential. We all know cases in which other Commonwealth countries impose restrictions on entry which affect our citizens, and that sometimes we are not consulted. As this is something which does not affect the citizens of other Commonwealth countries, I should have thought that it would be sufficient if they were informed of any change that is made in the Bill before it passes into law.
Another objection might be that the South African Government might be tempted to retaliate against British subjects resident in the Union. My Lords, surely not. This whole Bill is extraordinarily generous, and I am quite certain that the South African Government

93
appreciate that it is without parallel. Looking back at the Burma Bill, for which I was responsible as a Minister, I think your Lordships will agree that the terms on which South Africa is leaving the Commonwealth are much more generous than the terms on which Burma left the Commonwealth. I cannot believe that a small alteration of this kind could affect the view that any objective person would take about the liberality of the measure as a whole from the point of view of the Union.
Again, it might be said in South Africa that this was an astute move to encourage the political opponents of the South African Government to stay in the Union and vote against it before choosing British citizenship. Surely such an idea would be a complete misconception of what is intended by this Amendment. I am quite certain that nobody who supports this Amendment in this House intends to interfere with the domestic affairs of the Union; that is the last thought present in any of our minds. The Amendment is intended simply and solely (perhaps this should be said to clear up the misconception) to give persons in South Africa who may wish to acquire British citizenship a reasonable opportunity of making up their minds. It may also be said that the period of time in the Bill, over three years, is longer than the period of time we gave to Burma. That, of course, is the case. It is only one example of the special treatment that we are giving to South Africa. This Amendment would prolong the period by one more year, and certainly, when we compare South Africa with Burma, there must be some special reason for having the longer period. This special reason was the one I mentioned in the course of the discussion in Committee—namely, that there will be a General Election in South Africa in 1966; and, quite clearly, people will have a better opportunity of making up their minds about the future of the country, about its stability, its economic prospects, after a General Election than before it.
During the Committee stage the noble and learned Viscount said—and everyone would agree—that it is impossible for anyone living in the Republic, however long he may have lived there and however well he knows the country, to estimate with absolute certainty even
94
over a period of five to ten years what the future of the Republic will be. I am not contending that it would be possible to be certain what will happen over a long period of time in the Republic of South Africa. All I am saying is that it would be more feasible to make an approximate estimate of what the future is likely to be, after the General Election, when the policy of the next Government is known, than it would be before it. For that reason I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("sixty-five") and insert ("sixty-six").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
3.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in accordance with the undertaking I gave in the Committee stage, I have done two things. First, I have given very careful consideration to this problem; and, secondly, as the noble Earl has been kind enough to tell your Lordships, I did, as I promised, write to him so that he should have time to put the Amendment down if my views were not acceptable. I must say one word, and I hope your Lordships will not think it a word of levity, on the noble Earl's speech. It is related of my predecessor, Lord Haldane, that when he was at the Bar at the end of the last century he had a standard method for opening an appeal before your Lordships sitting judicially. That was to present not only his own case but, shortly, the case for his opponent—he said "objectively", but the underlying purpose was to put it in such a form as to appeal to a noble and learned Lord, whose name I shall say was Lord "A", because he knew that if he could secure that Lord "A" said something in favour of his opponent's arguments, that would immediately attract an opposing view from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, who was one of the strongest personalities then in your Lordships' House. My Lords, all I can say is that, when I heard the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, present my case, I understood exactly how Lord Haldane's opponents must have felt.
I ask your Lordships to consider that there are very important points involved. The Bill provides that South African citizens will cease to be British subjects as from May 31 this year. This

95
is a logical consequence of South Africa's departure from the Commonwealth, and any exception to that requires special justification. As aliens, South Africans would normally expect to have to apply for naturalisation if they wished to recover their former status as British subjects. In allowing them, notwithstanding their alien status, to recover British nationality by the simpler and less stringent procedure of registration, we are, in fact, allowing them to retain for a time one of the privileges of Commonwealth citizenship. It is, moreover, a highly valued privilege, and for this reason its extension to South Africans could be justified only as a temporary measure.
In fixing the end of 1965 as the terminal date for this concession, we took this decision only after very careful consideration of the highly complex issues involved, and we felt that we were already granting a very generous period of grace. Everyone will have three-and-a-half years in which to decide what to do, and this is already considerably longer than the comparable period of grace under the Burma settlement, to which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred, which lasted for two years only. My Lords, in spite of the differences in the circumstances, this does show that the fabric of our nationality law is already being strained very considerably, by a concession which allows South Africans three-and-a-half years in which to use registration as a means of recovery of British nationality.
I now come to the special reason which was advanced by the noble Earl for extending the time limit by one year. He suggested that account should be taken of the probability of a General Election in South Africa in 1966, so that South Africans would not have to decide about their nationality until after the Election results were known. In my view, my Lords, this raises three separate difficulties. First of all, there is the question whether the extra year would really make all that difference to the people concerned. Whatever the result of the Election, those who have waited so long before making up their minds will be likely to want a little longer to see what will happen next. Further political changes in one direction or another may be in the offing, and they will plead for
96
still further delay. As I pointed out in the Committee stage, once considerations like these are allowed to determine policy it is very difficult to have any time limit at all; and, of course, that was the original view for which the Party opposite contended in another place.
Secondly, my Lords, the proposal raises a fundamental question of principle—namely, whether it is proper to take into account, when determining the limits of nationality concessions, the possibility of future changes in the social, political or economic situation in South Africa. This is a very difficult question. It is natural that the individuals concerned should themselves wish to take such considerations into account, but for the Government to do so, either implicitly or explicitly, would, in my view, be a course of questionable propriety. We have never in the past drawn distinctions in our nationality laws between those belonging to countries whose policies we may have deplored, either in part or in whole and others. But that is what we should be doing were we to extend the period of the nationality concessions, solely in order to take account of possible changes in the political situation in South Africa following the next General Election.
Thirdly, my Lords, there is a very practical consideration which might possibly be of great importance. In view of the reasons adduced for the extension of the time limit, both in this House and in another place, I believe that it might well be thought that the object of the Amendment was to enable as many people as possible who were opposed to the policies of the South African Government to vote against that Government at the General Election before exchanging South African citizenship for United Kingdom citizenship. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, brushed that argument on one side, but I must say to him, having lived with this problem now for, I suppose, about a year, that however much such an intention might be disclaimed, as the noble Earl disclaimed it, suspicion might well remain that this was the real object. It is hardly necessary to point out the dangers to good relations between the two countries that might lurk in such a situation; and the ultimate result of the Amendment

97
might well be inimical to the interests of the very persons whom the noble Earl has in mind.
My Lords, apart from any such considerations it must also be borne in mind, as I pointed out during the Committee stage, in an answer to my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, that the fixing of the date is not part of a reciprocal arrangement with the South African Government. Nevertheless, account has been taken of the date, in our view, both by the Governments of other Commonwealth countries and by the Government of South Africa in framing their own proposals in the field of citizenship and the control of aliens. That is a practical problem, and I venture to say that there is more in it than the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has allowed. It is a practical problem, and to change the date at this late stage in the Bill, without consultation, might lead to action on the part of other Governments which we cannot foresee and might not welcome.
In this matter the Government have balanced the real but small advantage which 'the Amendment would give to a comparatively small, though not for a moment undeserving, class of people against the incalculable effects which might result in other directions from making this change; and my advice to the House is not to make it. I also want to point out—because these nationality questions are so difficult—a further fact. On the last occasion, my noble friend Lord Stonehaven asked me a question, and I want to make it clear to him, and to those sharing his interrogative approach, that South African citizens who have no other citizenship within the Commonwealth—may I repeat that: South African citizens who have no other citizenship within the Commonwealth—will automatically become aliens in this country as soon as the Bill comes into force. The arrangements in the First Schedule are to enable them to recover British nationality, but I do not know whether your Lordships have had in mind the limitation that that conveys. That is why I ventured to repeat that South African citizens "who have no other citizenship within the Commonwealth" will automatically become aliens.
May I illustrate my point by quoting from what the Minister of State said in another place on the Committee stage
98
of the Bill on March 6? He said (col. 44 of the Committee's Proceedings):
"Before I describe exactly what is involved with regard to each of these rights we should consider the nature of the problem which affects only South African citizens. It does not affect dual citizens, for example; that is, people who have both citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies and South African citizenship—and there are about 300,000 of those."
That is to say, my Lords, those who have both citizenships are not affected, because, of course, they do not need any procedure of this kind in order to acquire the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and 300,000 is the best guess we can make.
The Minister went on:
"There are also in South Africa a considerable number—much smaller than 300,000 but a figure about which it is impossible to estimate or even make a rational guess—of people who have only citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies "—
that is to say, who have not got South African citizenship. My Lords, I draw your Lordships' attention to these words of the Minister of State:
"Neither those who have dual citizenship nor those who have only United Kingdom und Colonies citizenship arc affected by our discussions."
Therefore, we are dealing with, and we are raising these difficulties with regard to, the limited class of those who have no other citizenship within the Commonwealth and have only South African citizenship.
My noble and learned friend Lord Spens raised a point on the Committee stage, and although I have written to him I think it would be convenient if I publicly stated the answer to the point which was troubling him. I believe that he was satisfied by my letter, but I should like your Lordships to share his satisfaction. It is not necessary to make any provision for minors in the Bill, because under Section 7 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, the Secretary of State already has discretion to register any minor as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. If an application is made on behalf of a South African minor, the fact that his father died before he could be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies is a factor which would be taken into account by the Home Secretary in considering his application.

99
My Lords, I always try, when opinion is expressed in your Lordships' House, to give it full consideration, and to discuss it with my right honourable friends. I have done so on this occasion, but I have come very firmly to the conclusion that to make this change would in itself raise great difficulties, and that to do so at this late stage of the Bill would cause difficulties not only for us but throughout the Commonwealth. Therefore I must advise your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
3.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for going into this matter so carefully, but I am bound to say that we feel very disappointed indeed with the final reply. As to the lateness at which this matter is now being discussed for the last time, I take it that the High Commissioner, or whoever is now the representative of South Africa here, will have been kept in touch, during the whole of our discussions, with the debates in another place and the debates here, so it would be nothing very startling or new to the representative of South Africa if we were able to obtain this concession of an extension of time for those in South Africa wishing to have British citizenship. What we ask for, really, is one year more.
I also fail to see why it should have been said by the noble and learned Viscount at a previous stage of the Bill in this House, or now, that the pressing for this extension for one year would arouse suspicion in the minds of the South African authorities. We have heard no breath of suspicion whispered from them in their Press or anywhere else, so far as I can discover. We are asking for a perfectly reasonable thing here in this Parliament—we who are treating South Africa with an extraordinary amount of generosity, in fact, in the terms under which the break has taken place, and with considerable remaining advantages to the South African Government as a result of what has taken place. To ask for the other year for the reasons stated by my noble friend Lord Listowel does not seem to me to be unreasonable.
Nor can we be satisfied with the replies which were given in another place
100
or with the replies we have had from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I suppose that almost every Member of every section of this House will have relatives, or very near friends, in South Africa who will be affected by this changeover. No doubt a good many of us have. Of course, I speak for myself because, after all, I have visits from dear friends in South Africa who are related to my wife and who, because they were born in South Africa, will be regarded, as the noble and learned Viscount says, as aliens.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, might I ask where her father was born? Because if her father was born in England it would put these people on dual nationality.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: No. The son of the lady in question was born in South Africa, her husband was born in South Africa, but the grandfather was born in England. But there are any number of cases of people with a long-continuing connection—very valuable in their minds—with this old country, and to these people this change is very disturbing indeed. On the other hand, they and their families have seen new roots of life planted in South Africa, and no doubt have a certain affection for South Africa itself and their experience there. It may be that they would be most anxious about what are likely to be the changes in South Africa in the future and would like to see what is going to happen there. There is nothing there to give rise to suspicion in the mind of the Government of South Africa. This family have been there for over a century or more, and yet they ought to have a chance to be able to see what direction is likely to be taken so far as policy and experience in South Africa is concerned.
I do not suppose it will be any use my arguing any further with the noble and learned Viscount. Like my noble friend Lord Listowel, I do not want to repeat all over again the arguments we had on the Committee stage, but I feel so very strongly about this question that I shall ask my noble friends to go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I was in South Africa when this

101
measure went through the other place, and I met many persons with long British connections and sentimental affinities who were disturbed about it. A somewhat erroneous view of their situation was recorded in the South African English-speaking Press, which illustrated the disabilities under which they would suffer. So it came about that I was asked by many, deputations and otherwise, to say a word for them in this House when this matter came before us: and, indeed, I did so on the Committee stage, I could have wished that it had been easier for the Government to give way on this, and to say that there is not all that much difference between four years and three. I could have wished that, but I am bound to say that two points have emerged which were not clear to me when I was in South Africa, because I was not very much better informed than my questioners, not having had the Bill and without the Committee stage having taken place. Now I have become aware of certain facts from what the Lord Chancellor has said.
The first of these is illustrated by his intervention when the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition was talking about his relations. There are really very few relations who will not be able to claim that they have existing British citizenship. Certainly all first-generation persons will be able to do so. It is when it comes to the second generation that the difference is illustrated, and there, perhaps, I may be permitted to quote my own case, which will demonstrate the matter most clearly. I have dual citizenship. My son and my daughter also have dual citizenship. My grandson, now at Cape Town University and hoping, I believe, to become a good South African, to go into business there and to live there, will not have the choice of British
citizenship under these registration arrangements. In a way I regret that; and yet, when I come to think, of it, while I think it right that older persons like myself should retain their roots, I also think it quite right that a young man of the age of my grandson should make the choice as to what allegiance he owes and in what country he intends to remain and work. You cannot look over your shoulder for the rest of your life, and if in fact he is to become a good South African, then my advice to him is: Take out your papers.
For these reasons, I had half changed my mind about my intention in this matter. But when I heard the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, defend his argument on the ground that there were political implications involved, and political judgments to be made by these people, I thought this House was really getting on to very dangerous ground. It really is something of an interference in South African politics to say, "We are so going to vote as to enable some tens or twenties of thousands of people (it will not be very many) to wait another year, or to be influenced by their situation then as to the way they vote". Although Lord Listowel disclaimed any intention to do that, I am quite certain that it would be read in that way in South Africa. I do not think we should be wise to change this. The advantage to people I should have liked to help is very small, and the disadvantage I consider is very great. Therefore I have changed my mind, and, with some reluctance, I shall support the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 72.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Greenhill, L.

Rea, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

St. Davids, V.

Amulree, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amwell, L.

Kenswood, L.

Silkin, L.

Archibald, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Sinha, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Latham, L.

Stonham, L.

Chorley, L.

Lawson, L.

Summerskill, B.

Citrine, L.

Lindgren, L.

Swaythling, L.

Colwyn, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor, L.

Douglas of Barlocn, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Faringdon, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Williams, L.

Francis-Williams, L.

Meston, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Grantchester, L.

Ogmore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Forbes, L.

Mills, L.

Albemarle, E.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Milne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fortescue, E.

Milverton, L.

Baden-Powell, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Molson, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Freyberg, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Bathurst, E.

Goschen, V.

Newall, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Gosford, E.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Bethell, L.

Hailsiam, V. (L. President.)

Polwarth, L.

Boston, L.

Hampton, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hastings, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Home, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Iddesleigh, E.

Savile, L.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Scarsdale, V.

Crathorne, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Somers, L.

Denham, L.

Lambert, V.

Soulbury, V.

Devonshire, D.

Lansdowne, M.

Spens, L.

Dudley, L.

Leighton of Saint Mellons, L.

Strang, L.

Dundee, E.

Limerick, E.

Strathalmond, L.

Dynevor, L.

Long, V.

Swinton, E.

Effingham, E.

Lothian, M.

Tenby, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Teynham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Margesson, V.

Twining, L.

Ferrier, L.

Merrivale, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

TRANSPORT BILL
3.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, after that little piece of excitement, it is my task to move that this Bill, standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills, be read a second time. Its provisions follow closely the proposals set out in the Government's White Paper, which your Lordships debated in a very comprehensive way in March last year. I do not think, therefore, that I need spend much time now—goodness knows! I spent enough at the end of that debate—in enlarging on the problems that arise and in going into the general background of it all. The problems are plain for all to see.
The heart of them lies in British Railways, which dominates the activities of the British Transport Commission and the financial situation which faces it. The fact is that the railways are at present losing some £150 million a year on revenue account. Their gross annual receipts are some £475 million a year, as against £760 million for the Commission as a whole. They have accumulated revenue deficits of some £700 million,
104
while the Commission, as a whole, has about £625 million. I am not going to say that all the problems are with the railways. Canals are not economically viable in their present form, and the British Transport docks, like other ports, have their problems, too.
What emerges from all this, as Her Majesty's Government see it, is one main central fact: that the British Transport Commission has been faced with an impossible task. The activities it controls are too large and too varied to be run effectively by a single undertaking. The problems they present are too far-reaching and far-ranging to be handled effectively by one organisation; and, as a result, the Commission has been overloaded. Reorganisation, financial reconstruction and a different climate of operation are urgently needed and they are the main objects of this Bill. In particular, if we are going to be successful in adapting what is basically a nineteenth century railway system to twentieth century requirements, this reorganisation is as essential a foundation for the future as are the urgent traffic and layout studies now being carried out. I am not going to say any more about that now, because it is my job to present the Bill to your Lordships.
The Bill itself is a long one, and complex in its detail. I must say I have been rather puzzled about how to put it to your Lordships without speaking for most of the afternoon and half the evening. But there are three clear

105
principles that run throughout. What I propose to do is to stick to them and try to show how the Bill is constructed around them, and how it relates to the White Paper. Even so, there is a great deal of ground to cover, and if I have to deal with quite a number of points rather shortly—tersely, maybe—I hope your Lordships will not think that I am not paying them due regard or am arguing them lightly or, indeed, that I do not attach importance to many which I shall probably not even mention. I have no doubt at all, either, that we shall return to many of them in much greater detail in Committee; it is right that we should do that, and I understand that arrangements are being made to facilitate the process.
The three clear principles I mentioned are briefly these. First of all, each main sector of the Commission's activities is to be placed under a separate public authority, with clearly defined responsibilities within their own set field. Secondly, each of the new undertakings is to be given a separate financial constitution and identity. Thirdly, there must be greatly increased commercial freedom for them all. If I may start with the first of the principles, the new organisation structure is set out in Part I of the Bill, and I should like to deal first with British Railways.
British Railways represent about three-quarters of the Commission's present undertaking, as well as being one of the largest industrial organisations in the world. As I have just said, their problems, and particularly the (financial problems with which they are faced, urgently require a single-minded authority to concentrate on those matters which are of central importance to the railways as a whole. Therefore, there is to be a new British Railways Board, charged with the duty of running the railways as an effective national system; and, so that it can concentrate on its main task, there are also to be regional railway boards to deal with day-to-day management and operation.
Everyone knows, I think, that it is extremely important, but never easy, to hit the right balance between central control and a proper delegation of authority. It is in itself a very practical problem, often depending very much on the circumstances of the time, and in
106
particular it will depend upon the ability of the railways to be adaptable to changes in the future which may affect the shape and balance of the system. It is for this reason that the Government have decided that it would not be possible—in fact, it would not be desirable—to write into the Bill a detailed definition of the relative responsibilities of the Central and regional railway boards. Therefore, it becomes abundantly clear that the British Railways Board, which will have to carry the ultimate responsibility, must be in a position to decide what it will delegate to the regions, and when. So Clause 2 of the Bill provides for that, subject to the general approval of the Minister. At the same time we recognise that certain matters must in all circumstances be the prime responsibility of the Central Board—finance, national price policies, investment, modernisation, national wage negotiations and the future size and shape of the railway system are important matters of this kind.
While I have said the prime task of the British Railways Board will be to run the railways as an effective system, it will still have to run other services which cannot be separated from railway operations. Such things will be the railway collection and delivery services; railway packet ports and shipping services which are the natural extension of the railway system. The Railways Board will also have the British Transport hotels. Your Lordships may remember that the White Paper envisaged that these would be put separately under the Holding Company, but further study indicates that the balance of advantage lies in putting the Hotels Company under the Railways Board. Many of the hotels are physically mixed up with railway stations, and if they can be run alongside the railway catering services there should be some useful operational economies. But, even so, the hotels under the Railways Board will be a separate activity and have their own financial identity.
Under Clause 7 London Transport will again be a separate public authority, as it once was before. Its function, to provide
"an adequate and properly co-ordinated system of passenger transport"
for the Loudon area, is clearly a single

107
task in itself, and merits this separate and independent organisation. The London Transport area and the main running powers of London Transport will be like they are now. But the Bill provides, in Clauses 8 and 59, for the Board to have rather more freedom to run services to meet new public needs on the fringes of its area. It will also be able to hire out to other operators any buses which are temporarily surplus to requirements, so that it can make the best use of its assets.
The British Transport Docks Board in its turn will take over the nationalised docks which represent about one-third of the port capacity of the country, and will devote itself to operating them to the best advantage and dealing with the varying problems which each one presents. The docks are at present the subject of the inquiry by the Committee under the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, in the same way that the independent ports are. What may emerge from this we have yet to see, but in the Government's view the new organisation is one which could continue indefinitely or, if needs be, be altered.
I should like now to come on to canals, and I want to say that the Bill does not attempt, as a reorganisation measure in itself, to solve all the problems of the nationally owned canals. What it does is to set up the appropriate separate public authority in which they will be vested. The new authority's duty will not only be to provide canal services and facilities where it finds them right and justified, but also to formulate proposals and actually do something about putting the canals that are no longer required for transport to the best possible use. I must make clear that this may well involve their closure, or their conversion or disposal, if that is the way they can be put to other and better uses and so help to relieve the taxpayer of his present burden.
Lastly, I think I ought to say that the Government now think that the name of the new authority ought to be the British Waterways Board, rather than the Inland Waterways Authority. That is to prevent confusion with an existing body with the same initials, the Inland Waterways Asociation. It will also have the practical benefit of preserving the continuity
108
of the present name of this part of the Commission's activities, and so it will be possible to avoid having to repaint a lot of signs and notices. We shall put forward Amendments for that later.
My Lords, I come on now to the Transport Holding Company that Clause 29 sets up and which is a new concept altogether in legislation about nationalised undertakings. This company will have grouped under it a number of activities which are essentially different from those placed under other Boards. These are the road haulage, bus and shipping companies, travel agencies and various other interests owned by the British Transport Commission. The point is that all these are essentially commercial activities which are carried on by what I might call "Companies Act" Companies operating generally in competition with similar companies in private hands. The Holding Company is designed to provide a form of control more like that generally practised in the commercial world and to enable the nationalised activities concerned to provide the best possible return to the public purse.
The Minister will be in much the same relationship to the Holding Company as a controlling shareholder is to a holding company incorporated under the Companies Act. Under Clause 29 he will be able from time to time to give it such directions as he thinks fit; but this, of course, does not mean that he intends to intervene actively in its management and operation. In fact, if he did so it would be entirely contrary to its purpose. The set-up under the Holding Company involves public assets to the order of some £140 million and it is only right, I think, that the Minister should have ultimate control. There is also the need to reconcile the commercial and operating freedom to be given to the company with its operating powers and the need for adequate accountability to the Minister and, finally, to Parliament.
In all this reorganisation there must obviously be some co-ordination and this is achieved in the Bill first of all by the Minister's responsibility and powers under Clauses 27 and 29 to control investment, and by the duty on the Boards to act in agreement with him. Clauses 3, 7 and 16 then make further

