Sitting of 2 July 1963

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BATH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time and committed.
CLYWEDOG RESERVOIR JOINT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Further consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next at Seven o'clock.
DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Read a Second time and committed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER HARBOUR) BILL
Read the Third time and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT)) BILL
Read the Third time and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (BEMBRIDGE HARBOUR) BILL
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Estimates Committee (Local Employment Act)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he will take following the Seventh Report from the Estimates Committee which deals with the administration of the Local Employment Act, 1960; and if he will make a statement.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The Board of Trade is considering the Seventh Report of the
    172
    Estimates Committee on the Administration of the Local Employment Act, 1960, and will be sending its observations on the Conclusion and Recommendations to the Committee as soon as possible. I cannot anticipate those observations.
    Mr. Greyasked the President of the Board of Trade what other measures he will recommend in view of the report of the Estimates Committee that inducements to industry to move into development districts have not been as effective as was intended when the Local Employment Act, 1960, was passed.
    Mr. Erroll: The Question bears on part of the conclusion of the Seventh Report of the Estimates Committee. The Board of Trade will send its observations on the Conclusion and Recommendations to the Committee as soon as possible, and I cannot anticipate these observations.
    Mr. Grey: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the working of the Local Employment Act has completely misfired? Does he not think that other help is needed in the North-East so that we might be able to run down the unemployment figures there now?
    Mr. Erroll: As I have said on previous occasions at the Dispatch Box, I think that the Local Employment Act has done a wonderful job. Again, I do not want to anticipate the findings of the Committee.
    Dr. Bray: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the view reported to be held by the F.B.I. that the machinery of the Local Employment Act is inadequate?
    Mr. Erroll: I have studied the Report with the greatest interest, and I am having informal discussions with the Federation to make plain matters which, perhaps, were not clear to the Federation at the time when it made its report.
    Mr. R. W. Elliott: Will my right hop. Friend not agree that many people in the north of England will not at all agree that the Local Employment Act has misfired? Will he continue to place emphasis on inducement and to oppose direction, which the party opposite would instigate?
    Mr. Erroll: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that expression of view. The

    173
    essential thing is a combination of inducements and of negative control. The negative control is most important. I exercise that control most diligently, but I am enormously helped in exercising it by the new scale of inducements which have been introduced by my right hon. Friend and myself.
    Mr. Greyasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the Estimates Committee's criticisms of the frequent changes made in the list of development districts, he will take steps to see that the whole of the industrial North-East is scheduled as a development district.
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. All parts of the industrial North-East where high and persistent unemployment exists or is threatened are already included in the list of development districts.
    Mr. Grey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the uncertainty that there is in the North-East, and is he fully aware that this uncertainty could be dispelled if he would only treat the whole of the North-East as one development district? If the right hon. Gentleman did that it would certainly give strength to the elbow of the North-East Development Council which is trying to do a most difficult job in difficult circumstances.
    Mr. Erroll: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member has said, but I do not think that we would dispel uncertainty in areas of high unemployment if we added to the list districts of relatively low unemployment which might therefore attract new industry to them instead of to those areas where unemployment is highest.
    Dame Irene Ward: May I thank my right hon. Friend for what he did recently in adding to the areas which are now scheduled on the North-East Coast? Since these include the big shipbuilding areas of Tyneside and we have been discussing inducements, will my right hon. Friend remember that we should like to see an inducement provided for the placing of the new Cunarder contract on the Tyne?
    Mr. Erroll: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. I will certainly pass on the point about the new Cunarder to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

    Stoke-on-Trent
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent, in considering the problem of unemployment in Stoke-on-Trent, he has regard to those provisions of the Local Employment Act which deal with relatively high percentages of men who suffer from industrial diseases and incapacity.
    Mr. Erroll: Although the proportion of unemployed disabled workers in the Stoke-on-Trent group of employment exchange areas is above the national average, unemployment generally in this area is low. The Local Employment Act requires me to pay particular regard to the needs of areas of high unemployment listed as development districts. I am prepared, however, to approve suitable industrial development in the Stoke-on-Trent area which could not go to a district of greater need.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: While appreciating, within limits, that reply, may I ask whether the President of the Board of Trade agrees that the Local Employment Act provides for special circumstances of this kind, where the proportion of men and women suffering from industrial disease is greater than that in other parts of the country; and that the Act should provide for the special circumstances here?
    Mr. Erroll: These special circumstances are taken into account when assessing suitability of employment—creating opportunities which will be set up in such a district.
    Mr. Swingler: Has the President of the Board of Trade looked at the proportion of disabled unemployed in Newcastle-under-Lyme, adjacent to Stoke-on-Trent, where he will find the proportion to be well above the national average? Will he take that into account in considering the region of north Staffordshire as a whole?
    Mr. Erroll: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take that sort of consideration into account.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my last supplementary question, but does he agree that what he has rightly stated has not applied in the past; and will he give an undertaking that it will apply in the future?
    Mr. Erroll: I think that it has applied in the past, and it will certainly apply in the future.

    Films (Co-production)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade what further progress has been made in the negotiation of treaties for the co-production of films between the United Kingdom and other European countries.
    Mr. Erroll: We have sent our detailed proposals for a co-production treaty to the Governments of France, Germany and Italy. The Italian Government have already agreed to preliminary talks early this month.
    Mr. Swingler: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the fact that this has taken a very long time? Is it not a long time ago that this idea was mooted and was very favourably considered on all sides? Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why it has been such a lengthy and complicated business to get these negotiations going?
    Mr. Erroll: This has proved to be the first mutually convenient opportunity.
    Sir C. Osborne: Why has my right hon. Friend not included the Soviets in these proposals in view of the fact that they told me in Moscow quite recently that they would like to exchange more films with us or see more films by us?
    Mr. Erroll: This is not for the exchange of films but for co-production arrangements, which is a quite different subject.

    Company Chairmen (Meetings)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the discussions he has had recently with the chairmen of leading industrial companies in order to try to persuade them to establish new projects in the development districts and in Northern Ireland; and how many promises he has received of new projects to be started in these areas.
    Mr. Erroll: The series of meetings with the chairmen of leading companies is still proceeding and will not be completed until the autumn. It is too early to draw
    176
    conclusions from the discussions already held.
    Mr. Prentice: Is it impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to make some kind of interim report to the House, bearing in mind that three months ago he said that he would do this and at that time it was stressed that there was a sense of urgency about it? Have the discussions led to any promises of new projects? If so, how many jobs are involved?
    Mr. Erroll: Naturally, I want to tell the House as much as possible. I have considered whether it would be valuable to give an interim report, but I thought it more satisfactory that the series of meetings should be completed before I made a report. The meetings so far held have been useful and valuable, and some projects have been discussed which I hope will bear fruit.
    Mr. Steele: Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to offer these industrialists? Is he proposing, for instance, to say to them that he is prepared to agree to pay the cost of transfer of their industry from the present area to the new industrially developing areas?
    Mr. Erroll: One of the objects of the exercise, as I announced in my speech following the Budget statement, was to make quite certain that industry was fully alive to the new benefits announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to discuss with them any practical matters which might arise from that. I can say that industrialists are fully alive to the benefits available and, of course, in connection with the transfer of factories, the benefits not only of the Local Employment Bill, which is going through the House now, but of the Local Employment Act which, in suitable cases, can be used in connection with transfer costs.
    Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, during the remainder of the discussions, that Northern Ireland unfortunately still has by far the highest unemployment figures in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Erroll: I had a very useful and friendly visit to Ulster about eleven days ago when I was able to have informal discussions on the seriousness of the Ulster unemployment problem.

    Pharmaceutical Industry
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the British pharmaceutical industry production is located in Scotland and in England and Wales, respectively, expressed in output and sales value.
    Mr. Erroll: At the last detailed Census of Production, which related to 1958, 7 per cent. of the value of sales of the pharmaceutical industry arose in Scotland and the balance in England and Wales.
    Sir D. Robertson: Are these figures not most revealing? Does it not show the Board of Trade in an extremely bad light that 93 per cent. of this industry, which would be a"natural" in the Highlands of Scotland, is in the monsters of London, Coventry, Birmingham and the South-West? Will the right hon. Gentleman begin to use his strong negative powers?
    Mr. Erroll: My powers to withhold industrial development certificates in areas of congestion and prosperity are very strongly exercised, but 7 per cent. of the value of sales of the pharmaceutical industry compares with about 8 per cent. of sales of all manufacturing industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Jay: Quite apart from negative powers, as the Government are presumably the biggest customers of the industry, would it not be a good thing for the Government to use their buying powers to steer industry into development districts as a whole?
    Mr. Erroll: That is quite another question.

    Foreign Edibles
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the recent increase in the import and sale of foreign edibles, including fish, tinned, frozen and otherwise, in competition with the home-produced article, thereby increasing British unemployment; and what steps he will take to protect British industry.
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. Imports of all foodstuffs in total, and of fish and fish preparations in particular, were no higher in the first five months of this year than in the corresponding period last year.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember his not so far distant visit to Aberdeen when he made various promises to increase trade, industry and commerce there—promises which have remained unfulfilled? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that unrestricted imports, such as those indicated in my Question, have a general reaction on a whole variety of industries and on unemployment? Will he take some practical steps to redeem the promises which he then made in Aberdeen?
    Mr. Erroll: I am not quite certain whether the hon. and learned Member is referring to a visit of mine or one by one of my Ministerial colleagues. Much as I regret it, I have to admit that I have not been to Aberdeen since I became a Minister.

    Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state his present plans to attract industry to Aberdeen shipyards and engineering works.
    Mr. Erroll: I shall continue to do everything practicable under the Local Employment Act to encourage the introduction and expansion of industry in the Aberdeen area.
    Mr. Hughes: May I make a practical suggestion to the President of the Board of Trade? In view of the plans to deepen and enlarge Aberdeen Harbour, will the right hon. Gentleman consult other relevant Ministers with a view to devising means whereby Aberdeen can build methane tankers and other large ships and attract industry in that way?
    Mr. Erroll: I will certainly pass the suggestion on to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

    Film Quota
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President df the Board of Trade why he decided to reject the Cinematograph Films Council's advice on the film quota for supporting programmes for 1964.
    Mr. Erroll: Alteration of the quota figure appeared unnecessary because performance is already well above the proposed increased requirement, and undesirable because of the difficulties with which

    179
    the proposed increase would have faced some of the smaller exhibitors.
    Mr. Swingler: Is not that self-defeating? So long as we have the quota system, should not it be the object to give a stimulus to the production and exhibition of British films? Is not the quota already very low, and, as the Cinematograph Films Council is a representative body of both producers and exhibitors, how came it that the right hon. Gentleman felt that he could overrule its recommendations?
    Mr. Erroll: The Council makes recommendations, but I have to make the decisions. The fact is that, while the current quota is 25 per cent., the overall performance in 1961–62 was 44 per cent.—proof, surely, of how well the British film industry is doing. Also, I have to take into account the difficulties of the smaller exhibitors, which used to be the subject of a great deal of anxious debate in the House. I think that it is only right, therefore, to keep the quota at 25 per cent. It in no way harms British film production and makes the life of the small exhibitors somewhat less difficult.

    Spanish Canned Fruit Salad
    Mr. Darlingasked the President of the Board of Trade what his decision is on the request of fruit canning firms for an anti-dumping order on Spanish canned fruit salad.
    Mr. Erroll: No application under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act has yet been submitted, but, following discussions with the Board of Trade, the Association representing the British fruit canners is, I understand, preparing one.
    Mr. Darling: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are difficulties when, as a result of the procedure, a request has to be made by a whole industry rather than by a section of it? Is he aware that unless something is done it will be quite likely that at least one canning factory will close or, possibly, be transferred to Spain? Further, does he know of any other case of an import duty being placed upon the raw materials while the competitive finished product is allowed to come in duty-free? Ought not the situation to be reversed? This is the cause of the trouble.
    Mr. Erroll: As regards consultations with the industry, officials of the Board of Trade have done their best to explain the situation to the industry, which can now consider whether to proceed with a formal application. We always try to be helpful in these preliminary stages.
    I require notice of the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I should think that the answer is"Yes", but I must look at it.
    Mr. Darling: The correspondence on this matter has been going on with officials of the Board of Trade since last November. How much more notice does the right hon. Gentleman require?
    Mr. Erroll: It is not a question of my requiring notice. It is a question of the industry putting in an application if it wishes to do so. When it puts in an application, it will be considered with the despatch which is customary in my Department.

    Jute
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make a statement concerning the future of the Board of Trade Jute Control, having regard to recent proceedings in the Restrictive Practices Court.
    Mr. Erroll: I am conducting a general review of policy in regard to jute and jute goods in the light of the court's judgment and other factors. The issues are complex and it will be some time before I can make a statement.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that his habits of conducting bulk purchase and artificially raising prices of Indian jute goods brought into this country to the detriment of carpet manufacturers and others has been roundly condemned by the Restrictive Practices Court? Does he think that his Department is above the law? Did not his predecessor create the Restrictive Practices Court? Why does not he now obey the dictates of that court as a private enterprise commercial operator would have to do?
    Mr. Erroll: The situation is not quite so simple as my hon. Friend suggests in his supplementary question. It is because of the difficulties which he has pointed out that I am conducting a general review.
    Mr. Strachey: Will the President of the Board of Trade recognise that if he did obey the dictates of the court he would have a tragic unemployment problem on his hands in Dundee, and will he think very carefully of the vital interests of Dundee before he does anything of the sort?
    Mr. Erroll: It is important not to exaggerate in either direction. I shall, of course, take into account the fact that Dundee is already a development district.

    Development Districts
    Mr. Boydenasked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to enlarge the rôle of the management corporations in encouraging industry to settle in development districts.
    Mr. Erroll: I have nothing to add to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Mother well (Mr. Lawson) on 18th June.
    Mr. Boyden: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman act with the despatch which he says is customary in his Department? Does he recall the evidence given by the chairman of the State management corporation for England to the Estimates Committee, Question No. 696, that had that corporation had wider powers more industry would have been attracted to the North-East? This has been so since 1960? If that be so, why does not the President of the Board of Trade take action quite independent of his replies to the Estimates Committee?
    Mr. Erroll: I am in a difficulty because several Questions have been asked about this Report and I feel that, as they are important matters, my reply ought to take the form of a considered reply and should not be given piecemeal in answer to Parliamentary Questions.
    Mr. Jay: As this is an urgent as well as an important point, will the right hon. Gentleman at least assure us that he will make a statement before the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Erroll: I shall make the statement as soon as I can, when I have given full consideration to all the important matters referred to in the Report.

    Board of Trade Advisory Committee
    Mr. Boydenasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to reduce the long delays now obtaining before the Board of Trade Advisory Committee gives a decision on grants or loans.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has recently taken to speed up procedures of the Board of Trade Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Erroll: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) on 18th June.
    Mr. Boyden: These delays have been notorious for a very long time. It is not good enough to say that the right hon. Gentleman will make a statement in reply to the Estimates Committee, or something like that, when this problem has been going on for years. My area is suffering from it. Will the right hon. Gentleman give his attention to the matter immediately and let us have a satisfactory answer?
    Mr. Erroll: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have on several occasions gone into the question of alleged delays by B.O.T.A.C., and in nearly every case the major part of the delay has been caused by delays on the part of the applicant to provide up-to-date trading accounts and other essential information. It is a great mistake to assume that all the fault lies with B.O.T.A.C.

    Cotton Yarn
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieuasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received this year about the dumping in this country of cotton yarn.
    Mr. Erroll: I have received complaints about the alleged dumping of exports from a number of countries, and discussions are currently taking place with the industry about imports from Portugal.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Did the right hon. Gentleman at the same time receive any complaints about the import of yarn from Spain? Is he aware that Spanish yarn is being sold here at 42s. per 1b. when the selling price in Spain is nearer 56s.?
    Mr. Erroll: No complaints have been brought to my personal notice, though they may have been raised with my Department.

    Cotton Goods
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieuasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations were made to him during his recent visit to Lancashire about imports into this country of cotton goods alleged to be manufactured inside the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Erroll: The Cotton Board asked that the regulations under which cotton textiles are admitted to Commonwealth Preference should be made more stringent. While I held out no hope that I could agree to this, I promised to examine any evidence that the difficulties of the cotton industry were attributable to any significant extent to the effects of the existing regulations.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Lancashire it is thought that a fair amount of the cotton imports coming from Hong Kong are, in fact, manufactured in China? Hong Kong is, I believe, a net importer.
    Mr. Erroll: I am very glad to have this opportunity of refuting that oft-repeated rumour. There is no evidence to show that that is taking place, and even if it were taking place it would not result in any increased imports from Hong Kong because it would be within the overall ceiling. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will help me in refuting what is a completely unfounded rumour.
    Mr. Hirst: But does not my right hon. Friend consider that the time is possibly overdue when the whole system of Commonwealth Preference should be reviewed?
    Mr. Erroll: That is a very much wider question, which I should be glad to discuss privately with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Jay: Apart from that larger question, is it necessary for this purpose to treat Southern Ireland as part of the Commonwealth when she is not part of the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Erroll: It is not necessary, but it is mutually advantageous for us to do
    184
    so. We obtain many benefits from including the Irish Republic within the Commonwealth preferential system, including the opportunity of exporting cotton textiles to the Irish Republic, which is of great help to the Lancashire cotton industry.

    Gray, Tees, Limited (Drydock)
    Commander Keransasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the application of Gray, Tees, Limited for financial assistance to complete its second dry-dock.
    Mr. Erroll: The company has now provided the information required by the Advisory Committee which will be considering the application as soon as possible.
    Commander Kerans: Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to speed up the final decision? This firm is doing its best in very adverse circumstances, and I still represent an area of very high unemployment.
    Mr. Erroll: I fully appreciate the difficulties in my hon. and gallant Friend's constituency. I can assure him that there will be no unnecessary delay.

    South Africa (Supply of Arms)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the fact that the Government of the Republic of South Africa is now openly stating details of its purchase of military aircraft from this country, he will in future disclose when licences are granted for this purpose.
    Mr. Erroll: It is not the practice to disclose details of export licences for the supply of defence equipment to other Governments.
    Mr. Brockway: But is not this nonsense when the Minister of Defence for South Africa announces in detail the helicopters and aircraft which have been purchased from this country? Are Members of this House to be denied the information provided there and are we to be given no opportunity of expressing the moral protest of this country against the supply or arms to this apartheid Government?
    Mr. Erroll: I see no reason for departing from the practice followed by a number of Governments since the war in refusing to disclose details simply because a particular purchaser may have chosen to indicate what he or his Government is buying from this country. The question about moral indignation should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.
    Mrs. Castle: If the right hon. Gentleman will not disclose details, will he announce a policy at least as good as that of the United States Government, which is refusing to allow the export of arms to South Africa which might be used to enforce apartheid, and a policy at least as good as that of the West German Government, which is refusing to allow the export of any offensive arms to South Africa?
    Mr. Erroll: I think that our policy on arms shipments to South Africa is a good one and is perfectly defensible. I am sure that on an appropriate occasion the Government would be very glad to defend it.
    Mr. Strachey: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government's policy is perfectly defensible, will not he give us the details of it so that we may judge whether it is or not?
    Mr. Erroll: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to my main Answer, that it is not the practice to disclose details of export licences for the supply of defence equipment to other Governments.

    Caithness and Sutherland
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many new light industries have been established in Caithness and Sutherland since 8th October, 1959; where they are located; and how many persons are employed in them.
    Mr. Erroll: Four new projects have been established in Caithness and one in Sutherland since 8th October, 1959. Together these employ over 100 people.
    Sir D. Robertson: I did not ask for projects. I asked for light industry. Can my right hon. Friend say how many light industries he or his Department has introduced?
    Mr. Erroll: If my hon. Friend gives me a definition of"light industry", I
    186
    will say whether the four new projects fall within it.
    Sir John MacLeod: How does this compare with other Highland counties? It is essential that we have a more balanced economy in the Highland region. We want more light industry throughout the region.
    Mr. Erroll: I should be glad to give what information I can to my hon. Friend if he would table a suitable Question.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is not my right hon. Friend's reply a confession of complete and utter failure? Is not he aware that these two counties have the highest rate of unemployment on the mainland of Great Britain and that his Department has been utterly useless in doing anything worth while? Will he take action now?
    Mr. Erroll: I think that it is an overstatement to say that the unemployment there is the highest in Britain, because in Caithness the unemployment rate at the June count was 3·6 per cent. However, I am not happy about the position of the Highlands. I should like to do more and I shall continue to do what I can.

    Resale Price Maintenance
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now state the policy of Her Majesty's Government on resale price maintenance.
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet able to announce the result of his inquiry into resale price maintenance.
    Mr. Erroll: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) on 21st February.
    Mr. Jay: The President of the Board of Trade has been giving us that Answer for months. Is there any hope of his ever making up his mind on this crucial issue?
    Mr. Erroll: This issue affects millions of consumers and hundreds of thousands of retailers and distributors. It is a complex and controversial matter, and I think it better that one should take some time in making up one's mind rather than do it too hastily.

    Lanarkshire
    Mrs. Hartasked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for a new industrial estate in Lanarkshire which will serve the needs of the southern and eastern area of Lanarkshire, in particular, within travelling distance of Forth.
    Mr. Erroll: I am not yet ready to add to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) on 10th May.
    Mrs. Hart: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that within ten days 150 miners will be displaced from their employment in the village of Forth? Is he further aware that, with all the perfectly correct concentration on the needs of north Lanarkshire there has been an abysmal neglect of the needs of the southern and eastern parts of the county?
    Mr. Erroll: I am aware of the special difficulties of the somewhat isolated community of the village of Forth, but I do not think that that alone should influence me in the decision about the site of the new industrial estate.
    Miss Herbison: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that he has done nothing at all not only about Forth and the area about which my hon. Friend has expressed concern but a very wide area in Lanarkshire? What does he propose to do in future to ensure that the whole of the area is rehabilitated by a new industrial site?
    Mr. Erroll: I must admit that I find it difficult to distinguish accurately between the constituency boundaries and the boundaries of the local employment exchange areas in this developed part of Scotland. I want to be careful not to mislead either the hon. Ladies the Members for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) and Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) or their constituents. I should therefore like to think over what both hon. Ladies have just said.

    Industrial Development Certificates, Scotland
    34. Mr. Willisasked the President of the Board of Trade for how many projects industrial development certificates have been granted in Scotland since the
    188
    beginning of the year; and how many jobs will be provided by these projects.
    Mr. Erroll: In the first five months of 1963 industrial development certificates were issued for 72 projects with an estimated additional employment of about 3,300.
    Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 30,000 redundancies have been reported at the labour exchanges in Scotland in the last 12 months? Is not what is indicated in his Answer a puny contribution to finding jobs? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this indicates that the Government have to be far more vigorous in tackling unemployment in Scotland than they are at present or have been in the past?
    Mr. Erroll: During the debate a few days ago I explained what the Government were doing. The number of projects this year is double the number for the corresponding period last year.

    Depopulation
    Mr. Willisasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to amend the Local Employment Act to include depopulation as a factor to be considered in the determination of areas for listing for assistance under its provisions.
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir.
    Mr. Willis: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong case for doing this, that there is considerable concern about it and that certain areas are not getting the benefits which they require in order to prevent the continuing depopulation? Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this?
    Mr. Erroll: During the passage of the Local Employment Bill through the House in 1959–60, my predecessor made it plain that our resources were limited and that they must be concentrated on the areas of highest unemployment where people are seeking work. Therefore, it could not be used for depopulation purposes.
    Mr. Manuel: Does not the Minister recognise that, because he does not include this as a principle under the Local Employment Act, what inevitably will happen is greater overcrowding in

    189
    the already industrialised areas throughout the country and further depopulation in the areas which he should try to bring to life instead of helping into decay?
    Mr. Erroll: Where these localities are development districts, we are doing all that is possible to bring new industry to them.

    Advance Factories, Scotland
    Mr. Lawsonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many advance factories are currently being built in Scotland; and what they represent in square footage and in the number of jobs likely to be provided in the event of occupation.
    Mr. Erroll: Seventeen advance factories are being provided in Scotland under the present programme. Seven of these are already under construction, and the construction of four others will begin shortly. These eleven factories will have an area of about 394,000 sq. ft. and should provide about 1,600 jobs. Six smaller factories representing 60,000 sq. ft. and about 250 jobs are in earlier stages of preparation.
    Mr. Lawson: In view of the heavy losses just mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) due to redundancies, does not the Minister think that this small figure is a drop in the bucket compared with the vast needs of Scotland? Will he not see that something much more than this is done so that we can begin to feel that we are overcoming our difficulties?
    Mr. Erroll: Advance factories are only part of the methods which are used, because new factories may be built for ownership or for rental and there may be extensions to existing firms already sited in Scotland. The important thing about the advance factory programme is that we should not build too much in advance of likely tenants, because a derelict unoccupied advance factory is no advertisement to come to a locality. Our building programme is, I think, just about correctly phased for the objective which we have in mind.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that even last year, about which he is boasting, taking all industrial building together we did not have a building programme which was comparable to the size of our population? Will not he ensure that something much better than this is done?
    Mr. Erroll: I should like the hon. Member to realise that I am not boasting about last year, this year or any year. I am simply mentioning what has been done and what is being done. The important thing about advance factories is to build more or less in accordance with the likelihood of obtaining tenants so they are occupied by the time they are built. I should have thought that this was a sensible policy to pursue.

    Scotland
    Mr. Smallasked the President of the Board of Trade how many firm commitments have now been made by industrialists wishing to develop in Scotland, following the recent Budget proposals.
    Mr. Erroll: Since the Budget the Board of Trade has received 101 applications for assistance under Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Local Employment Act and 49 provisional applications for the new 10 per cent. grant on plant and machinery in respect of projects in Scotland. I cannot say how many of these are firm commitments by the industrialists concerned.
    Mr. Small: Will the President of the Board of Trade indicate what percentage of the applications are from Scottish-based industrialists?
    Mr. Erroll: I should be glad to send the hon. Member that information if he wishes.
    Mr. Baxter: How long does it take the right hon. Gentleman to make up his mind whether to agree to an industrialist starting a business or a factory in a development area?
    Mr. Erroll: That depends on a number of factors, including the viability of the project, as I am anxious to ensure that no project on the move to Scotland turns out to be one which is likely to be a flop.
    Mr. Smallasked the President of the Board of Trade how many development districts in Scotland have received no new employment since their scheduling.
    Mr. Erroll: Industrial development certificates have been issued for projects in all but one of the Scottish development districts since they were added to the list.
    Mr. Small: Has the President of the Board of Trade any proposals to assist that particular development district by Government assistance or Government advance factories?
    Mr. Erroll: I will look into that point.

    Blackburn
    Mrs. Castleasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from Lord Poole on the need to extend to Blackburn the type of financial aid received by development areas; and what reply he has sent to him.
    Mr. Erroll: None, Sir.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that a few days ago Lord Poole promised Alderman Mottershead of Blackburn that he would raise with the right hon. Gentleman the problems of areas like Blackburn which cannot get financial aid to clear away derelict mills and to provide sites for new industries? Am I to take it from that reply that Lord Poole has not fulfilled his promise?
    Mr. Erroll: I am not answerable for what Lord Poole may or may not do. What I have been asked is whether I have received representations from him. I have answered to the effect that I have not received representations. I expect that they are on their way.

  MINISTER OF SECURITY
  Commander Keransasked the Prime Minister whether, in the light of the Profumo affair, he will now give consideration to the appointment of a Minister of Security.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I think we must first await
  192
  Lord Denning's report on the security aspects of his inquiry.
  Commander Kerans: Will not my right hon. Friend look into this matter again? Surely it is a fact that certain of the Departments work in watertight compartments. It is this lack of liaison which brings these troubles upon us. Surely the appointment of a Minister would take some of the weight off my right hon. Friend.
  The Prime Minister: That is a question to be considered, but it is important that Ministers should not feel absolved from responsibility for security within their Departments.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Even before the latest events came up, does not the Prime Minister remember that, in the debate on the Radcliffe Report on Vassall, we from this side pressed for a Minister to be appointed to deal with these matters? In view of the right hon. Gentleman's appalling admissions that nobody told him anything, which suggests to some people that those under him thought that he probably did not want to be told, and in view of the fact that even since the Denning inquiry was set up the Lord Privy Seal has been forced by American newspaper revelations to make yet another statement, will the Prime Minister now tell us whether, assuming that he has enough judges left to go round, he intends to appoint an inquiry into the Philby affair?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman must learn to distinguish between invective and insolence.
  Mr. Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman failed to answer the questions put to him, either in the Radcliffe debate or in the debate a fortnight ago, will he now answer my question, because it may have escaped his notice that he is the Minister responsible for security?
  The Prime Minister: The questions which the right hon. Gentleman has put to me were complicated and offensive. I would only say to him that if we are reaching a situation when every success of the security services is greeted as a failure, we will have a vested interest in not discovering traitors.
  Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman must not be so petulant. He has no right to laugh this off. Is he aware that he was the Minister who cleared Philby and that for eight years since then he has been free—[HON. MEMBERS:"It was the party opposite."] In view of the interruptions, is the Prime Minister aware that Philby was appointed by the Earl of Avon and sacked by Lord Morrison? Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us, since he cleared him eight years ago, what freedom Philby has had at the Arabic Centre at Shemlan, which the Prime Minister knows all about, and how far in these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman, if he is not prepared to take account of these factors, will do as his hon. and gallant Friend asked and appoint a Minister of Security?
  The Prime Minister: The operations of this man were, of course, during the years 1946 to 1951. He was then got rid of. What I said in the debate in 1955 was on information that was available. What has now happened is not a failure of the security service. It is a success.
  Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister assure us that while Mr. Philby has been in the Middle East he has not been in a position to acquire confidential knowledge? Can he also tell us whether he proposes to follow the suggestion which he made for permanent machinery to supervise these breaches of security?
  The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of that question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, this was machinery which I had in mind and am following up with regard to having permanent machinery to deal with any problems which come up as a result of discoveries. I say very sincerely to the House that, in dealing with these matters, I hope the House will realise their complexity and the danger of putting some questions and the still greater danger of answering some of these questions.

  MINISTER FOR TOURISM
  Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the growing importance of the holiday industry and the need to cater for its special requirements, he will appoint a Minister for Tourism.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Barnett: Will the Prime Minister look at the matter again? I do not know whether he is aware of the considerable dissatisfaction of the tourist industry with the treatment that it has received from the Government. May I draw his attention to the fact that there has been only one debate on this industry in the whole of this Parliament and that the industry received no consideration in his right hon. Friend's Budget statement?
  The Prime Minister: I am sorry that there has been only one debate, but the tourist industry is doing pretty well. The estimated expenditure of overseas visitors is about £220 million a year, so it is a very good invisible export. The Board of Trade exercises a co-ordinating function. I myself have taken considerable interest in some of the efforts to co-ordinate this work. I think that the British Travel and Holidays Association, which is the instrument for this purpose, has done a very fine job. We are making progress all the time.
  Mr. Barnett: Will the Prime Minister compare the kind of treatment given by the French and Irish Governments to their tourist industries and that given to our tourist, industry?
  The Prime Minister: I should, of course, be glad to do so if the hon. Gentleman will help me by giving me some information. All I say is that every single year in the last five years we have increased the profits made from this industry.

  CONTINENTAL TIME AND MEASUREMENTS
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that Parliament will be consulted before nationalised boards or Government Departments adopt Continental timing or temperature measurement.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. People are becoming increasingly familiar with the 24 hour time system and the centigrade scale, and I am sure that whenever there is any question of extending their use the authorities concerned have full regard to the convenience of the public.
  Dame Irene Ward: Without wanting to prejudge the issue, does my right hon. Friend think it wise for the British Railways Board to support experiments on the North-East Coast and in the South-West without Parliament being made aware of them and without any discussion on the subject? Is he aware how difficult it is for people, particularly old people and children, to turn up at a railway station and find the trains announced by Continental timing when probably they have not even been abroad and do not know anything about it? Is it not a matter for Parliament?
  The Prime Minister: I understand the difficulty. I believe that the train we used to call the 3 o'clock is now called the 15 o'clock. I would have thought that after ninety years of free and compulsory education and after two wars there were a lot of people who would understand this.

  SECURITY
  Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken to ensure that he is personally informed of all action taken on security grounds by senior officials.
  The Prime Minister: It would be quite impracticable for me to be informed of all action of this kind.
  Mr. Hamilton: Is the Prime Minister aware that I am not asking for all information? I am asking for decisions taken by senior officials. Is he perfectly satisfied now after his experience with Sir Norman Brook, as he then was, that no decision of major importance is being taken in the security field without his full knowledge?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that the situation is quite understood. Everybody who has had experience of Government knows the difficulty of issuing these general instructions, but I am absolutely sure that everybody quite understands his duty and does his best to carry it out. These are very distinguished officials who have served their country very well for many years, and I should like to say how much I think the whole country owes them.
  Mr. G. Brown: If I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is quite impracticable for him to be informed of these decisions, how does he defend his answer to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans) on Question Q1 that there should not be a Minister appointed for this special purpose?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has some experience of this. All the time we are being asked to have a Minister for this and a Minister for that. As to the way the Government work, under whatever Administration, if one is to single out particular items which are common to the whole Government and try to have a special Minister for each, while it may sometimes be justified, broadly it is contrary to the traditional way in which our Governments work.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: There will be trouble it we get none of the Prime Minister's Questions done.

  SECURITY (MR. PROFUMO)
  Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of all those questioned in the course of the Lord Chancellor's inquiry into the security aspects of the Profumo affair.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Hamilton: I can see the point about the invidious character of giving in an answer the names of people who are questioned, but can the Prime Minister tell the House how many in total were asked questions by Lord Dilhorne? Can he further tell us why he and the whole of the Cabinet, presumably, were completely satisfied with roughly a fortnight's investigation of the security aspects of the affair when it has taken them twelve years to find out about Mr. Philby?
  The Prime Minister: The Report made by the Lord Chancellor was confidential. I showed a copy of it to the Leader of the Opposition, which seemed to me the proper procedure. The position now is that Lord Denning is conducting a judicial inquiry.

  NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMME (REPORT)
  Mr. Ginsburgasked the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to expedite the Report of the Powell Committee on the nuclear energy programme.
  The Prime Minister: The Government are now studying the programme for nuclear power for the years after 1968 and will make a statement as soon as possible.
  Mr. Ginsburg: Has there not already been excessive delay with the Powell Report, and has there not been fantastic indecision on the part of the Government about the nuclear energy programme and the whole co-ordination of fuel and power policy? Would not the Prime Minister agree that the nuclear power programme as at present planned will cost the country £350 million more than a conventional fuel and power programme?
  The Prime Minister: I know the rather reactionary views held by the hon. Gentleman, but I think that in this modern world we have to try to move into new forms of effort, although it may be expensive. I quite realise that the hon. Gentleman clings to the Victorian system.
  Mr. H. Wilson: If the Prime Minister will be serious for a moment, has he read the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee on this question in the last two or three years? If so, is he aware that there is quite genuineconcern—this is not a party matter at all; the Committee of Public Accounts is not a party committee—in all parts of this House about some of the financial aspects of the electricity generating programme? Is he further aware that there has been a great deal of comment and anxiety about some of the recent orders and some of the costs of these things? Would he study the matter again with a view to having a statement on this question made to the House either by himself or by another Minister?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; but because of the non-party character of these matters and because of the very broad problems involved, I do not think that I was wrong in answering a ques-
  198
  tion by saying that we would take a little more time to study the matter before taking our decision.

  PRESIDENT KENNEDY (MEETING)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent meeting with President Kennedy.
  Mr. A. Lewisasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent official discussions with the President of the United States; and to what extent matters connected with security were raised during these talks.
  Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the result of his talks with President Kennedy.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. and learned and hon. Gentlemen to the joint communiqué issued after my talks with President Kennedy. I will arrange for this to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Henderson: Can we take it from the terms of the communiqué that in the event of a successful outcome of the talks in Moscow leading to an agreement for the banning of nuclear tests, President Kennedy and the Prime Minister are in agreement that that will be followed by a meeting with Mr. Khrushchev to deal with outstanding problems?
  The Prime Minister: I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman's keen interest in these matters, and he knows mine. While we must not be too optimistic, we must struggle hard to get the result we want. Should we get it, great opportunities will, of course, open up—for all of us.
  Mr. A. Lewis: I have seen the communiqué but there is no reference in it to any question of security. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not he mentioned to the President recent security cases in this country, with particular reference to the Philby case? Is it because of that case, and the stories circulating in the American Press, that the Lord Privy Seal made his statement yesterday? Or did the Prime Minister not think it worth while having discussions on this matter?
  The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to reveal the character of the discussions I had with the President. The hon. Gentleman has shown his usual suspicion and lack of generosity in his approach to every problem.
  Mr. Rankin: Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday the Daily Mirror said that he stood firm against Mr. Kennedy on the question of the mixed-manned force? Was that statement true or not?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is out of Order.
  The following is the Joint Communiqué:
  Birch Grove House,
  Sunday, 30th June, 1963.
  During the past two days President Kennedy and Prime Minister Macmillan have held their seventh meeting to discuss current problems. Their talks have taken place at Prime Minister Macmillan's home in Sussex and followed on President Kennedy's visit to Germany and Eire.
  The United States Secretary of State, Mr. Rusk, Lord Home, British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Duncan Sandys, Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Hailsham, Lord President of the Council, Mr. Thorneycroft, Minister of Defence, and Mr. Heath, Lord Privy Seal, took part in the talks at various times.
  During some twelve hours of discussion the President and the Prime Minister began by hearing reports from Lord Home and Mr. Rusk about conversations which the two Ministers had held in London during the previous two days. The topics covered included Laos and the Far Eastern situation, the position in the Middle East, the problems of N.A.T.O. and the Western alliance and the effort for a test ban treaty. President Kennedy and the Prime Minister took note in particular of the situation in Laos and expressed their concern at the frequent breaches of the Geneva Agreement of 1962 and at the failure of certain parties to the Agreement to carry out their obligations under it They agreed to continue to work closely together for the preservation of peace in Laos and the independence and neutrality of that country. They also agreed to continue close general co-operation in the Far East, particularly in regard to the problems of Viet Nam. As regards the Middle East, the President and the Prime Minister agreed on the importance of the efforts made by the United Nations in working towards conciliation in the Yemen and pledged their support to the Secretary-General.
  The President and the Prime Minister were agreed on their policy of continuing to help India by providing further military aid to strengthen her defences against the threat of renewed Chinese-Communist attack. They
  200
  were impressed by the importance to the economic progress and defence of both India and Pakistan of whose anxieties they were fully aware, of an honourable and equitable settlement of the outstanding differences between the two countries; they stood ready to help in any way which might be desired by both countries.
  President Kennedy and the Prime Minister then reviewed the problems of the Western Alliance especially in regard to N.A.T.O. They noted with satisfaction the decisions reached at the recent N.A.T.O. meeting in Ottawa which implemented the concept which they had themselves set out at their meeting at Nassau in December, 1962, by which a number of powers assigned some or all of their present and future forces to N.A.T.O. Command. With regard to the future they took note of the studies now under way in N.A.T.O. for review of the strategic and tactical concepts which should underlie N.A.T.O.'s military plans.
  The President reported on his discussions with Dr. Adenauer in which they reaffirmed their agreement to use their best efforts to bring into being a multilateral sea-borne M.R.B.M. force and to pursue with other interested governments the principal questions involved in the establishment of such a force.
  The President and the Prime Minister agreed that a basic problem facing the N.A.T.O. Alliance was the closer association of its members with the nuclear deterrent of the Alliance. They also agreed that various possible ways of meeting this problem should be further discussed with their allies. Such discussions would include the proposals for a multilateral sea-borne force, without prejudice to the question of British participation in such a force.
  The President and the Prime Minister also reviewed the state of East-West relations and considered in particular the possibility of concluding in the near future a treaty to ban nuclear tests. They agreed that the achievement of such a treaty would be a major advance in East-West relations and might lead on to progress in other directions. They agreed the general line which their representatives, Mr. Averell Harriman and Lord Hailsham should take during their visit to Moscow in July. The President and the Prime Minister reaffirmed their belief that the conclusion of a test ban treaty at this time is most urgent and pledge themselves to do all they could to bring this about.
  Birch Grove,
  Sussex.
  30th June, 1963.

  KENYA (INDEPENDENCE)
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
  54. Mr. WALL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement on the independence of Kenya and on the future East Africa Federation.
  The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Question No. 54.
  After the elections last May Kenya was given full internal self-government as a prelude to early independence. I have recently had consultations with Kenya Ministers about the further steps to be taken for the transfer of the remaining powers and I am publishing today as a White Paper a joint statement setting out our agreed conclusions.
  In the last few weeks there has been an important new development, which has affected the constitutional arrangements to be made, and which has to be taken into account in the timing of Kenya's independence. I refer to the decision of the Governments of Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya to form an East African Federation, which, as I said in the House last week, is warmly welcomed by Her Majesty's; Government.
  The three East African Governments have already made substantial progress in working out the constitution for the proposed Federation, and it is their aim to bring it into being before the end of the year, in time to enable the new Federal State to be admitted to the United Nations in the forthcoming session. In order that Kenya's final decision to join this new association may be taken with the full authority and responsibility of a sovereign nation, it will be necessary for her to obtain independence shortly before the inauguration of the Federation.
  In the light of these considerations, I propose to convene a conference in London towards the end of September to settle the final form of Kenya's constitution. Representatives of the Government and Opposition parties in the Legislature and of the European community will be invited to attend.
  To enable the necessary forward planning to be undertaken, not only by the Kenya Government, but also by the Governments of the other East African countries concerned, Her Majesty's Government have informed the Government of Kenya that, subject to the necessary steps being completed in
  202
  time, Kenya will be granted independence on 12th December.
  Mr. Wall: While welcoming the proposed creation of the new Federation, may I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that the safeguards given to the minority races and tribes under the present regional structure of the Kenya Constitution will be continued under the Federal Constitution? Does Kenya intend to go straight into a republican form of Government on independence? If so, what happens to Uganda?
  Mr. Sandys: These are, of course, matters which will be the subject of discussion at the conference. My hon. Friend refers to the safeguards for minority tribes. The purpose of the conference will be to make those changes which are necessary in order to transfer the remaining powers, and to make whatever adaptations are required to enable Kenya to enter the new Federation. I have already made a statement to the effect that we are not contemplating basic changes in the Kenya Constitution which would upset the arrangements arrived at with so much difficulty between the parties.
  Mr. Bottomley: We would all wish to be associated with this very satisfactory statement, and I am sure that we all express the hope that the East African Federation will also succeed. In view of the difficulties in the Northern Province of Kenya, is there any possibility of extending the Federation?
  Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it was necessary to have a Cabinet meeting before a decision could be reached whether to make a statement last week or today?
  Mr. Sandys: I would have thought that a decision to grant independence to Kenya was a matter meriting the attention of the Cabinet.
  Mr. G. Brown: One cannot grant independence. One achieves it.
  Mr. Sandys: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to speak when I am on my feet.
  The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley), referring to the Northern Province, spoke of the possibility of an extension of the Federation. As I explained last week in

  203
  the House, the three Governments concerned—Uganda, Tanganyika and Kenya—decided, I believe rightly, to base the new Federation in the first place on those countries which are already working together through the East African Common Services Organisation, with the possible addition of Zanzibar, which they do not think would make for serious complications. But that does not mean to say that, at a later date, when the Federation is firmly established, they will not consider a further widening of the area of the Federation.
  On the Somali question, I remind the House that talks have already been held between the Government of Kenya and the Government of the Somali Republic, and I think that further talks are envisaged.
  Mr. Brockway: Whilst welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may I ask him to tell us whether the intention is to make the independence of Kenya simultaneous with the formation of a republic so as to avoid the frustration of the delay of one year which has been usual? Can he tell us at what date the East African Federation is likely to be inaugurated? Will it be in December, within a short time of the declaration of independence?
  Mr. Sandys: I thought that I had made it clear in my statement that the intention of the three Governments is to bring the Federation into being in time to enable its application for membership of the United Nations to be accepted during the next session. I think that that must be in by the third week in December, so there will only be a very short interval, possibly of about a week, between Kenya's independence date and the formation of the new Federation.
  The question of republican status is a matter to be discussed at the September conference. However, I would have thought that there is every intention that the new Federation will be republican.
  Mr. Lubbock: If some time is likely to elapse between the formation of the Federation and the decision to include other countries, what position will the small minorities in Kenya have? Will they have self-determination? Will that be discussed at the conference?
  Mr. Sandys: That is a matter which is being discussed at the moment—I think that it is a very healthy sign—between the Kenya Government and the Somali Government.