109
provision for the undertakings to work together; and, finally, I must mention the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council to be set up under Clause 55 and part of whose specific function is to advise the Minister on such questions of co-ordination as he may refer to it. The chairmen of the Boards and of the Holding Company will be members of this Council with up to five suitably-qualified others as the Minister may wish to appoint. There will also be a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman, although the Minister may preside over it if he thinks fit.
I must move on to the second principle and to finance, and I should like to point out, to begin with, that the financial provisions in Clauses 18 to 24 and 36 to 40 do two things. First they provide each of the new Boards and the Holding Company with its own separate financial constitution and status. They vest each with its own assets and with responsibility for its capital debt and for its own financial performance. Secondly, the financial provisions relieve the railways of a burden of debt which is unrealistic in present circumstances, and from which they cannot hope for recovery. Reconstruction follows closely the scheme outlined in the White Paper, but the figures quoted in the White Paper were round ones based on the 1959 financial position. Actual amounts will be different as they will have to be based on the position at vesting date, because they obviously cannot be precisely assessed until after that time. As best I can tell your Lordships, the broad figures are likely to be these: the total capital debt of the Commission which is to be dealt with will be about £2,450 million, which, I should add, excludes liabilities for superannuation funds and Savings Bank deposits amounting to some £300 million. First of all, accumulated losses of some £475 million will be written off, if I may call it that, as a bad debt. This leaves a balance of £1,975 million to be allocated among the new undertakings. The Railways Board will be responsible for about £1,575 million of this and the balance of some £400 million will be divided among the others, including the Holding Company.
The railways capital debt of £1,575 million will be further subdivided into
110
two parts. Some £650 million to £700 million must be regarded, if not as a bad debt, then as a very doubtful one. That is the amount which will go into the suspense account carrying neither fixed interest nor obligation for repayment for the time being. The sum, my Lords, corresponds broadly to the written down book values of the pre-1956 assets. The second part of the capital debt of the railways will amount, or is likely to amount, to about £900 million, which will correspond to the written down book value of the assets acquired since the end of 1955. It represents, very largely, investment in modernisation. For this reason it is very much larger than the figure of £400 million which was mentioned in the White Paper, because very large sums will have been invested in this way between 1959, on which the White Paper figures were based, and the end of 1962, when, on present expectations, the British Railways Board is likely to take over from the Commission.
In broad terms, the railways will be relieved of an interest burden of some £35 million a year and this burden will now fall on the Exchequer and, therefore, of course, on the taxpayer. Even with this very sizeable relief, it will still leave the railways with a most formidable task before them. Their live debt will still be about £900 million, and this, as I said, without the liabilities which they will take over from the Commission in respect of superannuation funds and Savings Bank deposits. Altogether the interest burden on the Railways Board at the beginning will be about £65 million a year and, of course, that will increase as investment in the railways goes forward. Therefore, the first and most immediate thing that the railways must do will be to wipe out the operating deficit which is now running at a rate at over £80 million a year. That is in itself a very big job. They will then have to go on and build up a working surplus sufficient at least to cover their interest charges.
Speaking to-day, it is too early to speculate about the longer-term prospects of their doing this. Clause 22 provides for the Minister to be able to make grants or loans to the Board to meet revenue deficits up to a total of £450 million in the next five years. This in itself cannot be regarded in the nature

111
of things as a firm forecast, but it is the best estimate that can be made at present. Even so, it assumes very considerable progress towards viability on the part of the railways in that five-year period. When the traffic studies which Dr. Beeching is now undertaking are completed it will be possible to get a clearer picture of the prospects, and then my right honourable friend will review the situation so as to settle with the Railways Board targets for their financial performance and progress over the reconstruction period.
Now I should like to get on to the third main principle: commercial freedom for the new authorities. First of all, there is provision in Part III of the Bill, and particularly in Clause 43, for them to be given the maximum practicable commercial freedom of charging and of commercial policy. The Railways Board will be free to charge as it thinks fit except for passenger fares in the London transport area. The Inland Waterways Authority will have the same freedom. There will need to be some control over the Docks Board charges because there is still more or less an element of monopoly about docks, and the independent docks are subject to control over their charges anyway. The Bill provides that British Transport Docks shall be placed on the same footing as they are in this respect, and this means the Board will be similarly able to increase their charges either by securing the necessary authority from the Minister or by private legislation from Parliament.
The London Board will continue under the control of the Transport Tribunal for rail and bus fares in the London area. Paragraph 57 of the White Paper pointed out that British Railways and London Transport between them operate a virtual monopoly of public passenger transport in London, and therefore in the view of the Government the control of passenger fares in the London area by the Tribunal should continue.
Clause 43 also further increases the commercial freedom of the Boards by removing a number of out-dated statutory restrictions and obligations, including the one to provide reasonable facilities whether or not they are provided at a loss. It also removes the common
112
carrier obligation for carriage by rail or by canal. The second aspect of this freedom is that there is very important provision, in Clauses 11 and 12 notably, for the Boards to make better use of the assets which they have acquired or need to have for their primary purpose. Under Clause 11 the Board will, in future, be able to develop their land, in so far as it is not required for operational purposes, for sale or for lease. That does not mean that they will be free to go in for general property development at large because that is not their job. They will need the Minister's consent to any substantial expenditure and they will not be able to acquire additional land by compulsory purchase for the purpose.
Clause 12 also confers on the Boards capacity powers to construct and operate pipe-lines, mainly on their own land, subject of course to the Minister's consent. When we were discussing the Pipelines Bill the other day, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, pleaded for the railways in particular to be able to do this. The point is that that Bill was the wrong place to do it and this Bill is the right one. The Government have long realised, and we are certainly glad to have the noble Lord's support in this, that the railways and canals have, or may have, long stretches of land which might be very suitable for the purpose and would be well used for pipe-line development. The Boards therefore get the powers, and so they are not handicapped in joining in this development. I should point out that they will be subject to the provisions of the Pipe-lines Bill, the same as any other operator; I think that can be regarded as important in view of your Lordships' interest in the subject of safety.
I come now to the provisions for the protection of transport users and others who might be affected by the commercial freedom Which the new undertakings will have. First of all, as I mentioned earlier, London Transport fares will continue under the control of the Transport Tribunal, although with some change. The present quick procedure available to the Commission for emergency increases in London is available only if there has been an increase in costs, and it takes no account of a sudden fall of revenue. Clause 48, therefore, provides for a new quick procedure whereby

113
London fares can foe raised by the Boards where either costs have risen or revenues fallen, but it still has to be justified afterwards to the Tribunal, as it has to-day. There will be new arrangements for the Transport Users' Consultative Committees, which will continue, but will no longer consider charges. The Central Committee will concern itself only with matters of general complaint or those which are best dealt with at national level. The area committees will, in future, report direct to the Minister any degree of hardship which they see arising out of proposals for complete withdrawal of railway passenger services, and they can make suggestions to meet it. The result of that will be to speed up the procedure and to place the responsibility on the Minister for deciding whether the passenger services in question should be closed down or not Finally, as a further protection, Clause 54 requires the Railways Board and the London Board to publish in advance their plans for the discontinuation of railway services, whether for freight or for passengers.
I think I can hardly talk about this question of freedom without mentioning the problem of coastal shipping. While the railways are getting revenue assistance from the Exchequer, it might be thought that this would put them in a position to undercut coastal shipping unfairly on the long haul of heavy traffics which are important to both of them. The second point is that the railways, in some areas, have a virtual monopoly of the carriage of coal and some other heavy traffics on certain short hauls to ports. If the railway rates on those particular routes and for those traffics were to be raised unreasonably, it might have the effect of driving them on to rail for the whole journey at the expense of coastal shipping companies. Clause 53, therefore, empowers the Minister to give directions to the Railways Board in either of those two situations if the charges made by the Railways appear to him to be too high in the second case or too low in the first, when he has had regard to the full and proper cost of the services. These arrangements have been the subject of a good deal of consideration during the course of the Bill in another place and I rather think they go a long way to meet the circumstances which have
114
been a source of worry to coastal carriers.
I should not like to complete my explanation without mentioning the provisions for safeguarding the interests of the staff who are now employed in the B.T.C.'s undertakings. Clause 34 is based on the principle that the staff will go with their jobs to the new bodies according to the activities in which they are employed. Its overall effect is that none of the staff employed by the British Transport Commission immediately before vesting date will be without an employer to whom they can look for their rights under their contracts of employment. Clause 71 imposes a duty on the Boards to consult, where necessary, with the appropriate organisations about the negotiating machinery, the terms and conditions of employment and for safety, health and welfare. Clauses 72 and 73 provide for the transfer and safeguarding of existing pension schemes and ensure that there will be no worsening of rights. Lastly, Clause 80 provides for compensation for employees of the B.T.C. who may suffer loss of employment or a worsened position as a result of the reorganisation.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? He mentioned that these provisions apply only to those who are employed by the British Transport Commission at vesting date. That is fourteen years ago. What about those employed since?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is talking about the wrong vesting date. I was referring to the vesting date in the Bill, when the Commission goes out of being and the new Boards take over.
I think from what I have been saying your Lordships can see that the Government regard this Bill as a strictly practical measure and have constructed it as such. The three main principles in it about which I have been talking have been the subject of long and careful study and consultation, in the attempt to deal with the practical realities of the grave problems facing the nationalised transport undertakings. It is vitally necessary now (more necessary than ever it was before) to look into the future. It is the forward-looking approach which has been uppermost in the Government's mind in shaping this Bill. In it we seek

115
to lay the foundations of a rational system of railways and of transport for the future, and as such I commend it with confidence for your Lordships' consideration. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chesham.)
4.22 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has this afternoon described this Bill to us with expedition and clarity, and I am sure the House is grateful to him for that. I, personally, should have wished that the heavy burden that falls upon me this afternoon could have been carried by my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, but unfortunately he is still in America; and it is only to-day that we have had returned to us the noble Lord, Lord Latham, whom I am quite sure all our friends are glad to see back.
Before dealing with the Bill, may I say something in regard to the circumstances? This is a formidable Bill; it consists of 156 pages, 94 clauses and 11 Schedules. As the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said, it is a Bill of considerable complexity and highly technical detail, and, as I am sure he will be the first to acknowledge, it is politically highly contentious. We are going to face a heavy task. To-day is May 8. As I understand it, vesting day is January I next. Therefore the Government will expect to have this Bill by the end of July at the latest. We know, too, that Parliamentary time is much occupied. Therefore, we can visualise some pressure from the Government to get this Bill through as quickly as possible. We shall not try to oppose it; but when one takes account of the passage of the Bill in another place, of the fact that the guillotine was used in the latter stages and, if my researches tell me correct, that at one stage twenty Government Amendments were passed without any discussion, my friends feel that we should treat this Bill as though it originated in this House, and that therefore, on the Committee stage, we should examine it clause by clause, subsection by subsection.
From time to time we have had these lengthy Bills. The House has been placed in the intolerable position of sitting many hours in Committee. In
116
the circumstances and nature of this Bill, may I make a plea to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, as Deputy Leader of the House and a man of some influence, to see whether we cannot regulate our affairs so that we have no more than three or fours hours at a time on Committee; and may I ask whether we cannot have well in advance the dates of sitting in Committee? I am really taking up the point that has been made so many times by my noble friend Lord Silkin. We are all part-time Parliamentarians. Many of us have other occupations. Many of us come here by placing burdens upon colleagues. Certainly we create hardships to our families. If there is a spirit of reform within this House, I think we should look at the manner in which we arrange our business. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, can give us some assurance at the end of the debate. I would assure him that, whilst we shall examine this Bill, we will in no way be obstructive.
In the debate on the White Paper, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, complained of the political speeches that were made from this side. If politics is national housekeeping, it is quite impossible to keep the political side out of the Bill, because the Bill will intimately affect in one way or another different sides and sections of our country. It is said that what divides noble Lords on the other side from us is that we believe in Socialism, in a planned economy, and noble Lords opposite believe in freedom and enterprise. I would ask noble Lords opposite to remember that we are now in the 20th century; that industry and commerce have moved out of the 19th century whereas politics has not, and that whilst private enterprise may be basically competitive, the larger organisations in commerce and production are themselves trying to get over the evils and dangers that arise from indiscriminate competition. Right through our distributing trades we have the end product of production, the fixed price system, fixed terms of business, fixed wholesalers and fixed retailers. Industry has endeavoured to increase its cooperation not only nationally but now internationally. Therefore, the burden of the case which I shall try to make this afternoon is that in transport, which is a service, we should endeavour

117
to create a system of co-operation and co-ordination as opposed to competition.
There are some who may remember the condition of the railways before the war—conditions which placed the railways in a position not far short of bankruptcy. Noble Lords would agree, I think, that those conditions were due mainly to over-capitalisation, to too much capital and assets in comparison with earning capacity. Railways were also governed by siatutory requirements as to their rates and their method of adjusting their rates; and in later years, when they had dealt with their own competition by amalgamating themselves into the "big five", they were confronted with the internal combustion engine, and they then faced a serious and growing competition. I can remember as a youngster the campaign on behalf of the railways for a "square deal". The railways were in dire trouble then. I believe that the reasons which I have given were the basic reasons for that. I would suggest that the same reasons apply in regard to the railways' difficulties to-day.
After the war, the Labour Government were faced not only with serious economic circumstances which arose from the war, but with the possibility of a serious breakdown in transport. They took the advice of many notable people in transport and they set out to create a coordinated, integrated service. True, the 1947 Act was not perfect, there were loopholes, but at least it was the first effort that had been made to make transport a service and not a business. The British Transport Commission accounts for the years 1951 to 1954 certainly showed the financial sense of the 1947 Act. If my memory serves me correctly, in 1951 the profits of the British Transport Commission were in the region of £39 million, of which British Railways had contributed nearly £35 million. Their surplus, after paying their interest, was just short of £3 million. When one considers the uphill task of the British Transport Commission and the railways, with the shortage of steel, the shortage of manpower, and the necessity in the national interest to keep down their freight rates and their passenger fares, I think they achieved a commendable result.
But, my Lords, then came the Conservative Government. They came, as
118
my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said, with their dogma of competition. They recreated the jungle of pre-war days; they set rail against road, and the consequence of that action can be seen to-day in the Report and Accounts of the British Transport Commission. There has been a continual loss ever since this Government came to power. The railway working profits in 1951 were, as I said, £39 million; in 1953 they were £35 million; in 1954, when the Act was beginning to take effect, it was reduced to £16½ million. These were profits. In 1956, with the full impact of the 1953 Act, British Railways were running into a working deficit of £16½ million. In 1958 it was £48 million; in 1960, £67½ million. If your Lordships look at the accounts you see the decline of freight earnings of British Railways. When you take into account the increased profits of the transport companies and the amount of merchandise that is being carried, it is quite clear that the basic cause of the British Railways' difficulties lies in this competition between road and rail.
I was very interested the other day to read the debate in your Lordships' House upon the 1947 Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, who certainly was not an advocate of nationalisation and certainly not a member of our Party, speaking as an ex-Minister of Transport, speaking with all his authority on transport affairs, said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 147, col. 917]:
"For many years now, not, of course, because of any fault of the railway companies, but because of the advance of the internal combustion engine, transport by road has eaten into the guts of the railway companies, and it will go on. And the question arises—a question which we have to decide—are you prepared to let the railways go bankrupt, and let everything go by road, or do the railways supply something which is of national importance and which ought to be kept alive?"
He went on to say this:
"But if they are to be preserved in this country, to preserve them is to co-ordinate them with road haulage. I do not say you should take them over by nationalising, but"—
mark this, my Lords—
"anyone who takes over the railways without, at the same time, taking a very close hand in road haulage, is just taking over a bankrupt affair …".
That was a remark of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara; it was a point that was being made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and it had

119
been made throughout the length and breadth of the country by people who knew something about transport. But the Government would not heed; they went on. Now we are faced with the fact that we have to write off millions of national assets which are so desperately needed for the development of our industry. The Government may have a reputation for mismanagement and squander in the field of defence and in other fields, but, my Lords, I think that in the field of transport it is unrivalled. The noble Lord, Lord Beeching, was speaking the other day about co-ordination, the need to eliminate competition of such a character that——
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): Would the noble Lord just let their Lordships know to whom he is referring? I thought he said "Lord Beeching".
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg the pardon of the House—I have Lords on the brain! I meant, of course, Dr. Beeching. Dr. Beeching was speaking the other day at the Institute of Transport on the question of co-ordination. I should like to quote a remark of his because it is very interesting, though I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mills, knows about the speech. He was speaking of the need to eliminate wasteful competition, and he said that there was too much capacity chasing too few goods. But in this Bill the last vestige of co-ordination that was left in the 1953 Act disappears. We shall have the four main Boards, and somewhere out on a limb there is to be a subsidiary of the Holding Company, British Road Services. There is to be no executive co-ordinating body. At a time when industry is moving towards co-operation, when it is trying to make the maximum use of assets, why is it that private industry should have the advantage of a co-ordinating body when the public service is to be denied it?
My Lords, we believe that if the nationalised undertakings were given the opportunity—if the Government would give them the opportunity—they could create the right sinew for our industry, but it would come only through a form of co-operative effort, with the docks working in with the roads and with the
120
roads working with the railways. If this cannot be so over the whole field, at least let us have it within the nationalised bodies. I do not object personally to decentralisation, but I must say that I am worried at the creation of these six Regional Boards. I wonder why a board is necessary? I wonder why a general manager, such as is now in control of the regions, would not be suitable. I rather wonder whether the intention is, having broken up the British Transport Commission, then to go the further stage of breaking up British Railways; to set region against region in their dogma for competition. My Lords, we shall look at that side of the Bill with special interest. It was promised in the White Paper that the directors of the Regional Boards would be directors of the Central Board but that is not stated in the Bill. Can the noble Lord, Lord Mills, tell us why?
As regards Clause 3, which is the duty and powers clause for the Railways Board, here there is a considerable difference from Clause 7, dealing with the London Board. The London Board is called upon to provide adequate and properly co-ordinated services, but the Railways Board has to provide efficiency economy and safety. Even in subsection (2) of Clause 3, in which the Railways Board are to see that their services are properly co-ordinated with those of the London Board, the Railways Board are not told to provide an adequate service. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, must know that there are hundreds of thousands of men and women who come into London and other metropolises by British Railways. Are they not to be provided with what is to be provided by the London Board, an adequate, co-ordinated service?
My Lords, we have had some warnings from Dr. Beeching that commuter travel is not profitable. One can appreciate that, when one sees the trains stacked outside our railway stations at midday. But that is not the making of the public. It is not the making of the public that in the last four years the number of commuters into London has risen by 16 per cent. If the public are to be protected, in that the London Board must provide an adequate service, I suggest that this House should demand that British Railways equally should

121
provide an adequate service—adequate not only for commuters and passengers, but also for industry and agriculture. On the Committee stage we shall be moving an Amendment which we regard as fundamental
Does this Bill give any hope to the long-suffering public which comes into London every day to work? I believe that it does the opposite. The whole accent here is economy; that the railways must make a profit. Those of us who have examined this matter must know that from this Bill there is no hope. If you sent monkeys from London to Manchester, under the conditions in which our people come to London, the carrier would be prosecuted. There is no hope in this Bill. It was not so long ago that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was saying that we were becoming a nation of "belly-achers". I am pretty sure that if the noble Viscount went to Cannon Street, Liverpool Street, or Fenchurch Street in the morning he would become the arch-priest of the "belly-achers", because the conditions are appalling. What is the good of giving persons dignity in new offices when you pack them in as you do to-day?
I want now to say something about coastal shipping. In the debate on the White Paper the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, made a case about the problems of coastal shipping and the railways. I must say to him that we have some sympathy with the case, and I think that we ought to examine it carefully on the Committee stage. But I think he will agree that his criticism of the railway competition was due to what he would describe as a sort of subsidised rate. I did a little research this morning, and I asked what would be the cost of sending 500 tons of cement from London to Hull by coastal shipping. I was quoted a price of 75s. 11d. a ton, which is approximately 10s. cheaper than sending it to Colombo. The cost of sending 500 tons; of cement from London to Hull by coastal steamer is approximately £1,900. I tried to get a quotation for rail and road, but I am afraid that I was unsuccessful. However, I was given a road quotation from Hull to Liverpool, and the cost was £687. So I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the coastal shipping problam is not purely a matter of competition
122
from rail; it is competition equally from road. That is the burden of our case: that to-day we have competition in which certain conventional forms of transport are unable to compete with road. We shall examine that aspect on the Committee stage.
The Transport Holding Company we view with the gravest suspicion. What is the intention of this Holding Company? Is it to develop the assets? Is it to increase and strengthen the bus companies and the transport companies that it is holding, or is the real intention of the Government to use this Holding Company for the disposal of the national assets? At the Committee stage we shall endeavour to give a constructive purpose to this Board, and shall not have what we think at the present moment is a negative attitude.
In regard to the development of surplus land (a matter which appears in Clause 11), in general principle we agree with this. But we have our reservations, and we shall certainly want to know what generally are the Government's intentions. If this valuable land is to be disposed of, we should prefer to see that the other Boards have 'the first opportunity of acquiring that land at a reasonable price, without its being inflated by Mr. Clore or Mr. Cotton. If the Boards themselves did not require the land, then local authorities might acquire it for the development of the amenities of the area. Therefore we shall look at this clause with particular attention.
We were also approached yesterday by the Transport Police. Here, again, I think we should have a full discussion. This is a very fine body of people—3,000 in number. They have performed very useful service to the Transport Commission, and I think there is an overwhelming case to keep them as a unified force. We will seek Government aid in this matter, although I do not think we have to convince them that a unified force is needed. But I think we need to take away the possibility of one section, one Board, weakening the whole structure by opting out and setting up its own force.
My Lords, I feel that I have spoken too long. There is much more that could be said about this Bill, and I think much more will be said on the Committee

123
stage. We like some parts of the Bill, but there is a great deal to which we are fundamentally opposed. My noble friends and I will try to protect the public interest, because our feeling is that the public need to be protected from this Bill.
4.50 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, those of your Lordships who have interested themselves in the nation's transport matters since 1947 view this Bill as, perhaps, the ultimate destiny of the Transport Act of 1947; and there are Members of your Lordships' House, such as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and myself—I in 1950 and 1951, and he of a later vintage—who played some part in the operation of the Transport Act. My Lords, I would, as a preface, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, on the very clear and incisive way in which he put this very difficult Bill—it is a very intricate Bill—to your Lordships. He was unimpassioned when he came to the heart of the matter: perhaps I shall not be quite so phlegmatic. But the House certainly owes him a great debt of gratitude for so clearly explaining this Bill.
May I also offer a respectful word of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd? From his point of view, I thought he made an excellent speech; and, as one who has stood at that Despatch Box, year in and year out, criticising the Government for their handling of transport matters, I was almost tempted to indulge in what I have always been told is one of the most useless observations ever to make—to turn to the Government and say, "I told you so". But if I do indulge that human failing, it is because, after all these years—ten years—when the British Transport system has gone on and on losing millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money, the Government cannot say for one moment that they were not apprised of the position at least once a year. But, no; White Paper after White Paper was produced, apologia after apologia; and when I told them, year after year, that they had not a dog's chance of ever making the British railway system pay, always the "pie in the sky" argument was used. So I would offer a word of congratulation also to the present
124
Minister of Transport, who has, I think with great courage, grasped this nettle and put the position before the country in all its brutality. The Minister is subject to criticism on various counts, but nobody can criticise him for not having the courage of his convictions.
Now, my Lords, the issue between the two sides of your Lordships' House on this Bill is very plain. It has been quite frankly and fairly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and will be reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, when he winds up for the Opposition. I always have a great respect for the views of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, on transport matters, although I do not often agree with them. But the simple issue is this: should we run the transport system of this country (in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd) as a service or as a business? Clause 18 of this Bill contains the same words as a similar section in the 1947 Act:
"Each of the Boards shall so conduct their business as to secure that their revenue is not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, taking one year with another."
That was also stated in the 1947 Act. The charge to the British Transport Commission then was that they had to make their business profitable: the charge to the reorganised British Transport Commission to-day is precisely the same.
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, anyone would think that this Bill denationalised the whole of the British transport services to-day. It does nothing of the kind: it reorganises them. That is clearly stated, in plain language, in the first paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum:
"The main purpose of the Bill is to reorganise the structure and finances of the nationalised transport undertakings at present carried on by the British Transport Commission and to give the new undertakings greater commercial freedom."
That is not denationalising them. I want to put this to the House quite frankly. Taking the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, gave your Lordships—and I will not go through them all because I expect your Lordships made a note of them—he said that the capital debt up to the present time was £2,450 million. That is what the taxpayers a

125
interested in, and it includes a £475 million accumulated loss. This was the figure that, in the old days, I used to accuse the Government of chasing up and down the columns of account books and over the pages, and in respect of which I used to say, "For Heaven's sake! write it off. You cannot lose it in any other way". Now they have written it off. That is the taxpayers' loss, to start with.
Then the noble Lord said that, of the remainder, £1,575 million is the share of the capital debt that must be borne by British Railways. But he went on to say that, of this total, £650 million to £700 million were (and these were his words) "a very doubtful debt". My Lords, it is a very doubtful debt; and, if I wanted to place a true picture before the British public, I would add that to the £475 million and say that the loss is now £1,175 million. Because although the noble Lord can chase his £650 million or £700 million up and down the pages of the account books in the future, the ultimate end will be the same: it will have to be written off.
Now, with that fact staring the Minister in the face—plus the fact that they are not going to charge the Commission any interest in respect of this sum of £650 million to £700 million "doubtful debt"; and that will cost the taxpayer £35 million a year, because that comes under charge of the Treasury—and remembering that British Railways are to-day operating at a loss of £80 million a year, what could the Minister of Transport do other than what is in this Bill? What could he do? It is a dreadful responsibility.
My Lords, I must say this: that when you get those figures, and when your Lordships have studied them, you will come to the conclusion that never in the history of any British industrial concern has there been such a story of ineptitude and incompetence. And the two bodies who must share the blame—you can carve it up between them as much as you like—are the Government and the British Transport Commission, because they would not tackle this matter in time. If a Bill like this had been produced about ten years ago, it might have saved the British taxpayer millions and millions of pounds.
Now, my Lords, I am not going to go into the past, because I should like
126
to address my remaining remarks to the future. I have read out to your Lordships the charge to the new organisation contained in Clause 18. This is somewhat qualified, as your Lordships will see when you turn to Clause 22. This, in my view, is the heart of the whole matter. Clause 22 (4) says:
"During the period of five years beginning with the vesting date subsection (1) of section eighteen of this Act shall not apply to the Railways Board"—
that is the subsection which says it has (to use commercial parlance) to "wash its face"—
"but the Railways Board shall so conduct their business as to place themselves at the earliest possible date in such a position that their revenue will be, and continue to be"—
"continue to be", my Lords—
"not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, taking one year with another".
They have five years' grace to get into a viable position. Subsection (5) of Clause 22 says:
"For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection and, after the expiration of the said period of five years beginning with the vesting date, for the purposes of subsection (1) of section eighteen of this Act as it applies to the Railways Board, the Railways Board shall take into consideration deficits on revenue account arising at any time after the vesting date, except so far as the Minister has, under subsection (1) of this section, made a grant to meet any such deficit".
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said to your Lordships quite bluntly and frankly that the Minister will for five years contribute a sum not exceeding £450 million to help with the accumulated deficit over those five years. After five years he can make a grant—in other words, make them a gift, or write it off—or he can make them carry it in the future. So they have to bring this back from an operating loss—and that does not take any account of any interest charges at all—an £80 million a year loss, and in five years put it on a profit-earning basis. I ask the simple question: can they do it? To say that it is an impossible thing to do is a defeatist attitude, but I do not think they will do it. Frankly, I think the whole position is beyond them, and I will tell your Lordships why.
At the present time they have to economise to such an extent that they

127
have to go on working with equipment that is not fit. I do not think they are recruiting sufficient brains at the top. This is not a criticism of Dr. Beeching. I have not the pleasure of knowing the gentleman, but all my inquiries show (that he is a first-class man, right on top of his job and is as enthusiastic and as courageous as the Minister. But, if I am right, Dr. Beeching's engagement is for only five years. I also think I am right in saying—no doubt Lord Mills will correct me if I am wrong—that some of the men, and the best of them, who have been brought into the Commission are on only a three-year loan arrangement. And the job has to be done in five years. Frankly, I hope that the future is going to prove me wrong, but I am not at all happy, because we are not getting into the railway system of this country top, first-class brains 'after we have cleared out all those "decorations" which were put in the Commission by patronage. If the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, wants it quite plainly, the curse on any nationalised industry is that wretched system of patronage, and not ability, which is the first consideration with a lot of appointments. That is why I hope that regional area boards will be composed of practical men—the general managers, the chief engineers, the electrical engineers—and not composed of decorative persons on a part-time basis.
We are also not getting the brains in the second-class categories, the second level. Another thing your Lordships must face is that the lower levels in British Railways are some of the worst paid in the country. You cannot get first-class men on any grade unless you are willing to pay a decent price. Those are some of my reasons why I have my doubts, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will perhaps give me a reassurance on some of them.
I do not criticise what is being done. I cannot think of an alternative. The alternative of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is no alternative. The British people have decided that they would rather have an independent form of transport. We in this country cannot go on following a high-priced fuel policy with a high-priced transport policy. For fifty years we have had too many railways, and we have too many now. They
128
are uneconomic, and industry in this country is far the best judge of how it will transport its goods, in the interests of the nation's economy, from the conveyor lines of the factories. Handling is the biggest single cost factor in the whole price structure in industry, and unfortunately the railway system is one which adds to handling costs.
May I quickly mention two points about which I am unhappy? It is all very well to close down redundant railway lines. Of course, the best way of preventing the loss of money on the railways is not to have any railways. But what are we going to do in rural areas if uneconomic railways are closed down? What alternative transport are we going to provide and what are we going to do when we cannot provide that transport at a profit? There are vast areas where economic rates and fares would be prohibitive. Perhaps one day the Government will bring in a Bill—I think it would be an amusing one—to make it obligatory for private bus services to run at a loss. But some bus services will have to run at a loss.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said that the new road passenger services would belong to the Holding Company. I cannot see anything in the Bill which gives the railways the statutory right to run bus services, although I may be wrong. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will let me know. I am very apprehensive about this whole question because, if we are not going to have the herding of population within urban areas, with all the complications that that brings, we have to provide a country-wide transport service, and in this country there are some services Which can never be made commercially profitable. I should like to know the noble Lord's answer to that.
On the development of land, I take a view opposed to that of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I would ask the Minister whether under this Bill it is possible for development companies to be formed for property development, because if there is one thing to-day that requires expertise and technique it is the development of property. I do not know anybody on the British Transport Commission who has the slightest knowledge of property development. There are millions of pounds worth of property that the Commission do not know they

129
have. The auditors' report says that they have not been able to check all the leases and deeds of property; they are far too numerous. But somebody has to do it some day.
I should like also to ask the Minister to take care of one thing. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, the Commission's land should be used to develop facilities which the railways are bound to have, and one thing that is needed at every one of the stations in rural areas as well as in London is far more car parking space. It is no good for the iron-rail mind to look upon the car owner as some kind of parasite. For example, when coming to your Lordships' House, I have to be at Oxford station half an hour before the train leaves, in order to get into the car park. It is full when I catch even the first or second train. The Commission should do all they can to attract people to make long journeys by rail instead of by road.
I want to make one suggestion to the noble Lord. I am staggered because at a time when the Government are really trying to do something to increase the revenue of the railways they will persist in allowing abnormal loads to go along the roads of this country. The other day British Road Services, full of glee, came out with an advertisement announcing that they had just invented a vehicle with forty wheels. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd: if that is supposed to be competition with the railways, it is competition ad absurdum—but they are doing it. We see the police escorting abnormal loads, at the cost of the taxpayer and to the deterioration of the roads, when by any conceivable standard they should be sent by rail. And when I have argued this I have had the reply, "We cannot interfere with the costs of our transport business." Nonsense! These abnormal loads are putting up costs by delay to every other road user.
When I come to think of some of the problems facing the Minister I do not wonder that the noble Lord resisted all blandishments for pipe-lines to be placed under the aegis of the Ministry of Transport. I should think that the Minister and his Ministry must work 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, and there are more problems to come on his plate, including shipping. I support the Bill
130
because I believe that it introduces the only thing that can happen. I wish that the noble Lord would make the period a little longer, but perhaps he will tell me that it can always be increased. I wish the Minister the very best of luck; at least, he deserves it.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord while he was speaking in case I upset the context of his remarks, but before the noble Lord sits down I would ask him this. I was interested in his reference to the railway's responsibility for providing car parks. In view of the capital value of the land and construction costs and the fact that a car-park hire charge of 1s. or 1s. 6d. can never in any way meet these costs, who is going to bear them?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The man who uses the car park.
5.18 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I certainly welcome this Bill. It is the first real attempt, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, to put the railways on a proper financial basis. The noble Lord also said that this Bill should have been produced ten years ago; and I entirely agree with him. He painted a very depressing picture of the future of the railways, but I hope that this Bill may do some good. I am sure that it is right that there should be a number of completely autonomous Railway Boards. I think that this will enable them to concentrate on railway business, without being worried by other matters. I am sure that it is also right that they should have their own financial structure. I am very much in favour of streamlining the railway system, which not only will save large sums of money but should also release large numbers of men who can be more productively employed in other industries. On the other hand, I am sure that your Lordships will wish to hear from the Minister in charge of the Bill how the shut-down railway services are to be replaced by passenger road transport. This was very clearly brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
We have heard a great deal from the Party opposite, not only to-day but also in the past, about an integrated transport service being the only salvation for

131
the railways and the roads. They have said that we on this side of the House, when we amended the 1947 Act, destroyed the integration. But the fact is that we have never had integration: and the 1947 Act never produced it, because "C" licence holders, for reasons which are well known, were left out of the Bill. I would say that it is not possible to 'have an integrated system of transport, except under a dictatorship or a Communist régime, and I do not think even the Party opposite would like to have that. The Bill which is before us to-day will, I think, provide coordination, but it will not provide integration, and that is what I think the country would prefer to-day. I suggest that the co-ordination of policy and investment is the province of the Minister of Transport and Parliament, and that this Bill provides for it.
The Transport Commission will cease to exist under this Bill, and it appears that a new body, to be called the National Transport Advisory Council, composed of the Chairmen of the four main Boards and of the Holding Company, is to be set up to advise the Minister. I must say that I am not very happy about this set-up. Surely each Chairman of his respective Board will be out to look after the interests of his own undertaking. It would seem that the Minister is unlikely to receive any helpful, co-ordinated advice from such a gathering. Perhaps the Minister in charge of the Bill can tell us a little more about it when he comes to reply, and whether a proper secretarial staff is to be provided.
I was delighted to see in the Bill that the London Transport Board are no longer to hold the monopoly of stage carriage services in the London area. I presume—I may be wrong—that it will now be possible for the London Transport buses to have a little competition, which will certainly not be a bad thing, and perhaps will be welcomed by the public. When we look at Clauses 69 and 70 of the Bill, it appears that the Transport police force, which, I think, was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is likely to be split up into separate forces for each of the separate railway Boards. Surely, this would be a retrograde step. It would undoubtedly
132
cause an increase of expenditure and, I think, loss of efficiency, and, last but not least, it would cause great dissatisfaction among the members of the police forces themselves. I think it will undoubtedly also interfere with their promotion. I hope the Minister of Transport will look at this matter again before the Commitee stage of the Bill.
I am still uneasy about the proposed abolition of the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee which has operated so successfully for a large number of years. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has mentioned competition between road transport and coastal shipping. I am sorry he is not in his place at the moment, but I should like to point out to him that there are, of course, fundamental differences in the competition between road haulage and coastal shipping. In the first place, the size of the unit of transport is quite different. Small coasters are almost entirely concerned with the movement of consignments of 200 tons upwards. This restricts the market they serve, whereas road transport, like the railways, can cater for consignments of any size and can therefore rely on a steady flow of traffic in easily handled quantities. In the second place, road haulage has the attraction to the trader of delivery direct to the shop floor, thus avoiding costly handling charges.
It is true that certain Amendments have been made to the Bill during its passage through another place, but in my view they do not go far enough to protect coastal shipping. I wonder how many of your Lordships realise that some 500 coastal ships, manned by British officers and men, ply between Over 150 ports on the coasts of the United Kingdom. These little ships carry some 27 million tons of dry cargo, mainly bulk commodities, over very long distances, and also trade with the near Continental ports. Not only do they earn foreign currency in doing this, but they also reduce sterling expenditure on freight for the movement of exports and imports.
I think it will be quite clear to your Lordships that participation in the Continental trades must depend on a flourishing coastal trade. There is no doubt that the railways will continue to receive a subsidy in some form or

133
another which would enable them to quote uneconomic rates, and with the greater freedom to be given to them under this Bill it is all the more necessary that effective statutory safeguards for coastal shipping should be put into the Bill. Clause 53, as amended in another place, would, in fact, enable complaints to be made about uneconomic railway charges only after they have already been put into operation. This would mean that the traffic would be lost before any action could be taken. I maintain that this clause must be amended so that the charges proposed to be made by the railways can be scrutinised to see whether they are uneconomic and unfair to the shipping industry. It is no use shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, but that is what this clause, as amended, now means. British shipping realises that the railways must be put in a batter position to pay their way in the national interest, but I suggest it would be a disaster if, to save the railways, other important sections of the transport industry which are represented by private industry are swept out of existence by a Conservative Government because safeguards are not provided in this Bill.
There is another section of the shipping industry known as the short-sea liner trades. About twenty British companies maintain a network of regular, scheduled services between ports in the United Kingdom and ports on the Continent, such as France, Belgium, Holland and Western Germany, and they employ about 100 little ships. These small vessels carry a wide range of general cargoes, as distinct from the bulk cargoes carried by the small tramp vessels. During recent years intensified competition has been experienced from the shipping services operated by the British Transport Commission. As I said before, the shipping industry does not mind fair competition, but if the railways quote a through rate to the Continent with an uneconomic railway haulage, the competition is manifestly unfair.
I feel—and I have said before—that some provision should be made in this Bill whereby a complaint could be lodged in the same way as for the tramp traffic. I maintain that it would be quite wrong if, by ignoring proper commercial costs, a nationalised industry were
134
enabled to compete unfairly—and I repeat, "unfairly"—with private industry. I think it is true to say that the Ministers of Transport of successive Governments have all stressed the importance to the nation of maintaining an adequate supply of coastal shipping. Not only is it important in a peace-time economy, but it becomes vitally important in time of war. I feel it is essential that the Bill should be amended to safeguard the interests of coastal shipping from unfair competition.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer for a few minutes, and that is the proposed Holding Company and its future relations with passenger transport companies which are at present partly owned by private enterprise and partly owned by British Railways. This system of part ownership has worked out extremely well, and experienced railway executives have been appointed to the boards of these companies, which has resulted in proper and efficient co-ordination between bus and rail services. Under this Bill this link would be broken, and it would seem that the Holding Company, in which the shares of these companies will be invested, would be able—I do not say they would—to supply directors to the boards who know nothing about railways. This seems to me to be a very illogical set-up and damaging to what has been a successful partnership between railways and passenger road transport.
I am afraid that I am one of those who feel that, however much money is poured into the railways, as at present constituted they will never be able to break even. In fact, I would go so far as to say that in the years to come we shall not have railways in their present form at all. I think we may well see the railway tracks as we know them now torn up and replaced by roads, with possibly monorails overhead. At the present time we are trying to bolster up an out-of-date form of transport. We certainly need railways of a kind, but not in their present form. I should like to congratulate the Minister on his great efforts to reorganise the railways under this Bill, and I feel sure that he has an open mind about the future form in which the railways may evolve. I am fairly convinced that radicad changes will have to take place one day. I only wish it

135
were possible that this Bill could take us further along in the changes that will one day become necessary.
5.30 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord Who introduced the Bill is not here, for I should like to begin by congratulating him on an extraordinary performance. It is a most complicated and detailed Bill, and I have seldom heard a Bill of this magnitude explained in such a clear way and so concisely as he did. Whether we like this Bill or not, at least we cannot complain that it has not been properly explained to us. I should also like to congratulate my other absent friend who followed him, likewise in a speech of great clarity and thoughtfulness; and again, whether one agrees with him or not—and I imagine that a good many noble Lords facing me would not agree with me—at any rate he made his case quite clearly and forcefully.
My own personal position is that I have no feeling of dogmatism about the way in which the railway system of this country should be run. I am quite clear, however, about what we all want. We want a system which will give the public the service it needs, a satisfactory and efficient service; and I think it is there that I part company from noble Lords opposite. I am not particularly critical, although some of my noble friends may be, as to the method adopted in this Bill, but I am critical of the conception of this Bill, Which was explained by the noble Lord who introduced it, as a Bill which has for its purpose not only commercial freedom but also the rendering of the railway system of this country as a commercial undertaking. And that was illustrated by a number of examples that he gave—for instance, the closing of uneconomic lines, without regard, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, emphasised, to What services would be provided in their place.
My own view is that of the noble Lord opposite who has just spoken and of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth: that the railways of this country never will pay if we set out to provide the community with a service that it needs. Because, of course, many parts of that service are bound to be uneconomic. You either adopt the policy
136
which seems to be indicated in the hints that have been given about this Bill, that a considerable number of uneconomic lines will be closed, or you have to provide some form of service, even if it is an alternative, usually at a loss. I think we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that a transport system of this country must be subsidised if it is to be run satisfactorily in the interests of the community.
While I personally have no particular objection to the devices contained in this Bill for separating the different railway systems, provided that there is strong co-ordination, I do not myself believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, indicated, that in the long run this method can make the railway system self-supporting, unless we decide to abandon all uneconomic services and put nothing in their place. Even this Government, I imagine, would not be prepared to go so far as that. So let us get out of our minds altogether that we, unlike most other countries in the world, can produce a transport system which is going to be self-supporting.
Having said that, my Lords, I want particularly to deal with one aspect of this Bill on which perhaps I am more qualified to speak than on other aspects, and that is Clause 11, dealing with surplus land, which the railway undertaking are to be given freedom to dispose of. I have no objection at all to the disposal of land which the undertaking no longer require. That is a sensible provision. I am not quite sure whether they should be allowed to develop it themselves, or whether they should merely dispose of it at the best price they can get. But I want to make just this provision. In London, in particular, it is estimated that we have about 1,000 acres of land—although it may be more—which, under this Bill, is liable to be disposed of. Certainly in the country the total area would be quite considerable. Here I want to be a little technical, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will not mind that.
Most of these sites to be disposed of have existing user rights, which, in ordinary language, means that they could be disposed of for offices or for industry. Now Government policy in London to-day is to discourage offices and industry. If I, as a private individual wished

137
to put up a block of offices anywhere in London I should be refused planning permission; and I have no doubt that the odds are a thousand to one that, if I appealed, the Minister would refuse. What is to be the position of the railway undertaking? They will have to apply for planning permission as well. If they are to be allowed to develop their land in a way which the Government regard as anti-social, and which certainly local authorities regard as anti-social, then, of course, they will get the full value for their land. But are we, in the interests of so-called sound finance, to permit the railway undertakings to use their land for what the Government themselves regard as anti-social purposes and to create new problems of congestion and the need for further transport which would be impossible to satisfy? In that case the railway undertakings are not going to get an adequate and full value for their land. Yet the broad purpose of Clause 11 is that they are to do so.
By and large, certainly in London and possibly outside London, too, most of this land belonging to railway undertakings will be used for housing, or for other less valuable purposes, such as offices, industry and so on. They may even be used, as my noble friend pointed out, for car parking. A good deal of it would probably be very suitable for that purpose, but it certainly does not command a high value. I should now like to ask who is going to pay the difference between the full value, on the assumption that the railway undertakings could use their land for its most profitable purpose, and the lesser value if it were used for the purpose for which, in the public interest, it should be used? And are the Government going to insist that this land is used in the most profitable manner, regardless of the public interest? That is a serious problem which arises under Clause 11, and although it is a matter which is perhaps capable of being dealt with in Committee I feel that it is Of such importance in principle that it deserves a reference on Second Reading.
There is one other point that I want to mention, and then I will sit down; for we have a long debate before us. In the course of the discussion so far, we have all talked about closing down railway
138
lines that are unnecessary. But is there to be any extension of our railways system at all? Do the Government contemplate that? There is one line, in particular, that I have in mind—it is one that has been freely canvassed—and that is the line running from Victoria to Walthamstow. It is absolutely essential in the public interest that something should be done about this line. It is now twenty minutes to six. I invite any noble Lord to go down to Westminster Station now and try to get on to the Underground. I myself, on those occasions when I have had the good fortune to get home at this time of the evening, find that I have to let several trains go by because I just cannot get in; and if I do squeeze in I regret it. Those are conditions to which no human being should be subjected at the end of a day's work. Yet that is the position to-day. And the Government talk of closing down uneconomic lines! I understand that the District Line is uneconomic. I imagine that even the Government will not go so far as to close down the District Line.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I intervene? I think the noble Lord has chosen one of the more favourable instances. If he were to go to Oxford Circus at a similar time he would probably queue for many yards before he got near the station entrance. He is voicing a crying need of the public for years for this Tube.
LORD SILKIN: I am glad to have the noble Lord's support, and I am very glad that I do not have to go to Oxford Circus. I remember that I have even seen the station closed, and the public not admitted to the precincts. Those are the conditions under which the British public at the end of a day's work try to get home.
Or let them queue up for a bus. I do not know whether I have been particularly unlucky, but I find that when I do queue up for a bus, after a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes I am no nearer the head of the queue than before; somehow people seem to be getting in front of me. However, I am stating these things merely to emphasise the urgent need for some improvement, and particularly for this particular improvement which I am advised would