  BURMAH OIL COMPANY
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
  74. Mr. GRIMOND: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has about the proposal made to the Burmah Oil Company by British Petroleum; and if he will make a statement.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudling): With permission. I will now answer Question No. 74.
  I understand that on 27th June the British Petroleum Company and the Shell Petroleum Company made proposals to the Burmah Oil Company for the capital reconstruction of the Burmah Oil Company, and the acquisition by British Petroleum and Shell Petroleum of the whole of its share capital as reconstructed.
  As this involved the issue of new shares in British Petroleum and thus affected the capital structure of British Petroleum, Her Majesty's Government were consulted beforehand by the company and saw no reason to object.
  The Government's right to appoint ex-officio directors to it is unaffected by the changes proposed.
  Mr. Grimond: I ought to say that I have an interest in a few shares in Shell and Burmah—[Laughter.]—so it will be seen that whatever happens I stand to win.
  I wish to ask two questions. Can the Chancellor clear up rather further the position of the Government directors on the board of B.P.? Did they take part in this decision? They cannot claim to be entirely sleeping directors in a matter of this importance.
  Secondly, is he aware that Burmah is one of the most important Scottish companies and that if it is broken up that will be a further step in the centralisation of economic power in London, which is said to be against Government policy, and that in this case the

  205
  Government have had means at their disposal for stopping this break-up or take-over? Will they use those means?
  Mr. Maudling: Government directors on the board of B.P. have a power of veto, but it is established practice over many years that the Government as such do not intervene in the commercial operations of the company. Because this matter went beyond normal commercial operations, the Government were consulted, and we said as a Government that we had no reason for objecting to what was proposed.
  On the latter question, I see the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, but the operations of the Burmah Oil Company are predominantly outside the United Kingdom, so the problem does not really arise.
  Mr. Callaghan: On the question of control, has the Chancellor looked at Section 184 of the Companies Act, which, of course, takes precedence over the articles of association, and which says that a company has power to remove a director by resolution? Can he tell us whether he is satisfied that even in the light of that Section of the Act there will be no difficulties about practising control if the deal goes through?
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government saw no reason to raise objections, but were there any discussions about the desirability of this change? If so, can he tell us why it was thought that this was a desirable move, especially in view of the pledge given by the President of the Board of Trade, eighteen months ago, that the Government were reviewing their policy towards operations of this size to see whether mergers of this nature, involving capital of this description, should be allowed to continue? As we have not heard a word from the President of the Board of Trade since about that review, can the Chancellor tell us whether in discussions with B.P. and Shell he raised the question of the principles which should guide amalgamations or mergers of this sort?
  Finally, can I take it—I suppose that this is clear, but it would be a good thing to have it on the record as there were rumours of an American bid for the Burmah Oil Company—that if this company passed under the control of
  206
  B.P., or even if it did not, in no circumstances would the Government allow an American or any other foreign oil company to take over an interest which was so vital to Britain?
  Mr. Maudling: I should like to look at that Section of the Companies Act, but I am advised that the Government's right to appoint directors to the board and their power of veto cannot be amended except by an amendment of the articles of association. As the Government will still retain 48 per cent. of the total voting power if the deal goes through, the second point is academic.
  The question of mergers has arisen when mergers have been for the purpose of reducing competition in the home market, but this deal, if it goes through, will not affect the home market at all. As I said, the operations of the Burmah Oil Company are predominantly overseas.
  The hon. Gentleman's third point, about a possible U.S. bid, is hypothetical.
  Sir C. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the economic gains from this merger outweigh the danger of further monopoly? Secondly, is he aware that there were serious misgivings in the Stock Exchange about a leak of this information before it was announced, which caused a rise in the price of shares to the disadvantage of shareholders who did not know?
  Mr. Maudling: The question of monopoly does not arise in this case. The second matter is one for the Stock Exchange Council.
  Mr. Callaghan: May I press the Chancellor on whether he had discussions with B.P. and Shell about the desirability of the merger in view of the size of the operation, because the capital involved in this operation is larger than that involved in the I.C.I.-Courtaulds take-over which involved such political controversy at the time? It is, therefore, right to know whether the Government are concerned with any principles in a matter of this sort.
  Surely, on my third question, it is not hypothetical for the right hon. Gentleman to say that we would not permit a foreign oil company to take over a British interest of this sort.
  Mr. Maudling: That was certainly a hypothetical question. If it were a question of taking over B.P., in which the Government have a majority shareholding, the situation would be very unusual.
  The position is that the Government do not, in practice, interfere at any time with the commercial operations of B.P. It was put to us as it involved a change in the structure of the company. We saw no objection and I cannot see any objection on grounds of public policy to B.P. going ahead and exercising its own commercial judgment in the matter.

  HON. MEMBER FOR BRIXTON (PERSONAL STATEMENT)
  Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. Mr.Speaker, I seek your guidance in the following matter. On 10th November, 1955, I made a personal statement in the House withdrawing charges I had made that Philby was the"third man" who had warned Burgess and Maclean.
  I made this statement having regard, in particular, as I said at the time, to the speech three days previously of the then Foreign Secretary, the present Prime Minister, in which he said:
  "I have no reason to conclude that Mr. Philby has at any time betrayed the interests of this country, or to identify him with the so-called 'third man', if, indeed, there was one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1955;Vol. 545, c. 1497.]
  Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order which arises now? Can that be made plain to me?
  Mr. Lipton: Subsequent events have shown that I should not have made that personal statement, but I had to assume at the time that the then Foreign Secretary had wider access to more information than was available to me. What I now hope may be possible is that the formal decision of the House will enable me to withdraw that personal statement so that the record may be put straight.
  Finally, I ask you and the House to believe that in connection with this matter I have been animated by no desire other than to serve loyally and to the best of my ability the interests of my country and the people I have had the honour to represent for many years.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's observations about his motives will no
  208
  doubt appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT of today's proceedings. He must take procedural advice about securing some pronouncement on the other matter. I cannot do anything about it myself, much as I would like to help the hon. Member.
  Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This case, like the recent one, has no place in the precedents of the House. This is a completely unique situation and my hon. Friend, therefore, has no recourse but to come to you and the House and seek guidance about the steps which should be followed.
  May I make one point plain? Not wishing to lack in generosity, we gave the Prime Minister notice that we intended to raise this matter today and, not wishing to lack in respect, we gave you notice, Sir. The Prime Minister's honour is not involved, but his competence is. My hon. Friend and I accepted statements made by the Prime Minister, doubtless made in good faith, but a Select Committee was refused and a judicial inquiry was refused and every point of fact was ignored and as a result—
  Mr. Speaker: It is perfectly true that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), with his usual courtesy, told me that he wanted to raise something of this kind. That does not entitle him to make a speech about it now. I would be obliged if he would make his point to me.
  Mr. Wigg: I am coming to the point of order. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."] I do not know why hon. Members opposite resent this. This, like the previous case, concerns the security of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has been traduced. He has been—
  Mr. Speaker: There must be a point of order which arises now and which entitles the hon. Member to address me. I am not causing him to resume his seat with violence, or rapidly, but I must follow the rules of the House and know what is the point of order on which he has risen.
  Mr. Wigg: The point of order is this, [Interruption.] I can understand and sympathise with the anxiety of hon. Members opposite. I do not want to use too strong words, although I could use

  209
  the word"blackmail", but my hon. Friend was coerced into withdrawing a statement because of the action of the Government. The point is that either the Prime Minister had full knowledge, in which case he was a rogue, or he did not have full knowledge, in which case he was a fool. The House must decide what to do about it in relation to the honour of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Speaker: I want to know what the point of order is. With due respect, the whole thing is an abuse of our procedure unless there is a point of order.
  Mr. Wigg: The point of order—[An HON. MEMBER:"Bogus."] I wish that the hon. Member who made that statement would get up and say why it is bogus.
  My point of order is this, that my hon. Friend was coerced into making a personal statement withdrawing something which is known to be true. The Prime Minister, who was given notice, is not here, and he was the man who made the statement. In those circumstances, surely a method has to be found. I would have thought that we could leave it to the generosity of the Government to put a Motion on the Order Paper so that my hon. Friend would be able to withdraw his personal statement.
  Mr. Speaker: I can help the hon. Member. If he feels in need of assistance about the procedure and practice of the House I would humbly offer my services to him in private, and, indeed, the officers of the House would be anxious to assist, but more than that on any point of order I cannot say. There is not one.
  Mr. H. Wilson: On this point of order—[HON. MEMBERS:"There is not one."] This is between us and you, Mr. Speaker. On the point of order—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I would be obliged if the House would keep quiet. I am being addressed and I desire to hear what is being said to me.
  Mr. H. Wilson: On the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), could you confirm what I, and, I think, some of us thought we heard you say earlier on this difficult matter of how the personal statement which my hon. Friend
  210
  was very much pressed and coerced into making could be withdrawn from the record or corrected? Did we understand you to say much earlier that you would take this matter under advisement, consider how this could be done, if it could be done at all, and report to the House? If that is what we understood you to say, it could end this business and we could get on with the foreign affairs debate.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I said that. I shall look at what I said. If I said that, I did not mean to say anything of the kind. The position is that as to the methods of recording the facts now revealed, and so on, and what happened in November, 1955, there are no doubt procedures available, but they do not arise now.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member in question, if they wish to do so, to come and consult us privately when we shall give all the advice we can about the available methods, but I can give no further help now.
  Mr. Bellenger: What I should like to put to you, Mr. Speaker, is that this is the second occasion on which on the word of Ministers private Members have been forced to retract, apologise, or withdraw statements they have made in the House. Would you allow me to ask the Leader of the House whether he can do something to ascertain what we could not ascertain before?
  Mr. Speaker: Questions of this kind do not arise today. We concentrate a good deal on business matters on Thursday. If we had to argue business questions every day we should never get on at all.
  Mr. G. Brown: I am a bit puzzled by what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, that if we wish to consult you privately you will give us some help. My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) is in the unenviable position that he was pushed into withdrawing something which has turned out to be accurate. On what ground do you deny us in public the advice which he asks of you in public which you say you are willing to give in private?
  Mr. Speaker: This is much too clever for me. I am not here to give guidance in public. That is not my duty. My

  211
  duty is to rule on points of order when they arise.
  I respectfully, and as courteously as I could, offered assistance in thinking out procedures whereby the hon. Gentleman might attain his end, but I have no right to detain the House by suggesting them now, and in any event would wish to think out the matter with those who can help me. There is no other mystery about it. The point is that it does not arise as a point of order at this moment, and we have much to do.

  THE YEMEN (BRITISH SERVICE PERSONNEL)
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House I should like to make a short statement on the British Service men detained in the Yemen.
  Our latest reports are that the 16 men are well housed and in good health. The United States Embassy at Taiz is in contact with them.
  The negotiations for the release of the prisoners are being carried on through the good offices of the United States Embassy at Taiz. These negotiations are in a delicate stage and I should prefer not to go into details about them at this particular moment. I should, however, like to pay tribute to the members of the United States Foreign Service, both at Taiz and at Aden, who have been tireless in working for the release of the prisoners.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is increasing impatience in the country and in the House that these men should be released? As the whole thing arises out of an error that we made, and which we know has been admitted was a mistake which we regret, may I ask whether it has been conveyed to the Yemeni Government that this was a mistake which we regret and that we will, naturally, take steps—which there is no doubt have already been taken—to ensure that it will not happen again? On the basis of this, could not they forthwith release these men?
  Mr. Heath: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that everything is being done with the greatest possible expedition in
  212
  these circumstances to achieve the release of these men as soon as possible. It has, of course, been stated that this was a mistake. It occurred through an error, but I would prefer not to go into the details of the negotiations at this moment, for the reasons which I have already stated.
  Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any charges are being made by the Yemeni Government against our people?
  Mr. Heath: Not to my knowledge.
  Mr. W. Yates: Will my right hon. Friend say, first, whether there is any foundation for suggestions that these men are to be put on charges of espionage? Secondly, will he tell the House whether, in accordance with normal practice, Her Majesty's Government have referred to the United States Government and expressed a regret that these men crossed the border through an error, so that the matter should be settled and they should be released?
  Mr. Heath: I have no knowledge that there is any suggestion that these men may be placed on charges.
  As regards communication between ourselves, the United States and the Republican Government of the Yemen as far as the negotiations are concerned, I prefer not to go into details.
  Mr. Snow: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in addition to the request for services to the United States Government, any approach of any kind has been made to the Egyptian Government?
  Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. We have approached the Egyptian Government in Cairo and we were assured that they would use their good offices.

  COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
  Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) raised with me the question of a letter dated 22nd June, addressed"To all Members of Parliament" upon letter paper headed,"Textile Action Group". The hon. Member read it, and I do not propose to read it again. I observed that when the hon. Member referred

  213
  to this as"highly offensive" his observation appeared to be widely acceptable to hon. Members.
  The problem for me is the narrow one, namely, does the hon. Member's complaint raise prima facie a breach of the privileges of this House? To quote the Report of the Committee of Privileges of 18th October, 1946, in the case of Mrs. Tennant's posters:
  "The borderline between legitimate political activity and illegitimate pressure upon Members of the House of Commons must sometimes be difficult to determine. The circumstances of the time, the form and place of publication, and the interpretation to be put on the words used, as well as the intention of the author, inter alia, are relative factors in cases such as the present, and opinion may reasonably differ as to the importance to be attributed to each of these factors."
  I have carefully considered the hon. Member's complaint in the light of the precedents. My predecessors have similarly had their attention drawn to such circulars and have deprecated them as thoroughly reprehensible. The House may remember an instance on 4th November, 1953, on which Mr. Speaker Morrison pronounced, in column 150 of HANSARD; on 18th December, 1946, on which Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown pronounced, at column 1968; and an even earlier instance in the Session of 1877 which Speaker Brand dealt with in almost identical terms.
  My conclusion is that while the language used in this circular is reprehensible and calculated, in the minds of most hon. Members, to produce an effect opposite to that which its authors intend, yet I could not consistently with recent
  214
  precedents rule that it raises prima facie a breach of Privilege.
  If the hon. Member desires to pursue the matter further, he is still entitled to table a Motion for consideration by the House, which is the final judge on matters of Privilege, but I ought to tell the House that I have this morning received a letter in manuscript in the following terms:
  "Dear Mr. Speaker,
  The Textile Action Group understand that a letter sent by us to all hon. Members of Parliament has caused great offence. We are deeply sorry for this and extend our sincere apologies to you, Mr. Speaker, and all Members of this House."
  It is signed by the person who appears to have signed the original letter.
  All that my reply upon the prima facie position means is that I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman's complaint precedence over the Orders of the Day.
  Mr. Wilkins: Mr. Speaker, may I thank you for the care and consideration you have given to the matter which I raised with you yesterday? I would only add that I hope that, in view of the apology which has been tendered to you, the House will accept, as I do, the opinion and advice that you have offered.
  Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
4.2 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): It may come as something of a surprise to the House when it recalls that the only other general debate on foreign affairs this Session was the debate on the Address. It is, therefore, apparent that the conduct of foreign affairs and the foreign relations of this country by Her Majesty's Government, and, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, has not been open to frequent challenge in this Session.
On that last occasion we were able to review the crisis in Cuba. The other major item in international affairs this Session, the break-up of the Brussels negotiations, was debated separately. Since then we have been passing through a comparatively quiet period, a period of inactivity by the Soviet bloc after Cuba and a period of inactivity in Europe after the break-up of the Brussels negotiations.
As this may be the last debate on foreign affairs in this Session, perhaps it provides a suitable opportunity for us to look at some aspects of British foreign policy as a whole, how it operates in the modern world, and what its purpose is. As a small country, with a comparatively small population and limited resources, British foreign policy has always depended on the skill with which we developed relations with foreign countries. In the past some countries could ignore that. We never could. There may be countries today which think still that they can ignore it, but I believe that it is impossible for even the greatest to do so, because circumstances have changed.
The background against which we are working is that in which war, as a result of the nuclear developments, is ruled out as a rational instrument of policy, in which there has been a great growth of independent countries in the last few years, in which we have passed through a technological revolution, and in which we have encountered the hostility of the Communist countries of the world. These factors put an even greater premium on diplomacy, on negotiation, and on trade and technical
216
assistance as a handmaiden of foreign policy.
At the same time, other factors place an emphasis on collective action. This is particularly seen when we look at the three objectives of maintaining our security, of increasing our prosperity, and of helping the developing countries to maintain their independence and improve their standard of living. In all these fields the mid-twentieth century demands a fresh form of international co-operation, the emphasis being on the collective approach.
It is against this background that British foreign policy, I would suggest to the House, might be considered during this two-day debate. The House must judge not only how we have protected British interests in those areas where we still retain pre-eminently individual responsibilities, such as in the Middle East, but also how we have furthered our interest through initiatives towards joint action in those collective organisations of which we are members.
I turn for the first example of this to the Western Alliance. I much regret that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is not at present in his place, because I wish to comment on something which he had to say in the country over the weekend. In N.A.T.O. today the central problem is that of reconciling the uneven ownership of nuclear weapons with the necessity for Europe to assume a greater share in the responsibility for the defence of the Alliance as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman commented that the Western Alliance—that N.A.T.O.—was in a state of drift and that Her Majesty's Government should take an initiative instead of abdicating their position in the alliance and in world affairs in general.
I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that he is mistaken in conceiving the alliance as being in a condition of drift. What it is doing is attempting to deal with what has now become a major problem in the alliance—the question of nuclear control—and, as I have said, the relationship between the ownership of nuclear weapons and the share of countries in the alliance. The control of step politically in this matter at Athens the nuclear armoury is as much a political as a military problem. We took the first

217
last year, when we took steps to improve the flow of nuclear information among the allies. That was a British initiative taken at N.A.T.O. by my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary in order in part to deal with this problem of the relationship between the ownership and the control of nuclear weapons.
The Nassau agreement marked a further step forward in proposing the assignment of powerful external forces to N.A.T.O. and in regrouping existing forces under a closer system of military command and control. These arrangements, as the House knows, were approved at Ottawa. That assignment was a British initiative, taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Nassau. So, in both the steps which have so far been taken in the alliance to try to deal with the political aspects of this problem, as well as the military aspects, the initiatives have been British.
But the political problem still remains. We fully recognise the need to satisfy the wish in Europe for a stronger voice in the political control of the nuclear weapons of the alliance, and in that I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
The question is: how can this be done without further increasing the number of national nuclear forces? To meet this problem the United States Government put forward the idea of the creation of forces which, by the composition of their crews or the organisation of their command, could not be diverted to national use. The mixed-manned force is an example of this. When this suggestion was made, we undertook to give the concept the full examination which it deserves. At the same time, as I told the House, we were not in any way committed to take part in it ourselves. This idea was put forward by the American Administration in a high-minded spirit which we should all recognise in a further attempt to solve the problem which I have been mentioning.
It has met with a response in the same spirit from the Federal German Government, as it emphasised in the communiqué put out at the end of the conversations between Priesident Kennedy and Chancellor Adenauer. But in its present form the proposal is not neces-
218
sarily the only way of meeting the objective. We want to strengthen the alliance and we want at the same time to prevent the profile ration of national nuclear forces. But, when the complexity of weapons is increasing every day, we must have regard to priorities in considering how to allocate our resources. This is the task of N.A.T.O. as a whole.
We look forward to the results of the closer studies, which are in hand, of the military requirements and the forces which will be needed to meet those requirements. At the same time we can examine the ways to meet Europe's political requirements by strengthening consultation and by giving those allies who desire it a share in the decisions to which their contribution to the Alliance entitles them. All these matters will be further studied in the coming months.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Germany?
Mr. Heath: The hon. Member mentions Germany. This problem arises in part from the growth in strength and prosperity of other members of the alliance. It is, therefore, a problem which must be dealt with if the alliance is to remain in a healthy state.
During the course of these studies there will be further opportunities to discuss the contribution which a mixed-manned force could make to the political and military cohesion of the alliance. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, when he speaks tomorrow, will be able to say more about the military aspects of this matter. We have given much thought to the question of dealing with this political problem through political means. My noble Friend the Foreign Secretary will want to discuss this with his colleagues in the alliance in the way in which the communique following the meeting of President Kennedy with the Prime Minister indicated: that further discussions will take place.
Mr. E. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman must be fair. His noble Friend the Foreign Secretary did make a statement and repeated that the concept was accepted in principle. Indeed, that was borne out by the statement made by the Prime Minister both in the communiqué and in statements following the communiqué.
Mr. Heath: The right hon. Member will recall that I answered a Question in the House some time ago in which I said that Her Majesty's Government welcomed the concept. I described the concept just now as being one which tried to solve this problem by crews or by control which would not allow national use. That is the concept the Americans have been pursuing and I have said that it is not necessarily the only way of trying to solve this problem.
I now turn to another aspect of this problem concerned with European affairs. The cohesion and unity of purpose of the Western Alliance today depends on Europe being able to assume a rôle in the world as a whole which is justified by her wealth, manpower and political consciousness. This means that Europe must share more equally in the responsibility for the conduct of the great debate between East and West and for the relationship between the West and the uncommitted world. But Europe can stand in an equal partnership of this kind—which we have outlined to the House on previous occasions—only by evolving on a broad basis towards a greater unity in which the strength and experience of her member countries can be fully employed.
Mr. William Warbey: The right hon. Gentleman keeps on referring to Europe. He is very experienced in international affairs and when dealing with relationships of this sort he must know that there is no international concept—no juridical concept of Europe. We can at the moment deal only with nation states. When the right hon. Gentleman says"Europe" does he or does he not mean Germany?
Mr. Heath: I am not referring solely to Germany. I am referring to Western Europe; and if the hon. Member can persuade his friends in Eastern Europe to accept these concepts and general principles no one would welcome it more than I would.
How is this unity to be achieved which will enable these countries to come to speak jointly with their own voice? Throughout the period of the Brussels negotiations we made it clear that we wished to play a full part in the political as well as economic development in the Communities. In my speech to the Western European Union on 10th April last year I said that Her Majesty's
220
Government welcomed the efforts of the Six to form a political union and that we hoped to join it as full members if the Brussels negotiations were successful.
As the House knows, these talks among the Six were suspended last year without an agreement being reached. I think that, at the time, I described to the House the proposals for the Union. They were, in fact, not very different from the organisation of the Western European Union, to which we belong. This breakdown was followed by the breakdown of our negotiations in Brussels. The basic facts and arguments for closer political and economic unity in Europe remain and it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to seek to play a full part in the movement towards a closer unity in Europe.
If, in spite of the present difficulties, the members of the Community themselves one day think it possible to renew their discussions for apolitical union, I hope that this time we may be able to take part in these discussions from the beginning and help to shape any future organisation which may evolve. In the meantime, we must seek our objective through other channels; and I would now like to say a word about this because of what I said at the beginning of my speech about the need to judge the action which has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in these spheres in the past year.
There is, first, the question of the consultative arrangements with the Community now that the negotiations have been broken off. Our object is to ensure that the differences between Britain and the Community are not deepened and that we each avoid damaging each other's policies. We have fully supported every initiative which has been taken in the Community to make consultative arrangements of this kind. In particular, we strongly support the initiative of the German Foreign Minister that there should be regular and permanent consultation between the representatives of the Six and our own mission in Brussels.
There is, secondly, the question of Western European Union. I refer to this because the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, in his speech at the weekend, urged on Her Majesty's Government that we should take a new initiative in Europe and bring about a

221
meeting of the Seven countries. In Western European Union we took the initiative, after the break-up of the negotiations, with the other Five, in calling on the then Chairman to organise a meeting. He was, unfortunately, unsuccessful in trying to do so. We have since supported further negotiations and, indeed, we have taken the lead in asking the members of the Community to have a meeting of the Western European Union.
Our purpose is not to have recriminations about the outcome of the negotiations. I am saying this deliberately because of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), in the Council of Europe, in Strasbourg, about my speech there. It was necessary and right for me to do so, because what I said in Europe and what I have already stated in this House was the position that we ourselves had reached in the negotiations and it represented what was out view on the subject. We were fully entitled to state that in a European assembly such as the Council of Europe.
If we do not have recriminations, at any rate at the meeting of Western European Union, we must all be in a position to discuss European policies. We could not accept a conception in which the Western European Union was meeting, but was not, at the same time, able to discuss policies affecting the future of Europe.
Again, in the Western European Union Assembly I took the initiative by suggesting that there should be regular meetings of Ministers and that the Seven countries should organise practical co-ordination in defence and political matters. I suggested that we should concentrate on those things on which we agree and leave aside those things on which at the moment there is disagreement in Europe about future policy. We offered our co-operation in this respect and it is to our regret that that co-operation has not yet been accepted.
In the Council of Europe we again took the initiative at the meeting of Ministers in proposing that in future ministerial meetings should concentrate on political discussions concerning our common problems. This was warmly welcomed and accepted and the deputies are now working on its organisation. In the Assembly I put forward the same
222
suggestion and, again, it was warmly accepted by the great majority of the Assembly. At the meeting of the European Free Trade Association in Lisbon—and I think that all the members of E.F.T.A. would agree on this—we took the initiative in bringing about the successful agreement whereby all tariffs would be abolished by 31st December, 1966.
As a result, E.F.T.A. has set its course firmly for the rest of the transitional period. As the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) so often said that the result of these negotiations would be to undermine and finally lead to the end of E.F.T.A., I hope that he and his colleagues will agree that E.F.T.A. today, despite the challenges put to it, is stronger than it has been at any time. [Interruption.] The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that the negotiations themselves would lead to the end of E.F.T.A., because we were abandoning that organisation. It is quite plain that nothing was further from the truth, and that, in fact, it is today stronger than it has ever been.
In the G.A.T.T. conference we strongly supported the initiative—again, we are in agreement with right hon. Gentlemen opposite—of moving for the greatest possible action to be taken under the Kennedy round, and in supporting the programmes put forward for the developing countries, and also in setting up committees to reach commodity agreements. Therefore, I suggest to the House that in this period which I have described we have taken the initiative in these organisations in order to achieve results which are beneficial to all their members.
I would now like to turn to the policy that we have pursued in South-East Asia. The House will probably agree that there the great majority of the population ask for nothing more than peace and an improvement in their standard of living. But the Chinese aim there appears to be to undermine and subvert the existing régimes, at the same time stopping short of declaring war. It may be that the House will think that the attack on India last autumn was an exception to these tactics, but there is a place in Chinese principles for the controlled use of overt military force. On this occasion it may well prove to have been an error of judgment, for it did not achieve the object of forcing India to settle the frontier dispute,

223
and it called forth a response from Britain and the United States which was prompt and which was warmly welcomed.
We have just been reviewing with the United States the question of how to make our assistance for the defence of the sub-continent effective for the long haul which lies ahead. Although this incident may have increased the anxiety of some countries in South-East Asia, the Western response to it has undoubtedly had a tonic effect.
As I have said, there has never been any Chinese military move against South-East Asia but the Burmese, the Cambodians, the Thais and all the others must constantly ask themselves whether this will come about.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Hear, hear.
Mr. Heath: I am glad to have confirmation of this from the right hon. Gentleman.
This produces an atmosphere in which many may be persuaded that their future lies in throwing in their lot with the Chinese.
We must ask ourselves what are the real British interests in the area the defence of which would justify the risks and burdens of trying to arrest this trend. It would be a serious blow to the whole free world if South-East Asia were to be allowed to slip into the Communist camp. The threat to members of the Commonwealth would be brought much closer; India would find herself more closely encompassed by China; the Communist threat would be on the doorstep of Australia and New Zealand, and Malaya would be closely menaced.
Our policy in South-East Asia is, therefore, clear. We must help the countries in the area to keep their independence. The main problem today is the attempt by the North Vietnamese Communists to take over as much as possible of former French Indo-China. For years now we have been trying to cope with a direct attempt to seize South Vietnam by the creation and support of an insurgent military movement.
There have been attempts by the Communist Party in Laos to seize power also by military means. The sharpest fighting is in Vietnam. The majority
224
of the International Control Commission in Vietnam has reported that the Government of South Vietnam has had to face such a campaign of subversion and military insurrection directed from outside that they have sought the assistance of the United States in order to deal with it. The Americans have responded with aid, equipment and with men to train and advise the Vietnamese Army. Whereas a year ago the Communist insurgents pretty well had their own way in Vietnam there is now an even battle. Indeed, in certain areas President Diem's Government have been able to push back the Viet Cong and to limit their freedom of action.
However, we are now faced again with a situation in Laos which threatens to be equally grave. So far, in spite of many breaches of the cease-fire, we have been able to keep an uneasy truce in that country ever since the Geneva conference was called two years ago. But this success is now in danger. The Prime Minister of Laos has made every effort to remedy this situation and to make his Coalition Government work effectively. My noble Friend the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly sought to get the Soviet co-chairman to obtain co-operation from the North Vietnamese and the Pathet Lao. He has taken many initiatives in this field. The House can see copies of the correspondence, which is still continuing. But all this has been of no avail.
What, then, is the explanation? Is it that the Communists in Laos have found that to apply the Geneva agreement honestly would seriously hamper their attempt to take over Laos and that, therefore, they have abandoned all thought of honouring the agreements? Have they decided, instead, to try to partition Laos and to run what would virtually be a separate Government in their own zone? Will they continue to try to incorporate into this, by force, the areas held by the neutralists, so that they become masters of the greater part of Laos?
Would they then be content to sit still for a while, or might they even be so foolhardy as to try to push on into the Mekong Valley, hoping that nobody would come to the help of Prince Souvanna Phouma and his Government to prevent this? If this is their line of thinking they would be most unwise to come to any such conclusions. My noble

225
Friend has been seeking to convince the Soviet Government how dangerous such a development would be.
Her Majesty's Government will continue to make every effort to see that the three parties in Laos are brought together, so that a fresh attempt may be made to go back to the proposals agreed at Geneva and to implement that settlement honourably.
We have had another source of anxiety in the threatening situation which appeared to be developing between Malaya and Indonesia—
Mr. H. Wilson: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of Laos, with the possible explanation that he has given, has not the most obvious one occurred to him, namely, that the Soviet Union—as much as Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition—want to see the three parts of the Laos Government working closely together, but that the Soviet Government, while trying to do that, find that their writ does not run in Laos? Is not that the obvious explanation?
Mr. Heath: I was dealing with the explanation of the action of the Pathet Lao—the Laotian Communists—and I suggest that this is their line of thinking. It may be, as the hon. Member suggests, that the efforts of the Soviet co-chairman have proved of no avail with the Pathet Lao in Laos, and that, therefore, their own influence in North Vietnam—and possibly even the influence of the Chinese—is a matter of speculation. But the point to which I was addressing myself was the question of what is the line of thought of the Pathet Lao in the present situation.
The situation in respect of Malaya and Indonesia and the Philippines seems to have been improved by the meeting which was held in Manila earlier this month between the Foreign Ministers of these three countries, and we are glad that this should be so.
There is also, on the credit side in Asia, the political and economic development of Japan which has taken place in the past decade. Japan is the first Asiatic power to break through to a highly industrialised economy, in which productive capacity and the personal consumption of its people are beginning to approach Western standards.
Mr. Ellis Smith: But not workers' standards.
Mr. Heath: With great respect to the hon. Member, there has been a great improvement in those standards.
Japan's example is of great significance for the other countries of Asia and so, too, is the increasing diplomatic rôle which she is now assuming in the world. She is already making a useful contribution in such organisations as the consortia organisation for investment in India and Pakistan, in the Colombo Plan and the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, as well as by her reparation payments to the countries of South-East Asia.
I am glad to say that we have established most satisfactory relations with the Japanese Government. By the negotiation of the Treaty of Commerce Navigation and Establishment we have placed our commercial relations on a solid and satisfactory basis in this rapidly expanding market which I hope our industrialists will be able to develop. The experimental consultations arranged by my noble Friend during his recent visit will promote collaboration with the Japanese Government over a wide field, and this we greatly welcome.
Against the policies which I have been discussing in South-East Asia, it may be of interest to the House if I describe how we see some of the differences between the Soviet Union and China and what the implications of these differences are for us. Both countries remain committed to the long-term aim of establishing the Communist system throughout the world. But they differ increasingly on how this should be achieved. The Russians maintain that the correct method is summed up in Mr. Khrushchev's own interpretation of"peaceful co-existence".
Starting from the premise that Communism is inevitably bound to triumph in the end, they argue that capitalism can be replaced without war or violent revolution. They say that this will happen as Communist economic successes open the eyes of the world to the potentialities of the Communist system. It therefore means that our own economic progress in the West is of the greatest importance in this context. They claim that the inevitable trend of history towards Communism should be given a helping hand where-ever possible. In practice, this means

227
that they will forward their aims without pushing them so far as to involve a significant risk of nuclear war although they may approach close to a miscalculation, as we saw over Cuba.
The Chinese idea of priorities in foreign policy is radically different. They see themselves as the champions of the struggling peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America and they argue that these continents are ripe for revolution and that the proper Communist policy is to subordinate all considerations to this struggle. They also see themselves more pressed by the United States than is the Soviet Union. They calculate that they have more to gain from an aggressive policy and less to lose. They think that in the present balance of world power the Russians can afford to press harder on the West. These, then, are the differences which will no doubt be fully ventilated and discussed at the meeting which is about to take place in Moscow. Surely what we must realise is that both sides will have an undeniable interest in maintaining the ties which bind them and we should not give way to wishful thinking when we are considering these policies.
It is always hard to say which Soviet attitudes are attributable to the Sino-Soviet dispute and which to traditional elements in the Soviet policy. There is no doubt—I hope that after his recent visit and conversations the right hon. Member for Huyton will agree with me—that a change has occurred in the thinking of the Soviet Union, particularly, for example, in the attitude towards the risks of war. There have also been liberalising domestic elements at work in the atmosphere. We welcome these. But we suggest that something more positive is needed, a more reasonable readiness to seek solutions to East-West problems.
An obvious example of the sort of agreement which we hope to conclude with the Soviet Government—about which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be able to say more later in the debate—is a treaty banning nuclear tests. The whole House agrees that this would be of great importance in itself, as putting a stop to the costly and dangerous spiral of a further test series on either side. It might also be
228
the first step in a completely different spiral of a series of agreements, which would involve other powers also, to prevent the further dissemination of nuclear weapons and to coyer the process of disarmament. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who has been conducting the negotiations at Geneva, will be able to speak to the House on this subject when he winds up the debate tonight.
Clearly, the mission of the Lord President of the Council, Lord Hailsham, and of Mr. Harriman to Moscow is of very great importance. Their aim must be to reach a treaty banning all kinds of nuclear tests, underground as well as in other environments. It must, however, be a treaty which will stick. Each side must have confidence in its terms. Each must have reasonable surety that, under a comprehensive treaty, the other is not free, in effect, to conduct underground tests without a reasonable chance of being detected.
This is the context in which our proposals for inspection must be considered. With all the progress that has been made in the art of seismology our instruments still record a number of events which may have been caused by earthquakes or by nuclear explosions. As far as we can see, these can be identified only by on-site inspection in a reasonable proportion of cases, and we are convinced that such inspection could take place under satisfactory safeguards against espionage. But if it is absolutely impossible to achieve a comprehensive test ban in which both sides will have confidence, there is always the alternative of a partial ban on tests in the atmosphere and under the sea. This would still be something.
We want to be able to put our case to the Russians in detail in private. I have little doubt that when this has been done, Mr. Khrushchev will take his decision about a test ban, not only with what has been said in the discussions in mind, but with many other factors. He will no doubt be looking at the present confrontation between the Eastern and Western Powers in the light of his talks with the Chinese. He will also be calculating whether a further series of nuclear tests on his side—with all the consequences which it might involve—will strengthen his own position. We

229
want, however—and I think that the House will pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the initiative that he has constantly taken in this matter—to be absolutely sure that Mr. Khrushchev's decision is taken with full knowledge of our own position and our own desire to achieve a comprehensive test ban which would command confidence on both sides.
Mr. Arthur Henderson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we may take it that when the two Western representatives go to Moscow later this month they will take up a flexible attitude with regard to the problem of the number of on-site inspections, and not merely stick where they were at Geneva a month ago?
Mr. Heath: There have been the discussions between the President of the United States and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. There are to be further discussions between Mr. Harriman and the Lord President before they go to Moscow. I have chosen carefully the words I have said today about our desire to achieve this test ban. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will be able to deal with the procedure at Geneva when he winds up tonight.
Mr. H. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman seemed rather to be putting the position that we shall table our proposals in Moscow and Mr. Khrushchev will have to decide, having regard to this, that and the other consideration. Has the right hon. Gentleman, or the Prime Minister, in preparing the instructions for the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham, considered the various points which might make a test ban more likely, including the Soviet leader's views not only about disengagement but proliferation and a multilateral force? Has all this been brought into the picture, or are we to table a proposal and then say,"Either take it or leave it. But if you leave it there is no test ban"?
Mr. Heath: I think that the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that my right hon. Friend and the Lord President of the Council, as well as the President of the United States and Mr. Harriman, have taken into account all the known views of Mr. Khrushchev about this
230
matter. No one will recognise more readily than he does, of course, that there are differences of views about what are Mr. Khrushchev's real thoughts. This visit of my noble Friend the Lord President will enable us to find out exactly what are his views and to have a very full discussion about everything which he wishes to raise.
Mr. Tom Driberg: I wish for a moment to revert to what the right hon. Gentleman was saying about Asia and China. He agrees, I am sure, that it would be much easier to deal with a number of these problems if the real Government of China were represented in the United Nations. Can he say how far we have got in persuading the Americans not to use their veto against this? Have we got as far, for instance, as the point that had been reached shortly before the Korean war broke out?
Mr. Heath: I think that the hon. Member will agree that the position of Her Majesty's Government is absolutely plain. [HON. MEMBERS:"No."] Indeed it is and it has been made plain at the last two meetings of the United Nations Assembly. I have nothing I can tell the House about the attitude of the United States Administration. It is for them to declare, presumably at the next meeting of the Assembly.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman says that the position of Her Majesty's Government is abundantly clear. I take it that he means that our influence has always been cast on the side of admitting China to the United Nations—perhaps not always—but it is not plain in this sense. Is it not more illogical than the position of anyone else? The American position is quite different: America does not recognise the Chinese Republic. We have the worst of both possible worlds. We recognise the Government in Peking, but refuse to support China's entry to the United Nations.
Mr. Heath: It is unusual for the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to be mistaken about his facts, however devious his views might be. On this occasion I think that he is wrong, because we recognise the People's Republic of China—
Mr. S. Silverman: I said so.
Mr. Heath: —and on the last two occasions we supported her admission to the United Nations. There is nothing illogical in that position. If the hon. Member is suggesting that we should leave the United Nations and join the People's Republic of China outside, that is a different matter; but I am not sure that he believes that.
We shall seek to find common ground with the Soviet Union in disarming and other measures to reduce the risk of conflict and also in such other spheres as those of outer space and Antarctica. In addition, we shall endeavour to expand our contacts with the Soviet people by information programmes, cultural and scientific exchanges, and so on, and especially through increasing trade. Perhaps one of the most desirable forms of this two-way traffic is the visit which the Bolshoi Ballet opened in London last night.
In the long run I believe that time may operate on our side, even in the Communist camps. Older generations die away and new interests and prosperous standards of living may erode the strength of their militant ideologies. It is interesting to note the recent developments among the smaller countries of Eastern Europe in this respect. During the last decade there has been a gradual and partial progress of de-Stalinisation in Eastern Europe.
I would not exaggerate the results. These Governments are Communist and retain all the apparatus of the police State—
Mr. Driberg: Not all.
Mr. Heath: —but for the average man and his family the worst of the burden has lifted and some prosperity is beginning to return. The Governments are edging towards allowing legitimate outlets for their peoples' desire for a normal existence and for contacts and exchanges with their fellow Europeans in the West. This is all to be welcomed.
Time is also on the side of the West, I believe, in the uncommitted world and among the newly developing countries. The one thing they want even more than improving their standards of living is to safeguard their recently found independence. Here there is a genuine coincidence of interests between the
232
under-developed countries and the West. There is a divergence of interests between them and the Eastern bloc. These underlying patterns are already being glimpsed by the uncommitted countries and they will become clearer, I am certain, with the passage of time. We must do everything possible to assist them by aid and technical assistance.
We have just passed through the review in O.E.C.D. of the aid programme of ourselves and the other countries. We have passed through with very creditable results because of the large amounts of aid and technical assistance this country is giving to countries, not only in the Commonwealth, but outside it.
The uncommitted countries also look forward to next year's United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. This, too, is a collective organisation in which we have been giving a lead in its recent preparatory conference.
The success of the United Nations as a peace-keeping organisation will be of cardinal importance for the protection of their independence.
I should now like to say something about what has concerned many hon. Members. That is how the organisation is to maintain its financial stability. In addition to paying our full share of all peace-keeping operations we have made many voluntary contributions. What has worried many hon. Members has been the action of those countries which have not been paying their subscriptions towards the peace-keeping activities of the United Nations.
As the House knows, a committee of the United Nations and the Assembly have recently been discussing this matter. We have taken a leading part in the recent Special Session of the General Assembly and, in particular, in the negotiations which went on behind the scenes in order to try to find a solution to this problem. The House will be glad to have heard that at the end of the Session resolutions designed to secure an equitable distribution of the burden were passed by large majorities. They have laid down the payments to be made for the peace-keeping operations for 1963 and for the collection of arrears.
On this a number of important principles were agreed, in particular, that the financing of peace-keeping operations

233
is the collective responsibility of all member States of the United Nations. I am sure that hon. Members will be glad to know that this responsibility has been laid down by resolution and the members concerned have been invited to make their contributions.
Mr. Patrick Wall: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Soviet Union and France agreed to this?
Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is right in asking that question, but the resolution has been accepted by the Assembly as a whole.
Perhaps I may now summarise—
Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, will he say whether there are new arrangements for providing sanctions regarding the voting powers of members if they have not paid their dues?
Mr. Heath: That sanction does exist in the Charter already, I understand, under Article 19. It is a sanction taken by the Assembly.
Perhaps I may sum up, as the background for the debate of the next two days, the broad policy that we have been following.
Mr. John Rodgers: Is the sanction referred to subject to veto in the Security Council?
Mr. Heath: I understand that it is not subject to veto. It is an automatic process as a result of non-payment of subscriptions.
If I may, I will briefly sum up the broad policy that we have been following. I have endeavoured to point out to the House the initiatives we have taken both in the United Nations and in Europe in the affairs and in the organisations to which we belong. We seek to maintain and foster our own security and prosperity and to co-operate in providing the sort of arrangements in which the new countries can develop their own independence and a prosperous way of life. We are determined that the Communist countries should see no prospect of success with policies which show hostility towards the free world, but, at the same time, we shall work continuously to develop co-operation with them wherever possible
234
and to settle our differences with them peacefully.
In the last resort the success of all our external policy must always depend on the economic power and the political purposes generated in this country. That was always borne in on me during the negotiations in Brussels. This economic power and these political purposes are the outcome of joint action by Parliament and our people. When I was speaking at Aachen recently I took the opportunity of putting forward some suggestions as to the qualities which give peoples a duty to speak and the right to be heard in international organisations such as I have discussed this afternoon. They are qualities which I believe this country possesses in full measure.
First, we believe in the need for tolerance in our relations between ourselves. This is the groundwork of our democratic parliamentary system. So, at the same time, at the international level the basis of co-operation of the kind I have been describing in which we have been trying to give leadership is tolerance. It is the practice of interdependence. Secondly, we hold firmly to the belief that we must develop a better way of life for the poorer peoples of the world. This is the greatest positive endeavour we can work upon in the second half of the twentieth century. Thirdly, we in this country, I believe, have understood the changes which have taken place in the world in the last twenty years. In that respect, as a country, we have moved with the times.
We see that if we are to develop the full potential of Europe, or economic power, or political co-operation, or help to the poorer areas—and do all the other things which in the course of this debate will be constantly pressed upon us—this will be possible and can only be done on the scale necessary through the collective endeavours of the advanced countries of the free world. They have the opportunities and they also carry the responsibilities.
I believe that we in the West and, in particular, we in this country have a job to do. This is to show the world that in carrying out our policies, whether they are, as I said at the beginning, our own individual initiatives or joint responsibilities, we are good friends and allies, strong allies prepared to compro-

235
mise with our allies; that we are understanding friends to the developing countries; that we are to the fore in seeking solutions to world problems, which my noble Friend is constantly endeavouring to do; that we are pioneers in technical development, because only in this way can we achieve the resources necessary to carry out our policies; that we are protagonists of more widespread freedom of trade not only that the Western world, but the developing countries can benefit; and that here, in this country, we are firm democrats strongly resolved to ensure that our own parliamentary system is modern, up to date and working with the greatest efficiency.
These are the qualities and characteristics which we as a country should endeavour to demonstrate to the world today and which Her Majesty's Government, in carrying through her foreign policy, will constantly endeavour to do.
4.51 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Walker: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal for his calm, careful and painstaking statement on foreign policy. Some of his points I shall take up myself in the course of my remarks, and others, because one cannot cover the whole field, will be taken up by some of my right hon. Friends.
As I listened to the right hon. Gentleman detailing many of the critical meetings, negotiations, problems and, may be, decisions that have to be taken and which lie fairly close ahead of us, I could not help thinking what a tragedy it is that at such a moment Britain has a Government who have not full and proper authority. The Government have, indeed, lost both sources of authority that are necessary to a Government if they are to take a strong position in the world. They do not represent the majority of the people here—and the whole world knows it. Secondly, the party behind them in the House is completely divided; indeed, its members are so determined to make the Prime Minister the scapegoat for their own collective sins that they did not suspend their mutterings and manoeuvrings even when the Prime Minister was meeting the President.
Sir Cyril Osborne: Get on with foreign affairs.
Mr. Gordon Walker: These are foreign affairs.
Mr. Heath: If, as I strongly suspect, the right hon. Gentleman is going on to say that he in fact supports most of the policies which I have been outlining in our international organisations and in the world as a whole, would it not be better in the interests of this country if he stated that firmly and clearly rather than seeking to undermine the Government who are carrying that out?
Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman should not make assumptions about my speech. [Interruption.] If the Prime Minister would like to say anything he had better stand up and say it. He has no more right than any other hon. Member to say things sitting down. I was simply stating the facts. There is no question that this Government now lack authority, and it would be much better if we had a Government conducting our affairs who had the authority which would come from representing the majority of the people.
In recent weeks, I have had the pleasure, honour and privilege of talks with President Kennedy, Mr. Khrushchev and other United States and Soviet leaders. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I were in Moscow at a rather critical time at home, as it appeared to us from the newspapers that were reaching us; at a time when the Government seemed to be rather paralysed by the repercussions of the Profumo affair, we were covering with Mr. Khrushchev and other leaders the whole range of world problems. We did not of course try to negotiate in any sense. It is not possible for an Opposition to negotiate. The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) was in the same country at the same time. It is not possible for the Opposition to negotiate but we did our very best to open up avenues for helpful progress. I think it is my duty to take this first opportunity to give the House in the course of my remarks some of the impressions that I and my right hon. Friend formed on some of the major issues that are before us in this debate.
In Washington I argued very strongly indeed for a postponement of the proposal for a multilateral force, as it was then called—I think that it is now called