139
make a feig difference to those who have to travel.
Those in South London have an even worse time. They do not have a Tube; they have to rely on buses. And to have to wait in a queue for half an hour to get on a bus is no fun. I feel that instead of fiddling around with legislation of this kind, which I believe those best qualified to judge do not think is going to make very much difference, the Government should concentrate on seeing how they can deal with the travelling public and how they can improve conditions. I should think that if it were possible to improve conditions of travelling, and of transport, they would stand a much better chance of making the services pay than under the present conditions of restriction.
I believe that the Government are making a mistake. I do not take it so tragically, because probably they are quite right to try all kinds of devices to see what they can do. But I believe that, in the end, they will come back to something of the kind which exists to-day; that is, a far more integrated system with a certain amount of devolution. And I hope that the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will be taken seriously into account, and that those charged with the responsibility for running railways will be the people best qualified to do so.
I am sorry that I cannot wish the Government success with this Bill, but I hope that somehow they will find a way of dealing with the problem confronting us, which in my view is far less a financial problem than a transport and traffic problem. I think that is the real point. I believe that the actual loss on the railway system would fade into insignificance if it were possible to evaluate what we are actually losing in other ways—in delays to transport, freight and passengers. If every vehicle on the road is delayed half an hour, on an average, for each journey, try to evaluate what that amounts to, and I am quite sure that it would come to far more than the £80 million or £90 million a year which the British Transport is supposed to be losing. So I hope that the Government will look at the matter much more from the point of view of public service than from the point of view of public finance.
5.47 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, when last year I addressed your Lordships on the White Paper I drew attention to the danger that the policy the Government had embarked upon would result in a complete break-up of such co-ordination as there is at the present time between the different forms of transport. I referred to a remarkable book called The Middle Way written by the present Prime Minister, in which he suggested that what is required in the 20th century is neither the complete integration or nationalisation to which noble Lords opposite are committed nor the old-fashioned cut-throat competition of the past, but some kind of middle way where a certain amount of devolution and freedom is allowed while the general policy is co-ordinated. This Bill is, I think, rather better than I had expected when I read the White Paper.
Let us be quite clear as to what the Government are intending to do. It was the aim of the Socialist Government under the 1947 Act to put into the hands of the British Transport Commission responsibility for integration or coordination of transport. Under this Bill the present Minister of Transport is taking that responsibility upon himself. I admire his courage. I think he is going to find it extremely difficult to do. I am not sure that he quite realises what are the political pressures in a free country that will operate upon him. It is very difficult to persuade dwellers in rural districts to agree to the closing down of branch lines, even though many of those people never themselves make use of the branch lines. That is the responsibility which the present Government are putting upon the Minister of Transport.
I cannot refrain from saying that I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, were here he would probably refer to the debates about nationalisation—and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, remembers them—in the Parliament of 1945–50, when it was the Conservative Party who were always saying, "Let us make certain that these nationalised industries are administered by impartial boards, and let us at all costs avoid interference by the political Minister." Well, years have passed, and in this, as in many other things, the

141
policy of the Conservative Party has apparently changed. I only hope that it will turn out satisfactorily.
I welcome the creation of the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council, and I do not wholly agree with my noble friend Lord Teynham when he suggests that because the Chairmen of these different Boards all meet and discuss matters together, they will not be able to give wise advice to the Minister. It seems to me that if the responsibilities of the Transport Commission are to be broken up amongst these Boards, it is extremely desirable that the Chairmen of the Boards should come together and discuss how their general policies are to be co-ordinated.
I welcome the creation of a Board to administer the railways. As the Parliamentary Secretary has reminded us, three-quarters of the vast concern of the Transport Commission is its railways, and that is far too big a thing to be administered by a Commission which has other interests to consider. I also welcome the creation of the Regional Boards. I am glad that they are to have only such powers as are delegated to them by the Railways Board. I think also that it is a good thing that inland waterways should come under a separate Board. That is a difficult problem, and I only hope that too much money will not be invested in these canals, because it is not going to be easy to make them profitable in the 20th century. I entirely agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, when he welcomed the power to dispose of railway land; and I also agreed with him that it should not be considered the duty of the Board to disipose of land at the highest price, regardless of public services and such considerations. I think we shall have to probe this matter a little further in Committee.
I come to the question of the Holding Company. Clause 29 (6) provides that it should be conducted on commercial lines. I suppose that means that normally it is to be administered in order to maximise the profits that it makes. Clause 29 (4) empowers the Minister to give directions to the Holding Company as to how it is to administer the interests under its control. I think it of the utmost importance that the Minister shall ensure that the Holding Company does not set out to make profits regardless
142
of what the effects of its policy may be upon other forms of transport, and especially upon the finances of the Railways Board. I think it is essential that there should be proper co-ordination, and it will largely depend upon the way in which the Holding Company influences the bus companies and other forms of road transport whether, under this Bill, we preserve some of the benefit of the co-ordination that we have had in the past.
This is of such importance that I venture to go into it a little more fully. Let us take the passenger road services, the buses. Long before nationalisation the old railway companies bought large interests in the bus companies. That was considered to be sound business in the days of competition. The bus companies are in many cases ancillary to the railways. When railway services are closed down because there are not enough passengers to pay the way, it is often the case that the railways call upon the bus companies to provide bus services to take the place of the railway train service which has been suppressed My noble friend Lord Teynham referred to this extremely important matter.
Under Clause 7 (2) the London Board is placed under an obligation to coordinate its services with British Railways, and to co-operate with them. There is in the Bill no such obligation upon the Holding Company; but since the Holding Company is under the direction of the Minister it will be open to him to ensure that this is done. I would ask my noble friend Lord Mills in his concluding speech to explain in what spirit the Minister intends to exercise these powers of direction. Of course, the same applies, on an even larger scale, as to what are the real intentions of the Minister and of the Government if there are now to be four separate Boards. Does he intend to ensure that there shall be a co-ordination of policy between the Board running the railways, the Board running the canals, the Holding Company that I have referred to, and coastal shipping? It seems to me most important that we should know what the Government's intentions are.
Closely connected with this is the whole question of the licensing of road transport. I know that this is not directly affected by this Bill, but it underlies

143
the whole of our traffic policy in this country. It was in 1930 that noble Lords opposite, when the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was Minister of Transport, introduced the Road Traffic Bill under which passenger services on the roads had to be licensed. The Conservative Government, in 1953, appointed a Committee under Mr. Justice Thesiger to look into the whole question of this licensing, and that Committee reported that on the whole the system had worked well. Although that was a Socialist measure introduced by a Socialist Minister successive Conservative Ministers of Transport have all continued to work it. When a National Government had come into power, a Conservative Minister of Transport applied the licensing system to goods transport on the roads, under the Act of 1932. It required that lorry owners should obtain A or B licences; it imposed no restriction on C licences, nor was any made by the Act of 1947; and I am inclined to think that that is one of the ways in which both Parties were in equal error.
I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to maintain the general principles of this licensing. There is now too much traffic on the road, both passenger and goods. This may get worse as the result of motor ways, because while transport demands roads, the provision of roads encourages motor transport. I say again that the Prime Minister's middle way requires the maintenance of the general principle of this licensing system, which is the joint work of successive Socialist and Conservative Ministers in the past. I have tried to put this problem quite generally. But there are two special matters illustrating it. This licensing has done a great deal to keep bus services going in rural districts. We have had reference to the importance of these bus services and the difficulty of keeping them going in rural areas. Under the licensing system as it has been worked the Traffic Commissioners often make it a condition of granting licences that the bus companies should continue to maintain uneconomic services in particular places as a condition of their being licensed to conduct more profitable ones. That is an illustration of how satisfactorily and
144
helpfully the licensing system has worked.
I deplore the recommendation of the Jack Committee that rural bus services should be subsidised. If subsidies once begin, where are they to end? The rapid increase in private rural transport is largely responsible for many of these bus services being discontinued, and probably 40 per cent. of agricultural labourers now have available some form of private transport, whether cars, scooters or mopeds. This is an additional reason for maintaining the licensing system, which is a flexible and practical way of dealing with this problem.
When I was at the Ministry of Transport there was discussion of the possibility of an amalgamation of the parcels service (which now is to go under the Holding Company) and the delivery service of British Railways. If that could not apply everywhere, at any rate it was thought possible that it might be introduced in London and large built-up areas, reducing the duplication of lorries and vans travelling the roads. No progress was made at the time, largely owing to opposition by the trade unions. But this illustrates what makes me anxious about this Bill. As a result of the parcels service coming under the Holding Company and thereby being completely separated from the delivery service of the railways, are we to take it that any idea of an amalgamation—partial or complete—of these services is made more difficult? As I have said, the Minister, under Clause 29 (4), has power to give directions to the Holding Company—and I hope that he will give them directions—to explore the possibility of an amalgamation of that kind, which I think would streamline the general service and reduce congestion.
In so far as I understand them, I welcome the changes that are being made in the powers of the transport users' consultative committees. They were set up, naturally, to look after the interests of transport users, but they have of course very much slowed down the rationalisation of the railways and the closing down of uneconomic services. The powers are now, under this Bill, considerably reduced. I would ask whether the Minister will be bold in accepting the recommendations of the

145
Railways Board to close down uneconomic lines and services; and, if that is done, how does he intend to replace them? Is he—and I repeat my question—under Clause 29 going to direct the Holding Company in suitable oases to provide bus services as a more economical alternative to the branch lines? If instead he instructs the Railways Board to keep those uneconomic services open, does he then intend to pay the cost of those services on the ground that this is not a commercial operation but one which is in fact a public service?
I agree that the British Transport Commission has been too large and too centralised. This Bill goes a long way to decentralise it, but I ask myself—and I ask the Government—will it not go too far in disrupting transport? The Minister has taken upon himself great powers. I want to know how he intends to use them. Will he preserve the licensing system as set up in 1930 and 1932? Will he use Clause 29 (4) in order to ensure that the Holding Company does not act under Clause 29 (6) to make the maximum profit, regardless of the effect on the transport system as a whole? Will he use his powers in a positive way in order to encourage such amalgamations as that of the parcels service and railway delivery, and to encourage the substitution of buses in country districts for branch lines Which are closed down? Will he ensure that all these different boards co-operate and co-ordinate their services? My Lords, I believe that if the Minister acts in that spirit this Bill can be a very great step forward, can be of immense financial help to the country as a Whole, and will at the same time preserve what we have at present in some degree—a coordinated transport system.
6.7 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, I wish to add my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for the succinct way in which he introduced this important and comprehensive Bill. It is a characteristic which I have associated with him in close observation of his work in this House on many occasions. He has told us that the main purpose of this Bill is the reorganisation of nationalised transport undertakings, and, if I may sum up—I hope not unfairly—the way in which
146
this Bill attempts to achieve that reorganisation is, first, by abolishing the only co-ordinating body now in existence and, secondly, by providing us with an attenuated railway service which will involve dispensing with the services of some 150,000 people now employed by the railways.
It may be asked what my interest in this matter really is. It is, in the first place, because I am a believer in nationalisation as a system of economic organisation; and, in the second, because of the experience I have obtained during some fifteen years' involvement in the actual operation of two nationalised industries. I was a member of the first Coal Board, and for ten years I had the honour to be the Chairman of the British Electricity Authority and its successors. I am now occupying the modest position of a part-time member of the Electricity Council. I was associated, in my Trades Union Congress days, with the formulation of the principles which were developed by the Labour Party when in office and which ultimately resulted in the legislation which nationalised the transport system, at least in part, of this country.
The principles which appeared to be outstandingly important in my Trades Union Congress days were, first, the efficient, economic operation of the nationalised industries and, secondly, the provision of an adequate public service by those industries. It was a balanced combination of both of those principles which was in our minds at the time we, as trade unionists, were giving consideration to this question. I certainly never believed for one minute that nationalisation could be universally applied to all the industries of this country, irrespective of their state of growth and development; nor did I regard it as a cure-all for the economic evils with which modern society is afflicted. There were those who, perhaps, expected too much from a change from private ownership to nationalisation. It may easily be that there has been a measure of disappointment, not merely on the part of those who did not believe in nationalisation—disappointment in the sense of lack of achievement by the industries—but also on the part of the supporters of nationalisation.

147
I think that an intimate knowledge of the industries themselves would, perhaps, restore a sense of balance about the achievements of these different industries. I am quite certain that to date (there has not been evolved any kind of alternative, other than nationalisation, to the trust and the combine, which to-day are becoming a feature of our life in this country, and which have shown themselves extremely powerful in the United States and elsewhere in, shall I say, the economic affairs of a country.
The major difference between the nationalised bodies and the great aggregations like I.C.I., Courtauld's, Lever's, Dunlop's, and these large companies, is that in the case of the nationalised industries they are constantly under the searchlight of public criticism. Ministerial inquiries, all kinds of ad hoc committees, Select Committees and other bodies are constantly, in some way or another, probing into the affairs of the nationalised industries. I sometimes wish that some kind of examination could be made of the affairs of these large corporations which are still in private hands. I think that a good deal of the assumed efficiency, which appears to be established by the balance sheets, would dissipate in the process.
Certainly, it is a very much more difficult thing, for people who are trying efficiently to operate a nationalised service, fearlessly to take their decisions when in fact they know that, years after the event, some committee will come along and will want to know why such a decision was taken, or why another decision was not taken. In other words, there is a constant looking over the shoulder to find the potential critics, and inevitably inside the organisation there will be the building up of some kind of defensive organisation to meet any such potential charges or complaints. That is one of the major differences between our nationalised industries and those which remain in private hands and operate on a large scale.
There was great concern in the Labour movement, in the early days, about how these industries could be operated: "Are they to be placed under a Government Department like the Post Office, or are they to be operated through a public corporation?" Why was a public corporation
148
suggested? First, because it could operate on broad commercial principles consistent with proper considerations of public service. I emphasise that latter point, and it cannot be absent from the considerations of any public Board.
I would quote something which is not in the least private, and which is known to everybody. In 1953 the Electricity Boards were asked by the Government of the day, under pressure from Parliament itself, to operate and widely spread their rural electrical services. It was known both to the Government and to everybody else that those services would be in the main uneconomic for a considerable period of years. The facts are patent. Whereas in the urban areas you may have 300 consumers to the mile, when it comes to the scattered rural areas you may have ten consumers and, consequently, it is utterly impossible to recover your capital costs except over a very long period of time.
This is not a peculiarity of this country. When I was in New Zealand and Australia four years ago, I found that the Governments of the day had provided for subsidies—some of them indirect in character—which enabled the boards to install services not costing a modest £250 or thereabouts as they do in this country for extreme cases, but £1,200 and as high as £2,000. That was carrying out a principle of public service, because the mere fact of people living far away from the main supply was no reason why they should be deprived of the amenities of our modern civilisation.
The next important thing in connection with the public corporation was that, in our innocence in the trade union movement, we thought that it would be able to maintain a considerable measure of independence from political influence. My experience over fifteen years is that there has been a steady encroachment on the independence of the Boards, almost from the beginning. It may be that that encroachment is natural in the circumstances of a publicly-owned industry, but none the less it does definitely impair the freedom of decision of those who have to manage and determine the policy of the nationalised industries.

149
This Bill appears on the surface to give an increasing measure of commercial freedom. It has been described this afternoon and welcomed as regards the extent to which the Railways Board will be able to dispose of land or use its land to the best of its ability; and also as regards imposing charges, on which it has been so restricted in the past, except after long proceedings and after losses accruing in the process. But, really, when I come to examine carefully how much of this commercial freedom there will be left to the Boards, I am not at all satisfied that they will have any greater measure of freedom than they have had in the past.
The Bill concentrates on the economic aspects of the operation of the railways, and I say it undermines the political independence which the Boards now possess, in whatever restricted measure that may be. From an examination of this Bill, the conclusion cannot be escaped that it will render the Boards more susceptible to ministerial influence. The Minister is mentioned over one hundred times in the course of this Bill. He appoints practically everybody concerned; he will appoint the members of all the statutory Boards, the members of the Holding Company, the members of the Transport Advisory Council, the members of the Central Transport Consultative Committee, and the members of the area consultative committees.
I used to hear quite a lot when I was young about the maxim, "He who pays the piper calls the tune." Can we be absolutely certain that in the operation of these boards there will be found men of such independence of mind that they can stand up to the systematic and continued pressure of a Minister who, in turn, is reflecting the view of the Government of the day? Are we sure about that? I do not want to press the point by drawing on my own experiences, but I must say that there is a very serious potential danger in that respect.
There are no real provisions for coordination in this Bill. On the surface there appears to be, but in reality there are no provisions for co-ordination. Take, for example, the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council, which is referred to in Clause 55. This is the only body set up by the Bill, so far as I can recall, in relation to which the word "co-ordination" is mentioned, except in
150
the instance to which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has referred—in London Transport and the British Railways so far as London is concerned. This body has no executive authority at all. It can talk and it can talk, but it can talk only on those matters which are referred to it by the Minister. It has no initiative. Under its constitution, it is quite incapable of introducing any subject whatever, whether dealing with co-ordination or with any other aspect of the nationalised transport system.
Compare that with the consultative committees. The consultative committees have the power of introducing items on to the agenda; they have the power to consider any matter which they think they should consider; and, moreover, they have the power to make recommendations. But where in the course of this Bill is any power given to the Transport Advisory Council to make recommendations to the Minister? Where? I have not found it; and I am quite sure that the draftsmen and those engaged in the framing of this Bill have not left those factors out of account by accident. They most assuredly have been deliberately omitted from the powers of the Transport Advisory Council.
The function of the Council is first stated to be co-ordination. How in the name of common sense can people coordinate unless they are able to bring forward points for consultation and discussion when arriving at decisions on broad questions of policy with other sections of the transport industry? How can that be done? It is assumed to be done through the Minister, but even here there is no reference in the Bill to the boards being free to submit to the Minister, and through him, any question for discussion by the Council. There is not even a regular chairman of the Advisory Council. The Minister reserves to himself the decision whether he should be the chairman or not, and whether another chairman should be appointed. He has the power to do that; and he reserves—and I think, in this case, rightly—the power to take the chair on particular occasions.
I was impressed by the fact that on this body of all bodies—which, remember, has not only the duty of co-ordination but also the consideration of any other aspect of the nationalised transport

151
undertakings—no one is to be drawn from the ranks of the workers; nobody. In every other section, in every other one of the statutory boards, provision is made for somebody who has displayed capacity in the organisation of workpeople. The language may not be exactly that, but unquestionably the sentiment is strictly accurate. This is surely a very singular omission. If coordination and other aspects of transport are to be concerned, is there no contribution that can be made by people experienced in the organisation of the workers? Is there no contribution at all? Is it to be made by a number of undefined persons who are to be brought in by the Minister at his wish? Why that omission? To my mind, it will invoke a great deal of suspicion in the ranks of labour.
This is the most curious co-ordinating committee I have ever come across. In another place the Minister gave a number of analogies in order to show that this system will work. I have never had any doubt that anything in the legislative sphere, however crazy, could be made to work by the British genius for improvisation. It will work all right; but what are we concerned with? We are concerned with the efficiency of this operation, not merely with the fact that it will work. The Minister gave two analogies to support his contentions in another place. He gave the analogy of the National Joint Advisory Council to the Ministry of Labour; and his second analogy was (the National Production Advisory Council on Industry. Anybody who knows anything about the constitution of those bodies—and I see the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, smiling at me; I hope it is in agreement—knows perfectly well that there is no real comparison between those bodies and their functions and the Transport Advisory Council which is proposed in this Bill.
In the first instance, whereas the Minister appoints everybody on the Advisory Council, the Minister of Labour appoints nobody on the Advisory Council that he has. They come there as representatives—remember, not appointees, but representatives—of their separate organisations; they come there completely independent of the Minister;
152
and they come there able to introduce any matter on the agenda that they may feel disposed to introduce. And what I have said about the Ministry of Labour is exactly the same in the case of the National Production Advisory Council on Industry. Furthermore, they have no co-ordinating function of any kind. How could it be possible for a Ministry of Labour advisory committee or a National Production Advisory Council to co-ordinate British industry, with all its multifarious arrangements, and with small and big firms functioning side by side in quite different environments? Co-ordination would be out of the question in such a case.
I hope that what I have said will persuade the Government to consider the points I have raised in respect of the Advisory Council. I hope the Boards will be given power, through their chairmen, to raise any matter which may relate to co-ordination or other functions which are provided for the Council through the Minister. I want them to have the power direct to raise those things. I am quite certain in my own mind that a busy Minister, as this present Minister must be, cannot do the co-ordination. I think he is a man of very great initiative, and has a wonderful knack of introducing expedients. Some of them are not always best calculated to provide thoroughly and well for the job, but at all events they look well.
How can a busy Minister coming in whenever he can, when there are no Divisions in the House of Commons or no Cabinet meetings or when he is not receiving deputations and not doing all the sort of things which a Minister has to do, divorced from all that and ready to put it all on one side—how can a Minister be expected regularly and patiently, and perhaps over a number of hours, to consider the detailed problems of co-ordination of such matters which affect the industry? I do not think it is possible for any human being to do it. Personally, I should like to see two chairmen appointed whose regular function was to take the chair, and each of the separate Boards, including the Holding Company, having the right to raise matters direct on the Council itself.
I want to make just one submission in conclusion. I know there has been

153
a good deal of pressure for this Bill and that, on the face of it, there seems to be an urgency which requires its being passed into law as soon as possible. But it occurred to me that there are certain other considerations, too. As we all know, negotiations are proceeding in regard to the Common Market. So far as I can see—and I am just talking as an ordinary member of the public, with no more information than is available to the ordinary man—there must be a co-ordinated transport policy in any kind of Common Market organisation. One transport system cannot be imposed upon all the others except by consent. I cannot for the life of me see how, when so far as I know five out of the six bodies forming the Common Market are now operating something in the way of a unified transport system, we can expect our transport system, just recently legislated for, to be imposed upon them. So far as I can see, it seems probable that, if this Bill is passed into law more hurriedly than I personally think desirable, we may have to make very material changes in the Bill as a consequence of what may eventuate if and when we decide to become members of the Common Market. I know that the usual compromise which takes place in these cases will probably be reached. But even a compromise means some departure from the views of any particular party. Therefore, I wonder whether it is good policy to press this Bill forward at the present time.
The surveys now being made on the railways by Dr. Beeching—I do not know him personally, but from what I hear he seems to be a very vigorous, energetic and capable man—will not be available till the autumn. The Common Market negotiations, in all probability, will not be concluded for several months. I would just leave in the mind of the Government the question whether it is wise to rush ahead with this measure, not leaving themselves some kind of loophole, some kind of avenue by which they can change their policy as represented in this Bill should that become necessary during the negotiations on the Common Market. That is all the contribution I have to make. I hope I have not put forward my remarks too dogmatically—I had no such intention—but
154
I feel very deeply on the subject which is before the House.
6.34 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, like other noble Lords this afternoon the noble Lord who has just sat down has spoken from long experience of these many matters of organisation which form the main theme of this Bill. But, of course, the impact of this Bill is going to be a great deal wider than matters of organisation. In particular, great emphasis is laid in this Transport Bill on the need for the railways to make a greater endeavour to pay their way. The conflict between their previous obligations to provide a service and to pay their way is resolved: they are now to have a free hand; and that is going to mean, whether we like it or not, a drastic change in the pattern of the railway system as we know it to-day. And with the railways losing £150 million a year, I do not see how anyone could expect that pattern to remain unchanged for ever. From our own experience we all know of individual lines and services which have not a hope of coming within a mile of paying their way, and which cannot be justified on any social or other consideration. But we must be sure that we realise exactly what we are doing in passing this Bill, and what may be the consequences of this remit which the Government have already given Dr. Beeching in advance of the Bill's passage.
My Lords, I make no apology for speaking mainly of the position in Scotland, because it is much the same in other parts of the country which lie at a distance from London and the Midlands. Only last week in this House some of your Lordships were voicing the fear that, in the quite near future, very little of Wales will still boast of a railway service at all. I wonder whether those of your Lordships whose lives are centred around the south and the more populous part of the Midlands realise just how important a part transport plays in the life and economy of those who live further afield.
Some of your Lordships may have heard of the Report of the Toothill Committee on the Scottish economy. That Report, published some six months ago, brought out most forcefully that the

155
areas of the country which show above-average economic growth and above-average employment figures are those within roughly a three-hour journey from London—a distance over which one can travel, do business, and return again in one day. That, my Lords, is no mere coincidence; it emphasises the vital importance of transport. The Report brought out, too, the importance to industry not merely of cheap transport, but of regular, easy and reliable communication, whether for people or for freight.
With this background, it is not surprising that we in Scotland are deeply concerned about the future of our railway system. On the one hand we have seen some very fine improvements: the Edinburgh to Glasgow diesel trains; the new electric suburban service in Glasgow; the fast guaranteed-delivery service for freight from Scotland to the South; and shortly to be introduced is the six-hour passenger service from Edinburgh to London. I think that at that speed travelling by this train will be a fairly exciting experience. On the other hand, the cuts in the services have begun. We have seen a large number of branches closed down and stopping trains withdrawn. Financially, each one of these closures has been justified; and, so far as we can judge, none of them has struck a serious blow economically, although undoubtedly they have caused a lot of personal inconvenience.
But what does perturb us is the prospect that we may be faced with a plan which proposes drastic rail outs in Scotland and does not allow time for thought and adjustment. Certainly there are some very disturbing rumours abroad, such as that we are to lose the Midland line from Scotland to the South, and that everything North of Perth—or even North of Edinburgh and Glasgow—may be closed. I must say, quite frankly, that we cannot accept the prospect of wholesale surgery on this vital portion of our economy without time to think and do something about it. What is more, it is not just a matter of months, but of years. It is just as unrealistic to plan sweeping changes in the railway system in a short space of time as it is to maintain that the system should remain unchanged forever. In passing, I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd,
156
spoke of the indignities to which the London commuter is subjected in going to and from his work; and he demanded that commuters should be provided with an adequate and co-ordinated service. Indeed, I think that is written into the Bill. I can assure your Lordships that those of us who live in outlying areas will take a very poor view, as taxpayers, if we lose our railway services and are called upon to pay for the commuter services of those who live in more populous areas.
I suggest that the remedy lies, not with the transport service, but with industry and commerce in general, and indeed with the Government, who might give rather more lead in getting rid of this fetish that every important office operating in this country must needs be sited in central London. Some of your Lordships will have seen the correspondence about the housing of a large number of the staff of the Admiralty in the new building at Earls Court. One correspondent wished that it had been nearer to the sea. I do not care whether they are near to the sea or not, but one place I feel sure they should not be in is an expensive area of central London, where they are adding to the cost and to the traffic congestion. May I suggest that no Government or official agency have given a more striking lead? Your Lordships may also have seen that the Atomic Energy Commission have decided to move the administration of their pension scheme for Britain to Thurso, the most northerly town in the country. That example might well be followed, perhaps not quite so drastically, by other Government bodies.
I am sure that we all want to see the railways run efficiently and economically. Certainly I do. That will obviously be to their own benefit and to that of the country. But I submit that it is quite unreasonable to look on them like an ordinary industry and to treat them as something that can be shaped and accounted in isolation. It is around the railway system, whether we like it or not, that the greater part of our industrial and social life has grown up. The two are closely Interwoven and the national losses, both industrial and social, which would flow from a sudden contraction of the railway system would be far greater than any national savings

157
achieved, even if it meant a balanced profit and loss account for the railways. The human body depends for life on its arteries and so does the body industrial.
In Scotland—and we are not alone in this respect—many of us are working together to try to expand and diversify our own industries and to attract new industries from outside, whether we are private bodies, individuals or agencies such as the Scottish Office, the Board of Trade and other Government Departments. It is a task in which I think our Southern neighbours should wish us well, if only because they want to see an end to the continuing proliferation of industry in already over-crowded areas and if they do not want their children to be living in a complete surburban and urban complex extending from the South Coast to the Mersey. But industry must know what communications are to be at its service and at the moment we just cannot tell an inquirer what railway services will be available in a few years' time; nor can the Scottish Area Board tall them. We can only say that we are waiting for Beeching.
Of course, the Government have told us that when Dr. Beeching has made his review and said what services he wants cut, the Government, after obtaining the advice of the consultative committee, will decide which services should be kept on social or other national grounds and will provide funds to do so. What concerns me is that by waiting until then, we may pass the point of no return. Dr. Beeching has a formidable task in trying to eliminate this deficit of £150 million a year. There is a real danger that he may be tempted to take the easy course—I think that I should if I were in his place—and say that for a start he will lop off every service North of Edinburgh and Glasgow and West of Exeter and Bristol, without seriously trying to see which of these services could be made to pay by streamlining, or at least be carried by the more profitable services. Then the Government might find themselves with such a bill on their plate that they would flinch at the cost of supporting what is really vital to the country.
I must say, in this connection, that I have been most disturbed by the Minister of Transport's attitude to the whole problem as exemplified in some of his public utterances. In a recent interview
158
with a correspondent of the Scotsman, he is reported as saying:
"I think you have to make up your minds in Scotland whether you want railways, or roads. I am not really responsible for roads in Scotland. It's not for me to solve Scotland's transport problems."
He went on to say:
"You can either have a good rail service and no roads, or a good road service and no railways. I don't mind."
I have seldom heard such a bare-faced abrogation of responsibility. Of course, Mr. Marples is not technically responsible for roads in Scotland. That is the Secretary of State's department. But he knows just as well as we do that the kind of roads we get depends on how much money the Secretary of State can wring out of the Treasury, and, of course, in this he is in competition with Mr. Marples. If Mr. Marples was correctly reported, I think that that was a thoroughly irresponsible statement.
Of course, we all agree that in the long run many parts of Scotland, as of the rest of the country, would be served just as well, if not better, by road as by rail, and more economically; but, even so, we must have time to make the change. If the roads are to take the traffic from the railways, they must be greatly improved and improved a great deal faster than is happening at the present time. We must have more buses of a suitable kind, particularly for country areas, like those that your Lordships will have seen in overseas countries, which are able to carry light goods and freight as well as passengers. We must have bus and lorry traffic going much faster, because otherwise, even when the roads are improved, their speed will still be restricted to the snail's pace which our present roads impose—I was going to say to something not very much faster than the passage of a Transport Bill through your Lordships' House.
There must also be a greater degree of co-ordination and integration between railways and road services, as several noble Lords have said, with railway and bus stations adjoining or combined; facilities for through booking, not just for passengers, but also for through transport of freight; and also common cover for claims for damage or loss by the two systems. Even if we get down to this now, the Whole question will take not months, but years, as I have said, and so will the creation of new

159
jobs for those displaced. Meanwhile, we cannot allow communities to be stripped of their livelihood and population and our industrial development to be checked, for the sake of a hasty balancing of the railways' books.
Finally, there is one matter of organisation on which I must say a word. Under the old Act, Scottish interests were safeguarded to some extent by the statutory appointment of Scottish representatives to the British Transport Commission, which, of course, was responsible not only for railways but also for the docks and inland waterways. Under this Bill, these safeguards are swept away. And I cannot say that I have been very convinced by the arguments given by the Government in another place. I can say from personal knowledge what an extremely valuable part those individual Scottish representatives play. One of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, reminded us, is a man with great experience of labour. I do ask the Government, even at this stage, to think again about this provision.
Nothing that I have said this afternoon lessens my conviction that a major reorganisation of the transport system is necessary; nor that much that is in the Bill is needed and desirable; but I do say, most emphatically, that if we are to be asked to choose between a road and a rail system over much of the country, it must be a real choice and a free one. We cannot accept a situation where a good railway service is removed and an indifferent road service left in its place. We cannot tolerate a speed of change-over which will injure our existing economy and damage the prospects of attracting new industry and leave communities without alternative work. So I urge the Government, in passing this Bill, to move with care. When the Beeching review is complete, take time to think before you act, otherwise you may strike a body blow at the economy, and it will hurt most in those places like Scotland which are least able to stand it.
6.50 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the House is greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for a responsible, vigorous and very well-informed speech, which I am sure will greatly impress the Government. If I may say so with respect, it is the first speech that we have
160
heard from the Benches opposite which shows what this Bill, if it goes through unamended, will mean to a large and important part of the United Kingdom. I thought the noble Lord's speech was in refreshing contrast to others to which I have listened from the Benches opposite, the general feeling of which appeared to be that it was to be warmly welcomed that British Railways should be run in accordance with commercial standards—profit-making standards—provided it was not allowed to go to the extreme that they should make a profit in any one department of the service. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, was enthusiastic that London Transport was going to be in competition, but did not see that the railways ought to be allowed to compete with coastal shipping.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, with most of whose speech I agreed considerably, except the peroration (and that did not agree with the speech either) said he did not consider that if British Railways should sell any surplus land they should be allowed to sell it at the highest price. I do not say that I do not agree with the noble Lord; but if we are going to say that the railways must be run in accordance with commercial standards and we then proceed to shackle them at every point, not merely is it utter nonsense, but it means that they have not a single chance at all. If we are going to impose proper safeguards and shackles, if you like—I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said—then we must introduce other arrangements which are not in the Bill. I propose to make that the main point of my remarks.
I regret that, as I am the fourth speaker from this side of the House, I am perforce the fourth speaker to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, on having achieved the near miracle in the space of less than half an hour of giving a fairly comprehensive and accurate account of this Bill and one which I think would have given any person who had not read it a fair idea of what is in it. The noble Lord may well feel that that is about the last thing I am going to say which will be acceptable to the Government.
I consider it quite scandalous that, although this Bill in its various stages occupied something like 40 Parliamentary days in another place, it has come

161
to us without any clear or detailed statement from the Minister on the future size, shape or scope of the railways, or on the part that they will be expected to play in our national transport system. That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. In fact, the absence of this information is just like a performance of Hamlet without the Prince, because (the proposals in the Bill for the financial and administrative reorganisation of the railways have no meaning at all until we know how the Government propose to ensure that the transport lanes of road, rail, air and water, are to be used to carry the traffic they are best fitted to handle.
Unfortunately, in my view, through the lack of co-ordinated transport policy, the Government, by condemning the railways to death by a thousand cuts, are thereby also condemning the roads to death by choking. Last Easter Monday the newspapers recorded the presence of 6 million out of our 8 million private cars on the road. Although there were very few lorries, there were, according to the A.A., 150 miles of queues all over the country, some as much as 18 miles long. Even at night there were queues 6 miles long, and some places had a traffic crawl which they had never once experienced before. We are told that ten years from now the present number of cars licensed to use the roads will be doubled—I say "licensed" because they will never use them unless the Government produce what has been called for several times in this debate, a comprehensive, integrated transport policy, and stop encouraging the diversion of traffic from the railways.
Already it seems that the Minister in this regard is reduced to helpless exhortation. He appeals to motorists, "Use your car only if you must." Very soon his appeal to car owners will be: "Do not drive it; polish it." He said only yesterday that Mr. Marples's heart bleeds for the motorist. His bleeding heart is entitled to whatever consideration it merits, but it moves me very much less than the tragic fact that each year nearly 100,000 people are killed or injured on the roads. Compare that with the 100 people who are either killed or severely injured on the railways. That margin of 1,000 to 1 is a factor which
162
has not yet been mentioned in this debate but which I submit is one which cannot, and indeed must not, be ignored, because I think the disparity in those two figures would be greater, and there will in fact be more blood on the roads, if the plans we are now discussing come to fruition.
Last month—and I know we must all of us speak in ignorance of these matters—after talking with Dr. Beeching, Mr. Greene, the General Secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen, told the Scottish T.U.C. that at least one-third of our railway system was likely to disappear. A week or two ago an article in the Observer declared that by 1970 we should have half our present railway mileage and twice as many vehicles on the road. The article might have added that the one partly arises out of the other. Some of the cuts in rail services, I think, are just and sensible by any standards: for example, the closure of little-used branch lines where there is a satisfactory alternative system of transport. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, suggested that it is no good to lose a good railway service and have an indifferent bus service in its place. But for all we know, there are many places which are going to lose their railway service—indeed, they have already lost it—and have no alternative bus services at all, which is far worse.
I think also that the elimination of second main line railways systems between large towns is something which is quite justified. In fact, it merely puts right the errors which have arisen through the unplanned growth of the railway system. But it is intolerable that the Government should permit the removal of rail passenger and freight services from large areas of the country where there is no reasonable alternative transport. In September, 1959, the Jack Committee was appointed to consider rural bus services, and they reported last year. We have had absolutely no statement from the Government of their intentions on that Report, or what they intend to do about it. I think it is impossible to consider these present proposals in anything like an atmosphere of reality unless we know what part of the railway system is going, and what is going to take its place.
It is also impossible for other kinds of planning to be carried out. The

163
Times recently had correspondence on this matter and it dealt with the suggestion that new towns might be sited along the railways, but one correspondent pointed out the unfortunate fact that
"communities which have been developed in the past on the assumption of rail services are now being left in the lurch. Along the branch lines, which now, by process of commercial mathematics, are said to be uneconomic, towns have grown up, developments undertaken, and business and other installations have been sited, all on the basis of facilities which the railway authorities are proposing to withdraw. Planned progress, whether by individuals or public bodies, can take place only if there is reasonable security that the essential public services will be maintained."
I should have thought that was unanswerable. This continued delay in making an announcement is holding up all sorts of things.
My Lords, I do not like to say it, but I think it is for all these reasons that we are getting information by dribs and drabs, because I believe that if the whole plan were published at once, the Government would not be able to get away with it; it would prove socially intolerable. The pressure of the people which would result from these proposals could not be withstood. As it is, there are rumours not merely of rural areas, including a great part of Scotland, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, which will lose their services, but fair-sized industrial towns. Lincoln and Mansfield are two which are given as examples. I think we should insist on knowing what is going to happen, because if large towns or large areas are to lose their railways but retain their Members of Parliament, the citizens ought to be given a chance at least of saying which they could best do without.
The cuts in rail services must also have an important bearing on the development of road building and the road improvement programme, because if an area is to lose its railway it should be given priority in the provision of new and improved roads to link up with the surviving rail sectors. I should have thought that that was absolutely common sense. Mr. Marples was insisting yesterday on priority for roads which are used for 365 days in the year. That sounds all right, but in practice it
164
really means that present major road developments are designed to give road hauliers a better chance of competing with those main lines which are likely to continue. What sort of business management is it when the same firm—that is, the Government—electrifies a railway line and then builds a motorway alongside competing with it? Because that is precisely what is happening and precisely what the proposals now are.
I think that unhappy, almost tragic, situation arises because Ministers opposite can see road and rail only as competing and not as complementary; as private against public enterprise, with the dice apparently always loaded in favour of the profit maker; and also because so far the Minister has been determined to ignore the fact that the railways are essential to our social and economic structure, and he appears to abandon any pretence that they are a public service. So Dr. Beeching has been told that he must make a profit. Of course, if, on purely commercial lines, Dr. Beeching eliminates everything Which does not or cannot be made to show a profit, he can, and will, carry out his remit, and it will not be his fault if the price of that profit is hardship and discomfort to millions of people, an increase of deaths and accidents on the road, and thousands of millions of taxpayers' money used somehow to keep traffic moving on the evermore congested roads.
I do not think a fair and objective decision on the future transport system can be made until the Government accept separate financial responsibility for the social burdens which are at present loaded on to some publicly-owned undertakings. This point has cropped up already in several of the speeches, and we are getting the same problem in more than one industry. In coal, for example, my noble friend Lord Robens has pledged himself to make the coal industry pay without increasing the general level of coal prices, but he made it clear that he could not do this if he continued to carry the heavy losses of some of the coalfields; for example, the £19 million loss on the Scottish coalfields. In his own words:
"The Coal Board cannot be used to solve the economic problems of Scotland. If the Government want them continued they must pay for it."

165
That is exactly Dr. Beeching's position. He will soon, in the autumn it is said, at least I hope, be able to say what part of the rail system and what type of freight and passenger traffic he can expect to run profitably, and, in consequence, what traffic he will force on to the roads unless the Government say other arrangements are to be made. But if, for social or strategic reasons, as I think must be the case, it is decided that certain non-profitable, uneconomic services must continue, surely the Treasury must say that they are going to bear the burden of the losses. If the Ministers were willing to do so for private industry, it would be unthinkable to refuse equal facilities for industry which is under public ownership.
I think that, above all, we must begin to look at the transport industry as a whole, and to introduce some equality into costs and prices. At present the railways pay for the cost of owning, building and maintaining their tracks. They pay for accidents, policing and signalling, and I submit that road-users are able to compete unfairly because they do not bear anything like the total cost of the services they use or give rise to. We are now spending about £200 million a year on roads; the estimated annual cost of road congestion, the costs that the road-users give rise to, was £639 million at the last count; and the annual cost of road accidents is £230 million. That is a total of some £1,069 million. If we add, as the railways must, interest on freeholds, rates, cost of policing and signalling systems, the total cost of using the roads would amount to about £1,500 million a year, against which road-users pay some £750 million a year in taxes.
So it amounts to this: that the taxpayer is paying half the costs of road users, thus helping to put railways out of business so that he can have the privilege of paying for the vast increase in the number of roads we need to carry the traffic that is so foolishly diverted from the railways. That is a real and, I think, fair summary of what is happening. That may make sense to the Government, but to my mind it is about as "cook-eyed" as anything can be.
Noble Lords have all, I expect—at least I have—received this week an excellently
166
produced booklet from the Road Campaign Council called, Divide and Survive—meaning that we must divide pedestrians from the vehicles. This booklet, I suggest, presents an unanswerable case for urban motorways and an overall road plan. Right as that case is, we must also have a properly integrated transport system, with each part doing the job it does best. We shall never get it until we not only build the planned road network that we need but also end the distortion caused by the gigantic, gross and unjustified subsidy to road users. When we have done that, the various forms of transport can be judged on an economic basis. Noble Lords are constantly saying that the railways are subsidised, will always have to be subsidised, will never pay. But the point is that the subsidies they have enjoyed and are enjoying are only about one-fifth of the indirect subsidies which go to the road users. I say it is only when the various forms of transport can be judged on an economic basis that we can have a true picture, and if we get to that point we shall then find there are far fewer uneconomic rail services.
But until we get to that point, and particularly with this Bill, as my noble friend Lord Citrine said, I think we are wasting our time. I have no doubt we shall waste a lot more time during the next three months going through the 94 clauses and eleven Schedules of this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Shepherd said, we shall examine it carefully and have no intention of being obstructive. But I think it would be a fair assumption that, at the end of the day, however hard we work at it, we shall not have a Bill which adds anything at all to our transport system. I am afraid we shall have an instrument which will destroy an important part of it. I am very sorry to give it as my opinion that the country's main hope is that before that happens we shall have a chance to destroy the Government who propose to create that instrument.
7.13 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I also should like to express my appreciation of the speech of the noble Lord who moved this Bill and of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who commented upon it. I Should also think,

167
after listening to many excellent speeches from both sides of the House, that it has been to a large extent a non-Party debate, except perhaps for some of the eloquent periods of the last noble Lord. If there is a difference between the two sides of the House, I believe it is that those of us on this side of the House think it is a good thing to aim at making national services pay, whereas noble Lords opposite do not worry quite so much about that; they have their good reasons, as they see it, for thinking that what they call public service is more important than taxes, without perhaps realising that the two things really go together, because unless you safeguard the taxes you cannot provide so many public services in general for all your people.
I thought the last speaker was really very pessimistic. "We are going to waste a lot of time", he said, "and we shall not have anything worth bothering with at the end of it". I do not think that is fair. I believe that the Ministry of Transport and the Government, whether this Government or another Government, probably have access to the best information and the best advice which can be obtained in the country, and it is not very likely that independent critics outside the Government, without the advantages of Government advice and Civil Service help, are going to be right. I think it is far better to be optimistic about this matter and to hope that the proposals now put before us, after so much anxiety, which we have all shared, in regard to transport, may prove valuable, and that our work may be worth while.
It is obvious that a good many branch lines are going to close down. I was a Member of Parliament in a widespread rural district in the Lake District for many years, and under Lord Robertson's jurisdiction of the railways I had to meet and consider the pros and cons of two or three of those proposals. Anyone who has had to meet constituents in this matter will have quite a different experience from noble Lords who have never met constituents. Constituents get very cross indeed when anything to which they have been accustomed is going to be taken away from them. But I think—at any rate it is my experience
168
and it may be that of other ex-Members of Parliament—that after a time, provided the thing is done with grace, discussion and care and provided that reasonable road alternatives are provided, the branch lines that are falling into desuetude can be closed down; and although at the time when they are closed down they cause great heartburning and some hardship to a few people, within a reasonably short time the event becomes a matter of history rather than hard feeling. That is, at any rate, my experience.
I can remember what great trouble General Robertson took to meet Members of Parliament and to persuade us in general and to cajole us in particular to help him with this difficult problem. I think it is up to all of us to try to help Dr. Beeching in a similar way. I know it will cause some considerable hardship to a few people. I do not think in general it will cause great hardship for a prolonged time to many people, and I am sure the Minister and the railways will try to ameliorate the situation and make road services a better alternative than at present, or rather a better substitute than one might imagine. I have seen that happen in the district round Coniston and places of that sort.
I wonder whether, if lines are to be closed, we could not go even a little further than the noble Lord behind me went in asking for better road transport; and whether we cannot go just a little further and see that the Post Office service and the local carrier for both freight and passengers are combined. Whether they are combined under the Post Office with an official vehicle or whether they are combined in a vehicle owned by a private person is to me quite immaterial; whatever is the better for that particular situation I would support. It may be this is being done in some parts of Caithness and Sutherland; I am not quite sure; I cannot remember, but I seem to think that something like it is being done in parts of Caithness. Certainly it is done in Sweden and many other countries with large unpopulated areas.
It is obvious that if you combine the Post Office service, the contract for the mails, with the carrying of passengers and the carrying of freight in one vehicle then you can provide the turnover which makes it possible for that vehicle to survive