237
a mixed-manned force—and I am glad that the communiqué that was issued after the meetings between the Prime Minister and the President seems, although it is a little ambiguous, to imply that this project is now postponed. Indeed, the communiqué states in effect that the project is to be postponed so that we can get on with talks with the Soviet Union about the test ban.
This is an admission that the multilateral force and the whole idea of it is an impediment to getting an agreement with the Soviet Union and for that reason it follows that postponement is not enough. The statement in the communiqué that the United States and Germany will continue to use their best efforts to bring the multilateral force into being, and the Lord Privy Seal's remark that further discussions are to go on about it—all this must in fact jeopardise the chance of agreement with the Soviet Union. We must realise what we are doing.
In any case the whole argument about the multilateral force is tied up with much greater problems, which, as the right hon. Gentleman said in his speech, will remain with us whatever happens about the multilateral force. There is what he called the uneven ownership of nuclear weapons in the alliance and there is the whole question of Germany and nuclear weapons. These will remain with us but the M.L.F. brought it up in very special form.
We on this side adamantly oppose any possession or control of nuclear weapons by Germany. I think that is the common position of Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States. I think that none of them wants Germany to have nuclear weapons. There are many reasons why we were critical of the proposals for a multilateral force, but the fundamental one was that it would bring Germany too close to nuclear weapons. A percentage of the ships would have German captains, maybe eight or so; German military personnel would have learned how to set and prime the weapons. All these things would have brought Germany much too close to nuclear weapons. There was no doubt either in my mind or that of my right hon. Friend as the result of our talks in Moscow that there is no chance of a settlement with the
238
Soviet Union and no chance of fruitful negotiations if the M.L.F. were started or even if it remains in contemplation.
This has to be said clearly and frankly, because these are the sort of questions that will determine what progress we can make. There is the further consideration that there is now much evidence, some of which we got on our visit, that one of the causes of the Sino-Soviet trouble is the Soviet Union's refusal to help China to make nuclear weapons. The M.L.F. must weaken Mr. Khrushchev's stand in such a matter.
It is not enough to say that we do not want Germany to have nuclear weapons. We live in a world in which we do not control everything. We must pursue policies which do in fact effectively lead to the achievement of our purpose. When I was in Moscow, I explained at very great length to Mr. Khrushchev the motive and aims behind our policy towards Germany which I will state in a moment. I told him that I had used the same argument and practically the same words in Washington.
What I said was that we regarded the avoidance of Germany's acquiring nuclear weapons, either alone or in conjunction with France, as the greatest problem of all those facing us in the West. But I also said that if we are to avoid that danger we must find a fair and equal place for Germany in the Western Alliance. If Germany continued to be treated as a second-class people, then her national feeling, as it began to grow and rise, would be frustrated and distorted, and that would produce the very results which we want to avoid.
I said that the United Kingdom has a crucial rôle to play in this whole matter. We have our V-bomber force, which is a very powerful force with a life of five years or more; five years-plus—we have no access to this sort of information. What I said in Moscow and in Washington and what I say here is that we should carry out in this respect an inter-connected policy. We should allow that weapon in due course to run down as time goes by and as it becomes obsolete, and we should not replace it; and as part and parcel of that, we should negotiate with the

239
United States for a share in the formulation of the nuclear strategy of the entire weapon of the Western Alliance. We should not ask for a hand on the trigger or a hand on the safety catch. What we should ask for is close, intimate, continuous discussion about the things which really control nuclear policy—the deployment of nuclear weapons, their targetting, future plans about them and the relationship between strategic and nuclear weapons. If we could achieve this it would give us a say not in a partial N.A.T.O. weapon of relatively minor importance but in the entire weapon of the Western Alliance, the weapon that really matters.
This is one of the objections to the multilateral force proposal—that it would be a very minor part and that the real weapon would still be under United States control if the M.L.F. arrangement came into being. At the same time, we should use the money which we save to build and equip our conventional forces into an indispensable factor in the alliance.
I said in both these places that Germany should then be offered an equal place with us in this arrangement. This is the only way by which one can give Germany a fair and proper place in the Western Alliance and yet keep her finger from the trigger, safety catch or any other direct or indirect control of the use of nuclear weapons.
Hon. Members will have in their minds the problem of France in this connection. France does not fit into any solution. It does not fit into the multilateral force solution, either. I think that the right thing would be to offer France the same sort of position at any time that she wanted to take it up. I am very doubtful whether France will be able to build a credible nuclear deterrent but I cannot be sure. If she does, and if she does it in the way which is suggested—separate, in effect, from N.A.T.O.—then I think that the Western Alliance will have to consider making it clear that this would not permit France to buy her way into nuclear negotiations and that the Western Alliance would not be committed by any threat or use of such weapons by France. In any case, whatever France does, we ought to follow our own proper long-term interests, and it is much better that
240
we should have a real say and share in the whole weapon of the Western Alliance rather than in this partial weapon.
I ask hon. Members, who do not all agree with this view—although some of them do—to ponder this matter very carefully. If, as the Prime Minister wishes, this country goes on with the pretence of an independent nuclear deterrent after the V-bomber force runs down, this will inevitably lead in the end to the possession by Germany of nuclear weapons. We cannot possibly argue for such a policy for Britain and deny it to Germany. This is an inevitable consequence of that policy. It would also lead to continued neglect of our conventional forces.
In connection with the German problem, my right hon. Friend and I made it absolutely clear in Moscow that we must stand firm and unflinching behind the right of the people of West Berlin to live the sort of free political life they want and behind the right of access to our garrison in West Berlin. These two things we both made very clear indeed.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the nuclear test ban is the most important immediate decision before us and the most hopeful way of getting a break-through. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will deal with this and particularly with the problem of disarmament.
The problem of a nuclear test ban figured very largely indeed in our talks in Moscow, and I regret to have to tell the House that Mr. Khrushchev told us that the Soviet Union had withdrawn her offer for on-site inspection. He said this categorically and clearly, and I should say this to the House. He is not ready, he said, to accept any agreement which includes inspection. Both of us tried hard and long to shake him in this position. Despite our argument that there had been a genuine misunderstanding between Russia and America about what would happen if Russia proposed the acceptance in principle of inspection, clearly Mr. Khrushchev is angry at what he regards as the failure of the United States to keep a promise, and it is still clear that he is extremely worried and frightened about the problem of espionage. This is clearly much in his mind. We tried very hard to

241
convince him that measures could be adopted which would make espionage impossible. We tried very hard indeed to convince him about this.
I hope, with all my heart, that our negotiators have better luck in this respect than we did. They must try to save the principle of inspection on which a general and complete test ban agreement must depend. But they must have a flexible attitude. They must be prepared to give and take. If they want an agreement they must not go with a completely inflexible attitude and a take-it-or-leave-it position.
We also argued the idea which the Lord Privy Seal put forward that if we cannot get an agreement about tests in the atmosphere, underground and under water, let us agree upon a ban on the two which can be monitored from outside, and if necessary leaving underground tests free and unpoliced. They at least have the merit that they do not pollute the atmosphere and the further merit that the scientific advance to be derived from them is relatively small compared with tests in the other media. We suggested that in the meanwhile, while this agreement could be made, the scientists of the two sides should meet. We put forward very strongly the idea of an anti-proliferation—or anti-spread, for I do not like these long words—agreement and treaty. This was accepted in a rather friendly way, and I think it may well be a field in which progress can be made. We did our utmost in all this to help towards some measure of international agreement on this vitally important matter.
I also discussed both in New York with the Secretary-General and with Mr. Khrushchev the financial crisis in the United Nations. I wrestled for hours with high Moscow officials in their Foreign Office on this matter, because it is of extreme importance to the whole world, but I must say with little success. The Soviet Union is against what has happened in the United Natioras—the shift of influence to the General Assembly, particularly with its peace-keeping activities; we welcome this, but the Soviet Union is against it because it wants all power retained in the Security Council where there is a Soviet veto. France takes the same position. France takes a position which is indistinguishable from the Soviet position.
242
I congratulate the Government on the initiative which they took in the last Assembly and on the great success which this Session produced in getting this agreement, but the real crisis still lies ahead and will occur in about six months' time. There is some legal doubt about whether Article 19 requires a two-thirds majority. But the issue will have to be faced whether the Soviet Union and maybe France should be deprived of voting rights because they have fallen into arrears for more than a certain period with their proper contributions. This, of course, would be a tragedy for the United Nations. To avoid it will involve very hard, patient and urgent diplomacy. The real hope lies here, I think, in the concerted action of Afro-Asian and other unaligned nations to which the United Nations means so much and whose good opinion means so much to the Soviet Union. This is really the line on which we must work. It is not only a matter of knowing all the Articles of the Charter and all the rest, but in the end, I think, this will be settled by world opinion or by that section of it represented by Afro-Asian and similar countries.
It seems to me that the greatest immediate danger point—and this, I think, is what the right hon. Gentleman said—lies in South-East Asia, especially in Laos. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Vietnam. The preservation of a neutral and unaligned Laos may make the difference between war and peace in South-East Asia, which, if it came to war, could engulf the world. I agree with the Lord Privy Seal that the Geneva Agreement is in grave danger now. The right hon. Gentleman went very well and ably over these facts and I do not propose to go over them again, but I want to make two points.
My right hon. Friend interrupted the Lord Privy Seal to say that the Soviet Union's writ does not run in Laos, and the right hon. Gentleman said that that was speculation. But I think that I can say from our talks in Moscow that there is no doubt that the Soviet Union has lost much influence in this part of the world, that it is very reluctant to challenge China, but that it wants the status quo preserved. Mr. Khrushchev does not want war to break out in this part of the world. My impression was that the Russians would be very cautious

243
about moving on this, but they may help if the situation gets bad, to a dangerous position.
The basic problem, I believe, in the whole of South-East Asia is that we have no means of communication with China, no dialogue, as we have with Russia over matters that affect war and peace—not really the West as a whole with China. We are in a bit better situation in this regard and this gives us a very important position. I do not pretend that it is easy. It is not only a matter of mechanisms. There is the matter of common interest before we can get this sort of dialogue, but we must make a start.
It is essential that China should be in the United Nations. We have voted for this; but we must continue to press for it with greater energy. There is a difference between voting and canvassing, and all the rest. I know from my talks in Washington that it is going to be difficult for us in our relations with the United States, but the peace of the world is at stake, and it is extremely important that we should make it easier to begin the sort of dialogue with China that the West has with Russia.
That brings me to the point that we have to approach all these problems in the context of East-West relations. We have got to work and think out East-West relations afresh. We have all got dug into entrenched positions which are getting out of date and which are stuck. We have to get away from the stale and barren attitudes both of crusading Communists and crusading anti-Communists. These are getting more and more dangerous and out of date.
I think that the most hopeful development in the world is the recognition of a measure of common interest between the Soviet Union and the United States. Indeed, these common interests were specifically mentioned in what I thought was a very courageous and far-sighted speech by President Kennedy in American University at Washington on 11th June.
As I look at this, it seems that the Cuba crisis was really the turning point. This was a searing and unforgettable experience for both President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev, and I think it ought to be said that both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev showed wisdom and
244
political courage in drawing the world back from the brink of nuclear war. As I have said, I think that Cuba may well turn out to have been the turning point. Since then the possibility of honourable comprises has greatly increased, because both sides have been nearer to the horrible nightmare vision of war than ever before. But things are still in balance.
Mr. Khrushchev has his difficulties. Of course he has, and we are very conscious of our own. He has a difficult internal social change going on. He may have internal political difficulties, although my impression was that he is very much in charge of things and I should think that anything else is wishful thinking. He has external problems inside the Communist world, with some of his satellites in East Europe as with China. He could move either way—into intransigence and threats or towards accommodation.
It seems to me that a very great responsibility lies here upon the West. We are the stronger—we have to remember this—of the two sides. We know that we are not aggressive, but we must pursue policies that will persuade the Soviet Union that we are not aggressive. This really is the essential thing. We shall never be forgiven by history or posterity, if there is any, should we act wrongly, should we neglect any hint of an overture or forward movement from Russia, or pursue any policies—I am talking about multilateral forces and all those things—which tend to snuff out the chances of agreement.
The West must take the initiative towards relaxation. We on this side of the House regard disengagement in Central Europe as a very important and hopeful initiative of this kind, but we recognise that in policies of this kind we have to win the acceptance of other Powers, as indeed in all fields of foreign policy. We are prepared to put this proposal forward in the context of measures to safeguard against surprise attack. We would be prepared to start at any point, perhaps with zones of mutual inspection let alone zones of disarmament or nuclear disarmament. It seems to me to be a very important step. If both sides could learn the efficacy of inspection, even in a small area where it is tested out, this would

245
be a very great step forward. Once achieved, it would make for further progress towards disengagement and relaxation.
The greatest need, I think, is for a new approach to the whole cold war. Of course, we need co-existence in the sense that the alternative to co-existence is co-extermination. That is true. But co-existence is not enough, and we must continuously say that it is not enough. It is an old-fashioned Stalinist idea based on the doctrine of"all conflict short of war". Stalin orginated this concept of co-existence. It is an appallingly dangerous doctrine because inherent in it is always the danger that conflict will lead to war. We should say loudly that we want something better.
We do not want co-exisence in this sense. We want a living together with the Russians. If the nations are to live they must learn to let live. We want the maximum exchanges that we can get of every kind—political, economic and cultural—Ministers' meetings and personal meetings at all levels.
The greatest common interest of the kind that both President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev are now beginning to recognise exists—the greatest mutual interest of East and West, must be to end the cold war because it is certain that neither can ever win it.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. Aubrey Jones: In such a debate as this it is inevitable that the opening speakers should cover a wide range that a mere backbencher cannot hope to follow, but it is fair to say that from the two speeches we have heard two main subjects have emerged: first, the prospect of a détente with the Soviet Union, beginning with the test ban talks, and, secondly, and related to it, the difficult question of the organisation of the Western Alliance.
The first question is clearly much the larger, but I do not want to say much about it, partly because I agree very much with what the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker)has just said, and also because, on this subject, it seems to me that this country's scope for action is no longer as large as it was. It is true to say that in the late 'fifties the United Kingdom did
246
play a catallytic rôle in promoting talks between the Soviet Union and the United States on a test ban. I do not think that we now have that scope, although I have no doubt that we can still play a useful rôle.
I believe that to be the case because of the changed attitude as between the Soviet Union and the United States stemming from Cuba. I do not share the official view that the Russian action in Cuba was governed by a desire to seek a short cut to closing the missile gap with the United States. Rightly or wrongly, I incline rather to the view that in staging the Cuba operation the Russians wished to make manifest to the United States the strength of their retaliatory power. Be that as it may, I agree that, over Cuba, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev shared a common experience which, in a sense, puts them apart from the rest of mankind; they were both on the brink of nuclear war.
What matters now is that each should feel that the other shares a genuine desire for an understanding, and that that desire is not in any way forced. In saying that, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that each of these great Powers has difficulties. Russia will be hesitant to add further to the strain on her relations with China, and Mr. Kennedy has difficulties with his domestic public opinion, which Cuba did not chasten as it chastened the Administration. In fact, I think that American public opinion was made more bellicose by Cuba. Nevertheless, I join others in wishing my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council well, and although we should not give way to optimism I hope that some progress will be made.
I turn to the smaller, but, in many ways, much more complicated question of the organisation of the Western Alliance. I want to devote my main comments to this subject, because this country's scope for action here—indeed, our obligation to take action—seems to me much greater. I approach the problem by looking at what I consider to be our key diplomatic problem. Putting it simply, we attained greatness and influence in world councils through physical power. Our physical power has declined, and the problem now is: how, in those circumstances, do we maintain our influence? How do we stem our retreat from greatness as our power declines?

247
This problem was well put by the Foreign Secretary in a debate in the House of Lords on the Common Market on 1st August last. I want to quote his solution of the problem, because I think that his words are quite as pertinent today as they were a year ago. The Foreign Secretary then said:
"…what has made Britain great in the past?…It was the decision, through generation after generation of British people and British Governments, that Britain should always be at the centre of markets and at the centre of power…if you keep her in the main-stream of markets and power, although we have not got the physical or military power that we had, nevertheless we can hope to sustain enough power to carry great influence in the counsels of the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 1st August, 1962; Vol. 243, c. 273.]
I call the attention of the House to two points in those observations. First, there is the clear implication that alone, this country is no longer a centre of power—otherwise there would be no point in trying to place ourselves at a centre of power. Secondly, there is the suggestion that had we placed ourselves in Europe as a centre of markets we would also have placed ourselves at a centre of power.
I suggest to the House that what has emerged in retrospect is that although we have been clear in our minds about wanting to place ourselves at a centre of markets we were considered by General de Gaulle to be ambivalent—and I think that we were ambivalent—on the question of Europe as a centre of power, and I put it to the House that we were shut out from the Common Market not because of agriculture, Commonwealth or economics, but because General de Gaulle, I think quite rightly, suspected that we did not share his views on Europe as a centre of power.
I think that General de Gaulle's suspicion goes back a very long way. There is a very fascinating passage in the third volume of his memoirs dealing with a conversation he had on 13th November, 1944, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wood ford (Sir W. Churchill).On that occasion, General de Gaulle proposed that France and the United Kingdom, both of them enfeebled by war, should link their policies. He proposed something more than an alliance—although the phrasing is a little obscure—and put forward the thought that this
248
unity was the only way in which the two countries could maintain European values and traditions in a quite new world of extra-European colossi; the Soviet Union and the United States—and, to come, China.
To that proposal, my right hon. Friend replied that while he was very keen on alliance with France, an alliance meant something less close than what General de Gaulle wanted and, so the memoirs read, he gave General de Gaulle the impression that this country continued to want to play an independent, and lone, rôle in mediating between the United States and the Soviet Union.
That was twenty years ago, and much water has passed under the bridges, but—and this is a purely personal judgment—there seem to me today to be three strands in General de Gaulle's thinking. There is, first, a continued recognition on his part that France alone cannot face the world of the new colossi. There is, secondly, a continued belief in the desirability of a European counterpoise to the United States, on the one hand, and the Soviet Union on the other. Thirdly—and I think that this is the new element—there is the belief that if this European counterpoise cannot be organised round a Franco-British nucleus, as he wanted during the war, then it must be organised round a Franco-German nucleus.
I therefore suggest that what General de Gaulle did in January last in shutting us out of the Common Market was to pose for us the question of Europe in terms of ultimate power. We had gone into the negotiations thinking of Europe in economic terms—a United Europe in economic terms, that might lead to a closer-knit political organisation and, possibly, some organisation in terms of power.
What General de Gaulle did was to go straight to the heart of the question and to ask us whether or not we desired to see Europe as a power unit. We have to face this challenge. In facing it I suggest that we should be deluding ourselves if we thought that we were shut out of Europe by just one man. The desire to see Europe as a power unit goes far beyond General de Gaulle.
How should we respond to the challenge? Clearly, there are three possible ways. First, we can accept what General

249
de Gaulle said, accept his concept of Europe as a unit in terms of ultimate power. I believe that if we were to do this we could obtain entry into the Common Market. We could thereby increase our influence in Europe certainly, but by the same token I am afraid that we would weaken our influence with the United States. We should be going back on about twenty-five years of close relations with the United States, and, I believe, going back on commitments recently entered into with them.
What is worse to my mind is that over a long transition period, while one was trying to build up Europe as a power unit, the temptation to the United States to move back into isolationism would be considerable. In turn, who knows to what a return by the United States to isolationism might tempt the Soviet Union? This carries far too great dangers, and I speak as one in favour of this country entering the Common Market. This would be far too high a price to pay for entry into the European Community. I personally would not be prepared to pay it.
Very well, if one sets aside the de Gaulle concept of Europe one could conceivably go to quite the other extreme and accept for all foreseeable time total European dependence for ultimate power on the United States. I had thought until I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick that this might be the position of the Opposition. I am left a little puzzled by what the right hon. Gentleman said and I should like to read it more fully tomorrow. To accept total European dependence for ultimate power upon the United States would certainly correspond with present facts and would be likely to continue to correspond with them for a long time to come, but it would ignore the psychology of Europeans and would leave the cultivation of European aspirations entirely to General de Gaulle.
This, to my mind, therefore, is a course to be excluded. Then if we exclude both these courses, if we do not go along with General de Gaulle in trying to create a power unit in Europe and equally we abjure total European dependence for foreseeable time upon the United States, there is only one alternative. This is what I think the Americans were after in proposing the multilateral force. What
250
they effectively did was to turn to Europe and say,"You want a European unit apart from the United States. Very well, we propose to you in the form of a multilateral force a trans-Atlantic power unit which will embrace both Europe and the United States". This seems to me to be the beginning of a change in the American grand design.
As the House will know, the old grand design was that one first promoted economic unity in Europe. Thereafter, one promoted economic links between Europe and the United States, these to be followed, in turn, by political and power links. It seems to me that America is the first to take General de Gaulle at his word and go straight to the question of power and try to organise a trans-Atlantic unit in the most difficult field of all—ultimate power.
There has been in this country a great deal of criticism of the details of the multilateral force. This is not the occasion to go into the details of the scheme, nor do I feel competent to do so. But I would point out that General de Gaulle's action in January last not only excluded the United States from Europe, but it excluded ourselves, and the exclusion mattered much more to us than the exclusion of the United States mattered to them. The Americans have reacted by producing a scheme on this central question of power. We, since our exclusion from the Common Market, have not produced any scheme on this question.
Mr. Shinwell: This is a most interesting dissertation, but does not it mean that what the Americans are striving at is a political advantage but a military nonsense? Does not that sum up the whole issue?
Mr. Jones: I think that this is the wrong occasion to go into the details of the scheme. I am confining myself to the essentials of the problem and I am trying to put to the House that the Americans put forward what is in many ways the heart of the question. Unacceptable though the details may be, they are trying to produce a trans-Atlantic unit.
Mr. Frank Tomney: The right hon. Gentleman is getting nowhere. The strategic planning, the

251
operation, the possession, the ultimate firing mechanism, and the decision still rest with the Americans. That is the whole point.
Mr. Jones: I am prepared to come to that if the hon. Member will allow me to get on.
This has been described as a gimmick. If it were a. mere gimmick it would be right for this country to have nothing to do with it. I believe it to be more than a gimmick and that the forces which have given rise to this gimmickry—if gimmickry it be—will go on. In other words, I believe that the pressure to convert an embryonic European community into a power unit will continue and that this, in turn, is bound to produce counter-pressure from the United States to create a trans-Atlantic power unit.
Clearly, we are excluded from the European community as it now is. If I am right in this judgment, and if in addition to our exclusion from the European Community we by our action exclude ourselves from the trans-Atlantic power unit we are heading for a position of unsplendid isolation. But even if I am wrong in my judgment of the underlying forces which have given rise to this proposal, the fact remains that, rightly or wrongly, the proposal has been made. And if this country were now to assume the responsibility for killing the proposal we should be adding to our present estrangement from France an estrangement from Western Germany, and this estrangement we can ill afford. I submit then to the House that we cannot respond entirely negatively, as it seems to me the mood of the country generally has been, to the American proposal.
We have to respond positively. This means that while we certainly accept the delay—and I agree entirely with what the right hon. Member for Smethwick has said about the desirability for delay while the Moscow talks go on, and about trying to vary the details—we have to put up an alternative.
People will differ in their views on what the alternative should be. I only give my brief view—and this is my response to the interjection earlier in my speech. My view is that any alternative which we put forward must adhere to the essence of the American scheme, and
252
the essence of the scheme, as I see it, is that, initially, a part of the Western deterrent is pooled as an experiment. This pooled part will, at first, be operated under the rule of unanimity, which means an American veto, but to make it acceptable to the Europeans and to keep the door open to France, we should, at a later date, I think, have to pass beyond the unanimity rule to decisions by a qualified majority. This would be applicable to the experimental part of the Western deterrent which is pooled, but I think that this thought carries with it the possibility that the principles underlying the experiment should later be applied to the entire Western deterrent.
Of course, this scheme, like all schemes, has its difficulties. I confess that it is an appallingly difficult problem. The first main difficulty I take is the one which has been mentioned from the benches opposite, namely, that any scheme of this kind gives West Germany a say in nuclear strategy. My only comment on this is to say how much better, in retrospect, it would have been, both from the Soviet point of view and from the Western point of view, to have seen West Germany remilitarised within the framework of a European defence community and not see us forced, as we were later, to remilitarise her as an independent nation. If this is true of the past, how much better it would be for the future to grant West Germany a say in nuclear strategy within an Atlantic context rather than in a purely European context. That, perhaps, is the Opposition's difficulty.
The other main difficulty is the Government's difficulty, the difficulty that the British nuclear effort is too small to be divided into two parts, a part which is pooled in this experimental way and a part which is kept independent. The Government here are in a predicament. I sympathise with them. I can only remind them of the Foreign Secretary's words a year ago, that, the power of this country having declined, if we are to maintain our influence we must consciously place ourselves at a centre of power.
I suggest to the House that the American proposal, just as General de Gaulle's act in excluding us from the Common Market did, has confronted us with a challenge, a challenge which we have evaded for too long, namely, the

253
challenge of defining the centre of power at which we place ourselves. The longer we side-step this issue, the greater risk do we run of seeing the independence which we covet turned into an isolation which we do not want and which, I am sure, we should all deplore.
Mr. Heath: I have listened with the greatest interest to what my right hon. Friend has said. At the end of his speech, he has come back to the point he made at the beginning, and on this I should like to comment, if I may. I refer to the question of defining our position in relation to Europe as an instrument of power.
My right hon. Friend has said that we have failed to do this, and that this was really the reason why the negotiations were broken off. With respect, if he reads the opening statement at the negotiations in Paris, and the statement to Western European Union, which I made on 10th April, he will find that we faced this point completely, accepting that the Europe of which we were asking to be a part would be a focal point of power. This was the reason why we were taking that action, and we were negotiating for political just as much as for economic reasons.
This was fully recognised by the Five. It was disputed by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and other hon. Members opposite that we should have said such a thing, but it was accepted by the Five, who certainly shared our view. The real difference lies in what I went on to say, which was that Europe as a focal point of power must also be part of the Atlantic Alliance. This is where the real difference is in European policies, but, again, on this the Five agreed with us in Brussels.
Mr. Jones: I do not really dissent from that. My point is that de Gaulle differed from us in wanting to see Europe organised in terms of ultimate power apart from the United States. We took a different view, rightly, I think, and it was this difference which prompted the collapse of the talks. As I see it, the problem is to define the trans-Atlantic unit as a new centre of power, and in a way which, while it will not, I think, reconcile France in the short term, will, in the long term, keep the door open for her.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Henderson: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), in his very thoughtful speech, has drawn attention to what is probably the most difficult short-term problem facing us today. Whatever my views may be about the proposal for a multi-lateral force, I agree entirely with him that it has not been put forward by the United States as something in the nature of a gimmick.
What some of us are worried about is that it seems to involve questions of national prestige. The West German Government have entered into undertakings not to acquire or produce the nuclear weapon, but this proposal seems to us to involve their entering into the nuclear sphere through the back door. It seems to us, therefore, to have been put forward purely on political grounds, in spite of the fact that it seems to be another way of embarking upon the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is because we feel that any action which would result in the proliferation of nuclear weapons is to be opposed that, speaking for myself, I am extremely dubious about this proposal.
For those reasons, as well as for others, we feel that the decision of President Kennedy and the Prime Minister last weekend to postpone a decision on the proposed multilateral force will be widely welcomed. Apart from the political and military objections to it, the proposal seems to have been most untimely. It is only common sense that no action should be taken at present which might prejudice the successful outcome of the forthcoming negotiations later this month in Moscow. There is ample evidence that the Soviet Union's fears and suspicions have been aroused by the proposal for this kind of force.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) when he urges that steps should be taken to associate all the N.A.T.O. countries with the control of the Western nuclear weapon. Again, speaking for myself, I agreed very much with the Canadian Prime Minister when he said, some time ago, that, however inevitable it may be that the American finger should be on the trigger, it is essential that all the N.A.T.O. countries

255
should have their fingers on the safety catch. In my view—my right hon. Friend has urged this upon the House—some form of organisation providing effective consultation must be created to ensure that the taking of nuclear action never depends on the decision of one man, not even the President of the United States.
However, merely to reject or postpone a decision on a multilateral force does not get rid of the danger of proliferation. During the past few months, we have seen how this danger has been growing. President de Gaulle's separatism will, in my view, undoubtedly stimulate the Germans and the Italians and possibly other countries, to aspire to become nuclear Powers both on the basis of national prestige and in the mistaken belief that it will result in an added insurance for their national security.
I believe that the widespread cynicism which exists as a result of 10 years of abortive disarmament negotiations is also a powerful stimulus to nuclear proliferation. I want to say how strongly I feel that the only way to deal with these problems and the only real alternative to proliferation and the present race in nuclear weapons is not to build up further categories of nuclear forces but to secure, first, a nuclear test ban; secondly, to start on general disarmament, and, thirdly, the creation of a United Nations peace force.
For many months we have been faced with a stalemate in the nuclear test ban negotiations at Geneva. It seems almost unbelievable that failure to reach agreement on a nuclear test ban treaty is because of a difference on the number of on-site inspections—should there be seven or three? The importance of the coming conference in Moscow lies in the possibility of securing a test ban agreement. This was stated in the communiqué issued by President Kennedy and the Prime Minister over the weekend. They said that a nuclear test ban agreement might well lead to progress in other directions.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick was not too pessimistic. He has had the advantage of direct contacts with the Russian leaders. I very much hope that it turns out that his view is pessimistic because it seems to me
256
incredible that we should carry on a policy of haggling over digits while the world is building more and more weapons of mass destruction. I cannot believe that the world is so bankrupt of statesmanship that it will not be realised among the leaders of the three countries engaged in these negotiations that it would be well worth the while of both sides to secure a start with a test ban agreement.
However, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick—it may be that this is the Government's position—that if it is not possible to secure an overall agreement banning tests we should accept a ban on high altitude and surface tests, leaving underground tests to be dealt with later. I should like to go a little further than some of my colleagues. I should have been prepared to accept an agreement banning high altitude and surface and underwater tests, leaving underground tests to be dealt with later, but I would agree to a moratorium for 12 months or two years while the scientists of the three countries tried to work out something which would be a compromise on the minimum number of on-site inspections.
I am wondering whether the difficulty is due to the fact that the Soviet Union sincerely fears espionage, or whether it is that the United States Government and our own Government are scientifically convinced that there must be a minimum number of on-site inspections, or whether it is, as the Prime Minister indicated two or three weeks ago in the House, that there is an absence of political will to achieve an agreement. It would be tragic if that were the case and I for one would wish God speed to both the negotiators who are to go to Moscow at the end of this month and express the hope that they will be able to lay the ground for a further conference.
The negotiations which are to take place in Moscow this month are a welcome development, but we must not be too disappointed if no final comprehensive agreement is reached. I consider that, even in these circumstances, the value of the talks will be in preparing the ground for a Summit meeting of the three Heads of Government. I have held the view for a long time that Mr. Khrushchev will have to be personally involved in any major agreement

257
between the Soviet Union and the United States. I see no need for a formal Summit conference. I should like the Prime Minister to take the first step by announcing that he will go to the General Assembly of the United Nations in September as head of the British delegation. If Mr. Khrushchev led the Soviet delegation to the General Assembly, opportunities would present themselves in the course of the day-to-day business of the General Assembly, which would, in turn, provide opportunities for meetings between the three leaders without the formalities and publicity of a formal Summit conference.
I very much welcome, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides do, the establishment of what is termed a"hot line" between Moscow and Washington to enable direct talks to take place between President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev at times of emergency. However, I believe that in the present international situation the time has come for direct talks between President Kennedy, Mr. Khrushchev and the Prime Minister.
The irony of the Geneva Conference deadlock becomes only too apparent when one considers the respective drafts of general disarmament proposals of the Soviet Union and the United States. While there are important differences, there is no unbridgeable gap separating them. Neither side needs to take up a rigid and uncompromising position. It is only fair to say that the Soviet Union has made some encouraging moves by modifying its original proposals and bringing them nearer to the Western proposals. Yet, after all these months and years of discussion and negotiation, no agreement is in sight. This is because national prestige seems to be involved, so that neither side will adopt as a basis of discussion the disarmament plan put forward by the other.
As the Foreign Secretary said in March last year, what is needed is a master plan drawing on the best of all the proposals put forward. I ask the Minister who will speak later tonight whether an attempt has been made to draft such a master plan. I suggested to the Prime Minister several months ago that the United Nations Secretary-General should
258
be invited to prepare such a plan. Has this been done? The Secretary-General might well undertake such a task if he were invited so to do by President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev. Such a master plan would not be automatically binding on either the United Nations or the Soviet Union. Its great value would be that it would mean one basis of discussion instead of two, as at present. I very much hope that the Government will take the initiative in urging this course upon both President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev.
I should like to make one further comment on the two disarmament plans. In my view, the establishment of the proposed international peace force should not be left to later stages of the agreement. The fear that national security might be threatened is probably the main obstacle to progress on an effective agreement on disarmament. It is, therefore, imperative that the nucleus of a United Nations peace force should be created in the early stages of a disarmament treaty—in fact, in stage one and not in stage two, as at present proposed.
In that connection, I ask the Government to consider the proposals contained in the"Uniting for Peace" resolutions of 1950, paragraph (c) of which proposed that each member State of the United Nations should maintain within its national forces elements so trained, organised and equipped that they could be promptly made available for service as a United Nations unit or units upon recommendation by the Security Council or the General Assembly. This recommendation has never been implemented. It is more than time that steps were taken to give effect to this proposal, which has Iain dormant for 12 years.
I therefore ask the Government to suggest to the United States Government that a proposal to earmark national contingents should be included in the first stage of a disarmament treaty. I believe that the creation of such a permanent force would establish greater confidence and help to remove the fears of insecurity in a disarming world.
Mr. Patrick Wall: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the force which he proposes should come under the Military Staff Committee of the United Nations?

259
Would he not agree that it is most unfortunate that that body has not been used for many years, even in the peacekeeping operations?
Mr. Henderson: That is correct. I do not want to mislead the House. Provision was made under Article 43 of the United Nations Charter that at the request of the Security Council, if an emergency occurred Governments should be ready to provide their contribution in the way of national contingents. I go much further than that. I say that we should not wait for an emergency or for the Security Council to make the request, but that as part of the building-up of the system of security in a world which, I am assuming, is beginning to disarm, this force should be started in the very first stages of disarmament.
However strongly we may feel that it is through these measures of disarmament and through the workings of the Charter that the security and independence of peoples can best be safeguarded, it would be unrealistic if we did not accept that until, in the early stages, we reassure the countries of the world that they will have their independence and freedom safeguarded, we shall run up against more and more difficulties in commencing general disarmament.
It is not only nuclear tests and general disarmament that need to be discussed with Mr. Khrushchev round the table. Serious problems face the United Nations, involving the threat of financial insolvency and even the disruption of the organisation. I do not disagree with what has been said about the need for enforcing the Charter of the United Nations. I understand that by January, 1964, the Soviet Union will be two years in arrear with its contributions. Automatically, under Article 19 of the Charter, it will become disqualified from voting in the General Assembly. Such a disqualification will become inevitable unless the Soviet Union pays up.
Nevertheless, hon. Members, on both sides, would agree that such disqualification is undesirable in general and harmful to the United Nations in particular, and would not be in the interests of world peace or international relations or of the effectiveness of the United Nations. Although the Soviet
260
Union is at the top of the"league" in the number of vetoes which it has exercised since 1946, it is a foundation member of the United Nations and should carry out its responsibilities as a permanent member of the Security Council.
On the other hand, it would be fatal to the United Nations unless Article 19 were implemented in the event of the Soviet Union failing to pay its dues under the Charter. I cannot believe that the Soviet Union intends to disrupt the United Nations by persisting in its refusal to pay its dues, which, incidentally the International Court of Justice has ruled are payable under the Charter.
Sir Douglas Glover: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. If I have it right, it is the special contributions on which the U.S.S.R. is behind. It is up to date, I believe, with its ordinary contributions to the United Nations. And, of course, the Soviet Union states that it did not agree with some of the functions which have been carried out by the United Nations.
Mr. Henderson: The Soviet Union cannot get away with that.
Sir D. Glover: I agree.
Mr. Henderson: As to that argument, fortunately the matter was referred to the International Court of Justice, which ruled that the special dues in respect of operations in the Middle East and in the Congo were payable in addition to the normal dues under the Charter. If that means anything, it means that neither the Soviet Union, France or any other country which has refused to support the United Nations operations in those areas can plead that it is not called upon to pay its special contributions under the Charter of the United Nations.
Sir D. Glover: I agree.
Mr. Henderson: It must be made clear that the International Court of Justice has ruled against a view of that kind.
The Lord Privy Seal painted a rather grim picture of the situation in Laos and acknowledged the ineffectiveness of the machinery which was established at the Geneva Conference. Is it not time that this matter was taken to the United Nations? We are told that it may well plunge the world into war. This is a prob-

261
lem which should be taken to the United Nations, especially in view of the attitude of the Soviet Government, whose difficulties one can understand as a result of the attempt of the Communist China to bring all the countries of South-East Asia within its political orbit. Is that not all the more reason for this matter to be taken to the Security Council as a situation which threatens world peace? I very much hope that the Government will give the closest consideration to what I am suggesting.
The problem of Berlin remains a disturbing element in the European situation and is a cause of tension between East and West. The danger of the cold war being suddenly intensified is always with us. As the United Nations Secretary-General said a few days ago, the peace of the world depends largely on co-operation between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. He said:
"A world authority could grow out of an agreement between the two major world Powers to prevent war among other countries and to do away with the cold war."
I would only add that in my view such an agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States of America is only a necessary first step. An agreement providing for the banning of nuclear tests, an agreement providing for general disarmament and an agreement providing for the establishment of a world authority would all, in my view, require the inclusion and co-operation of both Communist China and France if they were to be fully effective. It may be that those two nations will remain detached from the current efforts to reduce the dangers of war by a test ban agreement and by comprehensive disarmament by stages, but we must always bear in mind that any agreements that may be reached must, if they are to be effective, be universal in their application.
6.11 p.m.
Sir Cyril Osborne: As the House knows, I am not an expert on foreign affairs, and I hope that hon. Members will forgive an ordinary back bencher for making some plain observations on a single point.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) has just said, quoting the
262
Secretary-General of the United Nations, that the greatest and most important need of the world is for an understanding between the Soviet Union and America. I am convinced that the greatest thing we can do in foreign affairs is to build a bridge between those two great Powers. I am convinced, as a non-expert, that the greatest need for this country in foreign affairs is greater understanding and mutual trust and confidence between the Soviet authorities and ourselves. I believe that all other things hinge on this one matter.
During the Whit sun holiday, I had the honour, as the Chairman of the Anglo-Soviet Parliamentary Group, to take an all-party delegation to Moscow. It was my fifth visit to that city in nine years. Perhaps the House will allow me to give the three main impressions which I received.
First, I was convinced that in the Soviet Union today there is a greater desire than ever for friendship with this country. I believe that, for our part, we should do a great deal more to meet the Russians. For example, when we were in Moscow my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation was therewith a very powerful delegation from the aircraft industry. I should like more Ministers to visit Moscow as regularly, as informally and as naturally as they visit, say, Paris or Bonn. I should like them to invite their Soviet opposite numbers to visit this country.
I believe that the visit of the Lord President of the Council, Lord Hailsham, to Moscow next week, which everybody must hope will succeed, would have been easier and more fruitful if he had been there more often and had made personal contacts among the Soviet leaders. I would also say—there is need to say it, in view of the sensational reports that we get from outside—that it is not necessary to be a fellow-traveller to be a friend of the Soviet people and want to work with them to try to preserve peace.
I was also in Moscow at the same time as the Leader of the Opposition, and noted how warmly he was welcomed there. I wish that more Opposition leaders would go to Moscow, for I believe that it is important that the Soviet leaders should understand better the rights, privileges and duties of a loyal Opposition, which is something they do not at the moment comprehend.

263
I am convinced that the Soviet people want our friendship, but only on the basis of absolute equality. [Laughter.] I would tell my hon. Friends that this is not a laughing matter. Some of the Right-wingers on my side of the House had better learn this. The Soviet people will not accept us if we go there with any stupid ideas of superiority, either intellectually or politically. If hon. Members think that they are going to Moscow to do a bit of international"slumming", they had better think again.
What we have to remember is that the Soviet is today a proud and powerful nation which, since 1917, has turned a semi-serf, illiterate, backward peasant society into the second most powerful industrial nation in the world. The Russians are very proud of what they have done. To them, Communism is both a religion and a way of life and they have no intention of abandoning it. We deceive ourselves if we think that they are about to restore capitalism in their country. For them, Communism has produced marvellous results and has given them industrial affluence instead of the poverty of the semi-serf society.
They say, quite clearly, when one argues it with them, that Communism is not for export and that they do not believe in compulsory conversion. They genuinely want and believe in peaceful co-existence. They acknowledge that they have much to learn from us, especially industrially, and I think that those who go there a good deal realise that we have something to learn from them. What I believe is most important is that if we could only learn first to understand and then to trust each other, a genuine confidence could be established, and then all other things would be possible.
We are talking about a lasting nuclear test ban; but that cannot be achieved until we have won the Russians' confidence. No matter how many conferences we hold, it is the spirit in which the conferences are held and not the paper results that come from them that really matter. I made it perfectly clear when I discussed things with them that Britain would not barter her alliance with America for greater Anglo-Soviet understanding, that we desired and needed the friendship of both countries, and that that was what we meant to get.
264
The prize, if we could get it, would not only be the ending of the cold war and the lifting of the enormous financial burden of armaments from the peoples of our countries. It would roll away the threat of annihilation to us all if by any mischance a war were to start. I believe that Anglo-American-Soviet understanding could be the greatest blessing to mankind, and I beg the Government to do whatever they can to achieve this.
As a last point on this aspect, I found that many people in Moscow were immensely grateful to the Prime Minister for his personal efforts over many years to try to reach a better understanding with the Soviet people. I should like to wish, as I am sure all hon. Members would, god speed to the Lord President of the Council in his important work in Moscow next week.
My second impression is of the Soviet attitude to German rearmament. I warn the House that the Soviet leaders and people are bitterly opposed to such a step. They do not trust a German with a gun in his hand. They have good reason for this, for in the last war they lost 20 million dead as a result of the German invasion of their country, and it is very difficult for them to forget it. They fear—I put this to my hon. Friends—that Germany will become more powerful in N.A.T.O. than Britain. The Russians say that France is pulling out of N.A.T.O., and they are frightened of Germany taking her place and becoming the most powerful nation in Europe. They do not trust a Germany armed with atomic weapons.
When, in friendly argument with them, I tried to make excuses, they merely said that last time it was Hitler who invaded their country and who over-ran his neighbours, that before him it was the Kaiser, that before him it was Bismarck, that before him it was Frederick the Great, and that before him it was the Teutonic knights; and that they did not trust the Germans. They are determined, as far as they can, to see that it never happens to their country again. I warn my hon. Friends that the more we rearm Germany with atomic weapons the less chance we shall have of a real political understanding with the Soviet Union.

265
I explained to the Russians that, as I saw it, Germany could not reasonably be expected to be kept in purdah for ever, or its new generation be punished indefinitely for the sins of its fathers. I said that Germany must one day inevitably become one of the greatest Powers of Europe, with all the powers and privileges of other nations. The Russians admit this, but they reply,"Then for goodness' sake keep atomic weapons out of the hands of the Germans for the time being. If you want an understanding with us, that is the first requisite, or disarmament will become impossible."
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Smithers): I dare say that my hon. Friend made it clear to his Russian friends that as far as he knows—or, indeed, I myself know—there is no proposal to give the Germans atomic weapons.
Sir C. Osborne: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, but I am trying to report what I have learned. It is useless my going to that country and listening and talking to some of its leaders if I do not bring back the impressions which I honestly obtained. Arising out of their experiences with the Germans, I found that there was an almost pathetic desire for peace and I found that not only in the factories, but also in the churches, where I always go when I am abroad.
I went to three Orthodox Church services, spoke in a Baptist chapel in Moscow and also went to see the Orthodox Jews. Everywhere they talked urgently about peace and their desire for it. Incidentally, I would like to add that I do not believe that any anti-Semitism is practised in Russia.
I believe that it is vitally important for us to win the confidence of the Soviet rulers because, unless they can trust the Americans and ourselves, they will never lower their guard against Germany and a real settlement of the Berlin and Central European problem will continue to elude us and ultimately threaten our own peace and security.
My third impression relates to the Sino-Soviet situation which, perhaps, is the most important of all. It affects us more closely than perhaps we realise. The Russians do not talk much about it and tend to play it down, but they are very concerned and very worried about it.
266
I reminded them of my talk about three years ago in Peking, with Marshal Chen Yi, when, for three and a half hours, I tried to get him to deny the Chinese interpretation of the Marxist-Leninist gospel, according to which war is inevitable between the Communist and capitalist countries.
I said to Soviet people,"How can you expect the Americans and ourselves to disarm if your friends in China, speaking for 700 million people, say that war is inevitable? Why should we leave ourselves open to anihilation?" This is what we have to face. Indeed, I think that it is the greatest problem facing us. I say this as a non-expert, an ordinary Member of this House, but to me it is a crucial matter. How can we expect the Americans to disarm if, according to the Chinese interpretation of the Marxist-Leninist gospel, war is ultimately inevitable?
Sir D. Glover: Does not my hon. Friend realise that it is the threat from China that makes it just as difficult for the Russians to disarm as for the United States, because they are frightened of China and of what will happen over the years ahead?
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Does the hon. Member realise that China's attitude has been greatly influenced by the fact that she has been kept out of her legal seat at the United Nations? Will he accept my assurance that when I talked to Marshal Chen Yi, the Foreign Minister, last December, in Peking, he assured me that if the West would make a disarmament treaty the Chinese would come in and accept the inspection that was required? But he added,"But we Asians prepare for war because the West does not make the disarmament treaty."
Sir C. Osborne: I hate to cross swords with the right hon. Gentleman, who is such an expert. I am only a back bencher.
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's speech very much.
Sir C. Osborne: I disagree violently with the right hon. Gentleman. I talked to Marshal Chen Yi three years ago. I said that as I understood the matter, at the Bucharest conference there had been a quarrel between Moscow and

267
Peking about the true interpretation of the Marxist-Leninist gospel and that whereas the Russians say that peaceful co-existence is both possible and desirable the Chinese say that it is not, according to"holy writ", and that, therefore, war is inevitable.
For three and a half hours I struggled to get Marshal Chen Yi to deny that, but he refused to do so. This is the crux of the matter we face. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to look up HANSARD of 4th November and 12th December, 1960, he will see that I reported this to the House.
There is a view on the Sino-Soviet dispute which I would like to challenge. It was expressed in the Daily Telegraph today. In its editorial it said:
"Had we been feeble"—
that is, about Cuba—
"there would have been no rift".
That is nonsense. The rift between Russia and China dates back to the death of Stalin. It is fundamental. Those of us who want an understanding with Soviet Russia deceive ourselves if we do not face this vital difference between the point of view of Moscow and that of Peking. This is a religious struggle which is as fanatical and violent as ever held in Europe during the wars of religion, in which Christians on both sides burnt each other to death.
It is extraordinary that the Daily Telegraph editorial went on to make this deduction:
"There are many who urge that Mr. Khrushchev must now be rewarded in some way for his moderation".
I should have thought that the most obvious thing to do. Does the Daily Telegraph want to drive him to extremes? If the man is trying to see other nations' points of view, should we not try also to meet his point of view? Should he not be rewarded for his effort? It is important that we should meet the Soviet Union as far as we possibly can within the limits of our honour and security, not to strengthen Mr. Khrushchev to fight against China, but, I hope, to bring the Chinese to where he stands today.
We should also remember that to Chinese eyes Russia has become a bourgeoise of the capitalist world. We
268
should remember that in Russia the income per capita is £265 per annum—that is a United Nations figure which I know the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) will accept. The equivalent figure in India is £24 and in China it is even less. In fact, the income per capita in Russia is more than ten times greater than that in China. That is one of the vital factors. One country is hungry and the other has a surplus.
Russia today belongs to the"have" nations whereas China leads the"have-nots". That is what we should realise. If Mr. Khrushchev's old boast that one day he will give his people a higher standard of living than even the Americans, the gulf between the richest and the poorest in the Communist camp will be fantastic; and of this, of course, the Chinese are well aware.
I say this for Mr. Khrushchev's problem. No solution, as I see it, is possible for Asia's problem of hunger unless Asia imposes upon itself a rigid form of birth control. No sacrifice the Soviet Union can make to help feed China's hungry millions can possibly be successful if the number of mouths in China continues to increase more rapidly than the supply of food. So far, I see no way of this being solved.
To bring the problem into a perspective in which hon. Members may have more interest, even those on the extreme Right who are not sympathetic to my point of view, in India, for which we have some responsibility, there are 8million totally unemployed, 18 million chronically underemployed, and between now and 1971 the population of India will increase by 115 million.
Those things cannot be laughed off in a stupid manner. These are the facts which we have to face. Despite the tensions between Russia and China, it is the utter folly of some people in the West to hope that one day China and Russia will fight one another in order to"save our bacon". Of course, they will not. If war starts, once again we shall learn that war and peace are indivisible, and there will be nobody who will escape. There is no bomb target so great as London, there is nobody who can suffer so much and so quickly as we in this country, and there is nobody who stands

269
to gain as much as the people of this country from the obtaining of peace.
I believe that Mr. Khrushchev has taken great personal risks in his own country in attempting to co-operate with us. So many people speak of him as though he were a dictator with no opposition. He has to carry his colleagues with him and he must deal with the Stalinists whom he pushed on one side. For us, it would be the greatest tragedy if Mr. Khrushchev were replaced by a new and younger Stalinist. While China continues her opposition to his policies, which are fundamental, there will always be a danger of this very thing happening. To my mind, this is the third and perhaps most compelling reason why we should do our best to see that Mr. Khrushchev receives some practical results from his more friendly policy.
I therefore plead with the Government to use their influence, first, with the American Government and then with the German Government, to see how far we can regard the Soviet position with fresh eyes and consider what action we can take to meet the Russian point of view and to secure the peace and understanding which we require within the limits of our honour and our own national safety.
6.32 p.m.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: We have listened to the speech from the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), my next-door political neighbour, with which I believe that we would almost entirely agree, and when I say"we" I take the liberty of speaking for those on my side of the House and, I believe, for many hon. Members opposite.
There was only one point with which he did not quite come to grips and it was that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker). The hon. Member having devoted so much of his time to a greater understanding between the Soviet Union and the West, not only this country, and having also visited China and having had the long tussle some two and a half years ago of which he spoke, I can well understand that he has fixed in his mind that China is quite beyond the pale, at any rate for the present, in this matter of disarmament. I believe that my right hon. Friend's interjection has shown
270
something which I have always fervently believed to be true, namely, that the Chinese are by no means beyond the pale, provided that they can see that other people will act in what they regard as a reasonably fair way as well.
The leaders of the Chinese people are every bit as intelligent as the leaders of any other country. They know that if nuclear war should come no single human being throughout the world would escape some kind of effect. I am not saying that every human being would be killed, but I assert that every single human being on this planet would be affected, and I believe seriously affected. Through their leaders, who are intelligent men, the Chinese see this as much as we do. Whatever bargaining position they may take up now, ultimately, when they see that other people, and by"other people" I mean the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc and the Western Powers, doing something sensible in this matter of disarmament, the Chinese will come along too, which makes me extremely hopeful that these things can be achieved even in my lifetime.
The debate has been ranging widely. Matters of N.A.T.O. have been discussed by hon. Members who have studied them with the greatest care, as have matters of nuclear test bans and so forth. The fact that I do not propose to refer to these matters, recognising that so many hon. Members know far more about them than I do, does not mean that I do not regard them as intensely important.
If I may without presumption, I want to come to something which seems to me to be of the very essence of any question of foreign affairs. Everybody who makes any suggestion in foreign affairs is really making a suggestion as to the best way which he sees of keeping the peace. That is the whole object of the exercise of foreign affairs. I know that there may be some hesitations about accepting this with regard to China, although I do not have such reservations, but every leader of every responsible great Power has said at one time or another that unless we have complete and general disarmament we cannot possibly expect indefinitely to keep the peace of the world.
As has been said so often in today's debate, pre-eminently by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for

271
Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), nothing seems to come from all these disarmament negotiations which we have had all our lives. This is not just a question of bad luck, or of not putting in the effort. What we would be extremely wise to discover is why the negotiations have failed hitherto. To try to do so docs not mean that we do not want to encourage those now taking part in these negotiations. Very much to the contrary, one wishes them all the luck and patience they can have.
But it is necessary to look a little beneath the questions of disarmament to see if we can find the real reason for the failure to reach some sort of agreement. In March, 1961, our Government were party to what I regard as a most remarkable declaration by the Prime Ministers' Conference. The Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth unanimously declared that without the creation of a system of security—they said a security authority—with adequate power to enforce world law, there was not the slightest hope of peace. I thought at the time that this was something quite amazing in the international field of foreign affairs which we are all discussing. This looked as though it really could be made into a major break-through in this matter of disarmament which was holding everything up. Was I right? Should I have said,"Or is it a major break-through?". I am not being sarcastic about right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it appears to me—and I ask them whether it is not so—that they have done nothing to further that particular facet of this problem of exploring how to achieve an alternative system of security to that generally thought of as being given by arms.
Have they used at the United Nations the immense influence of our Commonwealth to plug the declaration that was made in 1961? What have they done? Will they tell us? I know that they have been working frightfully hard at the Disarmament Conference at Geneva and elsewhere, but have they done anything in this line to follow up that 1961 declaration? I do not know whether they have, and I would be glad to hear whether they have in fact done so. Whom have they approached to try to follow it up? What efforts have they made at the United Nations to start a bloc aiming at
272
world peace through enforceable world law, because that is what they were talking about in that declaration?
I know that a lot of people think that the other fellow will not play even if we do. Frankly, I am rather sick of this. Unless it can be shown that we have made efforts openly to try to further this matter, we have no right to say,"Yes, we believe in a security authority; we believe in general and complete disarmament, but the other fellow does not", meaning that China does not, that Russia does not, or that somebody else does not. I submit that we have to show before the whole world that we not only make these pious declarations, admirable though they be, such as that one in March, 1961, but that we follow them up by concrete efforts to see them translated into effect at the United Nations.
I have often had the impression, and I know that it is widely shared not only in this country but elsewhere, that so far from taking the lead at and through the United Nations to achieve something in this direction, Her Majesty's Government have been extremely lukewarm and have even been giving the impression that, although they say they are in favour of using the United Nations to the utmost, in fact they are doing very little about it because they do not think very much about it.
As for the other fellow, I know it is often thought that if one tries to obtain support abroad for such a thing as that declaration, that is to say, for the setting up of a security authority with courts and with a United Nations force permanently there under the United Nations staff committee, one will never succeed, particularly among those nations which have recently obtained their independence. In this I speak with no humility, and I may be wrong. I know that in one very limited sphere in West Africa, from Senegal to the Cameroons, there is not one nation there which has just gained its independence which is not 100 per cent. behind this idea of enforceable world law.
If that is true of that little section, it could be true of many other places. I believe that it is, and I should like to see Her Majesty's Government take a real line in this. It may well be that they will say that the full plan of having

273
a world security authority, having the courts, having the world law—not international law, because that is a different thing—administered by these courts and having the permanent force there, is impossible. It may well be that they will say that this is looking too far ahead at the moment; that it is something a little too Utopian for us. If they do, then I ask what is the small step in that direction which they are prepared to take? I venture to suggest one which could be taken at any moment now if they cared to mobilise sufficient support for it at the United Nations.
They could obtain enough support in the United Nations even to have a persuasive effect on Russia, if she should be against it, for this scheme. They could set up an emergency unit which would contain not only a permanent force ready to be used in such situations as the Congo but would have the necessary background to make that force work—transport, perhaps lawyers to go in and administer justice, other administrators and hospital services. These things could now be put into operation on a very small scale so that they could be invited into a particular trouble spot by the Government of that country and go there if the United Nations were of the opinion that the situation in that country was a threat to the peace of the world. It would, of course, go to that country only by invitation.
I am not saying that the emergency unit would put an end to war for ever. Good heavens, no! but it would be there to operate in an emergency in trouble spots in the world and to demonstrate how this thing could later be made to develop into the full world security authority for which there are many plans in existence, and I have no doubt that the Government know them as well as I do, if not very much better.
I believe that the whole country is waiting for a lead from Her Majesty's Government in this direction. I believe that they would be supported to the hilt, because everyone longs to see an end to famine, to disease and to ignorance in the world. The question is, is it to be Her Majesty's Government, or is it to be left—I hope that it will be taken up by them—to the African States which have not so much influence in the world
274
even as our Government have? And if it is to be our Government, the next question is, is it to be this Government, or are this Government to have to make way for another Government who will fulfil the wishes of the people in this direction?
6.48 p.m.
Sir James Pitman: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), all the more so since I am glad to be able to say that I agreed with every word he said, just as he said that he agreed with every word spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne).
I shall not follow him in many of the details, but I should like to take up some points from what the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said about the multilateral force. It seems to me that there are two aspects in regard to that force—the points which the right hon. Member raised which were points of politics, and the purely practical military points which Lord Montgomery raised in another place.
Perhaps I might take the second of those points first and point out to the House that the British Army is, indeed, a multilateral force in itself. The Guards Brigade, in particular, is very multilateral. The Grenadier Guards and the Scots Guards represent different nations and have a nice compromise with the Cold stream Guards in between, and anybody who has played Rugger against the Welsh Guards knows that even questions of language—I mean the Welsh language and not bad language—are prevalent even today. Language was very much a factor in the days of the Act of Union between England and Scotland and I have no doubt whatever that a pre-incarnation of Lord Montgomery will have been raising these very same objections that he has raised, that a British Army, of which he is now a field marshal, could not possibly be a practicable proposition. This question of the practicability of a multilateral force is a very important point in respect of the world security force about which the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis (Mr. A. Henderson) was talking. We should recognise that it is indeed possible to have multilateral forces.

275
My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal mentioned that a multilateral force in itself guarantees that the force will not be abused. It will be very important when we have a world security force, that there shall be security against abuse of that great power and that we shall see that it is made up of units consisting of people of all nationalities. Above all, just as the British Army, when formed at the time of the Act of Union, played in itself an important part in bringing together as one homogeneous community Scotland and England, in order to make them into Great Britain, so a multilateral force in Europe would, in time, have the same effect, and it would be a really beneficial example and first step if ever we were to have a world security force.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick further said that the multilateral force was not comprehensive. I can understand why it is not thus comprehensive. We cannot expect the Americans to put all their eggs in one basket, an as yet untried basket. At any rate, all things require small beginnings if any great accomplishment is to be achieved, and it is conceivable that if such a force were started it would grow and possibly become fully trusted by the Americans and thus develop into a mighty major alliance.
The Members other point, namely, that a multilateral force in itself was a danger to the successful negotiations of a test ban, even though it might have value in strengthening the alliance of the West and that its disadvantages and dangers would outweigh the advantage, leads me to examine the question of how important for world peace is the approach of a test ban and of disarmament generally, and how important is the approach through alliances. Does either really go to the root of the question of world peace?
The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) is winding up tonight's debate for the Opposition. On the question of disarmament and a test ban, I ask him to tell the House what guarantees of peace either would achieve. Hopes of peace, yes—but what guarantees of peace would be brought about by banning tests, or even entering into disarmament agreements? History shows us that after the Locarnos, when
276
every nation agrees not to go to war and to have disarmament, there is eventually a rush period—a sort of post-Munich period—in which every nation frantically rearms. Then follows the phase of the"phoney" war, while nations having declared war are getting their armaments up to strength again after the earlier disarmament.
Mr. Tomney: There is one graphic difference that the hon. Member has overlooked between Locarno and now. Now it is total war.
Sir J. Pitman: It is not necessarily total, but let us assume that it is. I am coming to that point.
We must face the fact that a test ban agreement, or a disarmament agreement, does not mean that the next war will be fought with less destructive and devastating effect than even the last war. We must recognise that, whatever we do in this way, of disarmament or of alliances, there will be no guarantee of peace. There will be a reduction of tension, but it is only a hope, not a guarantee for individual nations which all have the obligation and the duty to rearm if their security demands it, will do so—in which case we will have war. It is a moot point whether it will be a total nuclear war or another conventional war even worse than the last.
I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman what guarantees there are that disarmament and test ban agreements will bring about peace, and not merely only the temporary absence of war. Past experience has shown us that such agreements do not guarantee peace, and as far as we can foresee they will not do so in future.
History has also shown us that the forming of alliances has produced not peace, but only bigger and better wars at longer intervals. I read an interesting note in the Economist this week about the difficulties facing Mr. Kennedy. The strength of the Western Alliance varies proportionately, according to the degree to which the Russians are a potential threat to the West. To the extent that President Kennedy is successful in reducing tension with Russia, so the cement of the Western Alliance becomes less strong. It is obviously a fact that the alliances of the West—the alliance between France and Germany, ourselves

277
and Germany, and the rest—could never have come about if the Russians had not engineered them by their threat to the security of the West of Europe. We can conclude that alliances, no more than disarmament, can furnish no guarantee of peace.
Is it not clear that the mediaeval barons would not have got anywhere if they had agreed a test ban on gunpowder. I have no doubt that they were then very interested in the amount of carbon, sulphur and saltpetre which was mixed together to make gunpowder, and that they carried out various tests to make that weapon more successful. No doubt in their day it was regarded as a terrifying thing. No doubt, too, they discussed the question of disarming and of making their standing armies smaller. No doubt they had alliances, which would have had the effect of making the Wars of the Roses repeat, but with longer intervals. But is it not absolutely clear that what gave peace to Britain was the complete disarming of all those barons, and the setting up of a central authority?
That is what we need, and it is especially necessary in these days, because, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith. North (Mr. Tomney) interjected, today it could be a question of total war.
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Since the hon. Member has talked about the barons and King Henry VII, perhaps he will agree that the decisive fact that changed the history of England was that Henry VII disarmed the barons, knocked down their castles, confiscated their arms and, by the Livery Act, forbade them to have private armies.
Sir J. Pitman: Yes. That is the very point. As the late Walter Elliot said, we shall get a world security authority anyhow. If need be, we will have it forced upon us by the victory of one of the two great Powers, after an obliterating war. He said that in this House. He pointed out how desirable it was that it should be brought about by intelligence, rather than by total war, either as a result of a devastating war or by that intelligent planning in advance, which the hon. and learned Member for Brigg and many other hon. Members desire.
The big difference is that in the old days it was possible for nations to organise their security. That has now
278
become quite impossible. All that nations can do now is to organise each other's greater insecurity. For that reason it is essential for us to arrive at the solution achieved by Henry VII—not by war, but by intelligent planning in advance. As the hon. and learned Member for Brigg said, many people have said this, in impeccable statements. Our own Prime Minister produced the classic wording for what is desired, in a fine, statesmanlike speech, putting on record the Government's belief that it would be only by such a solution that this world will ever get peace.
It has been said by practically every Foreign Secretary that we have had since, both at the United Nations and at our Dispatch Box. It was said by the late Pope only a short while ago, and it was also said in a very recent and fine speech by President Kennedy at the University of Washington, which has only just been referred to. There is no lack of world leaders ready to point out that this is the only way in which peace can be achieved.
But why, then, is it that no action has been taken? Why is it that we have impeccable statements about long-term general policy, but no comparable action? What is the log which is jamming the river in this respect? I do not believe that it is the chancellories of Europe, although I could understand that they are rather like a fire brigade which is so busy arranging to put out fires that it has no time to spend on designing a new, fire-proof building which would not require the services of a fire brigade at all. I do not believe that that is so. I do not believe that it is for any lack of electoral support. The C.N.D. movement shows clearly how anxious are the people of Britain to solve this problem of peace. I think the members of that movement are misdirected. But give them a lead from the Government and immediately they would go in the right direction.
I do not think that it is any fear about who is to take the lead in the United Nations in making the proposal; because that is all it needs, a proposal to set up a committee in the United Nations which would examine the situation and make a recommendation about this new approach to peace which has never yet been tried in the world. The

279
great thing about the British Commonwealth is that it covers all races and all continents. If we want any particular nation to take the apparent lead and do it, if we want an initiative from Africa or from Canada or from anywhere, that can be arranged and the proposal brought forward in the United Nations. What we need to know is what it is that is blocking action. Why do Her Majesty's Government not back their policy statements with action?
We should all, I am sure, desire to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War upon his new appointment and to say that we particularly welcome the fact that there has gone to one of our big defence Ministries someone so versed and experienced in dealing with foreign affairs and particularly with the irksome failures of disarmament and with affairs in the United Nations, with test bans and with everything connected with what we are discussing today. Will my right hon. Friend realise, therefore, that in this country there is a strong idealism of world membership and world citizenship and that it is something which may be utilised for good; that everybody in the world expected the United Nations to do precisely this, to set up a world peacekeeping organisation and has hitherto been disappointed? Will he answer the question, either himself tonight, or get someone else to answer it tomorrow, whether Her Majesty's Government will initiate the first step in getting a proposal tabled at the United Nations?
7.4 p.m.
Mr. Frank Tomney: I do not think that anyone would doubt the sincerity of the hon. Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman). But he arrived at his conclusion by a devious, unusual and elusive argument. Most of us appreciate the content of his remarks. Like the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) he was basing his speech on hopes and good will, and like the hon. Member for Louth he seemed to think that contact with ordinary people is one of the surest ways to international agreement. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that almost from the dawn of time there has been in existence, through the doctrines of Christendom, hopes of the change which he seeks.
280
It is all very well to talk about football players, and even ballet dancers, or belly dancers, for that matter, or orchestra players and opera singers who are all very welcome in their own situation, but in terms of politics such references do not add up to a real argument. Politics is about power, and it is power which is dividing the world. That is why the United Nations came into being, in order that a court of justice could exercise some control over the operation of that power. Expressions of pious hopes will not remedy a situation in which from time to time the world finds itself confronted with war and afterwards has to lick its wounds. From the next war there will be no recovery for anyone. It will mean total loss for all concerned, although it may not be total annihilation. That is why in the arguments which I wish to develop I desire to advance some positive suggestions. So far, we have heard nothing positive in this debate.
The debate was opened by the Lord Privy Seal with what I thought was a sixth-form grammar school lecture delivered at high speed. It was followed by a speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) which was like a don's lecture to the Fabian Society. Neither got down to what the issue was about. When I received the Whip this week I found there was to be no vote. I now know the reason why. There should be a vote. The Opposition should have something to say. This is a time of change in world politics which should be met by the Opposition, even though the Government do not desire to meet it. The whole outline of my argument is that there is a change apparent throughout the world.
The Lord Privy Seal referred to Laos and intimated that the help he was getting from the Russians regarding a settlement in Laos did not appear to be effective in the changing circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition took him up on one point with remarkable clarity and precision. In an interjection, my right hon. Friend said that the writ of the Soviet Union did not run in Laos. That is quite true. And similarly, the writ of the Chinese does not run in Europe. It is in this context that we are discussing these international affairs.

281
President Kennedy has just visited several countries in Europe. He stopped here for 23 hours. I do not know what that means, or rather I think I know, but do not like to admit it. President Kennedy received a tremendous welcome in Germany and one looks for the political reason behind that welcome, the reason why it was so spontaneous. If one considers it the reason is obvious. It was an appeal over the heads of de Gaulle and Adenauer from the German people. President Kennedy gave several guarantees in his speeches about West Germany. But he did not say that it would be the object of Western democracy to return Eastern Germany by force. That he did not say, and it is worth remembering.
We now have a situation where it is possible that we may have to take some very rough decisions. Over the last 15 years we in this country have taken upon ourselves a burden which is greater than the nation should have been expected to shoulder. The defence bill is now running at £1,700 million and is too big to contemplate.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: It is £1,850 million.
Mr. Tomney: A million either way makes little difference. It is too big to contemplate.
This being so, let us look at the European situation. We have gained time. There has been no explosion, except perhaps over Korea and Tibet and on the Indian border. Time is essential for survival. But in gaining that time we have lost a tremendous lot. We have lost the potential for production for survival of goods and services and export capacity, and if that is not remedied quickly, in a situation when time is running on, it will result in our being reduced to the status, not of a second-class or a third-class but of a fourth-class industrial nation. This cannot be contemplated in our position and with our population.
We have a situation on the Continent in which de Gaulle, deliberately and systematically, although France is a member of the N.A.T.O. Alliance, has, for reasons of power politics and pique, withdrawn his Army, Air Force and Navy at various times from the service of N.A.T.O. He has done that deliberately
282
and with purpose. The British taxpayer, in the main, has borne the burden as a result. This should stop; it should stop now. Lord Montgomery was right when he said in another place that we should look again at the strength of the British Army of the Rhine and see whether those numbers are necessary in this context at this time and for what purpose they are there. If we read the changed position in the world aright and come to the conclusion that they are not necessary, we should have the good sense to bring them home and put them to employment.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Is the hon. Member aware that it is the policy of his party to increase our conventional contribution to N.A.T.O.?
Mr. Tomney: I am well aware of that, and I shall come to it any moment.
We have reached a situation in which de Gaulle, for the purposes of power politics, prestige and grandeur, is prepared to hold the Western Alliance at his will.
Let us settle the position over H-bomb tests and the production of the H-bomb. At this stage of the proceedings, if the offer is made by the Soviet Union we should accept the suggestion of three on-site inspections. We should not insist on more inspections. In this context, I think that we are in the vanguard of progress and that we should welcome the offer. If that is accepted the so-called need for conventional forces will also begin to taper off because the nuclear threat behind the conventional forces is the ultimate.
The nuclear threat strikes terror into the hearts of nations. While it may be necessary to have land forces as such even in nuclear war, that is not a factor in strategic planning or, in the first place, in the tactical operations of any future war. That is why the position should be resolved by the fewer people having control of nuclear arms, the better for strategic reasons. We are out by virtue of expense and vulnerability. When Blue Streak failed we were out, and when Skybolt failed we were further out. We were offered the Polaris submarines as a contribution to Western defence in which we are to be given the private use should the necessity arise to defend a part of our territory.

283
What is the range of Polaris submarines? It is not much more than 1,000 miles. At any point of the ocean where they might be sited they would be unable to attack Soviet war industry in the Urals. Such an attack is a non-starter. The same applies to surface ships. Both the Soviet Union and the United States of America know that in this context only I.C.B.M.s have a strategic rôle. Both countries have them. Let us hope that they are the only countries ever to have them. To multiply the danger of I.C.B.M.s would be to create the greatest threat by which we could be confronted.
The multilateral idea was a non-starter, not only for practical reasons but reasons of language, command, temperament and nationalities. I am glad about the policy of the Government on this because, although they say that they did not reject the principle, they have decided not to be committed further. It was a non-starter. Now at last we have relaxation behind the Iron Curtain. I welcome it. The difficulty for people who go overseas—and I have been on delegations—is that one is never able to get into contact with ordinary people. One talks only to people of the same level as the delegation.
I believe the rift between China and the Soviet, while serious, is not insoluble. Let us consider China's position. We have recognised the Chinese Government. We were one of the first to recognise the Chinese Government. We supported the claim of China to entry to the United Nations. This should be pursued with all the power we can command.
If we look back on the last 10 years we see that there have been three instances in which the Chinese have demonstrated their fear, not only of us but of the Soviet Union. These may have been unreal fears, or irrational fears. The first occasion was when China took control of Tibet and thereby controlled the plateau by which any possible entry could be made from India. China closed the back door. Then she proceeded to shut the side door of North Korea. The Chinese did not solve the problem by argument but used power politics and closed another door in the event of a conflict. They took over at a strategic
284
moment and they have never left North Korea. Then there was a great argument concerning the Continent of India, which has never aligned herself with East or West, but which, nevertheless, has great potential power. We saw the incursion there. Whether it was justified or not, it took place and a salutary lesson was given to Mr. Nehru.
In terms of power politics, unless the Chinese are admitted to the United Nations conference table and allowed to join discussions on disarmament and control and reduction of H-bomb tests and agreements, no one will be able to stop them making their own nuclear weapons. We are playing with time, but the capacity is there. It is there also with the French and with the Israelis. Israel is a frightened country, for obvious reasons. China is a frightened country, for obvious reasons. France is trying to reclaim the glories of her former days. Someone should tell General de Gaulle that that has gone for good, because any adventures by the French in the nuclear field will put this country into greater jeopardy than he puts his own people.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne). I believe Cuba was an attempt by the Soviet to establish equality of power with the United States over land positions of missiles. It failed for two reasons. One was on account of American will and the other was Mr. Khrushchev's good sense. Nevertheless, it failed. Having failed, it posed another problem for the Soviet Union. If the Soviets were to go on with this expensive draining of engineering and scientific resources for the production of nuclear missiles, it would drain from their economy—as it does from our economy—the fruits and savings which rightly belong to the people they govern.
Those people are now enjoying rising standards. It is 50 years since the Revolution. Two or three generations have been born and young people are coming along with new ideas. They have a desire to live in contact with people of other nations and to attain their standards. One cannot shut out for ever from the human mind the results of contacts gained from cultural associations. The Soviets know this, too. It is true to say that Mr. Khrushchev, by a process of most difficult, devious events within the

285
confines of Soviet politics, has managed to arrive at a situation—which might be explosive—where this desire for improving standards can be satisfied and at the same time give legitimate interest to his own country's national survival and defence.
Let us look at what happened only last week. There is now to take place a little Summit without Rumania. That is remarkable, because Poland and Czechoslovakia were meeting with the Soviet Union this week to discuss the operation of something the Soviets were already agreed upon, the observance of commercial contracts between country and country. In other words, these countries will not be regarded any longer as satellites in terms of trade and what were formerly reparation agreements They will be able to trade, and this, in turn, means that their economies will expand, too. They will seek goods and contacts in the wider Western world.
Now is the opportunity for the Government to find elbow room for British diplomacy, as against the power politics of the United States, to work as it has never worked before to see whether in this context there cannot be brought about a situation where sanity between the Soviets and ourselves will prevail, instead of nuclear competition. This is what all of us surely must urgently desire.
I do not think that I can add anything more to the position that I have outlined if I went into it in much greater detail and took much longer time. But the overkill capacity—that is a dreadful word—now in the possession of the United States and the Soviet Union is more than enough to bring them both to a realisation of the power that they possess. They should now, along with us, try to adopt an attitude which will keep that power not in abeyance but absolutely negative.
Any suggestion of a political give away by the United States by the means of a mutilateral force with the power still invested in and held by the United States would give cause for alarm in this present situation. It must be considered for the practical reasons that I have outlined, and for the military reason that the Soviet Union has the largest submarine fleet in the world. In any event,
286
surface ships would be sitting ducks under any terms and conditions.
De Gaulle is wise enough to realise this, as it is the main thesis of his power argument in his own country. Adenaeur and de Gaulle are closer together than people realise. De Gaulle's main thesis is that the Russian is fundamentally a European, and will in ever increasing degree act, think and work like a European. He knows it and upon this he has underpinned the basis of his own policy, but he should not, in my opinion, be allowed any more. For him to remain part of the so-called N.A.T.O. Alliance and yet ignore his obligations and his commitments to the existing defence of the West is not right morally and certainly not right politically, for it places too big a burden on this country. If this position is insisted upon we should certainly think again.
There are two matters which are the main bone of contention. Everyone knows that wars cause great suffering. The Russians were our allies in the last war and probably suffered more in the loss of manpower and destruction of cities than any other nation. I used to think at one time—and he is a poor politician who does not change his mind as time goes on—that the 1945 position, the Potsdam Conference, was sacrosanct. Events and reality have told me that it is not. I believe that the Oder-Neisser line is a fixed geographical position and should be admitted by the West. We should tell them now that this can no longer be interfered with and that the rest is negotiable in terms of time and of progress.
Now is the time. There is more elbow room now than there has ever been. Mr. Khrushchev has real difficulties and we should help him and we should help the Chinese. Let us not forget that they were a civilisation making glass, ceramics, silk and paintings when we were still in the caves of the early Britons. They, too, have something to offer the world. Let whatever diplomacy we can call upon bend its efforts more than ever in insisting, not just voting, upon the rightful place being occupied by the Chinese at the United Nations table. If we do that we shall be able to talk to people; and as any trade union negotiator will tell you, that is halfway towards settlement. Get them around the table. No

287
matter how hard we have to speak to whom and at what time, we should press for this, because now is a better opportunity than ever we have known during the last fifteen years.
7.28 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: The main theme of this debate has been disarmament, and we all pay tribute to the Secretary of State for War for the very patient work that he has undertaken both at Geneva and in New York on this subject. We have had from the Opposition Front Bench confirmation of the statement that Mr. Khrushchev is now abandoning the idea of on-site inspection. The problem of disarmament is not an easy one. Everyone wants disarmament but no one will trust the umpire, and the real problem is to find an umpire that most nations will trust. There seems little chance in this field at present of finding such an umpire, so we must concentrate our efforts on trying to get a test ban in force. At least both sides would agree as to the necessity for that.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said that we were perhaps getting bogged down with the disarmament question and that for too many years we have concentrated upon trying to find a suitable umpire and some way round this apparently insoluble problem of disarming in both the nuclear and the conventional sphere. I wonder whether in thinking so much about disarmament we have failed to appreciate that the line up in the cold war has been changing over the years. I know that in the West there has been a certain amount of disunity in the last few years. There is the disagreement between France and N.A.T.O. referred to by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney). There is the Franco-German domination of the Common Market which has prevented the entry of Britain into the Common Market.
But what of the other side? The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North also referred to the growth of China and the threat of China to South-East Asia. I think that we have underestimated the success which the Chinese have had in South-East Asia. There is also the change in Sino-Soviet relations. We have
288
heard it stated in this debate that the people of the Soviet Union are enjoying ever-increasing standards of living and are therefore moving away from the pure form of Communism and towards capitalism, whereas the Chinese who are still a"have-not" nation, cling to the Communism of Marx and Lenin. The Chinese are, therefore, making a greater appeal than is the Soviet Union to the under-developed nations of the world, and this is a factor which we should not forget.
The threat to India has been touched on, but no one has mentioned the problem as to the way in which Indonesia may move. Will she move towards the Chinese and towards the Eastern bloc or will she move, as may be possible as a result of recent talks over Greater Malaysia, towards a neutral attitude or even towards the West? It seems to me that this is a factor of enormous importance not only to South-East Asia but in world affairs, and certainly to Australia. Let us not forget the Afro-Asian pressure which has been exerted on certain European and certain Commonwealth nations in Africa. This may well be turned on Australia to persuade her to alter her policy of immigration and to ensure that she admits mass immigration from Asia and permits these people to establish themselves in Australia. This is a pressure which Australia will not like, and it will cause even greater stresses and strains in that part of the world and in the Commonwealth as a whole.
There have been changes, too, in Africa, a continent of immense importance and the main uncommitted area in the world. Africa is important, if for nothing else because it commands the largest block vote in the United Nations and therefore influences world policy perhaps to an unfair degree—by which I mean that there are a number of small nations which together have considerable influence on United Nations policy but which do not have to bear the brunt of the policies which they advocate.
As we all know, Africa is seeing the elimination of colonialism and of white leadership. But we must remember that there is a difference between Asia and Africa. European leadership has been eliminated from Asia, but we have been told again and again how many more Britons are in India today compared to

289
the days of the British Raj. I do not think that we can make a direct comparison between Africa and Asia. India has many thousands of years of civilisation and many hundreds of years of contact with the West. She had developed her own Civil Service and all the appurtenances of a modern State. Africa, except in certain coastal areas, has had a very short contact with the West and will find it difficult to stand on her own feet in the stresses and strains of the 1960s and 1970s.
In considering the differences between Africa and Asia we must realise that although the present leaders of the African people, such as Sir Abubaker Belawa and Dr. Nyerere, are great statesmen and African patriots, they are oriented by their training, their ideas and their education towards the West. It does not follow that the younger generation will take the same view. It may well be that the Chinese will have an appeal to them, and to the"have-not" nations, which is much stronger than is the pull of the West on the older generation in Africa today.
Then there are changes in the United Nations itself. The United Nations does magnificent work in technical and economic fields. No one gainsays that. It is work which no other organisation can do. But I suggest that there have been three potentially dangerous changes in the United Nations. The first has been referred to already—and it is the organisation's financial instability in the whole business of peace-keeping. We have heard that some arrangements have been made to finance peace-keeping operations, and the Congo operation in particular, until the military forces have been withdrawn, perhaps towards the end of the year. But this has taken us nowhere near a solution to the problem of financing United Nations' peace-keeping operations.
Last year the United Nations was saved by the bond issue. At the 17th General Assembly, which concluded at Christmas, a Committee was set up to consider the financing of the Congo operations for 1963 and of future peace-keeping operations. That Committee has reported, and the special session of the General Assembly has considered the Report. Again, temporary measures have been introduced and agreed to by the United Nations to keep the Congo and Middle
290
East operations going to the end of the year. Now I imagine that the whole problem will be referred to the 18th General Assembly between September and December. We have no real financial basis for future peace-keeping operations, and that is one of the basic obstacles which hon. Members who referred to this issue must overcome; if we are to have world peace-keeping and security forces, we must have some method of financing them.
I remind hon. Members that this is provided for in the Charter. Those who founded the United Nations set up the Security Council, and they set up the military committee under the Security Council to conduct military or peacekeeping operations. That military committee has not been used during any recent peace-keeping operation because certain Powers have an interest in keeping them out of the control of the Security Council, because the veto operates in the Security Council. The Congo operations were therefore controlled by an ad hoc committee, mostly Afro-Asian States, so that the Powers which had to find the money had very little say in the operations. This is not satisfactory from the point of view of the major Powers and perhaps is especially unsatisfactory from the point of view of other nations, including the Congolese. I do not complain about this but it is one of the problems which we must overcome if the United Nations is to conduct peace-keeping operations satisfactorily and if there is to be any chance of a world security force.
The second problem which is weakening the United Nations is the growing concern of the United Nations in political matters. We know that colonialism always dominates the discussions of the Fourth Committee and has been dominating the discussions of the General Assembly. On emotional issues, such as racialism or colonialism, the 53 nations of the Afro-Asian bloc plus the 12 Soviet bloc nations can command a majority, and they will inevitably be followed by many Latin American nations and others. This seems to me to indicate that the United Nations will take an even greater interest in political issues, which to my mind is dangerous, because these political issues often concern the great Powers whose safeguard is a veto in the Security Council. No Power has such a safeguard

291
in the General Assembly where smaller nations can force the great Powers to take actions against their proper interests—and yet the great Powers are expected to finance these operations.
It seems to me that the United Nations is getting at cross-purposes as a result of neglecting the institutions of the Security Council. I feel that this problem could well lead possibly to the end of the United Nations, because if a great Power were ever forced into a corner and asked to co-operate in action against its own vital interests, and also to pay for such operations, it might well leave the United Nations, which would then be in danger of disintegration, which would be a disaster for the world. This is an issue which we in this House and those in Parliaments of other member States must face.
I have already referred to the racial issues. This third danger is that as the majority of the members of the United Nations are from Africa and Asia, they feel very strongly on racial issues, especially in Southern Africa. This issue has dominated the political discussions and decisions of the Assembly and could have disastrous results.
This brings me to the main point which I want to put to the House. I think that we in this country have failed to put before our people the appalling dangers of a world divided by race. This is the nightmare—the appalling thought that race may cause the division of the world, not Communist and capitalist or East and West, but colour. It could happen, and I noticed that the Foreign Secretary made the point the other day. I believe that he is the first senior Minister to do so publicly. I quote one sentence of what he said:
"I think that the greatest danger in the world today is that the world might divide on racial lines."
I put it to the House that this is a point which we must discuss. If we do not discuss it and realise the dangers, we shall never counteract them. That is why I mention it today.
What is the evidence of a possible division of the world on racial lines? Some say—indeed, some have said it in the United Nations—that the Common Market is itself evidence of a division
292
on racial lines, with the Europeans, the rich, white,"have" nations getting together in a closed society. Indeed, from the world point of view that was mainly why Britain should have joined the Common Market, because this would have turned it from an inward-looking organisation, mainly white, into an outward-looking organisation, embracing other nations in other continents.
The Sino-Soviet dispute could well be cited as a possible division on racial lines. People have prophesied for years that China might eventually lead the so-called uncommitted nations—that is to say, the East, or, let us be blunt, the coloured nations—against the whites, and that Russia might move into the Western, or white, camp. Things are happening behind the Iron Curtain. We find African students being expelled or in trouble in Czechoslovakia and Roumania and even in the Soviet Union.
We also find great difficulties in the United States, not only in the south but, more dangerously, in the north. I am told that 10 of the major cities in the north of America will be controlled by the negro vote in the next few years, because the whites are moving out into the suburbs and the coloured people are moving in. That will have an inevitable influence on the internal politics of the United States. We must realise the pressure there is on the leaders in the United States, and consider it as a factor in world power politics. An explosion in the north could alter American policy towards Africa overnight.
Hon. Members may have read in the Sunday Times at the weekend a very interesting article by Mr. James Baldwin, a well-known Negro novelist. He is certainly no extremist—he is a moderate. In that article he said:
"The only thing white people have that black people need, or should want, is power…"
He went on to say:
"At the centre of this dreadful storm, this vast confusion, stand the black people of this nation, who must now share the fate of a nation that has never accepted them, to which they were brought in chains. Well if this is so, one has no choice but to do all in one's power to change that fate, and at no matter what risk—eviction, imprisonment, torture, death."
This view underlines the dangers of the racial question, not only in Alabama and Mississippi where there is this tradi-

293
tional discrimination, but in the north, where there is no official discrimination but where everyone knows that it exists in relation to housing, work, and so on. And what about Great Britain? When I was at an Oxford Union debate the other day, I was told that 80 per cent. of the landladies in Oxford will not take coloured students!
The break-up of the Federation in Africa, which I will not labour, is a disaster, in that, once again, it shows the difficulty of races living together. There was the chance that the races might live together in the Central African Federation and so exert its influence to the north and to the south, but now that experiment has broken down we shall have a barrier of race on the Zambesi, with African-controlled states to the north and white government to the south. I put this; to the House only in order to show the danger inherent in a racial approach to world politics. To combat that danger, we must understand it, and fight against it.
I therefore want to suggest some lines on which British policies might be based. First, we must have a secure economic base. If our economy is not strong, we shall have little influence on our friends, on our allies, or on our enemies. Whether Britain can, with the Commonwealth, create a sterling area of sufficient strength to stand on its own, or whether we have to turn to Europe, as the Government suggested, only to have the suggestion vetoed by General de Gaulle, or to turn, as many think we must, to the old Commonwealth and the United States—to try to get closer, economically, to the United States, to Canada, Australia and New Zealand—I leave it to the House to decide, but the Government should give careful consideration, now that the move into the Common Market has failed, to cultivating an Atlantic community.
At the same time, we must increase our economic assistance to the new Commonwealth—to the under-developed States of the Commonwealth. Here we can take a very good lesson from what France is doing for her former colonies in Africa. Aided by her partners in the Six, she is doing far more for those countries in terms of economic and technical assistance than we are doing for our Commonwealth partners.
294
Our policy towards Asia has been made clear in this debate. The main threat to democracy in Asia is China's threat to India. If India and Pakistan fall, Asia becomes Communist, and the whole continent disappears on the other side of the Iron Curtain, or perhaps more likely follows the leadership of China. Africa will then follow—and who knows what will happen next. It is, therefore, fundamental policy for us, for the rest of the Commonwealth and for the Western world to do all we can to support India and Pakistan in this time of tension with the Chinese.
I believe that we must have a clear, fair and firm policy in Africa. For too long we have dithered between one policy and another, so that neither our friends nor our enemies know what we are trying to do. I believe that both the Soviet Union and the United States are burning their fingers in Africa, and understand that both are planning to slow down on their investments because they are completely unproductive. We know the Africans far better than do those two giants and, in the long run, are possibly far more acceptable to the Africans than either of them. But we must make up our minds what we intend to do politically as well as economically.
We have to realise that Africa will now be divided on the River Zambesi, that the States in the North will be wholly African-run, and we should do everything we can to help them, economically and politically. Equally, it is essential to realise that the States on the south of the Zambesi will, for the time being, be mainly European led, and we should not be frightened by what the States in the North may say into failing to support the white States merely because they are white run. It is essential to hold on to the southern base. If things go wrong, and race does divide the world, southern Africa, under white leadership, will be vital for the future of the white race.
That leads me to South Africa and her policy of apartheid. I said in the United Nations that"apartheid is morally abominable, intellectually grotesque, and spiritually indefensible". I believe the same of Communism, but I do not think that people can advocate the expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations and, at the same time, wish to maintain the membership of such countries as

295
Poland, Czechoslovakia or the Ukraine. In the near future the British Government will have to decide whether or not to veto the expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations. The summit conference at Addis Ababa of the independent African States immediately resulted in the recent confusion at the I.L.O. meeting which eventually led to a walk-out of the Afro-Asian members, and insistence on the I.L.O. expelling South Africa from membership. Even the Director-General, Mr. Morse, seemed to get involved in the political controversy by advocating expulsion. The matter now goes to the Security Council.
At the last General Assembly, a resolution was passed by a large majority asking the Security Council to consider the expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations, and recommending various forms of economic boycott. That step cannot be taken except through the Security Council, where the veto operates. It seems unlikely that President Kennedy, with his difficulties, not only in the Southern United States but also in the Northern States, will do anything but abstain. Judging by what happened at the I.L.O., General de Gaulle will take the same line. That means that Britain will have the power of final decision on this matter.
The internal affairs of South Africa are the concern of that State, and should not be the cause of sanction, or expulsion from the United Nations. If that is not accepted, where do we stop? If we accept the principle that because we hate the policy of a country—and I am sure that we all hate the apartheid policy; we think it both wrong and stupid—we will take the strong line of throwing a country out because of its internal policies, where does it end? Does it end there, or does it go on to include Portugal, and then an independent Southern Rhodesia? It might not be too absurd to suggest that this could lead to the ejection of the United States because of the racial policy in her southern States. This is a matter of principle, and I have thought it right to speak frankly to the House, and to ask Her Majesty's Government to consider very seriously what action to take when this matter comes before the United Nations.
It is essential in the difficult years that
296
lie ahead that we should plan and initiate a firm long-term policy that is understood by our people in this country, by our friends in the Commonwealth and by our allies in the rest of the world. It is especially essential not to gloss over the difficulties that face us, be they racial, political or economic.
7.50 p.m.
Mr. K. Zilliacus: The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) began by saying that there was a danger of the world being split on racial lines, but unless I misunderstood his argument, the hon. Member was doing his best to urge the Government to aggravate that danger by coming down on the side of the colonialists against the coloured nations.
Mr. Wall: I was saying that this is the danger and that we should do everything we can to prevent it, but it is the duty of the Government to safeguard the future of their people and of British people in Africa and to make certain that if things go wrong they still have their territory and their redoubt there.
Mr. Zilliacus: I understand the hon. Member's point of view, but I disagree with him. The best way of safeguarding the future for people in this country and for British people in Africa is to work towards meeting halfway, or more than halfway, the desire of the Africans to govern themselves and to be independent. The more we dig our toes in and the more we back intransigent diehards the more is the chance of the whole thing ending in violence and extremism.
I want to talk about the basic issue in the whole of our international policy, both foreign and defence, and one to which little attention has been paid in this debate or on any other occasion. I want to talk about the crisis of N.A.T.O. which I believe is so serious that the foundations of our policy, which is N.A.T.O., are crumbling and cracking. I want to analyse why this is so and what ought to be done about it.
The crisis, which was latent all along and is inherent in the very nature of N.A.T.O., came into the open over the Cuban crisis with the assertion by President Kennedy of the right to condemn his allies to a nuclear war without con-

297
sulting them. The famous dispatch of the Washington correspondent of The Times, of 24th October, has been mentioned frequently in the House, but as the point has not sunk in I permit myself to quote three sentences. After making the point that American action over Cuba had transformed the nature of the Western Alliance, he went on:
"The President has, in fact, assumed the supreme political authority that was always inherent in the American deterrent….The firm belief of the U.S. Administration is that as the leader of the alliance with control of most of the nuclear power available to the West, it has a duty to defend itself and its allies—even to the extent of bringing about a nuclear exchange. It is also firmly believed that in an urgent situation there will be no time for consultation, that a threat of war cannot be met by committee decisions."
A further report, emphasising and elaborating this American attitude, was published by the Sunday Telegraph on 23rd December from its political correspondent then in Washington, Mr. Peregrine Worst Horne. As he mentioned in his dispatch that he had his information from a High White House source, which, I presume, was Mr. Pierre Salinger, the head of the Press Bureau, I think that we should pay attention to it.
Mr. Worsthorne gave it as the view of the Administration that
"A refusal to consider rationally that it may be necessary for the United States to…impose nuclear tutelage on its allies could end the era of Anglo-American cooperation. In Kennedy's thinking it is once again quite simply a question of first principles, of fundamentals, of forces beyond sentiment; and, just as self-evident Eighteenth Century moral and political truths compelled Jefferson against his will to break with England in 1776, so today another set of truths—thermonuclear truths—which Kennedy sees as equally compelling, are forcing him into equally painful and revolutionary paths….Unless these articles of closely reasoned faith are appreciated better than were their earlier counterparts in 1776, there is a danger of another American Declaration of Independence, quite different in form but no less historic in its consequences."
Here we have a phenomenon frequently met with, and that is President Kennedy's curious trick of inverting reality. This time he is standing Thomas Jefferson on his head. Jefferson thought it necessary to make the Declaration of Independence on the issue of no taxation without representation, whereas Kennedy is now threatening us with a new U.S. Declaration of Independence of Britain if we refuse to accept annihilation without
298
representation at the hands of the United States.
Mr. Worsthorne says:
"A high White House aide informed me that Cuba was the first time that the United States had acted on behalf of all, Europeans as well as Americans….But we know, and you know, that in the foreseeable future this is how it will always be in moments of thermonuclear drama, when the only measure of division will be, not between Americans and Britons, nor Americans and French, but between those who are in the White House and those outside."
He goes on to say that the Americans have no more say, nor have their legislature any say, in these decisions than have America's allies and that the decisions are concentrated in the hands of a few men and the Administration is
"increasingly operating at times of crisis in the utmost secrecy, cut off alike from allied consultation and national debate…moving towards a new and terrible megalomania…"
but that whatever one thinks of the merits of this there should be no illusion about the fact that the Administration is entirely sincere in its views and utterly determined to give effect to them.
He concludes that
"Britain and Europe have to reckon with not some lightly formed American impulse, prompted by national ambition, but rather with the deepest purpose of a President at the very peak of his authority, convinced that he has at last found his historic mission as leader of the West as a whole."
This is the reality with which we have to reckon and it is one which cannot be reversed, even if the President were unreasonable in his attitude. But if one accepts his premise, the alleged necessity for N.A.T.O., there is no faulting his reasoning. We can only quarrel with his argument by rejecting his premise. His argument follows logically from the nature of nuclear weapons and the realities of the distribution of power in N.A.T.O.
The Times, in its leader of 27th March, entitled"Nuclear Metaphysics", pointed out that
"The difficulty, not yet sufficiently recognised, is that the needs of a strategic deterrent are incompatible with the traditional concept of a military alliance of sovereign equals. The effectiveness of the modern deterrent depends upon the certainty and speed of its response. If it is controlled by more than one sovereign power it must be subject to veto and political consultation, either of which can make it useless."
The Times then says that this leaves three choices. The first is that each

299
member should have its own deterrent, which, of course, would involve the very thing which we are trying to avoid at any price and would break up the alliance. The second choice is to leave things as they are, that is, leave it to the United States to run the alliance; in other words, to accept annihilation without representation. The third choice is that N.A.T.O. should"develop such a degree of political unity that it can act as a single power". This is simply what I call a"two penny-coloured" edition of annihilation without representation at the hands of the United States.
Whatever one may think of the merits of the present position and the price paid for being in N.A.T.O. and the perpetuation of N.A.T.O., it is this fact which touched off General de Gaulle's revolt. In effect, he took his stand for independence of the United States, on the principle of rejecting annihilation without representation, with his own little addition,"Unless I can do the same to you". He said that he had no objection to the United States condemning its allies to war unconsulted on an issue arising in the Western Hemisphere, but he claimed the same right for France on an issue arising in Europe. He thought that, with a French nuclear deterrent, he could achieve a position in which he would be able to exercise equality of rights in genocide.
This claim is politically unreal, militarily absurd and morally abominable. Politically, what General de Gaulle wants is an old-fashioned military alliance of sovereign equals, which, of course, is not possible, given the nature of the nuclear deterrent. In fact, in any alliance in which there is great inequality of military and financial power, the strongest ally always runs the alliance. This has always been so; there never has been any equal alliance unless there has been equality of power among the members of it.
In the second place, when General de Gaulle argues that France may produce a deterrent at some time in the 1970s, we may be quite certain that, by that time, the minute French deterrent will be obsolete before it is operational. As a military and financial enterprise, the whole thing is sheer megalomania and utterly unreal.
300
When he says, as he did in the famous interview on 14th January, that France, to be independent, must acquire"the sombre and terrible power to annihilate millions of human beings in a few minutes", he is talking like a wicked man, making Genghis Khan sound like what the French would call an enfant de choeur.
But we should not overlook that the first half of de Gaulle's stand, his declaration of independence and his rejection of annihilation without representation at the hands of the United States, has given him a great deal of support not only in France but in other countries on the Continent. Indeed, Mr. Peregrine Worsthorne, in the Sunday Telegraph of 24th February, said that the repercussions of de Gaulle's stand were almost as great, and his rejection of annihilation without representation was almost as popular, in this country as in France.
He went on to say:
"The difficulty preventing Britain from opposing General de Gaulle's so-called grand design for Europe is that most politicians and many of the public basically agree with it…Judging by their speeches, indeed, it seems that Ministers are piqued not by the direction of the General's policy but by the fact that France rather than Britain is taking the lead. As for the public, who doubts that if the declaration of independence of America had been made by the British Prime Minister it would have won him the next election?"
That, I think, is the explanation of the reason for the Government's ambiguous and ambivalent attitude towards this question.
On the one hand, they claim to be a loyal and faithful ally of America to the bitter end. They boasted of the fact that, when the United States violated the United Nations Charter by blockading Cuba, they alerted the rockets and V-bomber force and were quite ready to immolate the people of this country in support of that American policy. Also, we had the declaration by the Foreign Secretary at Oxford, some months ago, that the people of this country were ready to be reduced to radioactive ashes for the sake of the freedom of Berlin, which is a rather misleading way of talking about the difference between a compromise policy such as that acceptable to the Opposition over Berlin and the intransigence of Dr. Adenauer backed by the Americans.