169
and make a profit; whereas if you insist that the mails must go in one vehicle and all kinds of restrictions must apply to the carriage of goods and passengers in other vehicles, you are compelling two vehicles, or possibly even three, to do the work of one. I ask that this point should be considered, and if legislation is required I cannot but think that Parliament would be very sympathetic to aiding it. Let us combine the carrier with the mail contract and see whether that does not help us in remote districts to make a paying entity.
If it is objected that there is a principle involved, I would remind Her Majesty's Government that the Post Office does not own all the vehicles that it uses. It may not own the vehicles it uses on the road; it does not own the ships or trains or aeroplanes that it uses. Why need it own a mail van? Why should it not be owned by a bright, cheerful, pleasant personality who can make a living if he has all the jobs to do, but cannot make a living if he has only half of them to do? 1 may also observe that there would be quite a gain to the nation if the vehicles were attractively run, because they would bring tourists to the Highlands and to the remoter parts of Lancashire, and they would bring dollars and currency from overseas.
The only other subject that I want to talk about for just a few minutes is coastal shipping. I declare that I have no interest in this matter, beyond the public interest; I am not concerned with it in any way, but I have given it a little study. Any noble Lord who has studied this matter at all must remember that road, rail and coastal shipping have had a traditional way of life for perhaps forty years, whereby they have had conferences and discussions and have to a large extent worked together, especially rail and coastal shipping; and the railways have always been handicapped by the history of monopoly which they were supposed to have in Victorian times, and from which now we are tending to free them. This particular act of freeing the railways from the controls which we thought necessary when they were monopolistic, when there were no rivals, could perhaps in this instance lead to a national loss. It is that to which I wish to call attention.
170
Noble Lords will be aware that the railways can compete with coastal shipping on a long haul by quoting a low rate that would attract the freight over a long distance. It can also compete with coastal shipping by quoting a high rate for a short haul from a coal mine to a port, or from a factory to a port, thereby making it uneconomic for the goods to go by ship. That the railways do this from time to time I do not think there is the slightest doubt; there is a good deal of evidence that they do. I do not particularly blame them; it is only natural that the managers should work the rules as best they can to the advantage of their service. Let us remember that they are not doing it for their own advantage, but for that of the services which they work for so loyally. The question is, how far ought we to allow this aid which we are giving to the railways in this measure to go? I am suggesting a limitation on it. We should not let it go so far that it tends to put out of business our coastal shipping business. That it is getting near to that point is what I venture to submit to noble Lords.
The coastal shipping business is falling away. I am told that the total number of ships in the small-ship fleet, or, if you like, the total number of tons afloat in that fleet, has gone down by one-third, between 28 per cent. and 36 per cent. in the last ten years. I am told that the building of small ships in Britain has gone down by 80 per cent. in the last three years, by comparison with the average of the previous nine years, and that the employment available for masters, officers and men has gone down by one-third. It does not follow that there is unemployment, for various reasons which are irrelevant to my argument; but one-third of the masters, officers and men of our small shipping fleet are no longer sailing the seas: they have found jobs ashore. This is a great loss to Britain, not only traditionally, but also in relation to her needs. In peace time we need these small ships from time to time. Not many years ago we should have frozen in London had we not been able to call in the small ships from all over Britain to bring us coal. Noble Lords are familiar with the events that took place in various theatres of war, including Italy, Normandy, Dunkirk, and Norway,

171
where operations could not have been mounted without these little ships and their splendid crews.
The gist of the matter is contained in Clause 53. One has to agree, as the noble Lord who introduced the Bill reminded us, that as the result of discussions, and of Amendments moved in another place, the Minister of Transport has made some concessions in the old Clause 54 (now Clause 53 in this Bill) which go some way towards meeting the wishes of the coastal shipping people. As I understand it, the Minister has agreed that when they quote on a long haul or a short haul the railways should be compelled to count the cost of the operation in their quotation. The question is; what is the cost? Is it just the cost of the service that is called for by the freight, the cost of fuel and manpower; or is it the cost of running, plus a fair share of the overhead costs? No one can be quite sure about that. The Minister says that he intends it to be a fair cost. But what is a "fair cost"? So the argument goes on.
Finally, the Minister says that while he is Minister he will himself employ an independent accountant to judge between the parties in a complaint, and he will take account of the accountant's advice. That is all right so long as he is Minister. He is obliged to do it then. But what happens when he ceases to be Minister? What assurances then have the coastal shipping people in regard to a different Minister—one with a different philosophy; one who does not mind about profits, who does not think they are of any importance, or, at least, thinks them of no social importance; a Minister who takes what I call the short and slick view that you can run this world, or at any rate this land, without profits? I do not think you can. But he may think he can; and he may say: "Never mind what the railways quote. Let them get the business, and let the private enterprise so-and-so's go out of business. Who cares!"
But, my Lords, there is a national interest involved. It is not just a case of penalising some persons who happen to own ships. It is a national interest, as I have shown, in both peace and war. Who knows but that some future Minister may not do away with Mr. Marples's
172
undertaking to employ an accountant? Cannot we write this accountant into the Bill? I ask the Government to consider that. Moreover, the accountant is going to look at it after the event. By then it may be too late; the business has been lost and probably cannot be reclaimed. Either the Bill should provide for the appointment of the accountant, or it should give power to employ him or include a requirement that he be employed. In this way, complaint as to rate-cutting could be made at an early stage, and not merely after the event. I think that both those points might well be the subject of an Amendment, and I would ask the Government whether they would not consider them in the Committee stage.
However, I do not take the gloomy view about this Bill which was taken by the last noble Lord who spoke. I think it is a good effort on the part of the Minister to try to serve the country well, with all his advisers and all his experience, and I wish the measure good luck.
7.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I cannot agree with the last part of the speech made by the noble Lord who has just sat down, because this Bill seems to me to be, as has been said before, the last stage in the operation of demolishing the conception of transport looked at on a national basis. So I cannot say that I think the Bill, as a whole, is anything else but one based on, to use the old word, a doctrinaire approach, a flying in the face of expert opinion in practically all countries of the world.
However, I am glad to be able to say that when the noble Lord was talking about coastal shipping I was wholeheartedly with him. I think it is a very sad thing that in a seafaring country such as ours we are making less and less use of the sea around our coasts, that free track on which vessels can travel to so many ports. And although the noble Lord talked about competition from the railways—and I would add that competition from the roads has been at least as formidable an enemy of coastal shipping as the railways—I wonder whether the coastal shipping interests are, in fact, doing all they can to maintain their trade. My noble friend Lord Shepherd quoted the case of rates by

173
coastal shipping which were much higher than those of road or rail, and I notice that when one goes to the little ports around our coast one can nearly always see motor ships there flying a foreign flag. I wonder how it is that the Dutch, the West Germans, the Belgians, the French, and all the rest, can manage to run their short-sea and coastwise shipping whereas our shipowners cannot. That is a thing which I frankly do not understand; but it seems to me that if our Continental neighbours can do it, we also ought to do it.
Before I get on to what I mainly want to talk about, which is the inland waterways, there is a point on Clause 13 on which some of my friends would like some clarification. Clause 13 (5) prohibits the Boards from manufacturing road vehicles, bodies or chassis or major components. So far as the railways go they have a period of grace of three years before this prohibition comes into force. But no other Board has that period of grace, and I wonder whether that means that the London Board will have to close down immediately any of its activities of manufacturing vehicles for its own use. I think we should like an assurance on that point. Then there is Clause 12, which deals with pipe-lines. I realise that your Lordships will be tired of the word "pipe-lines", since the last few weeks when we have had the Pipelines Bill before us. This clause, so far as I can see, gives the Boards power to construct and operate pipe-lines provided that they are only on their own land and only for the purposes of their own business. But the business of a Transport Board is transport, and I do not see why they should not have the power to construct, on their own land if necessary, pipe-lines to carry other people's products, as well as their own.
LORD CHESHAM: They have.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The noble Lord assures me that that is so.
Now, my Lords:, I come to the Inland Waterways Authority. It is a subject on which strong views are held by a number of people—an increasing number of people, I think, as more and more people travel about the country and have the leisure to take holidays and to use these waterways for recrea-
174
tion.The proposal in the Bill that one of the new Boards should be solely responsible for the waterways is, given the break-up of the Transport Commission and the abandonment of any attempt at co-ordination of transport, the logical step. I think it is probably sound that the Minister has decided to change the name of this authority and call it the British Waterways Board, because the initials I.W.A. have come to be associated with the very active body, the private unofficial body of the Inland Waterways Association.
So here we have the British Waterways Board. In what way it will differ from the present organisation I am not very clear. The composition of the Board is laid down. I hope that the Minister will find persons to serve upon that Board representing a very wide range of opinion and experience in that field. I hope that the Board will take a thoroughly objective and balanced view, bearing in mind that commercial transport is still a considerable element in the surviving waterways. I think it should be mentioned that certain bodies have already laid claim to places on that Board. The Inland Waterways Association, in a document published when the Bill came out, put forward a claim which I think for sheer effrontery is hard to beat. Having talked about the many "far-sighted and comparatively youthful experts" which the Association has to offer, they say:
"If several at least of them are not on the new Board the only conclusion possible to serious students of the subject will be that the Government is not taking the waterways seriously."
A statement like that from an unofficial body of people is really almost unheard of.
My Lords, what is going to be the function of this new Board? In Clause 10 the Bill lays it down that they are to provide, to such extent as they may think expedient, services and facilities on their inland waterways and port facilities at any of their harbours. That is slightly different and slightly wider than the powers of the Commission under the 1953 Act, which said:
"To provide in such places and to such extent as may appear to the Commission to be expedient facilities for traffic on inland waterways."
Now they may provide services and

175
facilities, which means, I hope, that they will he able to go on acting as carriers as well as maintaining the waterways for other people to use and providing the facilities.
I should think that the canals of this country have been the subject of more inquiries than any other section of industry. There have been major inquiries in 1906, 1921, 1930, two separate, unpublished ones during the war, then the Commission's own Board of Survey in 1955, and the Bowes Committee in 1958. No Minister can say that he lacks knowledge and advice on the subject. The interesting thing is that I think every one of those inquiries has come to roughly the same conclusion: that some 350 to 400 miles of those canals are of commercial use in the present day. The remainder, some 1,300 to 1,500 miles, are doubtfully useful or of no use at all. They all recommended that the efforts of the Commission should be concentrated on what have come to be called the Group I canals, which are all wide canals or rivers. That, of course, is no coincidence, because it is agreed by all experts that any vehicle or vessel under 100 tons capacity does not stand a chance, with road and rail competition, of being economically useful. On the narrow canals in this country the maximum load of a pair of boats is 50 tons, whereas the big waterway users on the Continent use nothing less than about 1,500 tons, and they may go up to much more.
I do not think it is denied by anybody with experience of transport on inland waterways, that for commercial transport the only useful part of our canal system is the 350 miles of broad waterways. After all, these thousands of miles of canals that ware built in the 18th and early 19th centuries were built for a totally different world from that in which we now live. They do not go to the right places. They do not serve the right industries, the right ports. So we are left with 1,500 miles or so of canals which cost money—they cost money whatever happens to them—and the problem that has been with us all these years is how to make the best use of them in the interests of us all.
The Bowes Committee went into the subject very carefully and thoroughly, and recommended what is called "redevelopment".
176
I should say that there is nothing new about that, because disposing of the unwanted canals has been a preoccupation of the British Transport Commission ever since 1950. All their attempts to find other bodies or authorities to take them over and make use of them for the general public good have been abortive. In 1959 or 1960 the Government set up a Committee under Admiral Parham called the Redevelopment Advisory Committee, but I am no: sure that even they have succeeded in actually getting any of these canals put to other uses, such as recreation, amenity, angling, or for water supply and all the other uses to which they can be put.
I see that the 1960 Report of the British Transport Commission said that during that year practically all remaining cases for the redevelopment of the Class C waterways were submitted to the Redevelopment Advisory Committee. But what has happened since? There has been a strange silence in the Press and elsewhere, and with very few exceptions we do not know what is happening to them. It has been suggested that river boards, local authorities, local planning authorities and the rest are the authorities who might make the best use of them, but I wonder Whether the Minister can say what, in fact, has come out of the two or more years of work of the Parham Committee. One exception that we were all very glad to read about was that the National Trust has taken over part of the Stratford-on-Avon Canal, the southern end, and we hope that is now secure in the hands of the National Trust.
But, my Lords, until those waterways are actually taken off the backs of the Transport Commission or the Waterways Board, they will have to be maintained, they will have to be paid for. They caused a dead loss of over £500,000 in the year 1960, which far more than offset the surplus made on the Group I canals. So that is presumably Why the Minister has faced reality and decided to make good annual deficits on the waterways for, at any rate, the first five years.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, might I just interrupt the noble Earl for one moment, to ask him whether he thinks it possible that they might be made use of as ready-made trenches for large-scale underground pipe-lines?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: If they go to the right places; but I think it would be found that very few of them in fact serve the places where pipe-lines would need to be laid. There is the exception of the Thames—Mersey route, which was the subject of a suggested pipe-line not long ago.
My Lords, under Clause 23 these grants to cover deficits are provided for in respect of the first five years after vesting date. In addition, I think, under Clause 20 loans can also be made; but, as I read it, the total of grants and loans must not exceed £10 million. I wonder how much thought has gone into the fixing of this period of five years? The Minister, when he fixed that time, must have had in mind that, in the course of five years, this net deficit of half a million pounds now being made by the waterways will be turned into a surplus; or that revenue will, in the course of that short time, be so expanded that there will no longer be a deficit. But the total revenue is, I think, about £3 million a year, and such an enormous increase as would be necessary on that figure seems to me to be quite unrealistic. Where is it coming from?
The Bowes Committee said that a lot more revenue could be raised from the sale of water, but I am told that the cream has been taken off that source of revenue already. In the last few years the water sales have gone up a great deal, and it seems unlikely that any very large sum will be forthcoming from that source. As to commercial traffic, though the 1960 figures, I was glad to see, were a good deal better than the 1959 ones in respect of traffic and revenue from traffic, even so, it is hard to see any expansion of traffic on the water sufficient to make a significant increase in the revenue.
Then there are other sources, such as angling rents. That, again, might bring in a little. Pleasure boating brings in a certain amount; but the Bowes Committee were quite satisfied that those sources could not produce anything of any significance. After all, we know that the revenue from the River Thames, which has an enormous amount of pleasure traffic, is a very minor part of the Thames Conservancy's revenues. As to the disposal of the unused canals under the redevelopment scheme, I do not see that that is going to bring in any money.
178
On the contrary, it is more likely that nobody will be willing to take over one of these canals unless the transfer is sweetened by a considerable sum of money paid over from the Commission or the Board. So, all in all, I suggest that that period of five years is going to be quite inadequate.
My Lords, a word ought to be said about the staff employed on the waterways. It has not been said, as far as I know, how many of the existing personnel managing the waterways will be taken on to serve under the new Board. I think this is an important matter. There are at stake the careers of a large number of able and devoted people in all ranks and at all levels, down to the lengthman and the lock-keeper and up to the general manager and his staff in London. I think—and many people would agree with me—that the job done by Sir Reginald Kerr over the last few years has been beyond praise. Energy, imagination and inspiration have been provided by him and I think have revolutionised the morale of the whole service, from top to bottom. It is not often that anything is said in praise of them. In fact, some quite unpardonable attacks have been made on the management of the waterways. On the contrary, I think the country owes a great deal to Sir Reginald Kerr and his staff, and I hope that the Government will see to it that their careers are not prejudiced and that their services are recognised.
All in all, my Lords, it seems to me that, so far as the waterways go, this Bill does not really make very much change. There will still be the canals and they will still need maintenance done: pile-driving, dredging, repairs to locks, modernisation—all this will have to go on. It has been going on at an accelerating rate in the last few years. Last year 35 miles were steel-piled for bank protection, which was an increase of 40 per cent. over the previous year and an increase of 400 per cent. over 1954. That is what the Commission have been doing; and the work will have to go on, whoever does it. What we hope is that the new Board will see all sides of the problem, will be successful in finding authorities to take over the canals no longer required for transport and will see that they are put to the best use in the interests of the whole

179
community. That is what we may hope for from this Bill.
7.59 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat has spoken at length and with knowledge on our inland waterways; and I would agree with him in so far as he considers that the only canals or inland waterways worth development by the British Waterways Authority are those of sufficient width or breadth to be in keeping with the practice on the Continent. Before I come to my remarks on the Bill, I should like to apologise to my noble friend Lord Mills if I cannot be in my seat when he replies to the debate, for I have a previous engagement.
I would generally support the proposals of the Government for reorganising the nationalised transport undertakings, but there are one or two points in the Bill which cause me some concern. I welcome, however, the setting up of the four statutory Boards, each with its specific duties in its own sphere. Concerning the British Railways Board and its Regional Railway Boards, I feel that they will have a very challenging task before them. For instance, the duplication of services for the same destination by different routes will certainly require looking into. On the one hand—shall I say, on the credit side?—timetables seem to be very comprehensive in this country compared with timetables in Continental countries, and also the time-keeping of our train services would appear to be definitely improving.
However, on the other hand, there are still far too many dirty stations, and that is a point on which I feel very strongly indeed. There is also far too much old and badly maintained rolling stock. I certainly feel very strongly that, if the question of maintenance and upkeep is not looked into very decisively by the Railways Board and the Regional Boards, the new rolling stock which is already in service will deteriorate very quickly. With regard to the point which I have just mentioned, it seems to me that cleanliness is a decaying word in the context of a railways operation.
I also welcome the provision in the Bill that the Railways Board is to be given power to provide hotels in places
180
where railway passengers may need them. I presume and hope that any new hotels which would be set up would be transferred to, and managed by, the subsidiary hotel company. That does not seem very clear to me. I understand that the subsidiary company would take over existing hotels, but I am a little doubtful whether they would take over and operate new hotels. I say that because I feel that the Railways Board should be able to concentrate on its task of operating railways.
This brings me to the question of the Railways Board road services. On the ground that the railways must pay their way, there will unfortunately, but no doubt in some cases necessarily, be more closures of lines and discontinuance of passenger services. I would mention here that I welcome such safeguards as have been incorporated in the Bill, which will either limit or delay such closures or discontinuance of services. When the Minister comes to consider such proposals for discontinuance of services or closure of lines, I sincerely hope that he will give very careful consideration to the question of not unduly adding to the congestion of our roads.
I understand that there is to be a cut of up to 20 per cent. in the total mileage of railway lines. In view of the recommendations and the conclusions of the 1961 Jack Committee Report, which Report has already been referred to during the course of the debate, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it would not be possible at a later stage, after consultation with the Railways Board, to produce a White Paper which would list the lines which it is proposed should be closed down. I know that there are the provisions contained in Clause 54; but it seems to me that those provisions are purely for the guidance of the general public and that any information which would be forthcoming under powers provided in that clause would be given from time to time and nobody would know exactly what length of lines it is proposed to close down in the various Regions.
As the Jack Committee Report definitely states that some rural bus services must be regarded as inadequate, I feel that under this Bill there is a possibility that, with the consent of the Minister, the railways may themselves consider running bus services. That, I

181
feel, may lead to diminishing co-ordination between bus companies and the Railways Board. Up till now, bus companies have run the bus services with the railways taking an equal share interest in the undertakings. The share interest is now to be transferred to the Holding Company, which is going to make operation and control very remote indeed. I also feel—and I say this with respect—that the Minister should bear in mind the words contained in the editorial of the Railway Gazette, a railway magazine, of March 23, 1962, under the heading "Rail-Road Disorganisation", and I should like to quote a few words from that editorial:
"The railway arrangements with the bus companies stem back over 30 years and have proved of equal value to the road interests, the railways, and not least to the public. Coordination has been effected very successfully at a high level".
And further on it goes on to say:
"The destroying of the financial partnership between the bus companies and the railways is likely to have the usual repercussions of destroying working to a mutual end, which has been so important in the past."
I should now like to pass on to a provision in Clause 69 of the Bill, which enables the new Boards to employ separate police forces. This question was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Teynham; but, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to be allowed to develop it a little further because I feel very strongly on this matter. I would stress that on the passing of the Railways Act, 1921, the many railway police forces which had existed up to then were merged into four forces; and later, following the transfer of the London Underground railways in 1933 to the London Passenger Transport Board, their small forces were merged into one force.
Then the Transport: Act, 1947, made provision for the creation of a unified force for the whole of the British Transport Commission's undertaking, while Section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act, 1949, made it possible to complete the process of unification. In 1951, the docks and waterways police came under the control of the Railways Executive, and in 1956 the Commission asked Sir Alexander Maxwell to hold an inquiry into the Commission's police force. Recommendation 7 was
182
that the London Transport police should be merged with the main body of the force, and this was achieved in December of that year.
The process of unification, therefore, has been a developing and continudng one. I would add that the decision taken in 1949 to weld the various police forces into a single force was viewed by the members of the Maxwell Committee as being a sound policy. I feel that such a unified force, under an executive head, could be managed by a committee consisting of representatives from the four new Boards. In this way all these years towards unification will not be lost, and the Government will be able to maintain the high standard of efficiency which characterises the present British Transport Commission police force. They will also avoid any despondency in the force, due to uncertainty with regard to the future, any lack of co-ordination between the forces and any difficulties which might arise concerning promotion. Finally, the question of recruitment, which is at present a difficult one and is giving concern to the chief constable (fox whom I have a high regard; I have known him for many years) and members of his staff, will only be aggravated if the Boards have separate police forces. Apart from those comments, I support the Bill.
8.15 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I should like to begin by offering my congratulations to the Government on this Bill, with whose main provisions I entirely agree. I would especially congratulate them on the superlative introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, which succeeded in making the purpose and purport of the Bill intelligible even to me. At this late hour, I do not propose to go into any details; I shall deal with only one or two points which I think have not yet been touched upon. It is a pity that I shall deprive the Government of the benefit of my advice on how to run a railway, but I am afraid they will have to manage without it.
I want to say one or two words about what some of the provisions mean to the general public, especially as represented by the local authorities. The Bill repeals those provisions in the Transport

183
Act, 1947, whereby local authorities with a population of 50,000 and above are enabled to object to the Transport Tribunal against the confirmation of a draft charges scheme—that is, against fare increases. Under this Bill, the Transport Tribunal is given competence to determine fares in the London area, but not outside of London. I appreciate that one of the prime purposes of the Bill is to give the new Railways Board much greater flexibility in fixing fares, but I suggest, and this is the view of the Association of Municipal Corporations, whom I have consulted, that there should be some statutory provision for public opinion to make itself known, particularly in view of the fact that Charges are also to be outside the scope of the Transport Users' Consultative Committees. I cannot believe that it is in the public interest that a virtual monopoly should not be open to public interrogation on its charges policy before an independent tribunal.
In this connection, may I mention that since the Transport Tribunal was set up in its present form under the 1947 Act, it has held ten inquiries on objections to draft charges schemes proposed by the British Transport Tribunal, and on an average about 24 local authorities have put in objections on each occasion? Surely this indicates that the power is one which local authorities are prepared to use, and to some effect, since on some of the ten occasions the inquiry led to an alteration in the charges scheme. An Amendment seems required, probably to Clause 45, to restore this power to local authorities.
Under Clause 46, the Bill provides for objections to be made to the Transport Tribunal by representative bodies, including local authorities, against fare increases proposed in the London Passenger Transport area. Non-county boroughs which have a population of fewer than 50,000 are not given the right to object, and again I advocate an Amendment to Clause 46 which would give them that right, on the ground that smaller authorities are no less representative of the populations they serve than the larger authorities.
Lastly, Clause 56 deals with the composition and powers of the Transport Users' Consultative Committees. They
184
are given power to consider a proposal by the Railways Board to discontinue railway passenger services from any station or on any line, but no power whatsoever to consider a reduction of railway services. Unless I have misread the Bill, it would apparently be possible for a Board to reduce a passenger railway service to one train a week, and this reduction would be outside the scope of discussion in the Consultative Committees. This is hardly necessary or justifiable, and an Amendment to Clause 56, which would bring the reduction of services within the competence of the Consultative Committees would seem to be desirable. Those are the only comments I should like to make at this hour. I support the Bill. I would conclude with my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, who will finish this debate, because an important engagement for which I am already late will prevent me from being present.
8.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I wish to address your Lordships to-day on the waterways side of this measure, the aspect of the Transport Bill on which I am qualified to speak. I understand, and certainly approve, the removal of the waterways from railway domination. It is the railway mind which has put the waterways in their present position. I do not wish to cast any slur upon railwaymen or upon their management of railways, but the fact of the matter is that a waterway is an entirely different kind of organisation. A railway operates its own trains on its own track, whereas a waterway is a public right of way, and the majority of the users are not members of the waterway organisation itself. What is more, it has many side uses and side aspects Which are not properly appreciated 'by those Who are used to running railways.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said that no attempt was being made in this Bill to solve all the problems of the waterways. I must say that I am glad of it. There are very few people who understand what the waterways need; and from what the Bill does to the waterways it is clear that neither the Government nor the framers of the Bill understand what is needed. The whole business of waterways is one of the

185
proper use of side products. Without the use of those side products, a waterway becomes so expensive to use that it becomes entirely uncommercial for its cargo-carrying traffic. It is true 'that the Joss per ton carried on the waterways is higher than the similar losses on the railways, but this is due to two entirely artificial factors—an artificially low tonnage, and an artificially high loss. The low tonnages are due to some conditions which are really hard to remedy, mainly bad waterway conditions, due to all sorts of reasons in the past which have been extensively aired at one time or another. It is far too late in the day to go into them all, but they can be put right. The second reason is a bad charging system. There, again, I do not want to go into it all. The Bowes Committee based their remarks on it, and with that every commercial waterway operator agrees.
The third reason which has caused low tonnages is the Government's own fault, and that is uncertainty of tenure. There has been a huge chain of researches by Committees and Commissions—as explained by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan—into what needed to be done to the waterways. In each case the Government of the day have said, "We will do something", but they have not. All they have done is to create uncertainty; and uncertainty, as the noble Lord, Lord Mills, most certainly knows, is the enemy of any proper commercial operation. If you do not know what the conditions of your business are going to be from day to day, week to week and month to month, it makes it very difficult to run a commercial business. The uncertainty in this case will to a large extent be cured by this Bill, except for one unfortunate point where further uncertainty is being caused by the fact that the railways are now allowed to compete with the waterways without any limitation on their powers of cutting charges, and without even the protection which is being given to coastal shipping. I hope that when we get further into the life of this Bill it may be possible to put that right by an Amendment.
The high losses which have been made have almost all been due to the insufficient use of the ancillary products of the waterways. When we feel down in the mouth about these high losses it is just as well to get this thing into proper
186
proportion. It has been pointed out that in the mere matter of fishing licences, with the enormous numbers of fishermen using the inland waterways, if half-a-crown a year per fisherman were charged for a licence it would almost entirely wipe out the existing deficit. Naturally, nobody would think of putting the entire weight of this business on the backs of the unfortunate fishermen, but the point does out the thing down, to some extent, to scale.
Then there is the matter of pleasure craft. I know it is said that the Thames makes only a very small part of its revenue out of pleasure craft. But the Thames Conservancy is a conservancy body whose main functions are water distribution, drainage, and all sorts of other duties. In fact, the facilities provided for pleasure craft by the Thames are superabundant—possibly more than the craft need. The pleasure craft on the canals are an increasing number. Over the last ten years they have multiplied in number more than ten times; and that is by no means the limit. There used to be such a thing as pleasure motoring. The motor cars are still there; everybody in this debate has noticed them. But the pleasure has largely gone. Those who formerly used our motorways for pleasure are turning to the water in enormous numbers. The thing which is now holding back the development of pleasure craft on the waterways is the problem of where to moor them. That problem is not being adequately tackled, not through any impossibility of tackling it but simply because the job is not being done. I could take any waterways representative around this London area, and within a very few miles of London I could show him places where at least 500 more pleasure craft could be moored, which is a considerably greater number than already exists in the area—and if anybody cares to take me up on that challenge I am perfectly prepared to do it.
Then, again, the sale of water. We know that there is a lot more revenue to be obtained from this. One of the purposes of this Bill is to make the sale of water easier and so long as enough water is left for navigation everybody is, of course, delighted with that. Another very controversial point which I come to is that of houseboats. I know

187
that the moment you mention houseboats to a British Waterways representative he simply shudders; and after looking at British Waterways' houseboat colonies I quite agree. I shudder with him. The truth of the matter is that a houseboat colony, if not properly supervised, becomes a slum in almost record time; but then, as many of your Lordships who are property owners know, if you let flats and do not supervise them you very soon have a slum on your hands.
The Thames Conservancy have a great many admirable houseboat colonies and their difficulty in the matter of houseboats, which are greater in number than those of other inland waterways, is that they also have considerable responsibility for keeping up a high standard of purity of their water, a thing which nobody has ever suggested Should be the responsibility in the case of some other canals. There are enormous lengths of canal which could very happily be used for houseboat moorings without injuring the water and without hindering the passage of commercial traffic. What is more, there is an enormous demand for these houseboat moorings. I am asked about it all the time. People say, "Where can I moor a houseboat?" If such mooring places were provided they would fill up very quickly indeed and the additional revenue would, of course, be extremely welcome.
You may ask why we should not fill in some of these unwanted areas and use the ground for housing or any other building development purposes. Nobody seems to realise that it is a great mistake to fill in small branches of a working waterway because a working waterway depends to a much larger extent than many people realise on the top few inches of its water, since every time a craft goes through a lock on the Grand Union Canal, for example, it uses 56 thousand gallons of water, which are thrown off from one level and pushed into the level below. You have only to have a brisk little bit of commercial traffic moving on a waterway and if the upper levels of that waterway are not adequately supplied with a water area which can be lowered slightly to provide the lockage water, then you lower the waiter level so much that you stop the
188
traffic. It has been very obvious in recent days.
Your Lordships may know that there has been a considerable stoppage on the Paddington arm of the Grand Union Canal due to the bursting of the aqueduct over the North Circular Road. The result has been, in the length of waterway to the east of that break, a considerable lack of lockage water. If there had been heavy traffic trying to go up the canal it would not have been able to do so simply because there was not lockage water there to let it go up. The level would have dropped so much that the heavily loaded barges would have been on the bottom. That shortage of water has been materially increased by the fact that the old Cumberland arm was filled in just after the war and several other canal basins along that route have been allowed to dry up or have been filled in. If those basins had been preserved, they could have been used as yacht basins or houseboat moorings, and they would still have contained all the lockage water necessary for the active use of the system.
Another matter I should like to speak about is waterside leases. I am glad to see in the Bill that in future the waterways, with the assistance of the Minister, will be able to make more active use of the grounds alongside their watersides. It is possible completely to kill a canal by using its waterside properties for all other purposes except those of a waterway—by building houses, using the walls for garages, and all the rest of it. In many oases property on that basis has been let off on long leases, making it extremely difficult for those who want to use a waterway for commercial traffic and other purposes to get any kind of foothold on the waterside at all. What is more, this problem has been made worse by uncertainty about the continued existence of various of these waterways, and the fact that, in many cases, waterways have granted only short leases. If only we can have certainty of operation of these waterways, and can get some of this land for the use of factories and other waterside purposes intending to use the waterway, we can very considerably add to the traffic on these waterways.
The final thing which has caused these losses, my Lords, is an amazing one—it

189
is insufficient publicity. I do not know of any commercial advertising agency which allows itself to advertise two different competing firms; yet the Transport Commission has been solemnly trying to advertise both the railways and the waterways. The railways, with their enormously greater weight, have naturally carried the day, and the amount of advertising put out per ton carried by the railways is enormously greater than the amount put out per ton carried by the waterways.
To give one example, which may well amaze your Lordships, let us suppose that you found yourselves in a foreign country and were talking to local inhabitants about their railways. If those local inhabitants were to turn to you and ask, "Are we allowed to use these railways; is it permitted?" you would say either that the country was some weird form of dictatorship or that the advertising had been simply shocking. But I am asked that question over and over again. As you may know, my Lords, I go around the country, and I talk a great deal about the waterways. I meet all sorts of people here and there, and that is the question I am asked. I do not think I need say anything more about waterways publicity.
All these side products may not sound much like transport to your Lordships, but between them they carry so much of the cost of all waterways that cargo transport becomes extremely cheap; and unless these side products are properly used no commercial carrying is really possible. To try commercial carrying without using these products to their full extent is merely to have the traffic become expensive and drop right away, as it is doing.
How does the Bill set out to put this right? It gives greater freedom in handling certain assets; we must certainly applaud that. And it frees the waterways from railway management; that is also a matter of great applause. These are very good, and with these, if a good Board are appointed to control the waterways, they have an excellent chance to recover, and after five years I am quite sure that a subsidy will not be needed. I know that various other noble Lords, including Lord Lucan, were far more pessimistic than I am. Lord Lucan, I am afraid, is simply out of
190
date. Ten years ago when Lord Lucan was a great frequenter of the waterways he would have been entirely right, and I should have agreed with him. Five years ago I think I still should have agreed with him; I am not sure quite where the balancing point comes. But to-day he is quite wrong. We have reached a position, with the great increase of other waterway users, where the other waterways interests are far enough developed to carry any waterway which has lost almost all its commercial carrying traffic; and the other waterway users are, in fact, now prepared to form trusts to take those waterways over.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, that some financial provision will have to be made with the waterways. After all, working capital is as much a tool of any business in the country as its machinery, its office buildings, or, in the case of the waterway, as its locks and water. Some working capital will have to be provided. I should like to see inserted in the Bill, and I am proposing to move as an Amendment at a later stage, the old railway clause which was put into a number of Railway Acts years ago, by which if a railway operator wished to get rid of his statutory undertaking he was enabled to hand it to any responsible body who were prepared to run it, with cash representing a certain number of years' loss. The old railway clauses were usually ten-year loss clauses, but I suggest that as this Bill is set up a five-year loss clause might be a reasonable thing to insert into it. What it would amount to would be that these other organisations would be prepared to take over the worst waterways which British Waterways were prepared to abandon, on the basis of the average of what the Government think the waterways would cost. That seems to me reasonable. If you look at the basis on which for example, the Stratford-on-Avon Canal was taken over, you will find that it was financed on a basis very similar to that.
If your Lordships will allow me the time (I do not wish to be very long), I will quote a few cases where private enthusiasm—I do not know whether one would call it enterprise—has taken over, or is about to take over, or is now running, waterways. The Stratford-on-Avon Canal your Lordships have already

191
heard about. A trust was made out of the National Trust and the Inland Waterways Association jointly. They raised £40,000 which British Waterways said was necessary to do the job. I am happy to tell your Lordships that they are taking a much shorter time than they thought on the repairs, owing to the thousands of volunteers who have flocked to their help, and the job is costing considerably less than £40,000. At the end of their repair work they are going to have cash in hand.
To show what can be done with thoroughly impossible material in the canal line, let me quote the Basingstoke Canal. This is one which Dr. Beeching would have swept straight out of the way, had he had a hand in it. The Basingstoke Canal was bought at a bankruptcy sale by a committee. Its water supply was weak; its locks were mostly useless; its tunnel had collapsed, so that it no longer got within five miles of the town of Basingstoke, and since the war it had had no commercial traffic at all. Nevertheless, it may amaze your Lordships to learn that this canal is making a profit. It is slowly repairing its equipment; it is even starting to put its locks right, and it now has the promise of a restart of commercial traffic. I think the brilliant lady who acts as general manager of the canal should rapidly be taken by the Government and placed on the new Board; I think they need her.
There are a number of other navigations I should like to name: the River Wey Navigation, still in private hands, never nationalised, the locks the oldest in the country, built in Cromwell's day and quite a number of them never altered. Nevertheless it continues by careful management to stay on the right side of the books, and with the additional traffic which now seems likely to come into its tributary, the Basingstoke Canal, it is starting to pick up.
The Kennet and Avon Canal is a nationalised canal, and since it was previously railways property you may not be surprised to hear that it is largely unnavigable except in odd patches. There are a number of places where its lock gates are now completely missing over long distances and it is in a very bad way. Nevertheless, a branch of the
192
Inland Waterways Association have formed themselves into a trust with the idea of taking it over. They have obtained engineering, commercial and accountancy advice; they have prepared a complete redevelopment scheme (I have a copy here) giving in complete detail not only all the engineering costs and requirements for putting the canal right but also all the sources of revenue likely to be expected. They have been holding public meetings to support them in their endeavours. They held one on a wet, cold, rainy evening in Reading, and 800 people filled the hall. There were a number of other people but they could not get into the hall. They had a similar meeting in Bath, and the enthusiasm for reopening this waterway has been tremendous. If it becomes possible to take over this waterway on the basis of the Amendment I suggested to your Lordships, I am informed that the Kennet and Avon Canal Association's new trust will go ahead and be willing to receive it.
Another waterway I have heard of, a nationalised one which is threatened with closure, the St. Helen's Canal, has again had a take-over bid; in this case an angling association has offered to gel the waterway dredged at their own cost, simply in order to preserve the angling on it. So there is, in fact, a considerable surge of people who are willing to take over the waterways which British Waterways may no longer consider useful. Furthermore, I am able to tell your Lordships the latest news, as of to-day, that the National Trust are becoming most interested in these matters and are considering whether they can move further in some direction.
It may seem odd to your Lordships that all these people are willing to do these incredible jobs; but it is because, among the waterways enthusiasts, there has been a combination practically unique in this country's history between men of public spirit, keen amateur sportsmen, both yachtman and fisherman, and successful businessmen whose profession is the waterways. I may tell your Lordships that to-day I spoke on the telephone to a fairly high up employee in British Waterways, who said to me, "Good luck! I know you are right in this matter". These people know exactly what the job costs and

193
what is needed to do the job, and they support it. If, when the Bill is passed, the Minister appoints his Board from among the waterways people who know the job and how to do it, then I am sure that these waterways can soon be restored to order. If your Lordships think I am a mere visionary, just look across the water to the Common Market countries, where neither road nor rail transport is neglected; yet they are now in the middle of the largest expansion of their waterways that Europe has ever seen.
I conclude by saying to Her Majesty's Government: do not panic and throw away our ancient privileges of public right of passage, as this Bill does. Hand over for preservation any waterway you believe to have no commercial use, and it will be preserved for the benefit of the public. Appoint a Board who believe they can do the job, and who know how to use the many sources of waterways revenue; and be sure that anything that can be done with the waterways in Europe or America can be done just as well, or better, here.
8.52 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I think we have had a most interesting debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. I think that everything that could have been said has been said. Last night, and in the early hours of this morning, I went through a large number of pamphlets in regard to the inter-war problems of transport, and was prepared to make a speech including a number of quotations. But in view of the hour and, if for nothing else, out of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Milk, who has to reply, I feel that it would be not quite the right thing to do. They will all come in useful for the Committee stage. May I warn the noble Lord that, though we are going to be quite generous to him to-night, we may not be so generous during the Committee stage?
The speeches have been well informed and most effective on the points with which they have dealt. There were many compliments to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, who opened the debate, and I do not want to paint the lily. It is very nice when a Bill is introduced with such clarity that even those not directly interested in its operation can
194
understand its purport and what is really behind it. There were other speeches which I feel I ought just to call attention to, mainly because I entirely agree with them or because I have a special agreement with them. There were the speeches of my noble friend Lord Shepherd and of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and, if I may say so, two outstanding speeches of Lord Citrine and Lord Polwarth. It would be unfair to expect the noble Lord, Lord Mills, in winding up this debate to-night, to answer the detailed criticism which both those noble Lords made of the Bill; but I would seriously suggest that the Government look at this criticism, which was constructive from two totally different points of view. I feel that much of those two speeches will form part of the Committee stage operations, because they dealt with fundamentals.
Equally, it is interesting to note that everyone who has spoken, even those who started off by saying that they were glad that the Government had grasped this nettle, put in qualifications and, in some cases, a special plea. Lord Merrivale quoted the Railway Gazette. It is interesting to note that the whole of the transport technical Press is critical of the Government's handling of the transport situation, and in particular of the new railway organisation. Practically every leading transport expert who has expressed an opinion has done so, I will not say by way of condemnation, because that would be too strong, but certainly by way of criticism. The only expert I have found who has had anything good to say is the General Secretary of the Road Haulage Association, who in a speech the other week, said that Dr. Beeching's policies, added to the existing economic impetus which favours road at the expense of rail, will mean more and more opportunities for the enterprising road haulier.
I got into a little trouble on the last occasion when we were discussing the White Paper, over my inferences in regard to the Road Haulage Association and Tory Party funds, so I will not pursue that matter any further this evening. As to some of the special pleading, I do not think it would have been made if there had been prior thought

195
about it. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who welcomed the Bill, congratulated the Government and the Minister, and then made a special plea that local authorities with under 50,000 inhabitants should have the right to oppose freight charges and passenger charges of the railways, I would say this. If you are going to give freedom of operation, and are going to ask a group of people to make viable the industry which they are operating, you cannot at the same time fetter them by restricting their chances of getting the revenue that they ought to have for that industry. This shows up the loose thinking that exists. The Government, in particular, and noble Lords in this House, must make up their minds firmly whether or not the transport industry in general, and particularly the railways, is to be a viable industry, or whether the railways have a social value so that some of their operations, at least, should be operated on the basis of a social service.
In listening to the debate I felt at times that noble Lords were taking the view that, so far as the railways were concerned, this was a problem of the 'sixties, and one which had arisen since the Transport Act, 1947, was passed. I mentioned earlier that I was going to make a number of quotations and, from the point of view of the record, I think it ought to be said that ever since the 1914–18 war, of course, the railways have been in considerable difficulties. As my noble friend, Lord Shepherd said in his excellent opening statement, that was due to the development of the internal combustion engine and the competition which thus arose.
At the end of the First World War there was talk by no less a person than the right honourable gentleman, the Member for Woodford, Sir Winston Churchill, who was then a Minister in the Government, that railways should be nationalised. But we had then, of course, the Railways Act, 1921, and the setting up of the four main-line companies. It is as well to remember, even in 1962, that when the 1921 Act was passed we set up at the same time the Railway Rates Tribunal, and the then four main-line companies were given the standard revenue of £51 million. The Railway Rates Tribunal were instructed
196
that in dealing with applications by the railway companies in respect of rate charges and fares they should bear in mind the desirability of the railways' reaching that £51 million standard revenue. But that standard revenue was never reached. In 1929, for instance, revenue was as low as £29 million.
There was then, of course, the campaign by the Railway Companies' Association to get "a square deal for the railways." Railway revenue in 1932 was no more than £27 million. The Railway Companies' Association pamphlet issued at the time of their campaign in the 'thirties (incidentally, an excellent pamphlet) said this:
"It is no exaggeration to say that every family in Britain, every man. woman and child, every factory and shop, every trade and industry, are vitally affected by the condition of Britain's railways. British industry could not function for a day without its railway system."
I shall try to show that in fact railways can be made viable, but only by ruining the economy of the British industry; and if you do not ruin the economy of British industry the railways will never be viable. This is really why this Bill is only playing with the issue. In the railway companies' campaign, "A square deal for railways", they said, in part of their statement of case:
"Before approaching the major items, the Railway Companies submit that the law regulating road transport as it stands should be enforced. This is notoriously not the case as regard the speed limits and hours of duty laid down in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, or the weight limits prescribed by the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1931."
My Lords that was in 1930—written, it is true, by the biased and vested interests of the railway companies. But their statement that road operations are carried on under conditions which are in violation of Acts of Parliament every day of the year is still true. And this Bill does nothing in any shape or form to deal with it; nor, for that matter, did the recent Road Traffic Bill which was before your Lordships' House.
We must face the fact that railways are not a viable industry anywhere in the world; and to suggest that Dr. Beeching can in five years make them viable is just poppycock. It just cannot be done, because, first of all, in spite of the capital reconstruction that is taking place

197
there are still heavy capital charges to be met. We still have to face road competition, and having regard to the facilities which the road haulier can give to railway traffics, with no restriction on weights of vehicles or types of traffic, that competition is likely to continue. This is equally true in regard to the "C" licence. If we are going to have that luxury, then the railways cannot be made to pay.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in his opening statement quite rightly called attention to the fact that under this Bill common carrier obligations are to be withdrawn from the railways. That is very good. But have the Government really studied the likely effect of that upon industry? One of the problems of railways up to the present time, particularly in regard to the "C" licence, has been that the "C" licence-holder has organised his transport fleet to meet the normal load he is expected to carry; and one cannot blame him. What has he done afterwards, when, in fact, he has to deal with the peak? He sheds his peak load to the railways, because it would be uneconomic for him to handle that peak load, even on the basis that this "C" licence transport fleet is already a heavy charge on the industry. It would be uneconomic to the extent that he would not even be prepared to operate his fleet to carry peak load and thus have vehicles idle during off-peak periods. Some of the special traffics handled by the railways will have been rather costly for them, but they have taken those peak loads in the expectation and hope that they might get some further traffic. Now they will be in a position to refuse it. Industry will soon start to complain when the railways of this country refuse to take the traffic unless industry is prepared to pay a very highly enhanced cost for that surplus over their "C" licence fleet.
This is equally true with regard to the commuter service, which is run at a loss, and will always be run at a loss, unless in fact you are going to put such heavy burdens on the shoulders of persons who have been forced outside London that they try to move into London or transfer their allegiance from the railway service as it now is and further clog London with cars, motorcycles and the rest. And, of course,
198
we may have to face the fact that parking inside London is a problem associated with the commuter service and whether or not a public transport service can be made to pay.
My Lords, this is repetition, but I will indulge in it for just a moment or two. The real solution, and the only solution, to this problem is that to Which my noble friend Lord Shepherd called attention, and that is an integrated system of transport. Those of us who have been workers in the industry, whether we have been associated with road or rail, coastwise shipping or the air, have all said that we do not want a particular form of transport simply because we were workers in it. Each form of transport has a particular function to perform, and the policy of those responsible for the organisation of transport should be to ensure that persons and traffic are carried by the vehicle which is most suitable to the traffic and the journey to be made. It is not a question of war between road and rail or between rail and air—or it should not be.
It is just fantastic to me, as a railwayman, that recently we should have had the British Transport Commission appealing against the decision of British European Airways to run a cheap night air service from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London, because in fact it would have been cheaper than, the rail service. If the facility of cheap, fast, safe transport can be provided by air, irrespective of Whether or not it is in competition with the railways, it ought to be provided. To see two nationalised industries swapping with each other, against improved facilities for the travelling public, is really not dealing with transport as it should be dealt with.
There has been special pleading for coastwise shipping. The matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who is in his place. It was special pleading; he was asking for special facilities or, at least, that rail transport should be cramped in order that coastwise shipping could get extra traffic. All of these systems have their functions. There are some functions which coastwise shipping can carry out far better than rail, and which it ought to carry out. But' it can be done properly only if each form of transport makes its contribution. If their charges