301
At the same time, the Government claim that they are prepared to engage in a nuclear war single-handed, and talk like an Ersatz de Gaulle. In the last foreign affairs debate in another place, the Foreign Secretary declared that it was for the Government to decide when a moment of supreme national emergency had arisen in, he added, areas outside N.A.T.O. and outside Europe. This, again, if one takes his words at their face value and believes what he says—which I do not—suggests that the Government's bellicosity goes to the point where they are prepared to incinerate the people of this country for a cause so bad that it would not even be backed by the Americans, let alone by the United Nations, in a far corner of the world. It is sheer irresponsibility to talk like that, but that is the way they talk.
The truth is that the Nassau agreement tied us firmly to the Americans. The moment we become dependent on the Americans for obtaining missiles, the Americans have ultimate control of what we do with them, and the reservation of independent action in moments of supreme national emergency is a mere paper reservation which does not mean very much.
The alternative so far put up by the Opposition to meet this new situation with which we have been confronted since the Cuba crisis is, although less dishonest, just as unreal as the policy of the Government. What my party has called for—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition called for it in the House on 31st January and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) elaborated the thesis in the defence debate on 4th March—is this. We say that we reject annihilation without representation. We reject both the multilateral fleet and a multinational nuclear force on the ground that they would augment the tension and the danger of war in Europe. This, I agree, is true. But our way out of this is to say that there must be political control of N.A.T.O., a collective control of N.A.T.O. decisions. This was elaborated on 4th March to the effect that we should offer to increase our conventional forces in exchange for the Americans' agreement to a measure of international control of their nuclear forces.
302
In fact, the nature of nuclear weapons makes this demand illusory and the distribution of power in N.A.T.O. makes it irrelevant. Even with the best will in the world, we could not have collective control of a decision to resort to nuclear weapons. I do not often agree with the Foreign Secretary, but from his premises he argued logically the other day when he complained that too many fingers on the safety catch would destroy the credibility of the deterrent. There is no time for that kind of thing. If one is going in for genocide, one must do it in a fit of madness. There is no room for consultation about it, because the people consulted might show a preference for staying alive, even at the cost of a compromise, even at the cost, possibly, of abiding by their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations.
Secondly, there is no question of controlling American nuclear weapons. I asked some Questions in the House and received a very clear reply from the Lord Privy Seal on this which confirmed my own analysis. What is proposed is merely to find a way of internationalising the control of such nuclear weapons as are assigned to the N.A.T.O. command, and that, ex hypothesi, means the minute British nuclear force, the derisory French nuclear force, if and when it comes into existence and if and when President de Gaulle changes his mind—but only those nuclear weapons which the United States chooses to assign to N.A.T.O., which are about 3 per cent. of its total nuclear force.
The rest remains at the disposal of the President, as at present, and may be used by him as he threatened to use them over Cuba to consign us all to cremation or incineration, or whatever one likes to call it, without going through the formality of asking us whether the idea appeals to us.
The whole object of the operation with this multilateral or multinational fleet, and so on, is not to extend N.A.T.O. control over the huge American nuclear armoury but to extend American control over the minute nuclear weapons which her European allies insist on having, although the Americans think it all nonsense and that we should not have them.
That is why The Times, in its leader of 27th March, to which I referred, begged the Government

303
"to blow away the fog that has enveloped all discussion of a N.A.T.O. nuclear force. There is a growing danger that if people are left much longer to play blind man's buff among all the multilateral and multinational deterrents and weird apparitions such as polyglot crews on phoney freighters they will gradually come to believe in them as if they were real. The truth is that an attempt is being made to overcome a political dilemma with technical tricks that are largely meaningless in either military or political terms".
I claim that this political dilemma in N.A.T.O. is basic and insoluble because it arises out of the very nature of N.A.T.O. itself and of nuclear weapons. On the one hand, collective control of nuclear decisions is a military impossibility and politically unacceptable to the United States. There is not a hope of getting the Administration to agree to it. It would be repudiated by Congress and the Pentagon. The other alternative of annihilation without representation is intolerable to the allies of the United States. The whole thing illustrates the truth of what George F. Kennan said in 1958 in his November-December Reith lectures on the B.B.C. He, as Chief of the Policy Planning Staff of the State Department at the time, was one of the founders of N.A.T.O. His views are those of a senior American diplomat.
This is what he said in his broadcast lecture:
"The beginning of understanding rests in this appalling problem with the recognition that the weapon of mass destruction is a sterile and hopeless weapon…which cannot in any way serve the purposes of a constructive and hopeful foreign policy. The suicidal nature of this weapon renders it unsuitable both as a sanction of diplomacy and as the basis of an alliance."
That was said in 1958.
Last October, President Kennedy proved the truth of this proposition in practice, because, by using the threat of nuclear war as the sanction of his power-political diplomacy over Cuba, he succeeded in revealing the total impracticability of making the nuclear deterrent strategy the basis of the Western Alliance. It is threatening the end of the alliance. It seems to me that this is the essential fact which should be borne in mind.
That does not mean that there is no way out of the situation. There is a way out, but it lies in invoking a new dimension—the dimension of foreign policy. This has been recognised again and again. It was recognised in that speech by Dean
304
Acheson at West Point, on 5th December last, which caused so much offence. One sensible thing which he said was that the great weakness of N.A.T.O. is that there is no agreement on policy between the members of N.A.T.O.
And President Kennedy at Paulskirche, near Frankfurt, a few days ago elaborated that point. He said:
"our partnership depends on a common political purpose."
He went on to quote Thucydides on the Peloponnesian war, an apt quotation of the dangers to an alliance of each member pushing its own policy and attempting to further its own interests and forgetting the common cause, and said:
"Is that also to be the story of the Grand Alliance? Welded in a moment of imminent danger, will it disintegrate in complacency, with each member pressing its own ends to the neglect of the common cause? This must not be the case…The greatest of our necessities, the most notable of our omissions, is progress towards unity of political purpose."
What"unity of political purpose" means is to reach such a degree of agreement on foreign policy with the United States that we are prepared to entrust our survival or extinction to decisions taken unilaterally by the United States to resort to nuclear war in defence of whatever policy has been agreed on.
Is there any prospect of such a situation arising? What is American world policy for the sake of which we are expected in N.A.T.O., even now, to accept the risk of annihilation without representation? One rather striking statement of how the present American Administration see their global policy was made at President Kennedy's Press conference on 18th December last. He began by saying that when he thought of the willingness of the United States to accept burdens all round the world he thought it was a fantastic story, and went on:
"We have one million Americans today serving outside the United States. There is no other country in history that has carried this kind of burden. There are other countries who had forces serving outside of their own country, but for conquest: we have two divisions in South Korea. Not to control South Korea but to defend it. We have a lot of Americans in South Vietnam. Well now, no other country in the world has ever done that since the beginning of the world: Greece, Rome, Napoleon and all the rest always had conquest. We have one million men outside and they are trying to defend these countries.

305
What we are saying is that rich Western Europe must do its part, and I hope it will."
Let us examine that statement a little more closely. As stated in the parallel statements made by the President in Germany, all that the U.S.A. stands for is defending freedom in Asia and other parts of the world, the frontiers of freedom.
In Formosa, the Americans keep General Chiang Kai-shek and pretend that he represents China, although his régime is a police State and dictatorship. There is not enough democracy to put in a pig's eye. Well there is, but not enough to impair the animal's power of vision.
Then there is the claim of the Americans to start a world war if the Chinese Republic tries to push Chiang Kai-shek's forces out of the coastal islands of Matsu and Quemoy, which the Government of this country recognise as being part of the territory of the Chinese People's Republic and under its sovereignty. In Laos, it was American policy which insisted on joining together those"whom God hath put asunder" by forcing the reactionary dictator Boun Oum on a people who did not want him. He would not have had a look-in if he had not been propped up by American arms and money. There are great social problems to solve. The great majority of the people want to solve them in certain ways and it is this Western intervention, led by the United States, which creates the deadlock by preventing their solution.
President Kennedy was coy about mentioning what the 17,000 Americans were doing in Southern Vietnam. They are waging a totally illegal war in violation of half a dozen treaties, a barbaric war which includes poisoning crops, together with people, including women and children, who get in the way, and a war which attempts to use starvation and terror to prop up a reactionary régime. Not only the Communists, i.e. the peasants, but also the Buddhists are now up in arms against the present puppet régime, which is simply a dictatorship supported by the United States.
In South Korea, there is a pure military dictatorship. As in South Vietnam, the United States pays the whole of the military budget. It has the fourth largest Army in the world—2 million men—and,
306
at the same time, has 30 per cent. unemployed. There is such a hideously low standard of living among the peasants that they half starve. Their average income is about £35 a year.
The verdict on this Far Eastern policy was given by the Washington correspondent of The Times on 19th May, 1961, when he said:
"The events in Cuba and Laos have persuaded the Administration not only that the post-war truce lines must be held, but that the peripheral areas must be kept even in a semi-colonial status and with the force of American arms if necessary….The earlier promise of elasticity and with it a self-provided room for manoeuvre seems to have gone and may well be replaced by something not unlike the old Dulles system."
On the same date, the New Statesmen had an apposite comment:
"America's attempt to export her formula of free enterprise democracy has met with almost unrelieved failure. A skin of capitalism has been grafted on to a feudal framework, and this ugly and inefficient hybrid is kept alive only by constant injections of dollars and arms."
That is very much what is happening also in Latin America. Some hon. Members may have noticed that only a few days ago the Observer published a report on the results of the inquiry carried out by the Organisation of America States. They sent out the ex-President of Brazil, Dr. Kubitschek, and ex-President Lleras Camargo, of Colombia, to examine the situation and to report back. They reported back that the whole thing was on the verge of collapse and that there was great criticism in Latin America of the whole policy as being an attempt to impose a kind of semi-colonial status on the Latin-American countries.
The despatch concludes that in the view of unofficial Latin Americans who were consulted in Washington, the report
"ignores the total misunderstanding which has long existed between North and Latin America. Most Latin-American countries are keen to diversify their trading pattern in the direction of Europe and possibly Japan. Europe (Continental Europe at any rate) is keen to reciprocate.
Senhor Kubitschek and Dr. Lleras were, by the limitations of their brief, precluded from pointing this out or from pointing out that the Alliance for Progress, as at present constituted, cannot possibly work. The report ignores the vital fact that the free-enterprise U.S. is in the impossible position, under the terms of the alliance, of giving aid only to countries which must, to qualify, be somewhat

307
socialist U.S. legislators have noticed this paradox and are most unwilling to vote more money."
The truth is that when President Kennedy talks of defending freedom in the world he is merely echoing what President Truman said in his famous doctrine of 5th March, 1947, that
"There is one thing that the Americans value more than peace. It is freedom. Freedom of worship, freedom of speech and freedom of enterprise. The pattern of international trade which is most conducive to freedom of enterprise is one in which major decisions are made not by Governments but by private buyers and sellers….The pattern of trade which is least conducive to freedom of enterprise is one in which decisions are made by Governments…Unless we act, and act decisively, it will be the pattern of the next century."
That is what it is all about. American policy is directed to preserving freedom of enterprise in the world. The New York Herald-Tribune's comment at the time on the Truman message to Congress was the headline:
"Truman says Americans love free enterprise more than peace."
I do not see what basis there is for unity of purpose with the United States in that policy, certainly not from this side of the House at least. We on this side are supposed to be Socialists.
In the same way, if one goes through the various items in Europe, looking at them from the point of view at least of what the Opposition believes to be a reasonable policy, we believe that Germany should not share in nuclear weapons in any form. We reject the principle of annihilation without representation. We want some form of disengagement, starting with negotiations on the Rapacki plan and taking both halves of Germany and some of her neighbours out of the rival alliances and within a nuclear-free zone from which all foreign forces would be removed and within which the forces of the Powers concerned would be reduced, limited and put under international control.
We want a provisional Berlin settlement which calls for de facto recognition of Eastern Germany and final recognition of the Polish frontier and some form of disengagement, in return for international guarantees, to which both Germanys would be parties, as well as the Russians, Americans, ourselves and the French, for the independence of West Berlin and its
308
freedom of communications, with the association in some form of the United Nations. On all those subjects, as well as on Labour's proposals for the reunification of Germany, it would not be difficult to reach agreement with the U.S.S.R. by a little give-and-take negotiation. The problem is how to induce our allies to negotiate on those proposals and to accept them as a basis of settlement.
The only way to do that is to act on the principle, which has been enunciated more than once from this side of the House by leaders of this party, that defence must be the servant of foreign policy. That means, first, that we have the right to determine what forces we need in Europe in the light of our own foreign policy. We do not need either conventional forces or nuclear weapons to induce the Russians to negotiate on the Rapacki plan—which is their own plan as well as one approved by Labour as a basis of negotiation. In all the other items it will also be found that we can negotiate from common interest and do not have to try to negotiate from strength. That is lucky for us, because we do not have the strength. We must borrow it from the United States, the condition for which is that we should not follow our own policy but should commit ourselves to American policies, with which at least this side of the House disagrees.
Therefore, we can cut our forces to a symbolic force in N.A.T.O., which would be the only way of finding the economic and financial resources necessary to carry out Labour's domestic policies. Those excellent economic and social policies will remain on paper unless we drastically cut the present-day staggering defence expenditure.
Moreover, we are also entitled to point out to our allies that since N.A.T.O. may legitimately be invoked only in case of unprovoked aggression, we are entitled to interpret that to mean that we will not be committed to war by allies who fail to come to terms with us on how to make peace. We can tell them that as long as they pursue policies which we regard as provocative and dangerous, they need not expect our help, because they are not entitled to it, and if they want to restore the military side of the alliance, they had better come to terms with us about how to negotiate a settlement with the Soviet

309
Union which will enable us to wind up both the alliances by stages and by mutual agreement, as part of disarmament and disengagement.
What all that amounts to is that the policy of this country should be to build a bridge between the United States and the Soviet Union by working to transfer the relations between the great Powers from the balance of power to the Charter of the United Nations. That means that we reject the assumption of aggression and instead recognise that the arms race is kept going by mutual fear and suspicion; neither side wants to attack the other; and the more we prepare for instant war against a mythical danger of aggression, the greater we make the real danger of an incident sparking off a fatal accident. The only way to stop that is to take the initiative in making peace, to subordinate defence to foreign policy.
Once one recognises that it is fear and suspicion which is wrong on both sides, that the belief that the other fellow wants to attack one—which is shared by both sides—is mistaken, then one must also recognise that what is needed is a major country to break the psychosis of fear and the vicious circle of the arms race, by deciding,"We will not go on with this arms business, until we try to reach agreement with our allies on a reasonable basis of negotiation with the Soviet Union, both on the outstanding political issues and on the question of disarmament."
As a corollary to that, we should also recognise the truth of what Aneurin Bevan said in this House on 23rd July, 1957. As time has gone on it has become ever more clear and compelling as the doctrine by which we ought to be guided:
"…the fact is that the ends which are served by national defence and the means adopted for defence are so far apart from each other today as to add up to no sense at all. No one really believes that weapons which are weapons of mutual suicide are any longer means of national self-defence…If we abandoned flatulent generalisations about the wide differences that separate the Soviet system from our own, most hon. Members would privately agree…that there cannot be any differences about social systems so profound that we are prepared to run the risk of wiping out the whole of human society over them….Alter all, the primary condition for arguing about different social systems is that one should be alive to argue about them. But if the argument results in the extinction of all social systems, it seems rather absurd to be worrying
310
about which particular one one is going to live under."—(Official Report, 23rd July, 1957; Vol. 574, c. 334.)
That should be the doctrine that guides us. Those should be the insights which illuminate our path. It means that we should stand on our own feet and pursue an independent foreign policy and say that we do not need the protection of the United States against the Soviet Union any more than we need the protection of the Soviet Union against the United States. This country should take the lead in making peace and winding up the long nightmare and madness of the nuclear arms race.
8.34 p.m.
Mr. Colin Turner: I do not think the House will be surprised when I say that I did not agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) said in his rather long speech. He is the only hon. Member who has taken part in the debate with whom I have not had considerable sympathy and agreement.
One of the most encouraging factors about the date has been that we have had not only my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal but also the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) stressing the importance—other hon. Members have followed suit—of China in the Far East as the danger spot in present world affairs. It is on this one point that I want to concentrate most of my remarks.
Throughout the debate, in practically every speech, we have heard about the necessity of improving our relations with the Soviet Union. In South-East Asia we have at least found some causes on which the Soviet Union and ourselves are very closely allied and on which we see eye to eye. It appears to me that it is in this field that we can take steps to improve the general relations that we have with the Soviet Union.
It we cannot succeed in solving some of the problems where we have mutual interest, what hope have we of solving the problems that many people have been talking about in Europe? I believe that it is best in these matters to put first things first. It has been clearly demonstrated over recent months that the Soviet Union has just as much to fear from China as has the rest of the world. It

311
seems ridiculous that the largest nation in population is not yet a member of the United Nations.
The British Government have given every encouragement in trying to get China admitted to the United Nations, and I believe that one of the fundamental planks in our present foreign policy should be to persuade our American friends of the necessity of having China in the United Nations. Because one agrees to admit a Power to the United Nations, it does not for one moment mean that one accepts the policies which that Power stands for. I do not believe, however, that we can make the United Nations the power in the world for peace that every hon. Member wishes if the largest nation in the world is not a member of the organisation.
I am certain that the Soviet Union wants the status quo maintained in South-East Asia. We are predominant in that area and have far greater interest in seeing this than has the United States. Therefore, in the dangerous situation that the Lord Privy Seal has disclosed in Laos and Vietnam—I am not quite as optimistic as he appeared to be about the improving situation in Vietnam—I believe that both Laos and Vietnam are powder kegs in the world at the present moment. I have said before in this House that this presents a far greater danger to world peace than the situation in Europe has presented for many months past.
We cannot afford to treat China as a second-rate Power. Whether we like it or not, China is one of the greatest nations on earth. The Chinese are a very proud people with a long history and great traditions behind them. I believe that their invasion of India was to demonstrate to the uncommitted nations in Asia and in Africa that China was the dominant Power in Asia. The invasion shook the whole attitude of the Indian Government. It destroyed the idea of neutrality which Mr. Nehru had followed for so many years. All this was toppled overnight by the realisation that, if she wanted to, Communist China could destroy India or, indeed, any other part of South-East Asia or the Far East.
I therefore believe that the main plank that we should make if we are to try to
312
improve relations with the Soviet Union, and help to solve the problems of Europe, is a determination to join in an effort with the Soviet Union to solve the problems in South-East Asia, particularly in Laos, where Britain and the Soviet Union are Co-chairmen of the Joint Commission.
I do not want to detain the House for long because I know that, while this is a two-day debate, many other hon. Members wish to speak. I therefore turn now to the only other point I shall cover tonight—the multi-national Polaris surface fleet. I do not believe that this concept makes either political or military sense.
It has always seemed to me that to subjugate efficient defence requirements to meet a political aim was a dangerous exercise, but I feel that this Polaris fleet would not even meet a political requirement. If it is designed to meet the forward-looking thinking of the German people, I do not believe that it succeeds. We would certainly incur the increased hostility of the Soviet Union for no political or military advantage at all. I do not pretend to be a military expert, but I am certain that all the experts have agreed that there is no purpose militarily in having such a force. The United States already has an overkill capacity and this in itself demonstrates that this fleet is not designed for military purposes.
I do not believe that this is the way to associate Germany, and, indeed, the other nations of Western Europe, in effective nuclear control. The Government should retain the British independent deterrent until such time as we can find an effective method of associating all the countries of Western Europe in a Western European deterrent. But it is very dangerous indeed to believe that it is in the interests of the world to leave a nuclear deterrent as a weapon only in the hands of the United States and the Soviet Union.
France, of course, takes her own line and is determined to have her own deterrent. This will become a reality, but it will have only a very small military value in the years ahead. I believe that a far more effective method at the moment is for us to continue to play our part with our V-bomber force in the Western deterrent. We have already offered to put it

313
under the control of N.A.T.O., but I do not believe that we can afford financially to be saddled with any other form of association, whether it be in a surface Polaris force or anything else of that kind. I believe that, if we were to agree to such a force, we might be falling down on the very many responsibilities we have throughout the world for maintaining peace. I believe that our great part, our great influence on world peace, lies in South-East Asia and the Middle East. I would rather see some of our forces in Europe brought back to this country so that we could be fluid and provide them where they were most required at the appropriate time.
It would be fatal and would destroy all the basis of our defence and foreign policy if we were to agree to and accept the concept of and take part in the concept of the surface Polaris fleet. The great concept of our foreign policy at the moment should be to try to draw closer to Russia in those areas where we have some mutual interests. If we could do that and could demonstrate to each other our interests in solving these problems, we could have a far greater chance of solving the problems which face us in Europe itself.
8.45 p.m.
Dr. Alan Thompson: The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks immediately, although they emphasised one of the dilemmas of this foreign affairs debate. Simultaneously we have been talking about defence and independent deterrents and on the other hand about long-term disarmament proposals which we hope will be the basis of our policy. However, I do not see them as mutually contradictory. I believe that we axe now entering a period, however, when what I might call the disarmament criterion should take precedence over the defence criterion. I would like to say, as one who has always supported N.A.T.O., and still does, that it would be a pity if at such a crucial time as this, when we might have a chance of arriving at agreement with the Russians, we should make far-reaching changes in the structure of N.A.T.O., changing the kinds of weapons and the kinds of forces and the kinds of policies. To do that would make the chances of disarmament
314
more remote. For that reason I am extremely glad that the American proposals have been dropped. I should like to see the independent deterrent proposals dropped too.
I have always regarded N.A.T.O. as, ultimately, a self-liquidating body. Historically, it has served a very valuable purpose. I have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus). I respect the sincerity with which he has consistently pursued his appeal for disarmament, but I think that, historically, N.A.T.O. has served and is serving a purpose. Although I appreciate that its structure will have to undergo a change, I should not like that change to be in a direction which impedes disarmament proposals.
I have always regarded N.A.T.O., on the one hand, as an alliance for limiting war, to make possible a limited rather than total war if the horror of war comes, but, on the other hand, as an ultimately self-liquidating body progressively reducing its military strength by reciprocal arrangements with the Russians, the Russians dismantling their alliance. In the process of all this I hope that decisions to reduce N.A.T.O.'s strength by reciprocal arrangements with the Warsaw Pact Powers will be taken as the result of deliberate policy commonly reached among the members of the Alliance and not unilaterally by the British Government. If I have to criticise the Government at all on their relationships with N.A.T.O., I would say that too frequently they have been apt to take unilateral decisions of this kind without consulting our N.A.T.O. allies, without consulting the Supreme Commander, and often involving N.A.T.O. in considerable difficulties.
I do not want to get drawn into an argument with my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, but I thought that his representation of President Kennedy as a war-mongering dictator forcing nuclear weapons on his allies in order to extend his domination of the world—
Mr. Zilliacus indicated dissent.
Dr. Thompson: I hope that I am not putting it unfairly, but if the hon. Member reads his speech in Hansard tomorrow I think he will find that that was the impression he gave. It does not reflect the position of President Kennedy

315
and the American Administration. I think that President Kennedy is a man who, like Premier Khrushchev, is historically stuck with a hideous weapon. He is certainly concerned about his national self-interest, as Premier Khrushchev is, but he is stuck with a weapon the hideousness of which he has begun to realise, as has Premier Khrushchev, but from the ownership of which he sees no escape at the moment.
I think that one of the things about the Cuba crisis was that, paradoxically, it drew Khrushchev and Kennedy rather closer together. Each was faced with a dilemma with which nobody else in the world has been faced. Each in a sense became more apprehensive of his allies than of each other. I suspect that in a way Mr. Khrushchev would rather see the bomb securely locked up with the Americans and nobody else than trust the bomb to Castro, who is one of his allies.
I think that Kennedy and Khrushchev have gone through a crisis about this hideous weapon. I think I speak for the majority of the British people when I say we do not want the weapon. I think that nations which historically have avoided possession of the deterrent should go on avoiding it, because it would bring us nearer to a real disarmament agreement if only the two major Powers were bargaining rather than a multiplicity of small Powers. These smaller States lack the great committed interest of the Americans and the Russians. Some of them might use the bomb more frivolously, as Hitler in the last extremity in the bunker, when he would have had nothing to lose and everything to gain, would have used it had he possessed it.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: Hitler did not use the bomb; we used it.
Dr. Thompson: I do not think that Khrushchev would use it, nor do I think that Kennedy would use it.
We would like to see a restriction of the spread of nuclear weapons. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) put the dilemma rather well on 6th March, 1962, when he talked of the danger of the escalation from conventional to nuclear war. He said:
316
"The rapid escalation from a conventional attack to thermo-nuclear war is not only an inevitable consequence of the Government's policies, but it is an…integral part of them."—[Official Report, 6th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 227.]
For this reason we would like to see the Nassau Agreement go the same way as the multinational proposals.
If we claim the deterrent for national objectives it becomes very difficult for us to stop the French or the Germans claiming it. This point has been made time and again, but it still bears repetition. There are no national objectives for the use of the ultimate deterrent. It is too hideous and indiscriminate a weapon for national objectives. It cannot be used for Commonwealth purposes. It cannot be used for public security in the Commonwealth. It is utterly unimaginable in any circumstances except the ultimate confrontation, and that ultimate confrontation would almost certainly come between the Americans and the Russians and we should have no major part in it.
There is a terrible logic in de Gaulle's position which the Government's logic in the possession of the deterrent seems to lack. De Gaulle wants the bomb for a number of reasons. He believes that the Americans will ultimately, and in the not too distant future, abandon Western Europe to its fate. He does not believe a word of President Kennedy's reassurance. He does not believe President Kennedy's speech that America's economic and military commitments in Western Europe are in the direct and enduring interest of the American people as well as in the interests of Europe itself. De Gaulle does not believe that, but I challenge our Government to say that they believe, as de Gaulle does, that Kennedy is plotting to repudiate us.
Secondly, de Gaulle resents American supremacy in world affairs, and particularly in colonial affairs, because he thinks that the Americans have interfered in Algeria. He thinks that they have backed colonial peoples; that they backed Angola against Portugal, the Indonesians against the Dutch, and that they backed Egypt against us. De Gaulle believes that the Americans are too sympathetic to colonial aspirations and I challenge our Government to say that they believe the same.
De Gaulle believes in a special relationship with Western Germany. I

317
challenge our Government to say that they have a similar reason for pursuing a policy against the Americans. De Gaulle resents American supremacy. Our Government have acknowledged that Kennedy's interest in the Common Market and the Trade Aid Bill has been to encourage trade between ourselves and America, as indeed we want to do, just as the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) in his very thoughtful speech pleaded for trade the other way, to the East. Our object should be, in fact, to expand our trade with the whole world, Russia and America included.
De Gaulle wants his deterrent because of the rising nationalism which he is attempting to engender in France. I would have thought that the task of a British Government would be to reduce the prejudices and obsolete ambitions of nationalism. If one believes in the obsolete ideas of de Gaulle, however, one has a case for the independent deterrent. We believe in none of them, and it becomes incredibly difficult, in debate after debate, to find what case there is for our Government's independent deterrent. I will not recite all the arguments; they have been too often dealt with here, although we have never yet had a satisfactory answer to them.
The Nassau Agreement is really built upon distrust of America, yet, for the rest of our policy, we do not feel that distrust, nor would we wish to pursue it. I have already said that I think that many of our people have an admiration for the Kennedy Administration, for its dynamism and its attempt, domestically, to clear up its racial issue, and for what it does to provide aid throughout the world.
It is true that the Americans sometimes pursue self-interested policies, and act in a tough and hard way, as does Mr. Khrushchev. This is no reason why we should build a policy based on distrust of the Americans. They are poker players. It is no accident that the hero of Wild Western films is so often to be seen seated at a table behind a deck of cards, playing a hard and often ruthless game. This is true of the Americans, and it would be absurd and idealistic to blind ourselves to it. But, if it is properly pursued, the alliance between Britain, America and the West can augur very well for the world.
318
One of the saddest things I saw on television a night or two ago was the young dynamic President Kennedy, bristling with new ideas, standing by the old, rather tired and—dare I say it?—slightly tattered Prime Minister. Here, I thought, was a rather sad spectacle. This will not be the case for long. We shall have a young Prime Minister, who can match the toughness, energy and resilience of President Kennedy. At the risk of appearing politically biased, I think that he will come from this side of the House. I do not think that we shall again see the spectacle that we saw on television the other night.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) that the Foreign Office must have a long-term reorganisation of its policy. We have to build into our foreign policy a much more explicit idea of what we want to do. The idea of the diplomat who reacts to day-to-day incidents and never deals with a situation until it has arisen is becoming obsolete. We need diplomats who think not of incidents but of patterns. The Kennedy Administration, from what I saw of it on my recent trip, uses the brains and researches of scholars, thinkers, economists and experts in a wide range of subjects.
I am not blaming the staff of our Foreign Office. If they are trained to deal only with day-to-day incidents and are kept busy with the daily demands of protocal they cannot retire to think about long-term problems and to discuss them in the seminars which the Americans frequently have in their universities. But the Foreign Office must have more of these long-term policies. They must have more specialists in the various areas of the world, and in various subjects, who can get together and think of these problems. They need more commercial experts.
Some weeks ago I wrote to the Lord Privy Seal with proposals for training commercial officers. The economic section of the Foreign Office is deplorably weak. We are too often concerned about the niceties of protocol rather than with finding new markets and new sources of investment, and with the exports of the products of British regional industries over a wide area of the world. The Lord Privy Seal sent me a very courteous and

319
long reply, in which he half agreed with what I said and promised to do something about it. I hope that the Foreign Office will consider the matter because, ultimately, the success of our policies will depend upon the kind of men that we have in the Foreign Office—their being in the field, collecting ideas, being more responsive to the problems of the countries they are in and meeting a much wider range of people living there.
I do not say that they should cease to be British. Nothing is more annoying than a person who deserts his own heritage or his own background and pretends to be exactly like the foreigners he is living among. No American can stand an Americanised Britisher—the Americans like British people as they are—and Anglicised Americans can also be very boring to us. It is possible to be a real diplomat without ceasing to reflect one's own cultural heritage, and to be responsive to the country in which one lives, and to have new ideas and to get down to this long-term thinking.
I began my speech with the point about long-term thinking and will finish on the same point. We have to concentrate on the research and planning which will bring disarmament within our grasp. This does not mean unilateral or panic measures, such as scrapping our defence system and alliances overnight. But there must, nevertheless, be careful, constructive and sincere thought about disarmament by Ministers and diplomats at all levels.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I must begin, as have other hon. Members, by congratulating the Secretary of State for War on his new appointment and by wishing him well, with all sincerity, in the new and extremely difficult assignment which is his. If I say some harsh things about his share in the work of the Committee of Eighteen, I hope that it will not make the right hon. Gentleman doubt that we admire his industry, his personal integrity and his devotion to all the public duties he fulfils, and his ardent desire that his work for disarmament should succeed.
I have been asked to speak tonight about disarmament and particularly about the Committee of Eighteen and I propose to do precisely that. As time
320
is limited, and as the Committee of Eighteen has been sitting for many months, I shall not be able to deal with many matters which have been raised in the debate and on which I should have gladly spoken. I shall say only that I am in warm agreement with much that was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson) and by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne).
On 7th February, 1962, before the Committee of Eighteen gathered in Geneva, the Prime Minister and President Kennedy spontaneously addressed a joint letter to Mr. Khrushchev. They used language which I think it right now to recall. They said:
"At this time in our history disarmament is the most urgent issue we face…We must view the forthcoming disarmament meetings as an opportunity and a challenge which time and history may not once again allow to us."
How often in recent months has it seemed from Government declarations that it was not disarmament, that it was Nassau, the Polaris weapons or the multilateral force that were the urgent issues which we all had to face. How often have we thought that it was on more armaments and not less that foreign policy seemed to turn. Last year in their letter the Prime Minister and the President used prophetic words. They said:
"Unless some means can be found to make at least a start in controlling the quickening arms competition, events may take their own course, and erupt in a disaster which will afflict all peoples."
Eight months later it nearly happened. Two weeks ago the Prime Minister told us that the week of the Cuba crisis was the week of the most strain that he could remember in all his life. He told us that he thought then that we might be on the brink of a nuclear war.
Mr. Dean Rusk said when the crisis was over that it had been an arms race crisis and the Prime Minister wrote again to Mr. Khrushchev to say that we should take up disarmament once more and try

321
to get some practical results. Six weeks after that he went to Nassau, but he did not talk with the President about disarmament—he talked about the mirage of an independent nuclear deterrent. He came home saying, not that disarmament was the most urgent issue we face, but that Polaris was a splendid weapon which would last us for a generation. None the less the arms race is, was then and will remain, a mortal menace and if the Committee of Eighteen should fail, time and history will probably not allow us another chance.
That sheds a grim light on the fact that since the Committee started its deliberations, the arms race has quickened as never before. The United States expenditure on arms has increased since 1960 by almost 30 per cent. Soviet expenditure has increased by even more. Our own expenditure has increased by £340 million. Above all, there has been a great increase in the output of the most sophisticated weapons of inter-continental nuclear attack. Dr. David Inglis has been associated with nuclear weapons from the very start. He is still the senior physicist in the Argoune National Laboratory in Illinois. Last month he wrote the following words:
"This year we have started to produce inter-continental missiles at an enormously accelerated rate….Fouryears ago we were misled into the belief that there was a missile gap….Now the reliable fact seems to be that we have about four times as much as they have….Not content with the ratio of four-to-one, we are starting this year to produce about three times as many inter-continental missiles per year as we had on 1st January in our entire stockpile! This means that present numbers are almost trivial compared to those of the near future."
The United States Secretary of Defence, Mr. McNamara, confirmed to Congress in January that what Dr. Inglis said was true.
That is the background—Cuba and the quickening arms race—to the question of a test ban, on which I say only a few words as others will deal with it tomorrow. We on this side of the House have always wanted a test ban. We wanted it for three years while the Prime Minister was telling us in his speeches that nuclear tests would do no one any harm, and while by his actions he was giving France and China a cast-iron case for going on. We hope most ardently that the new conversations in Moscow
322
will succeed. We think that Mr. Khrushchev will take a grave responsibility if he turns down any reasonable plan.
We hope that a test ban will be made and that, when it is, it will open paths for much further progress very soon. But let us have no illusions. A test ban now will not stop France and China—nor India, nor Pakistan, nor Japan, if France and China succeed. How would a test ban have helped us over Cuba? The answer is plain. A test ban, if we get it, must be swiftly followed by disarmament, if even the rudimentary obligations of the ban are to endure. This background of Cuba and the quickening arms race shows us also that the Committee of Eighteen may be in very truth what the Prime Minister called it, an opportunity which may not recur. I do not think the Secretary of State for War will dispute that the Committee has been a grave disappointment to those who thought the Prime Minister's words in his letter to Mr. Khrushchev were more than cold war propaganda. The Committee itself, as I read the records which have come to me—they are a little out of date—has been extremely depressed. One of its ablest members, Dr. Barrington, of Burma, proposed in April that it should adjourn sine die. He said he could not imagine that they would go on meeting three times a week listening to the same speeches, the same arguments over and over again, and not advancing by an inch.
A little later, the United States delegate confessed that the Committee's progress had been"most limited", and that their"concrete accomplishments had been nil." There have been many causes. Of course, the Russians have been difficult. They have said a lot of things that would have better been left unsaid. It is clear that this arms race and the vast increase in Western I.C.B.Ms have reduced them to a state of acute suspicion and fear.
The Committee's ridiculous procedure has been a grievous handicap to its work. But among the causes of the Committee's failure to make better progress I rate pretty high the failure of the British Government to play the part in the discussions which, I think, Britain, more than all others, is qualified

323
to play; the part which the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary promised in the Committee that we would play when its work began. Let me quote the Foreign Secretary's words. I think them still of crucial importance if the Committee is ever to get a practical result. Speaking of the two drafts laid before the Committee by the United States and Soviet delegations, the noble Lord said:
"All the elements of a disarmament treaty are in the plans which we have before us. What we have to do is to reconcile these two plans….The United States plan would move towards total disarmament in nine years by a continuous programme. The Soviet plan proposes total disarmament in four years….think that the Conference is agreed that we should work by going through both the plans now before us, chapter by chapter, looking for the greatest amount of agreement in each measure, and, above all, not finding differences in principle where none exist. We on the British side intend to keep open minds. We support the United States plan and we helped to frame it. We are not pressing specifically or exclusively for its adoption. What we must find is a master agreement drawing on what is best in all the proposals before us. We begin to see much in common between the Russian and the American plans. If we can work on this common ground, we should be able to produce a master plan of our own, which could lead to the physical destruction of weapons, beginning now, and going on until the business is complete without a check."
I have read the verbatim records with some diligence. I cannot find much evidence that our delegates have ever sought to reach a compromise between the United States and the Soviet plans; that they have ever made one proposal for taking what is best out of the Soviet plan; that they have ever sought to urge a master plan; that they have shown that we have"open minds"; that they have avoided finding differences of principle where none exist. On the contrary, I have found scores of speeches by the Secretary of State and his deputies designed to show that the United States plan is right in every point and that the Russian plan is wrong.
I found some speeches which, I think, showed a disposition to argue that there were differences of principle where none existed. Our delegates, inside the Committee and in the Press, have always sought to show that the major divergence between the United States and the Soviet plans was about inspection and control. Only last week, in another place, the Foreign Secretary said that
324
"…Russia's whole approach, in saying that the whole process of disarmament must be completed before any inspection is allowed, is totally unrealistic and can never bring about disarmament."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26th June, 1963; Vol. 251, c. 285.]
I think that that is a complete distortion of what the Russians have proposed.
The Secretary of State is very familiar with what I am about to say. In the first stage of the Russian draft they offered to reduce their manpower by 2·1 million men—from 3·8 million to 1·7 million. They offered to abolish the conventional armaments and equipment with which those 2·1 million were equipped and also the reserve armaments kept for troops who might be called up in time of crisis, a total, if the figures of the Institute of Strategic Studies are right, of about 65 per cent. to 70 per cent. of all the conventional armaments which they possessed, including tanks, mobile artillery, armoured cars and all the rest. They offered to abolish all the means of delivery by which weapons of nuclear power could be used against an enemy—bombing aircraft, missiles, rockets, submarines and surface vessels which had been adapted for launching missiles.
All this was to be done under international control by inspectors on the spot who would be in the Soviet Union before any of it began. They proposed that the factories and plants where these conventional weapons and means of delivery had been made should be dismantled under international control; that all the testing grounds, bomber stations, and training establishments for crews should be closed down under international control; that military expenditure should be correspondingly reduced and the reductions controlled by expert international financial inspectors—an immensely important safeguard against violation. Finally, the Soviet proposed in Article 14 of their Treaty that no missiles should be launched from national territories, no military aircraft should leave their national airspace or warships leave their territorial waters—and that all that should be under international inspection and control.
Sit D. Glover: Surely greater reliance would have been placed on the Russian proposals if the Russians had agreed to the very much simpler proposal of seven inspections taking place of nuclear tests each year.
Mr. Noel-Baker: With respect, the question of nuclear tests is wholly different from the question of disarmament, as I know the Secretary of State agrees. To say, as the Foreign Secretary said, that the Russians rejected inspection until the process of disarmament was complete is surely quite false, and I should have thought that it would make the Russians believe that we have hardly any serious desire to negotiate at all.
I know what the Secretary of State will answer. He will say that the whole of the Russian Stage 1 is a hoax; that it is absurd to put almost all the big measures of disarmament into Stage 1; that their Stage 1 is grossly overloaded—I think that that was the phrase which he has used; that the Russians do not expect us to accept it; and that it is a try-on for propaganda ends. Of course, the Russian Stage 1 will not be accepted as it is. A compromise will certainly be required. My complaint against the Secretary of State is that I cannot find that he has ever tried to get one. Neither on manpower nor on conventional arms nor on means of delivery have I found that he has ever given the slightest hint to the Committee that he would welcome a halfway plan. He has stood on the Western plan as drafted.
Does he realise what that means? Under the Western plan as it now stands it will be six full years before the manpower of the Soviet and U.S. forces comes down to the level which Hitler had in his forces in the summer of 1939; and that manpower will still be equipped, after six years of disarmament, with a power of attack incomparably greater than Hitler's forces had. Under the Western plan, if Mr. Gilpatric's figures are correct, the United States, after six years, would still have 7,000 means of delivering nuclear weapons onto Soviet targets.
Last summer, I heard General Talensky describe at the Pugwash Conference the kind of overkill nuclear attacks that the United States would still be able to make on the Soviet Union after those six years had elapsed—not a voice among the American experts at Pugwash was raised to prove him wrong. When the Secretary of State for War says that the Soviet Stage 1 is grossly overloaded, I would ask him to agree that the Western first stage is grossly under loaded. I think
326
that he proves that the major difference between East and West is not about inspection and control but about how much disarmament we should hope for and how quickly it can be done.
I have sometimes wondered as I read the records of the Committee whether we were really seeking agreement with the Russians at all. We seem to ask them at almost every meeting to give up their viewpoint and surrender to ours. I was genuinely astonished by the reception given by the Western delegates to Mr. Gromyko's offer of the minimum nuclear deterrent to be retained by the Soviet and the United States Governments until the end of Stage 2.
This was an American idea, urged by very high authorities over there. Its acceptance by the Soviet might have become a major break through. But one Western delegate said that it only showed that the Soviet now realised that their earlier proposal for the abolition of delivery vehicles was quite untenable—a strange, almost an insulting way of welcoming a great concession. It was followed by a flood of Western speeches full of questions about what Mr. Gromyko really meant—most of them designed to show that the Soviet were keeping their hands free ultimately to cheat.
There was, of course, only one question that really mattered, and that remained obscure: how many missiles would the United States and the Soviet retain? Mr. Gromyko had told us all the rest—what the missiles were to be; that they were to be on Soviet territory and United States territory only; that they were to be of approximately equal numbers and of equal explosive power on each side. A little later, the Soviet had agreed that the missiles in this minimum deterrent should be subject to inspection and control—a very notable concession from their principle of"no inspection of the armaments that remain", Naturally, with their present inferiority in I.C.B.M.s—an inferiority which, for prestige reasons, they are forced to deny—the Russians have been coy about talking numbers.
I could not find that the Secretary of State for War had helped them. It was left to General Burns of Canada to point out that if each side retained missiles to the number of 10 and if one side then

327
succeeded disloyally in retaining 30 clandestine missiles, the balance would be very dangerously upset; but that, if each side retained 200 missiles, the 30 would not really matter much. I understand that General Burns had taken 30 as an outside figure that no disloyal Government could hope to exceed.
It so happens that 200 is precisely the figure quoted in 1960 by Dr. Jerome Wiesner, who has since become Chief Science Adviser to President Kennedy. Dr. Wiesner wrote
"Studies made independently by the U.S. Army and Navy have indicated that, even in the absence of international agreements limiting force size and permitting inspection, 200 relatively secure missiles"—
That is, in hardened sites:
"would provide an adequate deterrent."
Last September, Dr. Hans Be the, who was Dr. Weisner's predecessor as Chief Advisor to President Eisenhower, said that it would be"entirely safe" to abolish all U.S. nuclear armoury except for"a few hundred" hardened missiles. All this talk of going down to a minimum deterrent may sound fantastic to many hon. Members who have followed the proceedings recently. But Weisner and Be the are amongst the greatest experts in the world. If ever there is to be a disarmament treaty, something of this kind must be agreed to, and I hope that the British delegate from now on may bend his utmost efforts to secure acceptance of this vitally important plan. Indeed, I hope that our present debate may help to change the whole work of the Committee of Eighteen.
It is out of the two draft treaties that a system of disarmament must be forged. Every hon. Member ought to know both by heart. I have no reason to praise the Russians. But it seemed to me as I read the minutes that they have made far greater efforts to negotiate than have the delegates from the West. They have made some pretty big concessions to our point of view.
They have increased their time schedule from four years to five. They have agreed to manpower at 1·9 million instead of 1·7 million in Stage 1. They have accepted the United States proposal of a 30 per cent. reduction of conventional weapons and equipment in Stage 1. They have agreed to the United States proposal of a further 35 per cent.
328
reduction in Stage 2. They have put forward the plan for a minimum nuclear deterrent to be retained to the end of Stage 2, of which I have spoken. They have agreed that the launching sites of this deterrent should be under international inspection and control. These are all concessions on major points.
What have the West conceded in reply? The Secretary of State was good enough to send me a list. He put first the insertion of this 30 per cent. cut in means of delivery and conventional armaments in Stage 1. Does he really think that that was a concession and that 30 per cent. is adequate? Does he realise that in most arms it would take us back only to the level of 1961?
He put next the proposed transfer of 50,000 kilograms of fissile material to non-military use; but 50,000 kilograms represents just one 150th of the United States stockpile in 1962 and it has been much increased since then. He put forward the concession in the American draft about the production and testing of new arms, but that concession was really the removal of an earlier provision that might have made disarmament a farce.
Something much bolder than these and the other trifling changes which we have offered is now required. Why should not Britain propose a time schedule of six years in three stages of two years each? Why should not we back the Russian compromise on manpower? In all conscience, it is modest enough. Why should not we seek a bigger initial reduction in Russian tanks and mobile guns in return for a bigger initial reduction of delivery vehicles by the West? Why should not we ourselves work out a concrete plan for the minimum nuclear deterrent, which has now such wide support in both East and West? Why should not we try to work on what the Russians have proposed about inspection? Why do not we work on the various possible compromises on bases, which have not yet been explored?
When Mr. Khrushchev answered the joint letter from the Prime Minister and President Kennedy just over a year ago he used two pregnant phrases. He said:
"The Soviet Government considers it necessary to see to it in advance that the work of the Eighteen-Power Committee does not get into a rut and is not reduced in the last analysis to verbal exchanges between functionaries."