199
are pooled, then what one loses in one way can be gained in another.
After all, when this Government are dealing with private enterprise that is what they do. The effect of the motor car on the railway has been such that the railways traffic has been creamed off. The effect of the air on shipping is exactly the same. First-class passengers, easily handled freight traffic, bullion, valuable cargoes carrying high freight charges go across the Atlantic and all over the world by air at the expense of shipping. Shipping is left with the heavy and more difficult cargoes to handle. But what did this Government do? Even at the expense of a nationalised air service, B.O.A.C., they gave a facility to the Cunard Eagle air services to tie up with the Cunard Shipping Company in order that the shipping and air sides can be dealt with together. If, in fact, this Government are prepared to concede the principle so far as private enterprise is concerned, on the basis of shipping maintaining its profit, why not in so far as surface transport is concerned in Great Britain?
My noble friend Lord Shepherd gave some figures earlier. I am not quite sure where he got them from and my figures might conflict with them, but I will quote my figures and that may give the noble Lord, Lord Mills, the opportunity to correct both of us. In three short y eats of operation under the 1947 Act the British Transport Commission was making a profit of £4 million. In 1952 it was £8 million, and it was not until after we had the denationalisation of the greater part of the road transport system under the 1953 Act, and the added restrictions placed on London Transport under the 1953 Act, that the decline and deficiencies started to arise. I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that we must make up our minds whether transport is to have any social responsibility to industry or to the community.
During a debate last week we had special representations by the noble Lords who have associations with Wales. Now it is perfectly true that the Welsh railway system, as a railway system on its own, just cannot operate economically. Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, in his excellent speech
200
called attention to Scotland. If, in fact, this Government are going to direct Dr. Beeching to make the railways of this country viable, there will be no railway service north of Edinburgh or Glasgow, because all services further north are uneconomic at the present time. Are we going to face the fact, or are we just trying to mislead the public?
Then, in the Civil Defence debate the other day, I called attention to the fact that only 'three or four weeks ago the Government issued a statement on policy in which they said they hoped to move from London and other big centres over 10 million people if we were so unfortunate as to have a threat of war, which God forbid!—and everybody will join me in saying that. But, after all, this is a Government statement on defence, and the railway system and the transport system are part of the country's defence. Is it not just hoodwinking the public for a Government to make a statement about moving 10 million people from the cities of this country into the remote areas in a short pre-hostility tension period and, at the same time, to destroy the very railway system which is the only system that could carry them? You could not carry 10 million people on the roads of this country. You do not have the vehicles, for a start; you do not have the roads, for a start. If you attempted to do it, then you would dislocate the whole of 'the industrial activity of the country, and you would create a far bigger panic than any war or threat of war would be likely to do. So, really, the Government must face up to this matter. Is there a social value in the railway system? Is there a defence value in a railway system? How far are you going? What is economic and what is uneconomic?
The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, spoke about trying to combine freight and passenger services with the delivery of letters. I am glad that he likes a nationalised Post Office, but even this Government have placed on the Postmaster-General responsibility for making the Post Office viable. All the shipping services already run by private enterprise for the Highlands and Islands are subsidised, and unless they were subsidised they would not be running at the present time. So why does this Government not face the fact that you cannot

201
provide transport services for the Highlands and Islands unless you are prepared to subsidise them in some form or another? British European Airways are providing a very excellent means of communication between the Highlands and Islands by their services in Scotland. That is a nationalised industry. But B.E.A. are able to do that only out of the possible profits of the rest of their services. What is more, you do not get the private airlines coming along and asking for licences to operate into the Highlands and Islands. So these air services, this transport for the depopulated areas, must be subsidised; there must be some arrangement for 'there to be a subsidy in regard to it.
Rural transport has been mentioned by one or two noble Lords this afternoon. As railwaymen we must admit that there is no justification, on the basis of purely economic operation, for keeping many of these rural area lines open. But some of the attempts now being made to destroy them are really making it impossible for the ordinary man and woman in the rural areas to have any communication with the outside world at all. The farmer has contributed to the problem. He now has his own motor car, and he carries his own cattle into market miles and miles away in his own lorry and cattle truck—and who can blame him? He has the facility there, and it is a much more economic proposition from his point of view. Even if not economic, it is a much easier one for him to handle. He has his eye on his own beasts and he is handling his own feeding stuffs. But this is the problem that the Government and the public have to face.
It is perhaps a story against myself, but one noble Lord—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale—referred to many noble Lords in this place not having had the experience of deputations from constituents. When I was in another place I had a deputation because of the threatened closure of a rural branch line. Six members came, associated with the National Farmers' Union and with two rural districts. As your Lordships will appreciate, when a Member of Parliament, who is dependent upon votes, gets visitors, he is always very polite to them; so, after we had had our discussion we adjourned to a
202
certain spot where we could be convivial. When I noticed that the time was going on and that they were likely to miss their train, I suggested that if they wanted to get to St. Pancras in time to catch it they should be off pretty quickly and I would show them the quickest way out—it was not that I wanted to get rid of them. You can imagine my surprise when they said, "Don't worry, George, we have a couple of cars outside". Here were representatives of the National Farmers' Union and two local authorities, coming to me as a Member of Parliament to put pressure on the Government—it was the Tory Government then—to prevent the closure of a branch line, and they themselves had come up 70 miles by road because, in fact, it was a facility for them to do so; they were not restricted to catching trains, and the rest.
We have to face, too, that with the dismantling of the transport services there will be a depopulation of the areas. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, referred to destroying an efficient railway system and putting on an ineffective road service. May I say, having had some experience with the operation of rural bus services as well as with railway operation, that if a railway line does not pay, then a bus service will not pay. And if the buses are run by private enterprise, then it will not really be a service. If any sort of service is going to be provided, then it will have to be done by the Railway Boards, if they are given power to do it. But it can be done only at a cost. I am not going to say that the loss would be as great as would be incurred by maintaining the railway branch line, but it could not be run at a profit. Even in the rural areas round about the Home Counties, the cross-country services provided by London Transport, Birch Buses and many others cannot be made to pay—and, of course, those undertakings cut out the areas which do not pay.
Now I must say a word about staffs. Dr. Beeching has been appointed by the Government for the job—a job which he cannot perform. He cannot do the job unless he has an effective and enthusiastic staff, and, with the greatest respect, his recent speeches are not conducive to getting an effective and enthusiastic staff. With his statements about withdrawing services, about drastic

203
curtailment of services, about drastic cutting out of branch lines and the rest, one cannot wonder that the staff are getting "fed up", frustrated and apprehensive. Among the older members of the staff there are in all grades within the railways of this country—officers, staff and men (if you wish to put them into their various categories)—enthusiastic and efficient men and women who have been doing a really first-class job.
In recent months the British Transport Commission as it now exists has been doing some really excellent work in conjunction with the universities, the grammar schools and the public schools of this country in recruiting some excellent young men into the service. It is a serious problem for the railways, if in fact they are going to be made a viable industry. Those young men whom Sir Brian Robertson, the then Chairman of the British Transport Commission, with the full co-operation of all the trade unions, recruited from the universities and the public schools, and who were given facilities for training in a traffic apprenticeship, are now leaving the service. The older man of 50 or 55 has a stake in his superannuation fund and is not anxious to change, but these young men who have been brought on and who are now aged 25 to 30 are not going to stay with a sinking ship. This Government and, if I may say so with the greatest respect (although perhaps one should not say it as he is not here to defend himself), the new Chairman, are creating the impression among the staff that there is no future in the railways in this country. Their future can be secure only if we accept that the railways are vital to the economy; that they cannot be made viable but must be maintained; and that "subsidy" is not a dirty word if in fact a subsidy is necessary. It is a social service, and it has to be paid for in exactly the same way as many social services are paid for and recognised at the present time.
A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, put in a word for the police so far as the British Transport Commission's services are concerned, and I agree with every word they said. But all that they said about the importance of a unified service so
204
far as a police service is concerned—the excellent economies and the greater efficiency in operation that it gives—can be said for all the other services; and if you accept integration for the police force, why not for road and rail operation? It is a specialised service, and does a good service. There is far too much pilfering going on for any respectable railwayman to be content with the position. (Millions of pounds are lost every year, but not through railwaymen. Unfortunately, sometimes railwaymen and road transport workers contribute to it, but it is largely done by organised gangs from outside. If the legal and the police services of the British Transport Commission were dismantled, it would be tragic.
I hope that what has been said in regard to them will have an effect upon the Government. I also hope that Amendments will be put down and that both the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, will put down some Amendments. If they do, we shall be delighted to be associated with them in their attempts to maintain this excellent service.
My Lords, I did not intend to speak for so long as I have spoken. In conclusion, I would congratulate all those who have spoken in this debate. I am sorry my reply has been rather sketchy, but, as I forecast would be the case in opening, it has been disjointed because much that was prepared in the early hours of the morning became redundant when it was said by other noble Lords. In the Committee stage of this Bill we shall attempt to convert the Government to a number of points which we think are vital, and I hope that in that interesting Committee stage we shall not be too cramped for time. As my noble friend Lord Shepherd said, in view of the fact that in this House we have a Committee of the Whole House, I hope the Committee stage of the Bill will be spread in order that it will not be too great a strain, not only on Ministers but on the Opposition, who, if I may say so, do not have behind them the excellent "backroom boys" which the Government have. Therefore, if we are to deal with the Bill properly in the Committee stage, I hope we shall have the facility of doing so in comparatively short periods of time.
9.32 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said, I think we have had a very interesting and, I hope, useful debate, although he did his best to fill me with gloom; but I shall refer to that a little later. This matter was fully debated in this House as far back as March 13, 1961, when we discussed the White Paper of December, 1960, on the Reorganisation of the Nationalised Transport Undertakings. I see that the debate then finished at ten minutes to eleven, so there is every excuse for the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, to have spoken at some length. Perhaps there would be excuse for me if I proposed to do so, too, which I do not.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that he intended to treat this Bill as if it had originated in your Lordships' House, and to examine it very critically clause by clause. I think that is quite right, and I hope that we shall do that. He also suggested that, in arranging our affairs, we should sit in Committee on the Bill for not more than three or four hours a day. I too think that is a very good idea. It is, in fact, proposed that we should begin the Committee stage on May 21, and sit, if necessary, on the 22nd, the 24th, the 28th and the 29th. That is five days in all. It is hoped that in that way we shall complete the Committee stage well in advance of Whitsuntide, and I hope that that will be agreeable to noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, also said that this matter was politically contentious, as, of course, it is. It is so because we differ fundamentally in how we would deal with the subject. I think we are all united in wanting to see the railways become what I would describe as an efficient service. I was asked whether the Government looked upon the railways as a service or a business. I think it is a service. I think it should be an efficient service; and that includes, of course, making business sense out of it, as well as making it meet the social needs of the country. But -the fundamental difference to which I have referred was expressed by the noble Lord when he said that he believes in "socialism and planned economy", and threw to me the alternative of "freedom
206
and enterprise", which is certainly what I believe in.
I find noble Lords opposite so glib in talking about "an integrated service". In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to the need for a "co-ordinated transport policy of road, rail, air and water" and went on to describe our requirement as a comprehensive, integrated transport policy. So easy to say, my Lords; but I really fail to know what it means. In discussing the nationalised industries (and this is not confined to the transport industry) I find that always somewhere "a comprehensive co-ordinated policy" is called for. But we are dealing with practical things. We are trying with this measure to do away with the factors which were hindering the proper functioning of the railways and the other services associated with them. We are trying to free them and to assist them in getting ahead with their job.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked whether we were trying to break up the railways as we were breaking up the Transport Commission. He also asked what was the object of the six Regional Boards. I thought that my noble friend Lord Chesham—and I am grateful to noble Lords for the tributes they have paid to his opening—explained that the Regional Boards were designed to deal with the day-to-day management in the Regions: that is, with the operation and the running of the railways.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it was not the question of the Regions; it was the creation of a Board. Why should it not be sufficient to have an Executive and a general manager, such as is now in charge of Regions? It is the creation of the Board which gives the appearance that it is the Government's intention to break up the railways.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that there is no such intention. It was our intention to deal with the problems of the management of the different Regions, and it was thought that a Board (no doubt there will be a general manager associated with each Board) was the best way of achieving this.
I think I ought to mention a point which was made—namely, why it is that the Chairmen of the Boards, or a

207
member of a Regional Board, were not automatically members of the Railways Board. But there is plenty of room within this Bill for that to happen. I think that in framing legislation of this kind we must have regard to the fact that what is the position to-day may not be the position to-morrow. If the noble Lord would look at the composition of the Railway Committee which was announced by Dr. Beeching the other day, he will find that it is constituted along those lines.
The noble Lord also asked about the Transport Holding Company; what were its objects, and what were the intentions of the Government? Did they intend to strengthen various parts, or was the Company to facilitate the disposal of assets? I think that my noble friend Lord Chesham set out the objects of the Holding Company. It is designed to ensure the best return for the public purse from the operations of its constituent parts. There is no obligation to dispose of any assets. The Company represents a form of control which, as I say, could assure the best return to the public purse on its operations.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks of "the public purse", but he will remember that concern was felt that the Holding Company, with its securities in bus companies, should see that the bus companies provided adequate services. Would it be the duty of the Holding Company to see that that is done?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, that would be their duty, and the Minister would not hesitate to direct the Holding Company if it were not done.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, congratulated the Minister of Transport on grasping the nettle. I was glad to hear him say that, because the Minister of Transport has been very courageous in dealing with this problem. He is doing what he thinks right, and what the Government think right, in promoting this Bill and trying to make the services efficient. The noble Lord also asked whether I looked upon transport as a service or a business, but I think that I have already answered that question. The noble Lord said—he is a far-seeing Lord—that it would have been better if we had introduced this
208
Bill ten years ago. I think that perhaps it would have been better if it had been introduced ten years ago; but here it is now, and I am not so much concerned with the history of the transport undertakings as with what we can do now to improve their efficiency.
The noble Lord asked whether they can become viable in five years. I should not like to answer that question. There are certain provisions in the Bill which go beyond the five-year period, in the hope that they will by then have become viable. But I know that great efforts will be made to make them so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? The question I was trying to ask is whether, if after five years they are not viable, the noble Lord expects that the Government will take powers to extend that period.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, if the noble Lord could tell me which Government will be in power then, I could better answer his question. I expect it will be a Conservative Government and I am certain that they will take whatever attitude is necessary to keep this new system improving.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if we are going on assumptions, I assume that these powers must be extended, because the whole thing cannot be suddenly shut up in five years' time, if the expectations of the Bill are not realised.
LORD MILLS: Of course, my Lords, if the expectations of the Bill are not realised, I am sure that the Government—whichever Government they are—will take steps to do what may be necessary to be done. The noble Lord suggested that there was nothing in the Bill to enable the railways to run bus services. But there are limited powers in Clause 4 (1) (a) (iii) to meet the situation he had in mind. British Transport Commission bus companies are vested in the Holding Company and, subject to the licensing procedure, could operate substitute services, just as private enterprise could under the same conditions.
The noble Lord also asked me whether land development companies could be formed by the Holding Company. Subject to the provisions of Clause 11, the answer is that they could. The noble Lord

209
referred to what I thought was an important matter—the need for new and additional car parks at the railway stations. I can say that the British Transport Commission already have these needs in mind and are examining the problem. The Bill contains the necessary powers for dealing with it. My noble friend Lord Teynham supported the idea of Railways Boards and of anything that could be done to streamline the system. He made the point, much more clearly that I can, that we never have had integration, even under the 1947 Act, and expressed the view—which I rather share—that integration is not really possible. He prefers, as I do, co-ordination to integration.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to the police, and perhaps I may deal with them at tins point. Clauses 69 and 70 of the Bill provide enabling powers for the Boards to have such police forces as they consider necessary, either separate forces for each Board or a joint force for them all. The position is not really different from what now obtains under the Commission. Exactly the same powers exist now, but the Commission think it best to have one force. I should incidentally like to pay tribute to this excellent force, and I am sure that wisdom will be used in dealing with this matter.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for his tribute to, the police force. We all agree about the excellent work they have done. But let me remind the noble Lord that this is a disciplined force, and when we find such a force showing great concern about their future it is easy to understand why the rest of the railwaymen are showing even greater disturbance of mind about their future. This causes problems within the industry. It is this uncertainty about the future which is worrying everyone.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I said that I had listened to a gloomy speech by the noble Lord and I think he was gloomy when he mentioned this point. It is not what I find. I find that the spirit on the railways and the service on the railways are already showing signs of improvement. I hope I am right. I now just mention, because my noble friend Lord Teynham did,
210
the question of coastal shipping. I have no doubt that we shall be discussing that in Committee, but the Government feel that Clause 53 constitutes a very fair balance between the interests concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that railways would never pay if we aimed to provide the public with the service it needs; he said that the transport system must be subsidised if it is going to give the service required. I hope that Dr. Beeching and his colleagues will find in those two remarks a challenge which they will accept. At any rate, we can only wait and see. The noble Lord also talked about whether planning permission would be necessary in developing railway property. Of course, any development of land in London belonging to the Commission would be subject to planning authority. There would be no special favours for the Commission in that respect. I think that is right. We should see that our planning requirements are followed, whoever proposes to develop property.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, gave a very interesting speech on what he described as "the middle way". I found it a very encouraging speech, but he asked one or two questions to which I should like briefly to reply. He wanted to know whether the Government continued to support the licensing of coaches under the 1930 Act, and of lorries under the 1932 Act. This Bill makes no difference in that respect, and the Government do continue to support it. The noble Lord also asked whether the Minister would use his powers under Clause 29 (4), to prevent the Holding Company from cut-throat competition with British Railways, even though doing so might be profitable commercially. The licensing system for all road passenger and road goods vehicles is designed to deal with cut-throat competition. The basic principle of the licensing system for road passenger and goods transport is to secure the public good by the regulation of cut-throat competition. I think it will be found that that will be an effective way of dealing with the matter; it ought not to be necessary for the Minister to use his powers of direction.
I think that also answers the question as to whether the Minister would, in appropriate cases, direct the Holding

211
Company to require its subsidiaries to provide the necessary transport service if British Railways wished to close down some of their services. The answer is that he would.
LORD MOLSON: The answer is that the Minister would use his powers. Is that so?
LORD MILLS: Yes. As regards the question of the amalgamation of the parcels service and railway delivery service, it is not envisaged that the Minister would need to be concerned with this directly. It is primarily a question of management between the Railway Boards and the Holding Company. It would be possible for the Railway Boards to enter into working agreements under Clauses 14 and 16 with the Holding Company if they both felt that such agreements were desirable.
The last question the noble Lord asked was whether the Minister accepted the need for some degree of co-ordination between railways, roads, canals and coastal shipping. The answer is that he does, and that the Bill provides accordingly. There is provision in Clause 55 for the establishment of the National Transport Advisory Council, and there is provision in Clauses 3 and 7 for the Railways Board and the London Board to consult together about the co-ordination of their services in London. There is provision in Clauses 14 and 16 for the making of working agreements between nationalised transport undertakings. I draw the noble Lord's attention to the provision in Clause 27 for the Minister to have control of investment over the Boards. That is one of the main responsibilities which enables him to ensure co-ordination.
The noble Lord, Lord Citrine, I must thank for his views on nationalisation. He is a very experienced man and has very efficiently run a nationalised undertaking. But I could not see that a great deal of what he said had very much to do with this Bill. He seemed to find that there was an great measure of freedom under the Bill, whereas in fact it was designed to provide the maximum amount of freedom. As I say, I am grateful to him for What he said about nationalisation, and I hope that when he studies the Bill further he will find that it does provide commercial freedom.
212
I can speak from experience that the noble Lord did not suffer from much ministerial interference. Of course, there is interference from Parliament, but that is to be expected, because Parliament is in control.
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, rightly drew your Lordships' attention not only to the situation in Scotland and the closing of branch line and stations, but to the necessity for the most careful consideration of any plans Which the British Transport Commission or the Railways Board may wish to adopt in order to alter the size or shape of the railway system, as that may become necessary. I am aware of the proposals which have already been made and of those which have been announced. But the Commission have said that there will be no further rail closures in Scotland, other than those they have announced, until the results are available later in the year of the traffic studies which the Chairman of the Commission has put in hand. I do not know what may be the result of that examination. I am sure that, so far as Scotland is concerned, they will be very carefully considered; that the consultative committee in Scotland will have a very full opportunity of examining the position. I think that also will apply to the rest of the country.
I am also aware of the article which I think appeared in the Scotsman, but I happen to know the Minister of Transport very intimately indeed and, whatever he may have said—and I cannot vouch for the correctness or otherwise of the report—there is no one more wholehearted in his desire to solve the transport problems of this country.
I have already referred to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and his passion for an integrated, comprehensive transport policy. He said that Ministers could see road and rail only as competing, but I can only assure the noble Lord that we do not think that way at all. We are anxious for the railways to offer an efficient service and for our roads to be the best that could be had. We only hope that the people using them will behave properly and cut down the terrible toll on the roads which comes from the human aspect of these problems.
I will just remind the noble Lord of what the Select Committee had to say

213
about the question of road and rail transport, because he said the roads compete unfairly, through not paying anything like the same proportion of costs. The Select Committee in its Report on the nationalised industries said this:
"The track and rail are of the essence of any railway. They create the conditions of speed, density of traffic and safety which form the main advantages of railway travel. Their costs, therefore, should be paid for by the railway user and must be taken into account in any economic calculations about railways and in any calculation about the true cost of a particular railway service, be it freight or passenger".
Then they took up the question of track costs and went on:
"But in fact the road user pays each year in taxes for the use of his vehicle and its fuel considerably more than the annual cost of road maintenance, signalling and construction".
It is useful to put that on record.
LORD STONHAM: But the noble Lord will realise that the Select Committee did not take into account the vast cost to the nation of congestion on the roads, nor the cost of accidents on the roads, and he is merely confirming what I said and the figures I quoted; that in taxation road users do not pay anything like the cost of the road services they use if those services are calculated on the same basis that the railways rightly have to pay.
LORD MILLS: I just wanted your Lordships to know what the Select Committee had to say about it. I appreciate, of course, the point made by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale in general supported the Bill. I was glad to hear of his support though I did not happen to be in the House when he was speaking. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said Government policy was entirely doctrinaire, which is, of course, what we, too, say about the Opposition's attitude. He is quite entitled to say it. He referred to the question, I think, of powers of manufacture. The Railways Board has a three-year moratorium, but the other Boards do not manufacture, and therefore the clause will apply to them directly on vesting. The noble Earl talked to us about the waterways, and I am sure that that will be very helpful. He paid a tribute to Sir Reginald Kerr and his staff,
214
which I am very glad to be able to endorse.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale—he has already apologised for not being here—was the only one who said that the timing and the service on the railways was improving, which has been my experience too. He also referred, among other things, to the police force. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, also, in general, approved the Bill but wished we had kept in clauses about the local authorities' interest in fares. No doubt we shall consider that in Committee.
The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, gave us a very interesting account of the waterways. I was quite fascinated by it and I was delighted when he said that in his opinion they would require no subsidy after five years. That is a possibility. I hope he was not basing that on his charge to the fishermen of 2s. 6d. a year, because I made a quick calculation that that meant there would need to be 6 million fishermen if they were going to meet the deficit. His was a very interesting contribution, which I am sure all noble Lords will have noted, on the position of the waterways.
I will not carry on till ten to eleven. I think I have said enough in summing-up the Second Reading. I should just like to repeat that I am sure all sides of the House will approach this matter, and do approach this matter, even if they employ different methods, with the idea of improving the efficiency of the transport undertakings. I hope that your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ECCLESIASTICAL FEES MEASURE, 1962
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed.
RUNCORN DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
SOUTH ESSEX WATERWORKS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at nine minutes past ten o'clock.