329
Too often, reading the records, I have had the feeling that they have become exactly that, and that a new start at a much higher level is now urgently required.
Mr. Khrushchev wrote:
"There is no need to prove that the development of the international situation in the future will depend to a great extent on how matters proceed in the Committee. Will the Committee be able to rise to a level from which the distant and the difficult will appear near and real?"
Can the Committee, can this House, and can the Governments not rise to the level which makes disarmament seem near and real? Must we drift on as we are drifting now to the ultimate disaster which the head of every Government foresees? In the last speech I ever heard by Hugh Gaitskell, made in Derby, South, he said that the only real objective of foreign policy was the speediest possible ending of the cold war. His voice still speaks to me to-night. And there are others: Pope John's, Pope Paul's, and the President of the United States in his epic declaration of 10th June. But greater than all these could be the united voices of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and I pray God that they may soon be heard.
9.31 p.m.
The Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. B. Godber): The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) was good enough, in his opening words, to say some very kind things personally about me, and I am most grateful to him for them. I assure him, in return, that I always listen to his speeches with care, because I have always believed that he approaches this problem above all others with a deep sincerity.
Having said that, however, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that I shall have to take serious divergencies from what he said on a number of the points that he made. In fact, what he said tonight was a complete travesty of the operations of the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee, and, so far as I have the time, I shall hope to expose the falsity of the position which he has put to the House.
This is, I suppose, my valedictory speech on foreign affairs, certainly on disarmament and nuclear tests, at least for the time being; but, when I was
330
first asked to participate in the debate, I was still at the Foreign Office, and I hope that the House will bear with me as I make this speech, in spite of the change in my position, for the kind references to which during the debate I am most grateful.
Many people have said to me, in the past few days, that it is strange to go straight from being Britain's chief disarmament negotiator to the War Office. In fact, it is not nearly as odd as some might think. All aspects of foreign and defence policy are and must be intertwined just as foreign policy is very closely intertwined with economic policy. These things are interlinked, and they must be so. In particular, although I have in no way changed my deep desire to see disarmament achieved, I see my new job as the other side of the coin in relation to this particular problem. I wish my successor well and hope that he will succeed in negotiating disarmament where I have so far failed, for reasons which, in spite of the suggestions which he made, are rather different from those which the right hon. Gentleman described, as I shall seek to show.
When I say that I see my new job as the other side of the coin, I mean this. Countless weary months of negotiation with the Russians have shown me one thing above all else, that they will negotiate against strength, just as they will negotiate only from strength. They are more likely in the end to sign an agreement with countries whose strength they respect than for any other reason at all. This is why the unilateralist case is not only mistaken, but false and wholly wrong in every aspect. The very line which the unilateralists seek to put forward is the one which will defeat agreement. If the Russians could achieve it without any effort on their part, they would certainly prefer that to any agreement. The unilateralists case weakens our negotiating position and certainly does not strengthen it. I emphasise that most strongly.
Having moved from one job to the other, I see that there is this direct connection. We must keep on working and striving to get multilateral disarmament in every possible way—multilateral disarmament effectively carried out, effectively policed, and effectively verified, not verified as the Russians propose, to

331
which I will come in a moment—but that is not what we have yet had the opportunity of getting. We must seek to do this, but do not let us be fooled by any talk about unilateral action.
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The Secretary of State is not suggesting that that applies to any of us?
Mr. Godber: No. I was dealing particularly with the question of verification, to which I will come because I think that the right hon. Member distorted the picture there.
I want to concentrate on certain matters tonight. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence will be speaking early in tomorrow's debate and he will deal with all questions relating to the multilateral force. Therefore, I do not propose to deal with that. I want to deal with one or two points about the United Nations which have been raised today before turning to the question of nuclear tests and disarmament.
First, I wish to take up the point about United Nations finances, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Hon. Members will be aware that this is a very topical point because of the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly which has been meeting very recently in New York on this matter. Several Members have referred to the resolutions adopted there and to what is likely to arise following this at the eighteenth session of the General Assembly.
Some have asked questions about the consequences of the failure of countries to pay their contributions. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal referred to this matter this afternoon, but, since it is such an important question and since it seems likely soon to become even more pressing, perhaps the House will allow me to go into a little more detail about the position as it obtains at present.
The first sentence of Article 19 of the United Nations Charter, to which my right hon. Friend referred, states:
"A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organisation shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years."
332
On 14th May, at the opening of the Special Session of the General Assembly called to discuss the question of peacekeeping finances, the Secretary-General wrote to the President of the Assembly, pointing out that one member State, Haiti, was liable to the application of Article 19. The President of the Assembly, in his reply to this letter, stated that he would have made an announcement
"drawing the attention of the Assembly to the loss of voting rights in the Assembly of the member State just mentioned, under the first sentence of Article 19, had a formal count of vote taken place in the presence of a representative of that State at the opening plenary meeting".
He went on:
"As no such vote took place, and as the representative of Haiti was not present, this announcement became unnecessary."
This is a very important statement. The President stated that he had understood that the representative of Haiti would shortly make the payment necessary to render the first sentence of Article 19 inapplicable.
I have quoted this to give hon. Members an example, the first example that there has been, of an analysis of this by the President of the Assembly and, in fact, of the application of Article 19. I suggest that this shows in the clearest possible fashion that the ruling of the President of the Assembly was to the effect that the application of the first sentence of Article 19 is completely automatic and requires no action to bring it into play. That is a very important factor which may have very considerable relevance in the months ahead.
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Am I right in thinking that the President was Sir Zafrullah Khan, who had been a judge in the International Court?
Mr. Godber: That is right. He is a very respected man.
The International Court of Justice was asked last year for an advisory opinion whether peace-keeping expenses were to be regarded as expenses of the organisation within the terms of Article 19. That Article refers to the expenses of the organisation and it had been argued by certain States that peace-keeping operations did not come within the terms of that Article. The International Court gave its opinion that they did and a

333
resolution confirming the opinion of the Court that peace-keeping expenses fall under Article 19 was passed at the Seventeenth Session of the General Assembly by a substantial majority.
That brings me to the position of the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union does not make contributions towards peacekeeping operations already authorised, it will become liable to loss of vote under Article 19 on 1st January, 1964. The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Goldon Walker) said that this difficult question would be settled in the end by world opinion and, in particular, by the African countries. It is already abundantly clear where the weight of world opinion lies.
The Special Session of the General Assembly which has just been concluded passed seven resolutions by large majorities on the question of peace-keeping. The first of those, a resolution on general principles, lays down that
"the financing of peace-keeping operations is the collective responsibility of all member states of the United Nations."
It could not be clearer than that. I draw the attention of the House, because this is significant, to the fact that that resolution was adopted by a vote of 92 in favour to 11 against, with three abstentions. That deals with the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.
Another resolution on arrears in respect of assessed contributions to the United Nations forces in the Middle East and the Congo appealed to member States to pay up and was adopted by 79 votes in favour to 12 against and with 17 abstentions. This makes clear where world opinion lies. We must hope that countries which are in arrear will realise the problems which they are creating, not only for the United Nations, but for themselves. It must be our hope that they will take steps to comply with these resolutions when the time comes for them to be operative.
So much for the question of United Nations finances, which will come up again inevitably at the eighteenth session of the General Assembly, when there will be further opportunities to consider it. The United Kingdom delegation in New York has played a full and valuable part in the discussions in relation to the whole of the special session.
334
On the wider issue of the United Nations as a whole, there are a number of things that I should like to say, but I must get on to the other points. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman) gave us much food for thought. I should not like to follow him into some of the points he raised, because he would, I am sure, agree that they involve considerable discussion and would leave us on for a long time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) spoke from his deep knowledge of the last session of the United Nations. The problems of the large Afro-Asian vote, as my hon. Friend recalled to us, are very real. In my view, however, we already see the earlier of what I might call the new entry of States adopting a somewhat more considered view, on certain issues at least. We have to be patient here. We must be patient and ready to state our case again and again and to allow the justice of it to become apparent in order to gain the good will of those uncommitted nations.
When discussing the distinction between China and Russia, my hon. Friend said that he was afraid that the younger people might become attracted to China. I would remind him of the shock and dismay which China's attack on India caused among those delegates at the United Nations. He will, I am sure, realise that this was a factor which has had considerable effect, which, I imagine, certainly will not yet have worn off.
I turn specifically to the test ban. Both the right hon. Member for Smethwick—various hon. Members spoke at some length on this subject—and the right hon. Member for Derby, South pointed out that, even if one gets a test ban treaty, it is only the beginning of the road and not the end. I quite agree; but I would say that if one gets a test ban treaty one is creating the conditions in which disarmament can flourish. One has to create the conditions for disarmament to succeed; one cannot consider it in isolation. I thought that the right hon. Member for Derby, South did not give nearly enough attention to that point.
One cannot expect to deal with disarmament as being ultimately unconnected with the other issues in the world.

335
We have to obtain reductions in tension in various ways and in every way possible. I have always believed that if we can expose the differences between the two sides on the issue of disarmament at a time when it is not propitious to make the real advance that we all want, we are still doing good in the Eighteen-Nation Committee even if we are not really achieving results. We must seek to reduce tension in various ways to enable those talks to come to fruition. Therefore, in relation to nuclear tests the matter of reduction of tension is very important, and I believe that is how it should be considered.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick gave us very interesting information about his own discussions and those of his right hon. Friend with Mr. Khrushchev in Moscow. He said that Mr. Khrushchev had told him that he had withdrawn his offer on inspection. I would point out to him that Her Majesty's Government must deal with this in relation to the correspondence and communications that we have direct from Mr. Khrushchev. We are, naturally, grateful for any information that we are given, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that we must deal with the subject on this basis. Though I take note of what he said, we must go forward on the basis on which we have been dealing with it. These are matters that we must discuss and explore with Mr. Khrushchev through my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council when he gets to Moscow. I emphasise that we have taken note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that he believed that Mr. Khrushchev was still genuinely annoyed with the West because of a misunderstanding, or whatever one cares to call it. There may have been a misunderstanding. I still feel it difficult to realise that there was, but there may have been—I realise it. It could have arisen—I say no more than that—through the fact that my chief colleague, the American negotiator at the time, in trying very hard to get agreement in the discussions, sought to divide the territory of the Soviet Union into seismic and aseismic areas. In doing so it could be that through the translation the Russians may have got a wrong impression, thinking that the small number of
336
inspections quoted for aseismic areas was what was meant for the whole. I suggest merely that that is a possibility. I know that at one stage my colleague was talking in these terms and about highly technical matters, and when this sort of thing goes through translation it is quite possible that such a misunderstanding could have arisen.
However, I would say that too much must not be made of this, because when President Kennedy replied to Mr. Khrushchev last December, when the matter came up again, President Kennedy at once refuted any idea that this figure had been put forward, and it was after that that the Soviet negotiators went to Washington and New York for private discussions. If it is said that there was a misunderstanding, why did the Soviet Union send Mr. Kuznetsov to talk privately on these matters subsequently? That is a matter which puzzles me very much. I have asked this question in Geneva, but have never yet had a reply to it. So I would say that, although one accepts that there is something behind this, at least it must have been cleared up as early as last Christmas.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick also referred to the question of Mr. Khrushchev's fears of espionage. This is a strange fear. I recognise that it exists, but I do not recognise that there is any justification for it to exist. I very much hope that in the discussions which will be going on later this month between my noble Friend and Mr. Harriman and Mr. Khrushchev it will be possible to expunge this fear from the minds of our Soviet friends. But we have to realise, in all our discussions with the Soviet Union, that this is a basic Russian approach to so many problems. It is not a Communist idea. It is not a Soviet idea. It is a Russian idea. They have been afraid of espionage over the centuries, and that fear still exists as powerfully as ever.
Mr. John Cronin: Surely it is a matter of common sense, when considering this peculiar Russian idiosyncrasy, that the Russians have a sense of enormous inferiority in means of delivery and do not wish their bases to be discovered.
Mr. Godber: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quite on the point. We are discussing the question of a

337
nuclear test ban. The question here is whether there should be a small number of inspections—I will not go into the number now. If there is to be an inspection, it has to be on a spot which is located by seismic apparatus.
There would be no freedom of choice of location for the inspectors. They would be flown in aircraft with blinds drawn, flown by Soviet aircrew. They would be accompanied by as many Soviet observers, as the Soviet Government liked to provide. They would be taken to the area they might inspect, but it would only be a relatively small area, and, of course, this could only happen in very few cases. I repeat that there is no justification for the Soviet fear of espionage in these cases. I will come to the other aspect of Russian fears—inspection under a disarmament agreement—in a moment, if I have time. I recognise, as I have said, that the fear exists in this case, but I do not believe that it is justified.
I hope that, in the talks in Moscow later this month, it will be possible to show the Russians that we are willing to accept any reasonable restrictions to enable them to ensure that there is no general espionage in enabling these observers at least to get to the spot concerned and carry out an effective inspection where it is suspected that there may have been nuclear tests. This is vital to the whole problem, and I hope that we can make progress by exposing the unnecessary fears which have been expressed in this regard.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick said that our negotiators must not be inflexible. I agree entirely. For a long time in Geneva, whatever the right hon. Member for Derby, South, may say, we have, in private discussions at least—whatever has been said elewhere—made it clear to the Soviet Union that we are flexible and are willing to be flexible in relation to the modalities of this. But one thing that we must have is sufficient inspections to enable us to have a reasonable degree of cofidence that we can tell that a series of tests has not been carried out. That is what we must have, otherwise there is no point in having a treaty. I emphasise this point in relation to a test ban.
I apologise to the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and
338
Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) for not being here when he spoke, but I have been given full notes of what he said, and I know that he spoke, as always, with very great knowledge of the subject. He touched on the question of numbers. I do not want to go into the numbers tonight. I want to leave the position free for our negotiators.
Mr. A. Henderson: Would the right hon. Gentleman say that there will be flexibility even on the question of numbers?
Mr. Godber: There will be flexibility in our whole approach to this matter. I would like to leave it at that. As far as nuclear tests are concerned, I would like to leave the position there and turn now to disarmament.
I was appalled at the way in which the right hon. Member for Derby, South dealt with this matter. It seemed an incredibly one-sided approach. As I know that he studies these verbatim reports with great care, I am disappointed that reading them should have led him to this view.
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: So am I.
Mr. Godber: I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will read these verbatim reports and see how wrong the right hon. Gentleman's approach is. One must not have such a false impression going out from this House.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the main point I should make—it was nice of him to tell me in advance what I should say—was that the first stage of the Russian plan was overloaded. That is true but my main point, in fact, goes back to the agreed principles, which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention.
There was one thing which was not agreed in the agreed principles, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Derby, South knows it as well as I do. That was on the subject of verification. The Russians said,"You can verify what is destroyed, but not what remains." That was their basic position and that is their basic position today. They have not changed from it by one jot or by one tittle. That is the weakness of the Russian plan and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. This is the falsity of the Russian plan.

339
The Russians come forward with story after story and with proposal after proposal, but when it is analysed never once are they seen to agree to effective inspection, and that is the thing that matters and it is that in which we must have confidence. After all, last year's events in Cuba left a deep impression on the minds of many of our allies. What was really happening when Mr. Gromyko told Mr. Kennedy that nothing was being done? We must be able to check for ourselves. This is what really matters.
The right hon. Gentleman took one instance of a great concession, as he called it. There are many instances I should like to take. He talked about Mr. Gromyko making a concession at the General Assembly last year when he agreed to the retention of a very limited number of nuclear delivery vehicles until the end of the second stage. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that Mr. Gromyko made a further great concession, saying that we could inspect those nuclear delivery vehicles. What it means is that there would be perhaps 20 nuclear delivery vehicles allowed to be left in the territory of the Soviet Union, and presumably 20 in the United States, and all these could be inspected. But nothing whatever was said about inspecting the rest of the territory of the Soviet Union to see whether there were not 20 more.
This is the point that matters, and although I have probed again and again, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, I have never had a satisfactory answer to that. We must be realists. We want disarmament, but we want genuine disarmament and we want it to be mutilateral, something in which we can trust others and in which we can get them to trust us; and in the world of today we can trust only on the evidence of our eyes. I wish that it were not so. I wish that we could take things merely on people's words, but we cannot.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to look through such rose-coloured spectacles at what our Soviet colleagues say. I wish that they would come forward more. I have tried in private discussion, as I have in public debate, with them to get them to concede this vital point, and I have reminded them that this difference between us was known when we went into the disarmament discussions at Geneva.
340
It was known because when the principles were agreed in September, 1961, this one point was outstanding—that the Soviet Union would not allow inspection of remainders whereas we insisted that there must be such inspection.
The West went into this matter very thoroughly and as a result produced what was called the zonal inspection plan. This was the idea that certain zones could be inspected and that as the degree of disarmament went on the number of zones should increase. This would not give totality of inspection, but it was some assurance and it was a big concession by the West. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention it. We have never had any response to it and I have asked the Russians time and time again in Geneva if they did not like it to produce their own solution between the two plans. Never a move have we had. These are the real facts of these negotiations.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why we did not have a separate British initiative. Britain is a member of N.A.T.O. Britain is a full partner in N.A.T.O. and takes a full part with her N.A.T.O. colleagues in armament and in seeking to get disarmament. Is not that a sensible and sound position? Britain has discussions with the United States and with our other N.A.T.O. allies who are members of the Eighteen-Nation Committee. We have regular meetings to thrash out what we can do.
It is a question not of putting forward a British initiative, but of putting forward a Western proposal to try to meet the Russians. This we do and I have sent the right hon. Gentleman a list of the very things that we have tried to do. But it is not easy when, from the other side, we get no move of any real value. The Russians put forward many things which have a propaganda value and I sometimes wonder whether their whole purpose is not propaganda. If it is, I say that they are roundly defeated for, however much wool they have pulled over the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman, they have not pulled the wool over the eyes of the uncommitted nations at the conference. If the right hon. Gentleman asks the delegates of those nations, they will say in private where they think the real trouble lies. That is the most significant thing of all.

341
I reject absolutely the picture which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. I tell him that we are desperately anxious to get disarmament, but it must be real and effective disarmament. If the Russians will meet us on the points which really matter, they will find how anxious we are to make progress. I am sorry to have spoken with a little heat on this occasion, but I felt that the right hon. Gentleman should know—
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

RESIDENTIAL ADULT COLLEGES (CAPITAL GRANTS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
10.0 p.m.
Mr. James Boyden: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of Ministry of Education capital grants to residential adult colleges. To some extent I have an interest to declare, inasmuch as my wife is a governor of Hillcroft College and I am a governor of Fircroft College. As far as I know, it brings no pecuniary advantage to either of us.
While I was in charge of adult education at Durham University I made the maximum propaganda on behalf of adult colleges and sent as many students to the adult colleges as I could. I must say that I never had a failure in the sense that I never had a student from Durham go to an adult college who did not come back very much the better for it and very much inspired for the sort of work that he was to do. Indeed, in our educational organisations the residential adult colleges are the most successful institutions that one can find.
In their evidence to the Robbins Committee several of the colleges submitted the most striking evidence of their success. For example, of 180 former Ruskin students of the 1945–53 vintage, of whom well over half had left school at 14, by 1957 over one-quarter had taken honours degrees. There was only one failure, and two-thirds of that quarter obtained good honours degrees, either first or second class. One-fifth of that 180 com-
342
pleted full-time post-college qualifications, 22 of whom became teachers, so that of 180 former Ruskin students nearly half went on to quite severe forms of higher education and nearly all passed with distinction. At Hillcroft, out of 950 post-war students, 216 have become qualified teachers and 249 have become trained social workers, and of these very few had full-time education beyond 14.
If one needs any evidence of the large untapped pool of ability, I think that it can be found in this record of post-war Ruskin and Hillcroft students, and precisely the same picture emerges at the other residential colleges. These colleges have been called the colleges of the second chance. I am not so keen on that phraseology, but, certainly, the students they take are the under-privileged educational students and they nearly all do very well.
It may be argued that with progress in education these numbers will diminish. Ruskin College, in its evidence to the Robbins Committee, said:
"So far from a general expansion of the educational system reducing the supply of adult students we have reason to believe the contrary is likely to be the case."
I confess that as far as residential adult education is concerned I am an expansionist. In fact, I require more expansion than even the enthusiastic residential colleges themselves.
In 1961, Ruskin had 2,000 inquiries. I welcome what Ruskin College put forward to the Robbins Committee, that the existing provision might well be doubled by the expansion of the existing colleges and the founding of two new colleges, but it is about the expansion of the existing colleges that I want to speak tonight. I prefer to base it not so much on the excellent record of the colleges in producing well-qualified people, but on the general nature of the work that they do.
I now want to quote an extract from the National Institute's publication on accommodation and staffing, quoting a report from one of my very good friends, Mr. Philip Hopkins, the warden of Fir-croft College. He said:
"there is a danger of overlooking much of the value of the adult residential course if there should be a preoccupation with vocational aspects. We know that a substantial number of our (Fircroft) students each year

343
will return to the work from which they came, but will return from their liberal studies enriched as individuals and citizens. The Scandinavian democracies have long realised that such subjects as politics, ethics, history, economics and literature cannot truly be appreciated by immature students, however intelligent they may be…Pro rata Scandinavia has about twice as many colleges as Britain has college places for long-term residential education after school-days."
Even if we took the expansionist recommendation of Ruskin College and doubled it we should not be in any great danger of over-provision.
The current number of adult students in attendance at the colleges are quite small. Taking the Ministry grant-aided colleges, namely, Ruskin, Fircroft, Hillcroft Catholic Workers and Coleg Harlech altogether, in February, 1962, there were only 272 men and 90 women in them. There is no question that even with the proposals I hope to put to the Parliamentary Secretary tonight there is any danger of drying up this pool of ability. Lately, the residential colleges have been playing a marked part in the educational development of the emerging democracies. The pressure on places in the colleges today arises partly because they have played a truly magnificent rôle in educating adult Africans, adult Asians and others, who then have gone back to their own countries, very often to become distinguished leaders in their own communities.
The Ministry contribution is far less than it should be. It provides less than a 40 per cent. grant towards the running costs, and to date it has made no capital contributions. I am pleased to see that at least the attitude of the Minister is correct. It gives us encouragement that we may get a favourable response. The Minister went to Ruskin College on 26th February—the first time a Minister had ever been to Ruskin College, I heard the right hon. Gentleman, when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, taking part in the opening of the new Fircroft College. I remarked to myself on that occasion that his words were good, but that I hoped that his actions would be better. Tonight, there is an opportunity for the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us that his actions will be much better even than the words he uttered at Fircroft on that occasion.
All the residential colleges are hoping for substantial grants for 1964–65. They
344
were disappointed with the capital grants for 1963–64. I hope that they will be very much better than the 50 per cent, which is the rumoured grant at the moment. There is no reason why Ministry grants should not be in the region of 75 per cent.
Very briefly, I want to sketch what the requirements are. The Parliamentary Secretary will have had more detailed statements, but the position, roughly, at the moment is as follows: Ruskin wishes to increase its number of students from a nominal figure of 120—in fact it has 127—to 160, and it wants to reconstruct its existing buildings so that its libraries, common rooms and dining rooms will be much more satisfactory for the contributions which it wants to make. For this it wants the sum of £175,000. I want to quote what Mr. Hughes, the Principal of Ruskin College, said in a pamphlet which he has published on the question. He said:
"If Ministry grant is forthcoming, it should not be many years before we no longer have to make apologies to our distinguished visitors from overseas, explaining that in Britain adult education is the Cinderella of the system, and that education has for many years ranked low in Government priorities. We might even be able to offer them modest hospitality."
At Hillcroft the intention is to expand from 50 to 75 students, and about £40,000 is required for an adequate library, extra study bedrooms and extra teaching space. Fircroft, rather reluctantly, think they can expand and would be willing to expand from 38, the current number, to 50 students. They would require about £30,000 for a main block, new lecture and tutorial rooms and an extension to the kitchen. The Catholic Workers College wishes to secure a central site in Oxford and to expand from 35 to 60 students. I will leave my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) to put the case for Coleg Harlech.
Finally, I wish to put these points to the Parliamentary Secretary, hoping that we may have a satisfactory answer. I am sure that he will accept on behalf of the Minister, the principle of capital grants to these colleges. I should like him to indicate the percentage grant it is proposed to be made. I hope very much that the minimum will be 75 per cent. I hope that he will declare that there is to be a policy of expansion of

345
all the existing colleges in 1964–65, and I hope that he will consider seriously raising the amount of the current grant over the 35 per cent. to 38 per cent. that it is now, because, if capital extensions take place, if the buildings are extended, there will be extra requirements from the colleges in the way of current expenditure. The hon. Gentleman may well consider putting that up to about 75 per cent. as well.
Finally, would the hon. Gentleman consider as a long-term project—though not so very far oft—the question of founding new colleges? I accept the argument advanced by the existing colleges that it would be a sound policy to expand them first before embarking on the provision of new colleges. But I hope that we may have an assurance that the future is much brighter for the residential adult colleges and that, associated with these requests for money, there will be a campaign from the Ministry of Education to recruit extra numbers of students and give full support to the colleges, so that at last we may need no longer say that they are the Cinderella of the education system and that we are approaching a little nearer to the idea of Scandinavia of adult education in residence being a basic part of our educational provision.
10.13 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: I wish we had longer to discuss this matter, because I know that a number of my hon. Friends would like to speak, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins), who was himself a student of Coleg Harlech, the Welsh residential college for adult education. I too, of course, have a strong personal interest in this college. My father founded it many years ago and I am proud to be one of its vice-presidents.
I believe that money spent on education could not be better spent than on adult education. We speak sometimes of selection in education. But these students largely select themselves, in the sense that it is they, as individuals and persons, who, having left the ordinary stream of education in order to earn a living, feel the need to take up education again, sometimes under conditions of very considerable personal difficulty and hardship. The evidence already
346
adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), who gave a most admirable survey in the short time at his disposal, shows that the value of this adult education in terms of those who become teachers, social workers and so on, is very considerable. I think there is no doubt whatever that one has a really excellent return for the money and effort put into this.
I wish to say a word about Coleg Harlech. We are asking to be allowed to extend from our present number, of between 95 and 100, to a minimum of 120. Owing to a misunderstanding with the Ministry a couple of years ago, it was apparently thought that we should have only 70 students. In fact, we have been having more for the last two years and we hope very much that the number we have actually been able to absorb will be taken as a sort of base line, and our extension calculated from that.
Primarily, we are concerned with people who come for the full academic session. That is the main job of the college, but we also think there is a place for short-course students, which has always been in the tradition of Coleg Harlech in the old days this used to be for unemployed people. Now, fortunately, that is not the main purpose. We have short courses of a week or two weeks for full-time students at technical colleges who have benefited inestimably by being able to come for a short time into a different atmosphere and to join with other students in discussions and lectures on liberal subjects which have been immensely appreciated by the technical colleges and for the stimulus given to the full time students at Coleg Harlech.
We have had a number of inquiries from other colleges whether this might be extended, but, owing to lack of accommodation, we have been quite unable to do anything of the kind. We have also played a very full part in accepting students from the Commonwealth and other overseas students. The head of the Coal Board in Nigeria, for example, is a Coleg Harlech student. I could give a whole list of others from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean who have benefited enormously by the kind of atmosphere they find at Coleg Harlech.
I had a letter from the warden in May saying that he had already more

347
than 500 inquiries and more than 200 firm applications for our 95 places for next year. It was quite heart-breaking to have to turn down a number and to know that from now on all he could do was to say,"You must hope to apply in 1964–65. We have no room for you for the next session."
I could give much more evidence, but I have hope that we shall have a full reply from the Parliamentary Secretary. I warmly support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland. That this need is urgent is definite. No money could be better spent than on it.
10.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway): There could be no one better fitted than the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) to initiate this short debate on adult education because he has formidable knowledge of it and first-hand experience of the work, the problems and achievements of the adult education colleges. He and the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) have spoken in glowing, but I think, not in exaggerated terms of the achievements of these colleges. I know particularly of the contribution that they make to the developing countries in the way both hon. Members have described.
I think the House will not expect me tonight to be in a position to announce my right hon. Friend's decision on the expansion and modernisation projects which the long-term residential colleges have submitted to his Department, because this decision is bound up with the Government's review of public investment as a whole and is not yet completed. It may be of help if I describe briefly the stage reached in this matter and refer to some of the considerations which my right hon. Friend must have in mind. In 1961 the National Institute was asked by the Ministry to investigate the accommodation and staffing problems of adult education. It has so far received £2,500 towards the cost of this inquiry. A further grant has been offered for the financial year 1963–64.
The Institute presented its report to my right hon. Friend last October and published it in the January number of
348
its journal Adult Education. This report deals in part with the residential adult education colleges and recommends that the Ministry of Education should examine the proposals made by the colleges with a view to making capital grants as provided in the Further Education (Grant) Regulations. As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland rightly said, we make recurrent grants and have done so for some years, but capital grants have not been made. In March we sent letters to all five colleges reminding them that like other establishments of further education receiving direct grants from the Ministry they needed places in building programmes for grant-aided projects costing over £20,000. We added that by reason of the more pressing claims of schools, technical colleges and teacher training colleges the Minister had been unable for the financial year 1963–64 to find places in any educational building programme for the projects proposed by the colleges or to provide grants towards the capital cost of these projects. The Government's plans for capital investment in 1964–65 and subsequent years were under review and we would give the colleges information about the results of this review when we could usefully do so. We suggested then that in the meantime they should, in consultation with us, finalise their proposals for these projects so that undue delay could be avoided, if and when the programme cover and grant aid became available.
We have now completed our preliminary discussions in four out of the five grant-aided residential adult education colleges. The exception is the Catholic Workers' College. It is anxious, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, to move from Boar's Hill to the centre of Oxford, but it has not yet found a suitable site, and so it has not so far proposed a building project. The plans for the remainder of the colleges are designed to increase student accommodation, provide some additional staff accommodation, and improve certain communal facilities. The roughly estimated costs of the initial proposals are these: Ruskin, £165,000; Fircroft, £25,000; Hillcroft, £33,000; and Coleg Harlech, £122,000, so that these four projects would add up to £345,000.
As regards the rate of any grant that might be possible, I must tell the hon.

349
Gentleman that we have in mind 50 per cent. of the gross cost. This is the normal rate applicable to teacher training colleges provided by voluntary bodies. A rate of 75 per cent. of the gross capital cost is operating at present in respect of those voluntary colleges which have been asked to expand their provision as a matter of urgency, but we do not think that a rate of 75 per cent. could be justified for the long-term residential adult colleges, and we have made this clear to those colleges in the course of our discussions.
As my right hon. Friend has previously made clear, he cannot decide whether or not any of these projects are to be included next year until the Government's review of the load on the building industry for 1964–65 is completed. In the meantime, I would wish to advance a number of considerations that have to be taken into account. In the first place, the contribution which these colleges are making to adult education in England and Wales is certainly not in dispute. Although they are small and are providing courses for fewer than 400 students altogether, their reputation is extremely high and they are providing facilities which are nowhere else available for individuals who, for one reason or another, have missed a university education but who are capable of profiting from courses of one or two years' regular and intensive study.
There is certainly a case, too, for enlarging the facilities in at least some of these colleges. Ruskin has had to turn away certain suitable applicants because of lack of room. Coleg Harlech could take more students if it had better facilities. Too many students at Fircroft are in rooms shared by three or more. Some of the staff accommodation at Hillcroft is—we recognise this—unsuitable. These deficiencies are recognised by the Ministry, but action must be considered in terms of existing priorities. Our highest priorities at present must be for places in teacher training colleges, technical colleges and schools. There are a number of projects in these categories which my right hon. Friend is keen to include in the 1964–65 programme.
As the House knows, some local education authorities in the past few months have been able to submit new evidence to us to demonstrate the likelihood of
350
severe overcrowding in certain instances unless an addition is made to the 1964–65 programme as provisionally announced by my right hon. Friend earlier in the year. The demand for an extension in the technical college world is considerable and I need not again emphasise the importance which my right hon. Friend attaches at the moment to a rapid expansion of teacher training colleges. In fact, the pressure on our capital investment resources is considerable, and that pressure is not confined to education. The claims for roads and houses in any general review such as that which is in train have to be set against the growing educational investment need.
Mrs. White: We are very much concerned with teacher training. May I suggest to the hon. Member that someone who goes into teacher training from an adult college is more likely to stay in teaching than is someone who goes direct from school? He is, therefore, a better investment.
Mr. Chataway: I see the point, but the hon. Lady would not argue from the supply position that a place provided at an adult education college is as good an investment as a place provided at a teacher training college. I should therefore make it plain that for any additional capital which may become available to us in 1964–65 there will be a number of very strong claimants.
There is another and none-too-optimistic factor to which I ought to refer. Residential accommodation is always expensive, and these proposals for adult education colleges are no exception. The colleges are unlikely, even after the expansion which they wish to undertake, to be able to accommodate more than some 450 students altogether, and the total effect of all four projects, costing nearly £350,000, would be to add only some 50 students to their roll. In relation to some other work this must therefore seem an expensive set of projects.
I do not wish to suggest that a decision has already been taken not to include these projects in 1964–65, because that is not the position, but I am anxious to make it clear that there are a number of very strong claims for any additional sums for that year. I fully appreciate the point, however, that if the colleges

351
have to find half the capital cost they will need as early notice as possible of the inclusion of their projects in a building programme, otherwise they cannot effectively appeal for the balance of the funds which they will need to find. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend will come to his decision at the
352
earliest possible date and that that decision will be taken in the light of this debate and with a very full appreciation of the achievements and the potential of the resident adult education colleges.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-minutes past Ten o'clock

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Industrial Development, Dorset
  Industrial Development, Dorset
  Cameroons (Bananas)
  Cameroons (Bananas)
  Public Companies (Donations)
  Public Companies (Donations)
  Trade with Cuba
  Trade with Cuba
  Goods (Guarantees)
  Goods (Guarantees)
  Clyde Shipyards (Diversification)
  Clyde Shipyards (Diversification)
  Cumbernauld
  Cumbernauld
  North-West Monmouthshire
  North-West Monmouthshire
  Jenkins Report
  Jenkins Report
  Restrictive Trade Practices Act
  Restrictive Trade Practices Act
MALTA
  Economic and Financial Needs
  Economic and Financial Needs
  Factories, Development Districts (Building Grants)
  Factories, Development Districts (Building Grants)
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
BASUTOLAND
  Africans (Assistance)
  Africans (Assistance)
HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES
  Mr. Patrick Duncan
  Mr. Patrick Duncan
EAST CARIBBEAN
  Federation (Conference)
  Federation (Conference)
VIRGIN ISLANDS
  Development Plan
  Development Plan
SWAZILAND
  Constitution
  Constitution
BRITISH GUIANA
  Situation
  Situation
  Incident, Georgetown
  Incident, Georgetown
  Constitution
  Constitution
SARAWAK
  Elections
  Elections
SOUTH ARABIA
  Federation
  Federation
KENYA
  Expatriate Designated Officers
  Expatriate Designated Officers
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Dual-Standard Television System
  Dual-Standard Television System
  Pay-Television
  Pay-Television
  Colour Television
  Colour Television
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  New Exchange, Kirkcaldy
  New Exchange, Kirkcaldy
  Malden Exchange
  Malden Exchange
  Telephone Repair Service (Week-Ends)
  Telephone Repair Service (Week-Ends)
POST OFFICE
  Letter, Fareham (Delivery)
  Letter, Fareham (Delivery)
  Communications Tower, Goose Green (Construction)
  Communications Tower, Goose Green (Construction)
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Malta (Oil)
  Malta (Oil)
SCIENCE
  Industrial Research Associations (Financial Assistance)
  Industrial Research Associations (Financial Assistance)
  National Reference Library for Science and Invention
  National Reference Library for Science and Invention
  Society of Visiting Scientists (Finance)
  Society of Visiting Scientists (Finance)
HOUSING
  Householders, Cardiff (Security of Tenure)
  Householders, Cardiff (Security of Tenure)
  Housing Statistics, Europe
  Housing Statistics, Europe
SHIPBUILDING
  Oil Firms (Foreign Orders)
  Oil Firms (Foreign Orders)
  U.S.S.R. (Orders)
  U.S.S.R. (Orders)
ROADS
  Whiteways Hill, Gloucestershire (Escape Roads)
  Whiteways Hill, Gloucestershire (Escape Roads)
Aston Down Road Improvement
  Scheme
  Scheme
  Motorway
  Motorway
  Dual Carriageway Roads
  Dual Carriageway Roads
  SECURITY (INQUIRY)
  SECURITY (INQUIRY)
  NORTH-EAST
  NORTH-EAST
  ALDWYCH THEATRE (GALA PERFORMANCE)
  ALDWYCH THEATRE (GALA PERFORMANCE)
  SECURITY (MR. PROFUMO)
  SECURITY (MR. PROFUMO)
ROYAL NAVY
  Commissions
  Commissions
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Famers' Incomes
  Famers' Incomes
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  London Airport (Noise)
  London Airport (Noise)
  Hobart Radio Plan
  Hobart Radio Plan
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Packaged Goods (Picture Cards)
  Packaged Goods (Picture Cards)
  Immigrants from India
  Immigrants from India
EMPLOYMENT
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  North-West Monmouthshire
  North-West Monmouthshire
COAL
  National Coal Board Pension Funds
  National Coal Board Pension Funds
SCOTLAND
  Coatbridge Technical College
  Coatbridge Technical College
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Cromwell's Statue (Grass Surround)
  Cromwell's Statue (Grass Surround)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester
The Lord De Mauley—Took the Oath.

CURTAILED SHIPMENTS OF ARGENTINE BEEF
2.35 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: 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, before they negotiated with the Argentine Government the curtailment of shipments of chilled beef from that country, they gave consideration to the substantial losses which would be suffered by British ship owners who have built and operate specialised tonnage for the shipment of this traffic; and whether the Government will consider the payment of compensation to these owners upon a "deficiency payment" basis for the loss of earnings sustained in their being arbitrarily prevented by Government action from carrying these traffics.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, shipping interests were not overlooked when the urgent problems caused by this year's beef imports from the Argentine were considered. The balance of national interest was, however, in favour of seeking restraint in there imports. There was a very sharp increase in them for the first part of this year which seriously upset our meat market, and because of this the Argentine Government were asked to restrain their exports for the remainder of the year. The future arrangements for the import of meat are at present being reviewed by the Government, and due weight will be given to the valuable investment made by British shipowners with this traffic in mind. I
642
must, however, say that Her Majesty's Government cannot consider compensating shipping lines for losses of possible earnings even when these could be attributed to Government action of this kind.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, although the noble Lord says that shipping interests were not overlooked, will he take into consideration the fact that they were not even consulted, and that the short-fall in the next six months brought about by this Government action will cause a diminution of over £1 million in the earnings of those shipping companies which are dealing in this specialised traffic? May I ask him whether the Government would not think it better in the interests of British ship owners, of British meat producers and, indeed, of British housewives if bulk purchase and long-term contracts were entered into, instead of having this policy of what one might call "robbing Peter to pay Paul" which damages all interests concerned?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am always glad to consider any suggestions the noble Lord puts forward, and I will convey his words to my right honourable friend. But the noble Lord must remember that this operation really results in a levelling out as much as anything; and there is also, of course, an element of commercial judgment which enters into the matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Does the noble Lord not agree that it is very difficult for the British ship owner and for the British public to understand why, on the one hand, Her Majesty's Government offer British ship owners loans up to £30 million, and, on the other hand and at the same time, arbitrarily take away traffic which prevents them from utilising economically the ships they already own?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord will agree that it is the duty of the Government to take into consideration all aspects of the national life.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would it not be reasonable to think that the ship owners probably lost even more money by the very great short-falls in Argentine exports to us over a very considerable

643
period, with effects on British production and contracts with other meat-supplying markets? I can see the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raises about this difficulty. I am not against the consideration of bulk contracts, but the levelling out process must, at least to a great part, be the levelling out of production in the Argentine.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, in his original reply the noble Lord used the words "urgent problems". Would he not agree that it would have been far better had the Government foreseen these problems, as many other people did, and prevented them from becoming urgent by taking action, preferably along the lines of long-term contracts suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one more question? Will he raise with his right honourable friend this very serious problem that arises? It is not the levelling out and long-term contracts which are objected to: it is the arbitrary cutting off, practically completely, at almost a moment's notice, so leaving the ship-owner a short-fall which he can ill afford to sustain.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, first of all, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, I do not agree with the premise from which he started. All I will say is that matters of that kind are certainly going to be brought into the considerations that I mentioned in the course of my original reply. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is rather giving us the impression that this trade has stopped completely, but I think I ought to say to him that this year there will be about the same amount of Argentine beef imported as in 1960, and rather more than was imported during the two years in between. It is, therefore, not quite right to say that the traffic has been completely cut off.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord has said that, because it tempts me to ask him to take into consideration the fact that the year he quoted was about the worst year of the, last ten for these imports, and that, whereas the average for the years 1956 to 1962 was 235,000
644
tons, for the next six months the figure will drop to 60,000 tons.
LORD CHESHAM: I am sorry, my Lords, but I did not quite follow the second part of the noble Lord's question.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The average yearly amount of chilled beef imported into this country from 1956 to 1962 was 235,000 tons. For this next six months the figure would drop to 60,000 tons. I will admit that in the first six months the tonnage is higher than 60,000; but now the ships will not be able to be filled in any way with their specialised cargoes of chilled beef.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords, I am bound to agree with the noble Lord that while tonnage over the year remains comparable it will be somewhat differently divided.

BROADMOOR PATIENTS' DRIVING LICENCES
2.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 their attention has been drawn to a report that the governing body of Broadmoor are to allow their mental inmates to apply for the renewal of driving licences, and if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to allow known mentally unstable individuals to hold driving licences.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, Broadmoor patients cannot be prevented from applying by post for renewal of driving licences, and one patient is known to have done so recently; but licensing authorities are bound by law to refuse such applications. If a Broadmoor patient has a licence on admission, or is sent one later, he is not allowed possession of it.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, while I agree with my noble friend's Answer

645
would he not agree with me that, judging by their behaviour on the roads, a large number of driving licence holders to-day are already qualifiable for Broadmoor; and, while the present driving test remains what it is, this is likely to go on being the case?

FORESTRY COMMISSION AND HORSE RIDING
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 whether it is the policy of the Forestry Commission to debar persons on horses access to the roads through their woodlands, and, if so, why.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, it is the Forestry Commission's policy to allow access to their woodlands by persons on foot or mounted, except where there are good reasons to restrict such access. For example, they may have to restrict access when there is a high fire risk or where it would prejudice the interests of lessors, neighbours or tenants. Unfortunately, it is also sometimes necessary to restrict riding in forests where grass roads, made for timber extraction, may suffer serious damage in wet weather.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Is the noble Lord aware that horses cannot possibly cause the same damage as heavy tractors on grass rides? Is he also aware that people on horses do not usually smoke. And, further, as riding has now become far more popular owing to the overcrowding on the motor roads, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will intimate to the Forestry Commission that in future they should take a more enlightened view of people on horses riding through their woodlands?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I know of absolutely nothing that prevents horsemen from smoking while riding; nor do I know of anything that prevents them from "lighting up" when alight-
646
ing from their horses, to give either themselves or their horses a rest. Furthermore, my noble friend is wrong in suggesting that horses cannot damage wet grass roads so as to prevent heavy lorries from operating on those roads or to become bogged in them.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, will the noble Lord give some indication as to how widespread these restrictions are, and whether they are applied specifically to horsemen but not to people on foot?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords, they are certainly not restrictions permanently applied. So far as I know, they are restrictions brought in according to the state of the weather and, therefore, according to the damage which the weather plus people represent to the forests in one way or another, in respect to either fire or damaging roads and making it impossible to extract timber. Generally speaking—I am not sure that I can say "exclusively"—when restriction is put on in a certain season of the year it is put on for everybody either on horse or on foot.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that in certain forests I know which are owned by the Commission they do bar access to horses all the year round, but not to pedestrians?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not know how many forests my noble friend owns, but, knowing something of his squirearchal responsibilities in Kent, I inquired whether anything was known of any difficulties in Kingswood. I was told that no such difficulties had been reported to the Forestry Commission in that area.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in Kingswood, covering an area of about 2,000 acres, all roads have notices up saying "No horses"?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, clearly I was not aware of that; but I wonder if my noble friend happens to know whether these are permanent notices or temporary notices the necessity for which I tried to describe in my substantive Answer.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: They are permanent.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Lord now like to correct his statement that these restrictions are applied equally to men on foot or on horseback?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think it is the view of my noble friend that they are not applied to all and sundry, but I should like to look into it. It may be that restrictions are imposed with respect to grass roads and the damage to grass roads in wet weather from horses. I would say that this was a possibility.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords—if your Lordships will excuse my intervening again—some of these roads are tarmac roads.

KENYA
2.50 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can make a statement in regard to future constitutional developments in Kenya.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the permission of the House, my noble friend Lord Lansdowne will answer the noble Lord's Question with a statement which he will make at some suitable moment about four o'clock.

REPORT ON THE PROBLEM OF NOISE
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House, if I make a statement about noise. The House will be glad to know that I have received the Final Report of the Committee which I appointed in April, 1960, under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Wilson, to consider the problem of noise. The Report is being published as a White Paper, and copies are available in the Printed Paper Office.
The Government are most grateful to Sir Alan Wilson and his colleagues for their thorough and illuminating examination of the many aspects of this problem.
648
The Government recognise that the prevention of noise is an important factor in the preservation of amenity in our environment, and welcome the Report as a major contribution to public understanding of the problem and of ways to mitigate it. The whole subject is clearly one of interest and concern to the Government, although much of the responsibility for mitigating the problem lies with local authorities, industry, members of the professions and the public. They have, therefore, already given preliminary study to the recommendations in the Report.
The Report places particular emphasis on noise from motor vehicles and aircraft. As the House will remember, the Committee presented an Interim Report last summer on noise from motor vehicles, recommending the fixing of statutory limits. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport proposes to give effect to nearly all these recommendations in new regulations, which he has recently circulated in draft for comment to the organisations concerned. These regulations would lay down maximum permissible noise levels for motor vehicles when used on the roads. They would also prescribe the instruments to be used for roadside tests and specify the conditions under which such tests must be carried out.
As regards aircraft, my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation will maintain the present strict control over movement and activity of aircraft in and near airports and will continue to support research into ways of reducing aircraft noise at source and to investigate other aspects of the problem. In this way, he aims at keeping the amount of aircraft noise to a minimum consistent with the needs of increasing air travel. My right honourable friends the Ministers of Education and Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland will seek to ensure that new schools and hospitals in the close vicinity of airports are designed to minimise noise inside the buildings and will continue to seek to reduce noise in existing buildings. The Government are, however, unable to accept the Committee's recommendation that grants should be paid towards the cost of soundproofing private houses near Heathrow. The Government are not satisfied that the situation at Heathrow justifies this

649
recommendation. They believe it would be impossible to limit such grants to houses near airports and difficult, if not impossible, to distribute them within clearly defined categories of houses and in a manner which was fair both to the recipients and to the rest of the community, who would have to meet the substantial cost.
The Government have decided to accept a number of the recommendations relating to the need for additional research, for improved methods of disseminating information about the results of research and for making industry and the public aware of the need to avoid making unnecessary noise. My right honourable friends and I are already implementing some of these recommendations and are considering how the others should be implemented. For example, the Medical Research Council and the National Physical Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are co-operating in a joint project, sponsored by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, to survey the effects of industrial noise on the hearing of workers by means of mobile laboratories which will visit factories of various types.
The Report contains a large number of recommendations covering other aspects of the problem of noise. In so far as they come within the direct responsibility of the Government, they will be dealt with by individual Ministers. Other recommendations will be discussed with local authorities and others concerned. Some require legislation. The Government cannot take a decision on these before consultation. This will be undertaken as soon as possible.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will excuse me, if I say that perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is the most appropriate Minister to introduce this statement on noise. I listened with great interest to the interview with him on television recently. The Report has only just appeared in the Printed Paper Office, and obviously we shall need to study it carefully before giving our detailed views to the House. However, there are one or two things which perhaps I may put to the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House.
650
First of all, I take note of what he said about the Minister of Transport and the need for consultation on the issue of regulations. Will legislation be required for any of the matters which are contained in the statement to the House today? May I ask also, with regard to what he said in the statement on industrial noise, whether he is aware that there are certain industries which have a high percentage of deafness amongst their industrial workers? We are wondering whether, in the course of their duties, factory inspectors are instructed to give special attention to reporting upon the actual state of noise they find and not merely to confine themselves to safety in regard to machinery. Perhaps these and other questions, which we may put down on the Order Paper, may be of assistance.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. I realise that he may want to return to some questions in what is quite a voluminous document. I agree that some of these matters will require legislation, although, as I said, no decision on these can be taken until after consultation with the bodies interested, when they have had a chance to study the report. As regards industrial noise, I do know, from my work in connection with the Medical Research Council, that certain industries show a higher percentage of deafness than others, and this is certainly related to industrial noise. I should need notice of the question about factory inspectors, but I know that my right honourable friend will take particular note of what the noble Earl has said.
LORD REA: My Lords, we are very grateful to the Government for taking up this question in this way. I noticed that the noble and learned Viscount's statement referred to the effect on amenities and deafness, but there was little reference to the actual effect on the nerves of the general public of this growing noise in modern-day life. It seems to most of us that the creation of noise is steadily approaching the maximum in decibels that the human eardrum and frame are calculated to stand, and it is becoming a highly serious problem. I would urge that research should be done particularly into controlling the increase of noise. In a few years' time, if this is done, we shall look back with horror and surprise that we have endured for so long the terrible noise to which we are subjected in our daily life now.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this aspect of the problem, of course, is familiar to us. It was particularly because of it that we commissioned the inquiry. The Medical Research Council have done a great deal of work on noise of one sort or another, and some rather curious and interesting results have been published.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell us when this legislation is likely to appear, and how he expects to find time to deal with it? I would also ask him whether this is rather a lengthy way of giving us his personal view, to "keep our big mouths shut."
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not know whether the actual noise caused by whispers in the corridors of Westminster is very large in terms of decibels. I think that it is the noisier kind of noise that we are talking about this afternoon. Clearly, I cannot give a date for legislation. This must find its way into the Government's legislative programme. If we had discussed the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord on Government organisation in this country, I think perhaps I could have said something about that.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that it is not necessarily the noise of the greatest number of decibels that causes the greatest irritation? Few things are a greater nuisance than transistor portable radios.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am aware that the subjective element in what kind of noise annoys us most is a most important factor.
LORD GRANCHESTER: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether the Committee considered the question of noise made on the roads by pneumatic drills?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think they did; but on that I stand subject to correction.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House whether it is necessary to wait for legislation before we take some action in those areas where it is well known that there is premature deafness,
652
and it is accepted as just a way of life, and yet people with knowledge of the fact are doing absolutely nothing to protect these people? Cannot instructions be given forthwith to factory inspectors?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as I said, I should require notice of the question as regards factory inspectors, but my right honourable friend will, of course, take notice of what has been said. I think the noble Lady must face the fact that no member of the Government can effectively legislate unless there is power to do so under some Act of Parliament. It is this precise problem which may require legislation.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask one question about the action that may be taken? I understand that the Minister of Transport is undertaking consultations and the re-drafting of regulations. But could not something have been done long since to stop the increase in noise, which I think is controlled already by regulation, of sports cars and motor cycles, with the tremendous row they make in revving-up, if I may so describe it? I think that perhaps the fault really lies in the fact that the regulations which exist are not properly enforced.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I wish that my noble friend Lord Chesham were here to help me about this aspect. I agree with the noble Earl that, in practice, noise on the roads is partly a question of enforcement, as well as of regulation. It is rather like the smell made by a diesel engine of a vehicle going up hill, which is already against the law: the difficulty is to catch them, and then to enforce the law. This is certainly so, up to a point, in the field of noise.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, in addition to the statement on Kenya to be made by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, there will be further statements by my noble friend Lord Dundee on Burmah Oil, and by my noble friend Lord Home on the Yemen. I think it may be for the convenience of the House if all those are taken when the

653
last one is taken in another place so that we have to interrupt business only once. And that will probably be at about four o'clock.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am not complaining about these statements that are to be made; indeed, it is right and courteous that the House should have them made. But has the noble Lord considered what the effect of all this will be on the further consideration of the London Government Bill Report stage? Does it not now appear that if we are to be reasonable about our hours it will be necessary for further time to be allocated to the Report stage of the London Government Bill? There are a considerable number of Amendments left. Not a lot of time was wasted yesterday, because we were dealing with the important subject of education.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords interested in the subjects of the statements will bear in mind what the noble Lord has said, and will, I feel convinced, keep their remarks as short as possible. I do not think the consideration of these statements should take a great deal of time out of the proceedings on the London Government Bill.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think it is right to say that we shall have to watch the progress according to the time when we start the Report stage of the London Government Bill, and perhaps make further representations if we are not making the progress that we ought to make.

SALVATION ARMY BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
3.5 p.m.
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
Clause 45:
Local health authorities
45.—(1) Subject to section 19(2) and (3) of the National Health Service Act 1946 (which relate to joint boards and health committees of local health authorities) and subject to subsection (3) of this section, the local health authority for each London borough shall be the council of that borough and for the City shall be the Common Council.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "subsection (3)" and insert "subsections (3), (4) and (5)." The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment. I have on other occasions spoken on matters which are related to this clause, and I would ask your Lordships to forgive me if now and then I emphasise certain points that I have raised on other stages of the Bill. The object of this series of Amendments is to provide that the Greater London Council should assume responsibility for the local health services of the inner London boroughs and the City for a five-year period from April 1, 1965. I said to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, yesterday, that we recognise that the great principles which are involved in this Bill have been debated and that when we have gone into the Division Lobby my noble friends and I have been defeated, although we always feel that we have achieved a moral victory. The time has now arrived, surely, when we must discuss these details and combine together to achieve a working administration.
It is for these reasons that I am asking in this series of Amendments for an interim period of five years during which the best possible service can be established in the boroughs. I think this would provide an adequate period during which the services could be delegated to the boroughs in an orderly fashion. The extent of the work which must be accomplished in the short time provided by the Bill can be appreciated only when it is realised that a wide variety of services is involved. On the Committee stage I gave a whole list of services, and I will not weary your Lordships with

655
them all again. I would, however, remind your Lordships that these services include maternity and child welfare, problem families, tuberculosis, after-care, mental health and domiciliary midwifery. I went into some detail on many of these services, particularly with regard to the midwifery service, in order to illustrate the volume of work which will be called for in this short period of a little over a year provided by the Government in the Bill.
The personal health services in London are administered by nine divisional officers of the L.C.C., but the midwifery services have been developed on a much wider basis, because all babies are not necessarily born within these nine divisions. Perhaps only a small number of babies are born in these divisions, and it is necessary for the London County Council to have a central authority whereby they can be assured that, if there is a call for help for a maternity case, there is a group of midwives, a hospital, doctors, or some part of the service which can be used immediately. Therefore, central control has been necessary in order to cope with these emergency calls, whether they arrive at night or during the weekends. That is what I am asking for at this stage: to maintain the central control for five years before we establish these new authorities, which will have to start from scratch.
Let me remind your Lordships, with regard to midwifery, that the maintenance of a 24-hour service is essential in London, because we have a floating population. We have girls coming over from Ireland; and we have girls who come on ships arriving at the South coast who always make for London. A girl may come to London to have an illegitimate child—and let me not dismiss that part of our maternity services. The illegitimacy rate in London is very high—higher than in any other part of the country—partly due to the fact that here a girl can remain anonymous. She can get lost in this vast crowd of people, and she can be assured of a safe confinement. Therefore it is necessary to maintain a 24-hour service and supervision in London. The calls on the London County Council headquarters come from doctors, police, individuals, relations and the general public.
If the proposals in this Bill are carried out to the timetable which is envisaged in the Bill, there will be a risk of the breakdown in the local health services in inner London. Although, of course, it can be disguised, there must inevitably be a deterioration in the service, because this wonderful service cannot be transferred in a very short time. I would remind your Lordships of what has to be done. These new boroughs which will take over will have to provide not only the services but also the whole pattern of standing orders and establishment structures. We discussed the establishment structures yesterday, and I think the whole House recognised what a tremendous amount of work there is to be done. If the provisions in this Bill are left unchanged, the problems flowing from transfer will take some years to clear up and in my opinion the risk could best be avoided if central control were maintained for an initial period. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 21, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3), (4), and (5).").—(Baroness Summerskill.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Baroness has moved Amendment No. 147. Linked with it are Amendments Nos. 148, 149 and 150, and I take it that it will be convenient if I discuss them altogether. They are all part of the same plan. I appreciate the remarks of the noble Baroness to the effect that we have quite lengthily at earlier stages discussed the principles of this Part of the Bill and, therefore, it is a good thing, perhaps, that your Lordships should concentrate rather more on the details than on the general principles. I certainly agree with that, and so I will accept the implicit invitation not to say too much in reply. Towards the latter end of her remarks, the noble Baroness expressed a fear that if the Bill remains unchanged there may well be a breakdown of the personal health services in London, or a reduction or diminution in their quality. I think that was the gist of her remarks. I cannot agree about that. I do not think there will be. If I did, I would not be commending the Bill to your Lordships.
May I say something about the question of midwives, which the noble

657
Baroness has discussed to-day, as she did on Committee? The position, as I see it, is that the number of widwives needed when this Bill is passed—as I hope it will be—will depend on the number of births, subject only to the fact that the staff of any one authority cannot be allowed to fall below a certain minimum if there is to be sufficient cover for such things as leave, night duty, emergencies, and so on. The number which the new boroughs will need, and will have, on present L.C.C. staff-population ratios should, in our judgment, be ample to provide this cover. County boroughs outside the London area with staffs of a similar size have little difficulty in providing the necessary cover from within their team or teams of midwives, and though the staffs needed by different boroughs in inner London will vary according to local needs and circumstances, they should, in our opinion, be large enough for flexible deployment.
I do not think, therefore, that there is any reason to believe that the change to the new pattern of borough administrations which this Bill provides in the London area will in itself result in any need for an increased number of midwives. Even if I were wrong about that—and I do not think I am—the conclusion I would then draw would be this. There should not at any time be delegation of the personal health services to the London boroughs. I should not conclude that there was a case for delaying transfer—and that is, after all, what this series of Amendments provides. It provides for delay and eventual transfer of these personal health services to the London boroughs.
Perhaps I can summarise quite quickly the other and broader reasons why these Amendments are unacceptable. The first is that, in any event, it is inevitable that the officers of the existing authorities will be anxious about their future. This anxiety will be increased the longer the period taken for the changes in administration. Therefore, one is bound, I think, to conclude from that that transfer should take place as early as possible. In the Government's view, it is practicable to make the transfer on April 1, 1965. This is what the Bill provides, and indeed we have had several debates on that theme. In particular, on Amendments to Clause 3 during the Report stage
658
of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Hastings argued the general case against delay in making the change.
The joint committees which are to be set up under Clause 85 will be able to do much preparatory work before the new boroughs are elected in May, 1964. I would emphasise again to-day, as I did in Committee, that the new boroughs will not be faced with the need to start new services entirely from scratch. They will take over the existing services as going concerns, and that is surely a very material point. If the Amendments with which the noble Baroness is concerned were accepted, the situation would be very complicated administratively. There would have to be a lengthy form of negotiation between the Greater London Council and the boroughs over the schemes and stages for the delegation which she proposes. With both the Greater London Council and the boroughs concerning themselves with the administration of the health services—as they would have to do—I should have thought that it would be very easy indeed for friction to arise during the transitional period. If that happened, it would quite obviously be detrimental to the development of the services in the interests of their patients actual or potential, which is surely what we want to avoid more than anything else.
Again, under the Amendments of the noble Baroness it would be possible for the various personal health services to be transferred piecemeal, one by one. If that were to happen, there would be fragmentation of the personal health services, and various parts would be split one from the other and from the welfare service, from the child care service and from housing. I do not believe anyone who is interested in health problems, as is the noble Baroness, would think that that would be a good thing.
Finally, under these Amendments there would be considerable staffing problems, because both the Greater London Council and the boroughs would need their own health departments with their own system of administration and headquarters. There would inevitably be duplications at the more senior levels with the future of the Greater London Council headquarters staff remaining completely in suspense. I do not think, administratively, that would be a good thing. For all those reasons I

659
must again, as I did at Committee, advise your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have not intervened very often in the detailed discussions of Amendments of this kind, and I appreciate the courtesy with which the noble Lord has replied, but I must say that I fail to be convinced by his arguments. Here is an existing very successful scheme, which is under one authority. It has no difficulties about the different boundaries between the areas to be covered by the services. It covers them all from one central headquarters. As has had to be pointed out on many other points of discussion earlier in this debate you are breaking up this service under twelve additional authorities; it has previously been carried on by one. Yet the noble Lord thinks that the best case he can put up is that it would be most inconvenient for the anxieties of officials if it were not done urgently. The actual considerations which my noble friend Lady Summerskill has put up with regard to the people who have to be served, treated and looked after come as a secondary consideration.
Really, when one considers the addition which is made to the problems of reorganisation by rushing this matter, one is bound to feel that the answer of the noble Lord has completely failed to deal with the very important and critical comments which my noble friend Lady Summerskill has made. I hope, therefore, that the Government will look at this matter again. The statement that the noble Lord makes, that there is already in existence a practical health organisation in every one of the new areas now to be given the responsibility of the existing central authority, does not seem to me to answer the question at all. Can they at once, or within a reasonable period, have such a separate organisation for their particular boroughs as to give adequately the same service for the whole area, without interruption, as is given now by the central authority? It seems to me that that is quite impossible, and I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not see fit to withdraw her Amendment.
3.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 146) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 65.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henderson, L.

Rusholme, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Amwell, L.

Lawson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Attlee, E.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Summerskill, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Longford, E.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Chorley, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Williams, L.

Crook, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Wise, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gage, V.

Middleton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Glentanar, L.

Milverton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Molson, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Grantchester, L.

Monsell, V.

Carrington, L.

Grenfell, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Chesham, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Newton, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Hanworth, V.

Ogmore, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hastings, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Colyton, L.

Home, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Craigton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Cromartie, E.

Howe, E.

Salisbury, M.

De La Warr, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Salter, L.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Sandford, L.

Derwent, L.

Jessel, L.

Somers, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lansdowne, M.

Soulbury, V.

Dudley, L.

Lloyd, L.

Spens, L.

Eccles, L.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Effingham, E.

Lothian, M.

Suffield, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mancroft, L.

Swinton, E.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Margesson, V.

Twining, L.

Fortescue, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Waleran, L.

Freyberg, L.

Merrivale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amend ment disagreed to accordingly.

3.30 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) In its application to the area of the inner London boroughs and the City, and so far as it relates to the care or after-care of mentally disordered persons, section 28 of the said Act of 1946 (which enables a local health authority to make arrangements for the prevention of illness, and the care or after-care of persons suffering from illness) shall have effect as if for any reference to the local health authority there were substituted a reference to the Greater London Council; and so far as concerns the duty imposed on that Council by virtue of this subsection—

(a) subsection (2) of this section shall apply to that Council as it applies, so far as concerns functions conferred or imposed by virtue of subsection (1) of this section, to a local health authority;

(b) the following provisions shall apply to that Council as if they were the local health authority for the whole of the area of the inner London boroughs and the City, that is to say, in the said Act of 1946, sections 2, 20, 57, 58, 63, 65, 66, 71, 72 and 74."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, once more I would ask your Lordships to reconsider the administration that is provided for in this Bill and to consider whether it would not be better to maintain a central authority. Some of the arguments which I propose to adduce on this Amendment are very similar to those I have already used.
First of all, one should consider the mental health service of to-day. The Mental Health Act was in this field revolutionary. It calls for a re-orientation regarding mental health, for we are rapidly moving away from institutional care, which in the nineteenth century was considered normal, to care and treatment within the community. This, of course, calls for an adjustment of the ordinary family to a new way of life for the psychotic—though perhaps to use the word "psychotic" is too dogmatic. I should remind your Lordships that, of the patients who go to see their general practitioner to-day, one out of three has some mental disability, ranging from a neurosis to a psychosis. The noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party asked just now what effect noise had on the community. The answer, of course, is that nobody can assess it. But they have assessed roughly that one out of three patients has some degree of mental disability. Bearing that in mind, the mental health services to-day clearly assume a
662
greater importance in the field of the social services.
The mental health service in London has been divided among the nine divisional health officers which I mentioned on a previous Amendment, yet there is still central control; and there is central control in the mental health services for the same reason that there is central control in the midwifery services. A person may be seized with some mental defect very suddenly, and there may be an emergency call. If there is an emergency call there must be some central authority to answer—and these calls, of course, come outside office hours, during the week-end, and at times when the ordinary worker in the office of a local authority is not working. For this reason alone, surely the argument that there should be some centre to which these calls could go must be accepted.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton will ask why the boroughs should not do it. In my opinion it would be extremely wasteful for each borough to provide such a service, for in most cases an emergency officer would be unemployed for much of the time. Although, as I have said, there is a great deal of neurosis and mental disability, the proportion of psychotics is, of course, small, and therefore if an emergency officer were on call the whole time—during the week-end, during the nights—it may be that a week or two or or more would pass without his being employed. That rather wasteful approach would be avoided if we had a central authority.
One must recognise, too, that the medical approach to mental ill-health has changed. We have all kinds of treatments. We have day hospitals where a patient who has been discharged from a mental home can go and be treated, can stay there just for a day for treatment. We have day hospitals where a patient who has not been to a mental home of any kind can go to have treatment and go home to his own home, in the same suburb perhaps, at night. This is a new approach to mental health. We have to take into consideration the short-term and long-term treatment, and for this reason hostels, training centres, day centres, all kinds of institutions which are concerned with the treatment of mental patients, have been established. But they are unevenly distributed throughout the

663
county. Every noble Lord knows it is difficult to get accommodation in London, whether it is a house or for a factory or an institution, and therefore those who are looking for this form of institution must look everywhere. Curiously enough, we find more places in the south-west of London, but nevertheless they are unevenly distributed even in the south-west of London, and the best use has to be made of any suitable site or building wherever it becomes available. The noble Lord accepts that.
What do the Government propose to do? They propose to break up—the word "fragment" has been used so many times—these services which I describe, which have been administered from the centre, and give each borough the right and the duty to establish their own institutions. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me this. Here we have in the southwest of London a number of these training centres, hostels for the mentally sick. Are they going to remain? Are the boroughs going to use them in the southwest of London, or is there still going to be central control? He told me just now—and he was rather glib, if I may say so—that the boroughs will take over the institutions. It took a long time to establish the existing institutions. It has taken time to find the sites and the buildings, to staff them and then to direct them from the centre. And, of course, mental instability does not afflict a person because he happens to live in a certain borough. It may be that in one part of London there is a higher proportion than in others. Again, for that reason, because this is widespread but not necessarily controlled by the frontier of a borough, I suggest we should have central control. These institutions have been established by the L.C.C., and they have been planned to serve wide areas. Nevertheless, the demand for these services is not so great that it would justify every borough in having their own training centre, hostels and all the ancillary services.
For all these facilities which bear no relation to borough boundaries, in my opinion, one central authority is sufficient. If we are to look at this simply as a piece of wise administration, a piece of local authority business which calls for economy, which calls for understanding,
664
which calls for the sympathetic approach—if these are the considerations, then I believe we should press for a central authority, and not allow the wonderful mental health service which has grown up in the London County Council to be broken up into small pieces. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 17, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
3.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I feel sure that even at this stage, when the minds of so many of us are becoming dulled by argument and a certain amount of repetition, noble Lords will have followed closely the speech of my noble friend. Some noble Lords are under instruction as to how to reply to it, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will feel that she has brought forward arguments that are difficult to meet. I look around the House and I realise that there are noble Lords whose mental independence is most marked. There is the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein. No one ever calls him a "yes-man". Is he going to take a firm Government directive? We are told that in this House the Whip is just a summons to attend. He has complied. He has done all that duty asks. He has come here. That is all the Whip involves.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, I did not receive a Whip to be here to-day. I came here because I am interested in learning about local government, which I do not know much about. I am learning a great deal.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Viscount has not got a Whip. There seems to be something wrong with the Whips' Office. I do not know whether we ought to get some guidance. Is a noble Lord who does not receive a Whip entitled to sit among the Conservatives—a sort of sheep in wolf's clothing? Is this permitted at all?
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, I used to sit down there and then I thought I would move and nail my colours to the mast. I might have gone to the Liberal Benches—there is plenty of room there; but I thought it better to come up here.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I hope the noble and gallant Viscount will feel able to un-nail his colours. As he has not been given the Whip, the Party are not doing much for him. I do not think he is under any obligation. However, he is a student of efficiency, and surely he will agree—if he came here entirely free, as I believe he has done to-day—that the case presented by the noble Baroness needs a great deal of argument. It is really inconceivable, I am sure, that anybody who was interested solely in mental health and in efficient provision for mental health, would think that the proposals of the Government were best for mental health. I do not think we shall be told that, but we are told that they fit in with some Governmental theory. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who for some reason has averted his face from me, would agree—I understand he is listening; I hope that my words will carry to him. I do not regard him as such an expert on efficiency as the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, but I regard him as a great expert on humanity. And from the point of view of the children, I cannot believe that he will feel that this plan of the Government is going to help the children.
The noble Baroness has explained this in detail; she has explained the difficulties in detail. I think she has made plain the two great inconveniences that will be bound to occur in the transitional period while an attempt is being made to unscramble the eggs. But I think our argument goes further, and suggests that in the long run, even after the transitional period, an inefficient arrangement will be promoted by this sort of Government plan. I challenge the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, to say that the plans of the Government are going to be good for the children. I do not expect him to answer that because I know that his sincerity would make it impossible for him to give an answer which was compatible with his Party views. But I would challenge him, as possibly the noble Lord closest to this problem, to say that the plans of the Government can possibly help the mentally afflicted children.
I am not going to add a great deal to what the noble Baroness has said, but may I just present general arguments? We are told that this is part of a scheme of the Government, something on the
666
lines of the Royal Commission's Report. But the Government have departed from that when it suited them. We are told that they have got a theory and the children must fit in with the theory. May I present three special reasons why it is particularly cruel to proceed with the Government's theory in this case. In the first place, these are the most helpless children. I am talking specially of the mentally handicapped, but my arguments also apply to all the mentally afflicted.
With regard to the mentally handicapped—I was Chairman of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children until the other day when I had the honour to hand over to my noble friend Lord Stonham—they are the most helpless of children. They cannot speak for themselves. They never will be able to speak for themselves in all their lives. That is a feature which is, I am afraid, unique to them, unless you have in mind that there are old people who have reached the age when they cannot speak for themselves. These children will never be able to present their own case; and therefore it is particularly brutal to use them as the guinea-pigs on which to carry out an experiment in local government administration in pursuit of some theory provided by a particular Royal Commission. That is one aspect.
Also, there is the fact alluded to by my noble friend that we are going through a revolution in mental health. No one is quite sure what will come out of it. To use an expression borrowed from the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, the nation has nailed its colours to the mast of community care. We have decided to call on the community to assume a completely new and much enlarged responsibility for the mentally handicapped. We have announced the revolution, but we have not yet carried it far. It is in the middle of the revolution, when nobody knows what will come out of it, that the Government propose to conduct their own peculiar political experiment.
Finally—and this is a point which I do not think the noble Baroness alluded to, but I think she probably would have done had she spoken at greater length—there is no field in the social services where the variations between the advanced authorities and the backward ones are greater than in this one. There

667
may be difficulty in proving which are the most advanced authorities. We are given accurate figures which show, broadly speaking, which are in the top class and which are in the bottom class. Nobody would deny that London and Middlesex are in the top class. There is no comparison between the services that they render to the mentally handicapped and those rendered in some of the counties. I am afraid that my own county of East Sussex was in the bottom class for a long time, until the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, called attention to their backwardness. I supported him, and now they have made a lot of progress. But there are these tremendous variations between authorities.
What the Government will do here, if they get their way, is to take two of the best authorities, authorities as good as any in the country—you may say that Leeds and Oldham are good, but they are no better than London, the L.C.C., and Middlesex—and break them up in pursuit of a theory. I must ask the House to believe that some of us regard this particular scheme as utterly heartless, and I hope that the House will support this Amendment. I cannot believe that anybody who cares for the children could go into the Lobby with an easy conscience in support of the Government's proposals.
3.50 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should like to add my word to what my two noble friends have just said. I have been connected with the voluntary organisations for mental health for the last twenty years, and it is a tragedy that, for reasons which I think are totally invalid and wholly unsound, the Government should contemplate disrupting this particular organisation for the mentally afflicted in London. My noble friend Lord Longford asked your Lordships to consider this not in accordance with any real or imagined instructions you may have received or requests as to the way you should vote, but to try to look at it from the point of view of the service which is being given in London to mentally afflicted people which unquestionably will be impaired unless this Amendment is accepted.
A few days ago I met a consultant friend of mine, and somebody happened to say that I had recently become
668
Chairman of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children. This eminent doctor then revealed that he and his wife were the parents of a retarded child. He wrote me a letter only this morning. It is a long letter, and I do not propose to read it all, but he makes some extremely valuable suggestions. His letter gives an idea of the suffering of parents and their children when the services for the children are so hopelessly inadequate, and it shows how necessary it is for us to preserve those that exist. He says:
"We, naturally, as anxious parents seeking help and advice, helped our little girl through numerous interviews with much of the pediatric service, but got nowhere, and we are obliged to learn by trial and error ourselves. We were told that she was mentally retarded, but there the information finished. No advice as regards possible schooling was given, and I regret to say not one person mentioned the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children. We received nothing but evasions, shaking of shoulders, and on one occasion even the greatest cruelty from a top so-called pediatrician who rounded off the interview with the words: 'Well, you will just have to take her home and make the best of a bad job.' Once in a very big London hospital to which she was admitted because of fits we found her and two other little ones tied to the foot of the bed on the floor. This is a shameful and inexplicable way to treat a docile little child, and we recall it with horror."—
as indeed any parent would if that had happened to a child of theirs or any child that they knew. But, unfortunately, there are thousands of such children. The point I am trying to make is that with the care of the mental health services being within the County of London it has, of course, its defects. It is still growing; and great improvements are needed. Nevertheless, it is a good and comprehensive service, and is in the hands of people who know and care.
My Lords, what we are confronted with under this Bill, unless it is amended, is that these services—and the noble Lord cannot deny it—are going to be broken up. He has alleged, and he will again no doubt say, that it will be broken up into twelve convenient components, so that each is of itself able to provide a satisfactory service. If he is going to say that, I must say in advance that it is manifest and demonstrable nonsense. It just is not physically capable of being broken up in that way, and nobody who has examined it can think so.

669
My noble friend Lady Summerskill gave examples of the geographical distribution within the County of London of the present service, and there is no doubt that the service is greater in some parts of the County of London area than in others. That is beyond dispute. It means that when it is split up some boroughs will be adequately—even more adequately—catered for in relation to the needs of that borough, others less, and some will not take over any provision at all in the shape of buildings and accommodation. I put to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, an analogy with which he is very familar—the emergency bed service. In that service 'one has a central organisation which is in almost instant communication with all the hospitals of London and Greater London. Within a matter of minutes perhaps as many as a dozen hospitals can be applied to so that an emergency patient or physically sick patient can be got into one of those hospitals. The noble Lord will appreciate that that is a central organisation in contact with hospitals which is manned all the time. I think he will agree that that is a true picture. That is for sick people and emergencies.
When we come to this domiciliary and hospital mental service in London at the moment we have a central organisation manned all the time, even at week-ends. If, however, it is broken up, there will not be such an organisation manned all the time. Therefore it will be impossible during week-ends and at holiday times to get an urgent mental case into institutional care or treatment through the medium of a central organisation. So that what proves invaluable in regard to the emergency bed service and that kind of organisation does at the moment exist in London for mental health. I submit that unless this Amendment is accepted, if the Government persist in their present intentions, inevitably that will be done away with. There will be no central organisation to network out cases of this kind. I think that is going to be a very tragic thing.
Finally, I should like to mention the position of the day clubs—those run by the Institute of Social Psychiatry—and the clubs which are now beginning to come along with the assistance of the London County Council, grant-aided by the Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association, of which, as the noble Lords knows,
670
I am President. Those clubs are not yet all over London, but exist only in some parts. It is impossible to see, therefore, how the benefits of those clubs can be made available all over London; and it is extremely unlikely we shall get more clubs if we have to depend on boroughs with obviously less resources individually than the County of London now have. They cannot carry on unless they are grant-aided—they are largely voluntary, but they are to some extent grant-aided. They will not be able to expand unless this happens, and, as the noble Lord is aware, they link up in the catchment area with mental hospitals some 25 miles away, like Long Grove, Bethnal Green, and there is that kind of set-up. I just do not see how, under the Bill as it stands, these clubs for the mentally afflicted can carry on, and certainly they will not expand. I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will deal with the points I have raised.

KENYA
4.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, with your permission I will interrupt the proceedings on London government to reply to the Question asked earlier on by my noble friend Lord Colyton. I will reply in the same words as those used in another place by my right honourable friend in reply to a similar Question. He said:
"After the elections last May, Kenya was given full internal self-government as a prelude to early independence. I have recently had consultations with Kenya Ministers about the further steps to be taken for the transfer of the remaining powers; and I am publishing to-day as a White Paper a joint statement setting out out agreed conclusions.
"In the last few weeks there has been an important new development, which has affected the constitutional arrangements to be made, and which has to be taken into account in the timing of Kenya's independence. I refer to the decision of the Governments of Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya to form an East African

671
Federation, which, as I said in the House last week, is warmly welcomed by Her Majesty's Government.
"The three East African Governments have already made substantial progress in working out the Constitution for the proposed Federation, and it is their aim to bring it into being before the end of the year, in time to enable the new Federal State to be admitted to the United Nations in the forthcoming session. In order that Kenya's final decision to join this new association may be taken with the full authority and responsibility of a sovereign nation, it will be necessary for her to obtain independence shortly before the inauguration of the Federation.
"In the light of these considerations, I propose to convene a conference in London towards the end of September to settle the final form of Kenya's Constitution. Representatives of the Government and Opposition Parties in the Legislature and of the European Community will be invited to attend.
"To enable the necessary forward planning to be undertaken, not only by the Kenya Government, but also by the Governments of the other East African countries concerned, Her Majesty's Government have informed the Government of Kenya that, subject to the necessary steps being completed in time, Kenya will be granted independence on 12th December."
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Marquess for giving us this statement, which is obviously of very great importance. I observe that a further conference is to be called in September and take note of the provisional date. I see that the date which has been fixed is at present quite provisional. May I take it that the Government will give special attention to one or two matters in relation to what has to be done before final independence is declared? Some of us are particularly interested in what will be the outcome of the difficulties which seem to have appeared from time to time about the regional position in Kenya. With regard to the setting up of a general Federation, I shall be extremely interested, and I think many noble Lords will be interested, in what it is proposed
672
to do about our military situation there and about our military establishments. I take it that these and other matters will be discussed at the Conference in September. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I answered questions one at a time. I think the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, may want to address some to me afterwards. As regards the first question put to me by the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, as to what the regional position will be, I think I should make it perfectly clear that there is no question of making any constitutional changes at the moment. If there are to be any constitutional changes, they, of course, will be a matter for discussion at the independence Conference.
As regards the second question put to me by the noble Lord about the military position, perhaps it would be helpful if I just read out from the White Paper the relevant passage. It reads as follows:
"It was agreed that the retention of a British military base in Kenya after independence was not desired by either the British Government or the Kenya Government. It was recognised however that the orderly run-down of British forces after independence would inevitably take time. It was agreed that the withdrawal of these forces should be effected over a period of up to twelve months from the date of Kenya's independence."
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his statement. I think we are all agreed that, though it would have been a good thing to have a much longer period of internal self-government, in the circumstances, and in view of the possibility of establishing an East African Federation which we welcome, the speeding up is inevitable and probably also desirable.
There are two points which I should like to put to my noble friend. The first is this: the regional system which was agreed to by all the delegates to the Lancaster House Conference in 1962, was based on fear of domination by majority groups and especially the fear of a Kikuyu dictatorship. We must all hope that those fears will prove to be illusory, but we cannot be sure. Can we have an undertaking from Her Majesty's Government that all the safeguards for minorities agreed to at Lancaster House will be embodied in the

673
final independence Constitution; and notably the requirement of a 90 per cent. majority in the Senate for constitutional amendments affecting the entrenched rights of individuals and regional and tribal authorities? That was a provision which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, welcomed at the time of the Conference.
The second point I should like to put to my noble friend is this. Can we have some assurances in regard to the question of citizenship, which is a matter of the utmost importance to those Europeans who wish to stay and play their part in Kenya? It is all the more important because of certain threats which we have read recently by some East African leaders, to leave the Commonwealth in certain circumstances. Will Her Majesty's Government ensure that the final Constitution provides that there shall be no discrimination in matters of land ownership in relation to citizenship?
May I also ask my noble friend this question? Can steps be taken to ensure that facilities should be given for the retention of dual British and Kenyan nationality; and also for the registration of children of European parents born in Kenya as British nationals as well as Kenya citizens, which they would be by birth, in precisely the same way as if they were born in a foreign country? The fact is that with a Commonwealth country at the moment this cannot be done, and I think legislation should, if necessary, be introduced to provide for it, and this legislation should include not only Kenya but the other Commonwealth countries.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Marquess is having a fusillade of questions. May I ask one more which is really very simple and straightforward? In view of the advancement of the date for independence, can the noble Marquess assure the House that satisfactory arrangements will be made for the retirement of British civil servants, with compensation, if they so desire when Kenya becomes independent?
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, does the noble Marquess intend to answer these questions one by one, or does he want to have more?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, if I may, with the permission
674
of the House, I will try to answer the questions that have so far been put to me. I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lord Colyton welcome the idea of a Federation, and of course Her Majesty's Government most heartily welcome it, too. As I think I made clear, or tried to make clear, to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, any constitutional changes must be a matter for the independence conference. My right honourable friend, in his recent talks with Mr. Mboya, did not discuss any specific constitutional changes at all.
THE, EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess a simple question on that point? Will changes in relationships between the regions and the centre be within the terms of reference of this constitutional conference?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I should prefer to have notice of that question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not want to go into the very important implications of the statements that the noble Marquess has made, but I would urge him to give full consideration to this question of citizenship. It is wondered about very much in the minds of our people in Kenya; and I have always been told, whenever I have asked this question in the past, that it was being left to a final negotiation. I understand that is still the position, but I think Parliament might be given some idea of the general attitude of Her Majesty's Government on this particular point and on other grave points that arise as a result of the ending of our rule in Kenya. I should therefore like to ask the noble Marquess—I feel Parliament ought to be able to express views—whether, arising out of this statement, the Government will give time for a debate on Kenya before the House rises, because we are then going away for two months, and by that time, no doubt, the negotiations with the new Kenya Government will be beginning, if they are not far advanced. I feel that we here in Parliament, at least, who have all the responsibility for the future of these peoples, ought to be allowed to express a view before we go away.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the question of citizenship

675
was one of the questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, and I had not quite reached it. This is a question as to which the anxieties held in this country are perfectly understood; but again I must explain to your Lordships that this also must be a matter for discussion at the independence conference, and also with the other members of the proposed Federation. My noble friend Lord Salisbury asked about time for a debate on the subject of Kenya. Of course, it is not for me to answer that question; it is something which, no doubt, my noble Leader will have to consider. I cannot comment on that. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, addressed to me a question about the retirement of British officers. I can assure noble Lords that all the necessary steps are being taken to ensure that expatriate officers serving in Kenya get a fair deal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I quite realise that I was wrong in putting the question about a debate to the noble Marquess, because that question must be answered by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, but I should like to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House now: will he give time for a debate about Kenya before the House rises?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Of course, my Lords, my object is to give as much time for as many discussions as I possibly can. At present, it looks as if something will have to be sacrificed to do it. If time were to be given, obviously there must be discussions through the usual channels; but if I can accommodate such a debate I shall be very anxious to do so.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I thank the Government for that statement, and welcome it on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches? I should like to ask the noble Marquess one question. Will he see that his Department, and the other Departments of the British Government, do everything possible to sustain and encourage the East African University, which is the key to development in this huge area?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will certainly take note of the noble Lord's point, and bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I put this point to the Minister of State, relevant to the importance of having a debate? I appreciate that that question cannot be answered to-day, but on the other hand, could the Minister of State give us this assurance—which I am sure would be most emphatically asked for by all quarters of the House if a debate took place. The arrangements which were embodied in Orders in Council and local legislation after the Lancaster House meeting provided for all the safeguards and the rights of the regional organisation, and the very stringent conditions required as to any change. It was that settlement which made the difference between the possibility of great tribal outbreaks and, really, war—and it is all the more important if British forces, which have in the last resort been able to keep order, are to be withdrawn. Can we have a firm assurance that, while the House is in Recess, Her Majesty's Government will not alter the provisions of the regional constitution without the full assent of all those who agreed to those conditions at the time?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I referred in the statement which I have just made to the composition of the delegation which would be coming to the United Kingdom in September. It will be composed of representatives of the Government and Opposition Parties in the Legislature, and also representatives of the European community. Therefore, all interests concerned will have the opportunity of expressing their opinion then. Does that answer the noble Earl?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: No; with great respect, that does not in the least answer the point I put to the noble Marquess. Of course, we realise that everybody is going to be there and will have the chance of speaking, just as they had at Lancaster House; but at Lancaster House there was an agreement, and that agreement is now the Constitution accepted in Kenya by all the different tribes and interests. Of course, this may be discussed, but what we want is an assurance from the Minister of State that Her Majesty's Government will not alter what has been agreed and approved in Kenya and in this House without the assent of all those who were parties to that agreement at that time—all of them.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl, no doubt, is including ourselves in this.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Yes, certainly including ourselves; but not that we should have the right to change what has been agreed.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think that we on the Opposition side should also like a little more light on the subject, and if we cannot get the light we want by question and answer then we would join other noble Lords in asking for a debate. And, of course, we want a chance of looking at the White Paper before the statement.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, this, of course, is an extremely important question. As your Lordships, I am sure, are well aware, the last thing I should wish to do would be in any way to mislead the House, and I should much prefer, subject to your Lordships' permission, to ask for notice of this question, so that I might have the opportunity of discussion with my right honourable friend.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but perhaps after the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has had the necessary discussions with all those concerned he would make a further statement to the House at an early date about the prospects of a debate. We do not want it to run on. We have now only little more than three weeks before the House rises, and I think the House ought to know at a very early date whether there is to be a debate or not, because the matters concerned are very grave indeed.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I will certainly convey that to my noble friend the Chief Whip, and I certainly should wish to keep the House fully informed.

PROPOSED TAKE-OVER OF BURMAH OIL COMPANY
4.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat
678
a statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a Question about the proposal made to the Burmah Oil Company by British Petroleum. I understand that on the 27th of June the British Petroleum Company and the Shell Petroleum Company made proposals to the Burmah Oil Company for the capital reconstruction of the Burmah Oil Company, and the acquisition by British Petroleum and Shell Petroleum of the whole of its share capital as reconstructed. As this involved the issue of new shares in British Petroleum and thus affected the capital structure of British Petroleum, Her Majesty's Government were consulted beforehand by the company and saw no reason to object. The Government's right to appoint ex-officio directors to it is unaffected by the changes proposed.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, when the noble Earl says "unaffected", may I ask whether it alters the Government's strength in voting power within the company in relation to the number of shares held? That is the first point. The second point is that there seems to be a good deal of complaint in the country about the lack of information apparently held by the board of directors of the Burmah Oil Company as to what offer was likely to be made, or anything else. Many shareholders of Burmah Oil Company were misled about the position and continued to sell their shares, and have suffered very severe losses compared with what they might have done if they had had information and retained their shares. What has the Government to say about that, as they are part of British Petroleum who are making the offer?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, on the first question, I would say that the powers of the Government to appoint directors are not affected. They appoint two directors who have a power of veto in certain circumstances. The noble Earl particularly asked about the proportion of shares held. I understand that after reconstruction the proportion of shares held by the Government, which was 51 per cent., will be about 48 per cent. That does not affect the Government's

679
powers; no alteration can be made in the Articles of Association without the consent of 25 per cent. of the voting power.
A NOBLE LORD: Seventy-five per cent., surely.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think I can answer the question about the information which may, or may not, have been obtained by various people on the Stock Exchange in the circumstances to which the noble Earl alluded. I have no knowledge of that and I do not think it has anything to do with the position of the Government in this matter.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am not doubting the word of the Minister when he talks of the right of the Government to two directorships—which is, of course, a minority of the directors; and they did not take a great part. But has that not a relationship to the fact that the Government had 51 per cent. of the shares and now they will have about 48 per cent.? Will the noble Earl tell us how the Government will secure their two directors in an undertaking in which they have only 48 per cent. of the shares?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the right to appoint two directors, which is held by the Government, is contained in the Articles of Association of the Company.
LORD SHEPHERD: That is, my Lords, "B.P.".
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords, "B.P.". It does not depend on the amount of shares held.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Earl said that the Government directors—if that is the right phrase—had the power of veto. Did that arise from the fact that they were representing 51 per cent. of the shares, or did it arise from the Articles of Association?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That also is contained in the Articles of Association.
LORD OGMORE: May I ask the noble Earl whether there are two directors now appointed by the Government; and, if so, did they agree to the arrangements made with the Burmah Oil Company?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords, the Government saw no reason to object to it.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, surely the power of veto relates only to constitutional matters and not to the day-to-day business of the company.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords, it relates only to certain matters in connection with the company's business.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, is it not a fact that the 48 per cent. holding by the Government or any group of individuals constitutes control; because you would never be able to get more than 48 per cent. out of all the different shareholders to agree on any point together?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That is true, my Lords; but, as a matter of fact, the Government in this matter do not necessarily need even the 48 per cent., because their power is in the Articles of Association.

BRITISH PRISONERS IN THE YEMEN
4.27 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I have little to say about the Yemen to-day, and I should not have made a statement except for the fact that an Answer is being made in another place to a Question.
Our latest reports of the sixteen men held prisoner in the Yemen are that they are well housed and in good health. The United States Embassy at Taiz is in contact with them. Negotiations for the release of the prisoners are being carried on through the good offices of the United States Embassy at Taiz. These negotiations are in a delicate stage, and I should prefer not to go into details about them at this particular moment. I should, however, like to pay tribute to the members of the United States Foreign Service, both at Taiz and at Aden, who have been tireless in working for the release of the prisoners.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are grateful to the Foreign Secretary for the statement; and in view of the language he

681
used I do not think it would be right to press things further on this matter to-day. I would just make this comment: that in the negotiations which are being done for us by the United States' representatives may I take it—and I think I can—that the Government, in the course of those negotiations, will express their regret over this accidental mistake in taking a wrong direction which caused the boundary infringement to take place? If that is so, if regret has been expressed, then that is the end of it.
LORD REA: My Lords, this is not the time to debate this matter, but I think that the House might put on record their appreciation of the good services and offices of the American people in that part of the world.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am obliged to the House. In answer to the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, I think the House will accept, and we all know, that this was a complete mistake and we have said that, as such, we greatly regret it.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
4.27 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, we now return to the London Government Bill, and to Amendment No. 151, moved by the noble Lady, Baroness Summerskill. May I deal with two points of detail? The first one was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who asked what is likely to be the position of the voluntary clubs at present in London for mentally disordered persons. I have no reason to suppose that these clubs and the organisation responsible for them will not be able to have the same relationship with the London boroughs as they have with the London County Council now. On the second point, also a matter of the emergency services, I see no reason to suppose that the London boroughs should not be able to provide all-round-the-clock service by having a rota of mental welfare officers to deal with emergency cases, some of which may involve admission to hospital.
LORD STONHAM: I would ask the noble Lord if, when he is speaking of voluntary clubs enjoying the same
682
arrangements as before, he would include grant aid.
LORD NEWTON: There is no reason to see why they should not, but I should like to look at that. This Amendment was debated in committee and it is an Amendment which affects the principles of the Bill. There is no question of this Amendment improving the detailed administration of any services, because what it seeks to do is to divorce the community services for the care and aftercare of mentally disordered people from the other personal health services. This would be something quite new.
In a speech to-day, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has accused the Government, as he did on Committee, of treating mentally handicapped children, who, he said, cannot speak for themselves, and never will be able to, as guinea pigs. He went on to say that what we are proposing in this Bill is an experiment on these children. That is not so. It is precisely the Amendment of the noble Baroness which is proposing an experiment, to which these children and other mentally disordered persons will be subjected, because it proposes that their care and after-care should be divorced from other personal health services of the local authority. That is something which we are not prepared to accept. The reason why we take that view is that mentally subnormal children and adults, and the mentally ill who are not in hospital, need and receive help from almost every part of a local authority's health and welfare services, and many of the most important are not provided under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act, the only section of the Act with which this Amendment is concerned. For example, as part of the services for mothers and young children, which are provided under Section 22 of the Act, children brought to child welfare clinics may be identified as mentally handicapped. Others may be identified by the general practitioners and the health visitors who visit mothers and young children in their homes; and the health visitors come under Section 24.
Advice to the parents on how to deal with the problems of a handicapped child may be given at the child welfare clinics or by the health visitors and general practitioners visiting the home. The child's progress during the first five

683
years of his life can continue to be watched at the child welfare clinic. Signs of emotional disturbance either in a child or in the mother can also be seen and dealt with through these clinics or (in the case of the mother) through the ante-natal services. All of this—apart from the general practitioner service—is provided under Section 22 or 24 of the Act. Again, families in which there is a severely subnormal child or adult, or a mentally infirm old person, often need a home-help. Home-helps are provided under Section 29 of the Act.
Elderly people with a degree of mental infirmity which does not require admission to hospital and elderly patients who have been discharged after psychiatric treatment in hospital may need accommodation in a local authority old persons' home. Most local authorities, including the London County Council, provide such accommodation under Section 21 of the National Assistance Act. Mental disorder is one of the forms of handicap which makes a person eligible for welfare services under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act.
If the Amendments were written into the Bill, the Greater London Council could, I agree, provide most o the services I have mentioned under Section 28, but this would mean withdrawing all interest in mental health from the general maternity and child health services and from the general services for the elderly and the handicapped, which, under the Bill, will be the responsibility of the boroughs. It would be a reversion to the segregation of mental health services from other health services which existed in practice until 1948, under the old Lunacy Acts and Mental Deficiency Acts, which Parliament, in its wisdom, has repealed as outmoded and obsolete. I cannot imagine that anyone interested in the advance of the treatment of mental disorder would wish a return to those days when mental illness was treated as somethig quite different from other forms of illness.
Apart from that, I believe that, if I were to invite your Lordships to accept these Amendments and if they were written into the Bill, there would be administrative chaos. I know as well as anybody that doctors, nurses and social workers are pretty good at managing to
684
provide a reasonably efficient service, even under an administrative system which puts difficulties in their way, but I believe that if these Amendments were incorporated in the Bill they would produce a situation with which these people could not cope. Let me explain why I say that.
Social workers visiting the homes of families where there is a mentally ill or mentally subnormal person to advise on the problems arising from the presence of that person in the family would be working in administrative isolation from other social workers and nurses visiting the home to deal with other aspects of the same family's problems—and, indeed, with other aspects of that mentally disordered person's own problems, because a mentally disordered person is not a person who has no problems other than his mental disability. In respect of his physical health a subnormal child needs the same services that all children need. A mentally disordered old person has all the physical problems of old age, as well as the special problems of some degree of mental illness, infirmity or subnormality. These physical needs would have to continue to be met, if these Amendments were accepted, by the new London boroughs and their staff, while the Greater London Council and their staff would deal, in whole or in part, with those needs of the same people which were attributed to their mental disorder. Surely that would be an absurd situation. It really puts an enormous burden on those charged with the responsibility of the administration of these services. I would say to the House, as I did in Committee, that these Amendments are unacceptable.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I must say that on this occasion the noble Lord has used rather reckless language. I never thought that I should sit here and hear any noble Lord charge me with wanting to put mental health back before 1948. The noble Lord knows that I was in charge of the new Mental Health Act, and I am proud of it. In my opening speech, I said that we must reorientate and welcome into the community those suffering from mental disorders and must no longer institutionalise them. For the noble Lord, in order to make a point, and in an attempt to persuade his noble friends to vote against

685
me, to charge me with harbouring such a thought, absolutely astonishes me. I think that every Conservative Member of your Lordships' House knows me well enough not to think that I would try to persuade him to accept such a retrograde measure as described by the noble Lord. That is incredible.
Under the National Health Service, a child or old person can be treated administratively so as to have the use of all personal health services. Of course, these services can be combined. Does the noble Lord realise that what I am talking about here is administration? Does he appreciate that the national insurance service and the mother and child welfare service can be used and integrated with any of the mental health services? What I am suggesting is that, now that we have the new Mental Health Act, we must do everything in our power to see that we do not destroy the service which has already been established by the L.C.C. That is all I am appealing for. In his answer, the noble Lord emphasised that the officials would be upset. But the people we have to consider first here are the patients—the mentally defective, the psychopaths and all those suffering from some mental disability. They are our primary concern, and if we risk upsetting officials—well, they must put up with that.
The other thing I want to say is this—and I must confess that I was so astonished that I shall ask my noble friends to divide. How does the noble Lord propose to solve the need for an emergency service? The noble Lord looks
at his brief and says that he will ask the mental welfare officers to form a rota, and they can serve during the weekend and at nights. Does he realise that that is a retrograde step? For instance, the idea of doctors working at nights is a curious and old-fashioned arrangement, and although it is still accepted, the doctors are murmuring against it. A mental welfare officer is subjected to great strain, because he is dealing with people who are unbalanced, and who, among other things, use reckless language to him to which in no circumstances can he ever respond in the same manner.
Here are special workers in our community, subjected to great strain; and the noble Lord, in answer to my inquiry as to how the emergency calls will be dealt with if we do not have a central authority, says: "We will put them on night work; they can work in the holidays and at weekends". This is a category of workers who should be defended. The noble Lord should say that in no circumstances will these men be exposed to greater strain. This is the solution of the problem! I must ask my noble friends—and I would ask noble Lords on the opposite side, too—having heard what the noble Lord has had to say, to come into the Division Lobby with us and vote for my Amendment.
4.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 151) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 68.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Latham, L.

Rusholme, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lawson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Amwell, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shepherd, L.

Arran, E.

Listowel, E.

Sinha, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Stonham, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Meston, L.

Swanborough, B.

Chorley, L.

Middleton, L.

Walston, L.

Clwyd, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams, L.

Crook, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williamson, L.

Henderson, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wise, L.

Killearn, L.

Rea, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Carrington, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Ailwyn, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Derwent, L.

Albemarle, E.

Colyton, L.

Devonshire, D.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Conesford, L.

Dudley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Craigton, L.

Dundee, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Cromartie, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Bridgeman, V.

De La Warr, E.

Eccles, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Jessel, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Limerick, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Fortescue, E.

Long, V.

Salisbury, M.

Freyberg, L.

Lothian, M.

Salter, L.

Gage, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Sandford, L.

Glentanar, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Sandys, L.

Goschen, V.

Mancroft, L.

Somers, L.

Grenfell, L.

Margesson, V.

Soulbury, V.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Mersey, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Hanworth, V.

Milverton, L.

Suffield, L.

Hastings, L.

Molson, L.

Swinton, E.

Home, E.

Monsell, V.

Teynharn, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Newton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Poulett, E.

Twining, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 46 [Accommodation and welfare of disabled and old persons, etc.]:
LORD WALSTON LORD WALSTON moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to insert:
"Subject to subsection (4) of this section".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will speak also to Amendment 155, for which this Amendment, No. 152, is a paving Amendment. When this point was raised in Committee there was general agreement on the importance of this particular problem of the homeless in London. I will not weary your Lordships by repeating in any detail the arguments which were brought forward at that time. My noble friend Lord Longford has already told us that repetition is inclined to dull the wits, and I certainly would not want to be in any way party to dulling the wits of noble Lords on either side of the House. For all that, I should like to emphasise the very human problem that arises from this question of the London homeless.
There are various causes which lead to it. There are those who, for some reason or another, find themselves suddenly without a house; there are those who have had disagreement with their landlords, who are unable to pay the rent and have been evicted—those who cannot be dealt with immediately by the normal channels—and there are those who find themselves in London and cannot find accommodation. There are those who, by reason of a sudden emergency, such as fire or flood, find themselves without a house of any kind. And, of course, there are from time to time those who are discharged from prison and, for one reason or another, are not looked after by the bodies al-
688
ready in existence for that sort of thing; and those who come out of hospital, particularly alcoholics discharged from hospital treatment, who may find themselves homeless. There are many other causes.
The point that must be borne in mind is that, in spite of the very real human problems which exist in these circumstances, they are not on a sufficiently large scale to make it possible for any individual local authority to have an adequate organisation to cope with them. In order to cope adequately, it must be done on a much wider scale, as has been done up to now by the London County Council. To expect that each of the new proposed local authorities would be able to set up an organisation to deal with these rather special but, none the less, important cases of individual hardship, would be to place too great a burden on them.
I do not think I am misrepresenting the Government when I say that, in the debate of May 27, it was agreed by the noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Government that this was an important problem and an essential service which had to be provided. But the noble Lord who spoke for the Government on that occasion advised your Lordships—and I am sorry to say your Lordships listened to his advice—to reject the Amendment on two grounds. The first ground was that there should be no division of responsibility in this question of providing temporary housing accommodation as between the sudden or emergency need for it and the rather more foreseeable need. The second ground arose from the fact that under the proposed Amendments, if adopted, there would be differences of treatment as between the inner and outer London boroughs. The fresh Amendments to

689
which I am now speaking seek to dispose of the first major criticism that the Government put forward, and I hope that this will be taken as an earnest of our desire on this side not simply to push at a door which has already been slammed and bolted but to listen to the arguments the Government have put forward, even if they do not listen to ours, and do our best to meet them by a fresh form of Amendment.
These two Amendments meet the criticisms of the Government—namely, that one authority should deal with all three groups of homeless, as was specified then: that is, those who were faced with sudden emergency, such as fire or flood; those who were homeless because of their peculiar family problems, the inadequacy of the family provisions; and those families who had to leave their houses, being evicted by landlords because of failure to pay rent. This Amendment copes with that, and brings all these three reasons under the one method of dealing with the problem through one inner London authority, thereby still achieving what we on this side consider to be essential—that this particular problem should be dealt with on a larger basis than that of a pure local borough council, for the reasons which I have already given and which I shall not repeat to your Lordships—but, at the same time, meeting the criticism of the Government that it would be a mistake to deal with one of these three reasons for homelessness separately from the other two.
The other point is, perhaps, from the Government's point of view, not quite so adequately dealt with, though I hope they will agree it is dealt with adequately enough. I am quite certain in any case that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will be able to accept the fact that this Amendment deals with the first of his criticisms. Therefore, I hope that he will be able to announce his acceptance of this in principle. The second point—namely, that there would then be a difference between the inner London boroughs, including the City, and the outer London boroughs, is possibly not answered in quite such a clear manner, because, frankly, this Amendment does not deal with that in any way at all. The reason for that is twofold. In the first place, we maintain that this problem
690
of homelessness of this particular type is one which is found almost entirely in the centre of London in the inner London boroughs and is, to all intents and purposes, non-existent in the outer London boroughs. Therefore, there is no great need to strive after uniformity as between inner and outer London simply for the sake of achieving uniformity and nothing else.
The second reason is, as I understand it, that uniformity could be achieved, if the authority was so willing, under the provisions of Clause 21(5), under which, until the Minister orders otherwise—and there is no reason why he should so order—the Greater London Council is empowered to exercise the housing powers of the local authority referred to in Clause 21(1) of the Bill in any circumstance in which the London County Council might have exercised them. So, in fact, if this argument about uniformity is considered to be serious and the Government feel it is essential that there should be uniformity as between the inner London group and the outer London group, even in a case of this sort where we feel it is not of the greatest importance, then the powers already exist, as I understand it, under Clause 21 to ensure that such uniformity does take place.
As I say, I will not weary your Lordships with repeating the reasons why we consider that this is a highly important Amendment, but I ask you to cast your minds back once more to the arguments put forward when this was debated in Committee and to realise the very real amount of human suffering which takes place even now but which would be much greater if the plight of these unfortunate homeless people were not dealt with as efficiently as possible. I ask you also to remember that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on that occasion admitted that under the proposed regulations in the unamended Bill, in his own words, "there would be a certain amount of 'buck passing'"; and that, I think, is the greatest argument in favour of these Amendments: that they abolish the danger of "buck passing" which all of us know, although it is something we can joke about from time to time, is very far from a joke if you are the person or the family which is being affected by the passing of the buck. Therefore I ask

691
your Lordships and the Government, in view of our attempt to meet their objections in this case by putting forward amended Amendments, to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 37, at the beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Walston.)
5.2 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Lord in the earlier part of his speech instanced the various kinds of people who may find themselves temporarily homeless. I think it is fair to say that there are really two aspects of the services for providing temporary accommodation under Section 21 of the National Assistance Act, and that those aspects embrace all the kinds of people with whom the noble Lord is concerned. The first aspect is the need to provide temporary accommodation, effective rehabilitation, and, ultimately, rehousing for those who are usually called the "inadequate" or "problem" families; that is to say, those families who lose their existing accommodation because they fail to pay their rent or because their living standards are very low. Here, the key word is "rehabilitation". The second aspect is the need to rehouse from temporary accommodation, as quickly as possible, those ordinary families (if I may so describe them) who have had to leave their houses for whatever reason before they have been able to find other accommodation within their means. Here, the key word is "rehoused'. Throughout most of the country the need for temporary accommodation arises from the first aspect; that is to say, the aspect of the inadequate or problem family. But in London, and I would say the whole of London and would not just restrict it to inner London as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, did—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord will agree that, mainly, the problem is in inner London?
LORD NEWTON: I think I would say that in London as a whole and in a few other large centres of population the main need arises from the second aspect, which I called the ordinary family. This was emphasised in the report of the research team to the committee of inquiry appointed by the
692
London County Council to study the underlying causes of the increase of homelessness in the county. As a result, the London County Council decided to transfer the management of short-stay accommodation for the homeless to their Housing Department, though responsibility for its provision still remains with the Welfare Committee. This seems to me to illustrate the "one-ness", if I may so put it, of welfare and housing and proves the point which I tried to make at Committee stage that it is right, as proposed by the Government, to convey both functions to the same authority—in other words, to the London borough councils.
For both my two groups of people who need temporary accommodation under Section 21, what is needed more than anything else is the closest possible co-operation between the personal health and welfare services, together with housing services and often with child care as well. The process must be a continuous one from the point where the family is admitted to temporary accommodation to the point where they can ultimately be re-housed permanently, or more or less permanently. For those who need rehabilitation, all the range of services will be required from temporary accommodation, which is a welfare service; social workers (health, welfare or child care workers); specially trained home helps, which is a health service; intermediate housing and, finally, rehousing, which are housing services and not welfare services. Those who do not need rehabilitation may still require some form of help to begin with, and perhaps later, from the health, welfare and child care services; but what they will need most is help from the housing services, since their paramount need is for somewhere to live.
Experience has shown that the most effective way of bringing all these services to the families who need them is to place responsibility for them on one managing authority. The responsible authority must be equipped to analyse the needs of the families found homeless in their areas, to provide effective rehabilitation for those who need it, and to ensure that housing is forthcoming at the time when it is needed. In the reorganisation of local government in

693
London this, in the view of the Government, is clearly a job for the London boroughs, not the Greater London Council, for it is the borough councils which are to be given responsibility for personal health, welfare and child care services, and are also, and most important of all, to be the primary housing authorities.
As your Lordships know very well, the housing powers of the Greater London Council are supplementary to those of the borough councils and if a borough council is in difficulty in providing the amount of housing required, this should be regarded by them as part of their general housing problem for which supplementary help is to be expected from the Greater London Council. So, I seriously wish to suggest to your Lordships that it would be a backward step for the development of services in inner London to take away responsibility for providing temporary accommodation from the authority primarily responsible for health, welfare, child care and housing. That authority at present is the London County Council; but under the reorganisation proposed it will be the new London borough councils. What we are trying to do in this Bill is to maintain this link and, in so doing, we are acting upon the cardinal paint which was made by the Royal Commission, and that is clearly why I do not feel able to advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walston.
5.10 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think I can express the feeling of this side of the House as one of very considerable disappointment. The noble Lord, if I understood him aright, based his rejection on the two aspects to which he referred; those persons who are homeless because they are in need of rehabilitation, and secondly those who are homeless because of the question of rents and the like, which all contribute to the difficulties of persons finding homes in which to live. The noble Lord must be aware that there is another type of homeless family, unfortunately growing, because of the migration into London and South-East England of hundreds of men and women who come to London seeking employment. Some are able to find employment but are unable to find a home in which they can live. There are others who do not find the employment, and
694
therefore have hardly any possibility of obtaining even a room to rent. This was a particular aspect that we considered on Committee. It has not been referred to this evening, but I am quite sure the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, from the Home Office, must be aware, from the police statistics, of the difficulties within the London area of this migration; and certainly they show this to be a growing problem.
We said on Committee that at the present time this particular burden is shared by the London County Council; it is shared in the sense that the whole of the London County Council area contributes to the cost of providing this particular and necessary service. But under the Government proposal this burden will fall directly upon the shoulders of one borough, or perhaps three particular boroughs—those located around the main railway termini. I sincerely ask your Lordships: do you believe that these particular boroughs, with their own housing problems, their own shortage of accommodation and shortage of space, will be able to hold empty the facilities in order to cope with the unexpected incomings and approach of these homeless persons looking for accommodation for the night, and perhaps for the weeks and months that lie ahead? If a borough was able to do it, I would say that it would be wrong for the one borough, or the three boroughs, to be singled out to provide this service, because this is not merely a borough problem and a borough responsibility: these persons have come to London as a whole looking for employment. In fact a very large number of the persons who are homeless to-day are not Londoners, as we know them.
I turn to the other point which the noble Lord made, in regard to the fact (and it sounds attractive as an argument) that the borough, because it is the housing authority, should be the right instrument—perhaps the perfect instrument according to the Government—for finding accommodation for those who are homeless, not because they are in need of rehabilitation but merely because they are newcomers and have obtained employment within the area. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, will agree that the vast majority in that category will have no residential qualification at all. They cannot say that they

695
come from Lambeth, or from Westminster. They may have come from another part of London, but the noble Lord must know that boroughs, because of the tremendous demand for housing within their areas, have been bound to look for accommodation in the first instance, for the persons who have been on their own waiting lists.
As I said before, there is not a borough in the central part of London which has not a waiting list of over ten years. Do your Lordships really believe that the inner borough, with all its problems of slum clearance, the problem of finding homes for all those on its waiting list, would be able or even willing to give priority in the provision of homes to people who have no residential qualification? I frankly do not believe there is one local authority that would reject a case of extreme hardship, but as a matter of principle they could not give this privilege, this special right, to a homeless person over their own residents, over families where perhaps the daughter is married and is living with her parents. I cannot believe that they could as a matter of principle continually make that a practice. Therefore I do not believe that the boroughs, with all the good will in the world, will be able themselves to tackle this problem.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, when he says that all boroughs over the whole London area have the same type of problem, the same burden. I am quite sure that statistics would show that the problem of the homeless—the permanent homeless, in the sense of those permanently looking for accommodation, and the temporary homeless, those who have just come into the neighbourhood—will be found where populations are mainly concentrated, mainly around the main railway termini. These are, therefore, the inner boroughs. In the past the London County Council have provided what one might call a unified service to this end; they have provided this for the inner London area. We believe that this service should be continued.
It is true that we do not request it so far as the outer boroughs are concerned, but I do not believe that the temporary homeless, in particular, are nearly such a formidable problem there
696
as in the inner London area. It is true that the outer areas have many people on waiting lists, many who do not have residential qualifications at all—people who wish to move outwards. But the outer boroughs are obviously in a better position to deal with this problem. The inner London boroughs are not only faced with the problem of finance; they are concerned mainly with the problem of space and building. If you have one authority, as we have at present in the London County Council, you have a degree of flexibility. Certainly there will be no question of "buck-passing". I think it is a terrible thing to contemplate, perhaps on a winter's night, some homeless people coming to a main railway station seeking shelter, and having to go from one borough to another seeking accommodation for the night. But that is what will follow if the Bill goes forward as the Government now propose.
At least to-day the homeless can, within a short space of time, be put in touch with the central authority, who will know what accommodation is available, and will be able to see that the person is given comfort as quickly as possible. None of that will be possible under the Bill as it stands—unless, of course, the Government feel that the boroughs themselves will get together to set up another Joint Committee. I do not believe that even that would work, because more and more would the problem be placed upon those boroughs who are willing to undertake the task. There will be dispute as to whether the burden is being shared properly. This is not a problem of London; it is a national problem, although London has become the focus. In my judgment, it is wrong that we should put the responsibility on a number of inner boroughs—because that is, in fact, what the Bill will be doing. I think that London, as our capital, should treat this as a national problem, and that London should try to bear the burden of these unfortunate people. I would support my noble friend if he decides to press this Amendment.
5.22 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, briefly to answer one point, and one point only, made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, he said that the key words were "rehabilitation" and "re-housing".

697
With respect, that is no more than one of those comfortable clichés which sounds so well when you are sitting in an office or in front of a desk. But it is no use saying to a family, or to an individual, on one particular night, whether it is wet or dry, warm or cold, "We are interested in rehabilitating you. We are interested in re-housing you. That is our motive." The important thing for those people is that they should have shelter for that night. Of course, eventually they must be re-housed on a permanent basis. Eventually, if there is need for it, they must be rehabilitated—and it would be wrong to forget that. But the immediate need (and this is what we are dealing with to-day) is not this comfortable generalisation, but the actual method by which these individual people on that specific night can have a roof over their heads.
It will not be done by leaving it to the individual boroughs. As my noble friend Lord Shepherd has said, how can the individual boroughs of St. Pancras, of Marylebone, or wherever it may be, be expected to take on responsibility for all the people who come, not only to their boroughs but to the whole of London? They cannot do that, and it would be unreasonable for each borough to have
a suitable place to take whatever group of people may arrive, but which on many occasions will be standing completely empty. Manifestly, this is something which can be coped with by only two or three houses—Newington Lodge, and one or two others of that kind. That is sufficient. There is no need for every borough to have one. If we are simply to have two or three places provided, will it be the responsibility of the two or three boroughs in which the houses happen to be to look after these people, and the responsibility of the other boroughs to hunt around and find suitable places? Of course that is not the right way of doing it. Of course the logical, efficient, sensible way for anybody who is not wedded in a doctrinaire manner to every line, every dotted "i" and crossed "t" of this Bill as it stands, is to accept this Amendment. So I ask your Lordships to come with us into the Division Lobby, in the interests of those people who otherwise are going to be homeless on these unhappy occasions.
5.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 152) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24: Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Amwell, L.

Lawson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Listowel, E.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williams, L.

Henderson, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williamson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Ferrers, E.

Mills, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Milverton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Fortescue, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Aldington, L.

Gage, V.

Newton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Allerton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Poulett, E.

Amulree, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hastings, L.

Salisbury, M.

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

Salter, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandys, L.

Colyton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Sinha, L.

Conesford, L.

Jessel, L.

Somers, L.

Craigton, L.

Long, V.

Soulbury, V.

Denham, L.

Lothian, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Derwent, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Devonshire, D.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Swinton, E.

Dudley, E.

Margesson, V.

Teynham, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Eccles, L.

Mersey, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD CROOK LORD CROOK moved, in subsection (1), to leave out from the beginning down to and including the word "City" and to insert:
"(1) Subject to subsection (8) of this section, the Greater London Council as respects the area of the inner London boroughs and the City, and the council of each outer London borough as respects the area of the outer London boroughs, shall—"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, and with your Lordships' agreement would speak to it and also to Amendments 154, 156, 157, 158 and 159, the latter really being the main Amendment of the series. It is an Amendment which aims at a five-year period for what we term the ordinary delegation of the individual welfare services. There is no particular merit in the period of five years. It appears to us merely to be a reasonable, sensible period, and ever since it became clear that, whether we liked it or not, the Government intended to press on regardless with the provisions in this Bill to which we object, we, for our part, tried our best to see whether we could ease the position in respect of services which the Government are proposing to break up or disintegrate. In other words, if we cannot stop the things which we think are wrong coming to pass, we want to try to secure that the Government's actions are subject to a reasonable period, designed to provide a more orderly and sensible transition than is proposed in the Bill. So here we desire to secure that the responsibilities of the L C.C. which the Government propose to give to the new authorities shall be delegated to them in this sensible fashion.
We are proposing that the Greater London Council shall have responsibility for these vital services for a five-year period and during that five-year period they may gradually be delegated in this orderly fashion to the boroughs, and the transfer will be completed by the end of the period. If the Bill is left as it is, it seems to us to be quite inevitable that the problems caused by the transfer will take even longer, because in the situation which will arise the pressure on members of the authority and on the staff of the authority will divert their energies to the detriment of the service.
May I invite your Lordships to look for a minute at the task of the new authorities under the Bill as now drafted; their need to determine and
700
have ready for working a whole pattern of standing orders, committees, departmental and establishment structures. They will either have to retain existing staff or recruit new, and they will have to do that without any benefit of a central allocation and training arrangement on which the organisation depends to-day. They will have to prepare their estimate for the first year of active existence. If the timetable of the Bill as it is now submitted to your Lordships is carried out in the way envisaged it is our clear view that there must be a grave risk of breakdown in the welfare services of the entire London area. We shall hope to hear from the noble Lord what the justification is, because we did not hear it in Committee, but it is in fact far beyond our comprehension why the Government want to go ahead in this way. By doing so they are ignoring all the knowledge and experience of those at the L.C.C. who have dealt with these problems in the past. They have had practical experience in the complexity and difficulty of the transfer of functions, of which they had two experiences in 1948 when the problems were very simple compared with those facing the new Council of to-day.
What was then involved was integration and not fragmentation, for a start, and then the transfers that were being carried out were not transfers to new authorities just being created but to an already well-established authority, so we on this side of the House give this warning to the Government, based on the valuable experience of our friends of the L.C.C. It is that a balanced and coherent evaluation of these services of the county-wide welfare department of these thirteen new, separate authorities simply cannot be achieved by the 31st March, 1965, without serious detriment to the services involved. That, my Lords, would mean unjustified hardship to the old, to the homeless, to the handicapped and to all those others for whom the Council is at present under a statutory duty to provide.
During the last fourteen years, that is to say since the passage of the Assistance Act, 1948, the welfare services have been developed in relation to a county-wide need in the London area. To us, and I should hope to your Lordships on the other side of the House, it is manifest that these services cannot be recast in

701
an effective way in the short space of a year or so envisaged in the Bill as it now stands, and moreover, my Lords, recast to meet an entirely different set of circumstances.
So far I have not sought to say anything to your Lordships of the nature of the welfare services because I am sure most of your Lordships, by your attendance here and your knowledge of the task in general, will know the details, so I will not keep you unduly by describing them. To sum up, they are these. The single effective service of the London County Council, stemming almost entirely from the National Assistance Act, 1948, to which I referred, is to be broken up. Two new inner London boroughs and the City of London will be responsible for those services in their own area, and the fragmentation will result in the deterioration in the quality and extent of the services for years to come. We feel that our five years would smooth out the difficulties and give some help to avoid what the Government propose.
If the clause as now presented to your Lordships becomes law, there will, in our view, be a number of fundamental problems. That, we believe, will be true even if we assume two vital things. The first is that there is willing co-operation between the proposed new authorities, whether it is by an agency or by a joint arrangement. The second is that the Minister will be prepared during that four-year period to direct them, when necessary, to have regard to the overall London position rather than to their own local problems. Your Lordships all know of the valuable work which the L.C.C. has been doing for these people: the arrangements for residential accommodation for old people which we think may now be in jeopardy under these proposals; temporary accommodation for homeless families, which we were discussing a few moments ago; and specialised services for handicapped people under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, which we see likely to suffer deterioration under the Bill as it now stands.
Then there are the difficulties which we think will arise in the home visiting and community care arrangements which are now so well done. Further, there is the problem of the break-up of the London scheme for the rehabilitation of the blind, the problem of the work of
702
the Court of Protection (and I would remind your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Longford addressed your Lordships on that matter during Committee stage), and the provision of adequate transport for handicapped people, as to which one of my noble friends will be moving further Amendments shortly. We are not prepared to see any of these services die, nor are we prepared to see them reduced in quality or quantity from the level the people of London have come to expect and upon which they have been able to rely from the London County Council. We look for a continuation of them, and, in a desire to secure what we believe to be the orderly devolution of these functions, I beg to move this series of Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Crook.)
5.43 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken to Amendment No. 153 and the others which great reasonableness and sincerity, but I do not imagine he expects that on this occasion I shall be able to advise your Lordships to accept them. We debated exactly similar Amendments in Committee; earlier this afternoon we debated again similar Amendments which would delay transfer of the personal health services to the boroughs and provide for what the Amendment calls orderly delegation, in just the same way as these Amendments provide for delaying the transfer of the welfare services to the boroughs. We also debated in Committee a similar Amendment dealing with the personal health services.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that the Report stage should be abolished? Does he not recall that the purpose of Report stage is to see whether we agree with what we have done in Committee?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am not suggesting anything of the sort: far be it from me that I should. What I was going on to say was that, for that reason, the House clearly must be well aware by now of the general reasons why proposals of this kind are not acceptable to the Government. That is all. That is

703
what I am saying, and I do not want to weary the House by repeating at great length exactly the same arguments as those which I advanced when we were debating the first Amendment this afternoon.
I could understand it if the purpose of these Amendments were to secure that the welfare services in inner London were never to be transferred to the boroughs, but that would not be the effect. The effect of these Amendments would be merely to delay this transfer for anything up to five years. So the question that has to be decided is whether or not delay of something which is going to happen anyhow is a good or bad thing. What I have been concerned to argue this afternoon, as I argued in Committee, is that it would be a bad thing. It would add to the uncertainty already felt by staffs about their future. There would have to be, for this period of up to five years, duplication of staffs run by the Greater London Council and by the boroughs doing the same work in looking after the welfare services. And the day would eventually come, under these Amendments, when the headquarters staff of the greater London Council would find themselves in a position when they no longer had any work to do. No doubt if this Amendment were accepted that thought would be exercising these people for anything up to a period of five years.
Moreover, it seems to me that the lengthy negotiations entailed in the process of delegation would almost certainly lead to friction between the authorities—something which nobody would consider a good thing, but which, if it occurred, would prevent the development of the services, which is something we all want to see. We firmly believe—and I have said this often enough—that there would be full time before April 1, 1965, for all the necessary staff appointments and administrative arrangements to be made. If noble Lords opposite do not agree about that, then it must remain one of the issues of contention between us. There is very little more that I can say on the subject which might convince them, but I do not believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Crook, believes, that the clause as drafted will entail serious detriment to the services. Those, I think, were the words he used. Those are the
704
reasons why I am unable to-day, as I was unable in Committee, to accept these Amendments.
Before I sit down I should like to say something about the Court of Protection and receiverships to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred at Committee stage. There does not seem to the Government to be any reason why the great majority, if not all, of the existing receiverships should not be transferred to an officer of the appropriate new authority with effect from April, 1965. Should this not be possible in all cases, it would nevertheless be possible for the appropriate Minister (probably my right honourable friend the Minister of Health) to make an order under Clause 83 of the Bill providing for London boroughs to take over responsibility, under Section 49 of the National Assistance Act, for the expenses of any local authority officer acting as receiver for a person resident in their area, with a view to one of their officers taking over the actual receivership in due course. The volume of work involved should be little more than that necessary on the normal retirement of an officer holding a receivership. It will be up to the Court to ensure that the costs of the transfer do not fall on the patient's estate. That is all rather complicated, but I hope that when the noble Lord has had a chance to read what I have said he will find it satisfactory. But in general, I must again advise your Lordships that the Amendments are not acceptable.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, if I intervened it was because I am getting a little weary of the repeated statements of Ministers on that Front Bench, that we ought not to bring these things up on Report because they are the same things as we brought up in Committee.
LORD NEWTON: I did not say that, and I have never said that.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: That was the implication. There was a sort of irritation on the part of the noble Lord which I agree he keeps very well under control. But there was an indication of irritation, because we have brought up a somewhat similar Amendment to that which we brought up on

705
Committee, and argued about on Committee, when the noble Lord said his piece, as duly instructed, which ought to be the end of it. That is complete contempt for Parliamentary procedure. I have often made a joke, when I have been lecturing on British Parliamentary democracy, that we have a Report stage on the Floor largely to see whether we agree with what the same people did on Committee stage, which may also have been on the Floor. There are two purposes of the Report stage. One is to reconsider the situation as it emerged from Committee and to put down similar Amendments; the other is to produce other Amendments which were forgotten on Committee, or which have arisen since the Committee stage. It is one of the guarantees against hasty legislation that we should have a Report stage and that it should be useful as well as the Committee stage.
The noble Lord is talking a little like some of our extreme Left-wingers who think that legislation ought to be pushed through like a sausage-machine, with great speed—a view which I have never accepted. It is quite wrong. I do not mind him moving to the Left, but do not let him move too far and irresponsibly to the foolish Left. That is not good. Therefore the Report stage means something. It means that we are examining what the Committee have done, and seeing whether we agree with what we did, even though we are the same people, and we can think of new things which ought to be done. Some of these Amendments which have been moved, although they are on the same subject, have been modified since the Committee stage.
LORD STONHAM: Some have been accepted.
LORD NEWTON: Not these.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am not saying that they are. But, of course, that is a crime, from the point of view of the noble Lord, who says that we have no right on the Report stage to bring up the same Amendment and the same argument as we did on Committee. The trouble is that the noble Lord cannot think of a new argument. It is the same argument which the Government have duplicated, so that they have a copy
706
available for the Report stage as well as for the Committee stage.
This is a sensible Amendment, as I think the other one was. It deals with a number of difficult, tricky social problems. Let us take the homeless, with whom the Tory Press were sympathising. There was a great outcry about the homeless in London, and it was right that there should be. I object to Tory reactionary newspapers suddenly trying to look progressive, especially if it will not cost them anything and there is a Labour L.C.C. But it was a tricky business. Largely as a consequence of the Rent Act of the present Home Secretary, who is a choice reactionary in this Government (I do not know who is the most reactionary, but he is a reactionary) a great number of people were pushed out of their homes, and some of that is still going on. There is a case in Bermondsey which is now being reported in the papers, in which my honourable friend Mr. Mellish is taking an active part. Property has been purchased by somebody else and things have got out of control, so the whole street has been given notice to quit and the poor things are worried to death. These things happen largely, though not entirely, because of the Tory Rent Act.
These homeless folks are a mixed lot. Some of them are tramps, or semi-tramps, who come along at night. But they are a most interesting lot of people. They believe in individualism. They are Tory anarchists. They do not want to live a regular, regulated life. I understand the point of view, though it does not appeal to me. They are one problem. Then there are these very respectable people who were pushed out of their homes by grasping, selfish Tory landlords, under a Tory Act of Parliament brought in by the present Home Secretary. Most of them were decent respectable people, and it greatly strained the resources of the L.C.C. to find them accommodation. They could not easily put them straight away into council houses, cottages or flats, because that would mean "jumping" the queue of people who had been waiting for a long time to get accommodation. But they did their best, being barked at the heels by the Tory Press, and by some so-called social workers, who love being condescending to the poor and at the

707
same time having a side "dig" at the Labour majority on the London County Council.
But I assure the House, and the House should know, that it was a very difficult and complicated problem which strained the council's resources. And it is not as if responsibility under the Bill is being equally distributed over the county, let alone the Greater London Council. The noble Lord, Lard Newton, implied that he would prefer an Amendment to apply to the whole of Greater London—let the Greater London Council do the lot! I am inclined to think that he is right. If he will give me a promise that he will put such an Amendment down on Third Reading, we will consider it. It is not that we want to be difficult about that; we shall have plenty of other arguments on our hands. But it is so foolish. It seems to us that to put this task on to the boroughs will land them with a headache, especially if they get it all at once.
Then it is going to cost the boroughs a bit—and the boroughs it will cost most are the poorer boroughs of inner London. They will have to bear the bigger financial burden. The County Council have for some time been doing it pretty well—not perfectly, because it cannot be done perfectly, but pretty well. Therefore we have to face the fact that, before the date when the Act effectively comes into operation, or at the date when the Act comes into operation, these boroughs will have to take on this difficult complicated task, with all the financial burden involved. We do not think they ought to have to take it on at all, not because we are anti-borough, but because we want to have the right authority for the appropriate function.
My noble friend Lord Crook has come along with a modified compromise, which shows how reasonable we are. It shows how we are willing to modify and compromise if there is a method which we think would do it, not perfectly, but better than would otherwise be the case. Surely it would be wiser on this difficult business for there to be a transition period; what Sidney Webb preached to the Socialists about "the inevitability of gradualness." It is no good preaching that to these Tories. They are in favour of the inevitability of sudden revolution.
708
They are a funny lot of Tories. It would be better if this were done gradually over a period of not more than five years, so that there could be steady consultation, and the functions could be transferred bit by bit, with the boroughs having plenty of time to get ready to take it on. That is really sensible.
My noble friend Lord Crook has a good sense of public administration; so good that he ought to be sitting on the Bench opposite—though not in the present Government—and they ought not to be sitting there. They have no sense at all of public administration. Somebody said that they would not trust us to run a whelk-stall. Well, after their exhibition on this Bill, I would not trust them to run a whelk-stall. This Amendment is a sensible compromise. It does not destroy the Government's fundamental wish, but it does say that there should be a transition so that this can be done gradually and better than would otherwise be the case.
I see the Minister of State, Home Office, giving all the indications that he is coming to the rescue of his noble friend. I do not mind that: I think it is desirable that one comrade should help another comrade out of his difficulties. But I hope he will meet the argument—not so much the argument of the fundamental point as the argument for a transitional period. The thing can be done in a more orderly and constructive way and the result, though imperfect, will be more perfect than will otherwise be the case. We shall be very glad to hear the the Minister of State, Home Office, say that, on reflection, and after consideration after having heard my noble friend's speech, and after having heard my own, he now sees the point and will accept the Amendment.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I propose to deal with only one point that has been made by the noble Lord in his discursive oration. He complained that some noble Lords on this side have suggested that it is undesirable that at the Report stage the arguments which have been heard in the Committee stage should be repeated. The noble Lord, whom I knew well in another place as one who had a great capacity for getting Government business through and often imposed the guillotine in 1945 to make certain that legislation was passed in

709
time, should really bear in mind that the procedure in this House is very different from what it is in another place. I venture to say this to him because he has not been here very much longer than I have.
Now the case of a Report stage in another place differs from a Report stage here in three ways. In the first place, a large number of Committee stages are taken upstairs, and the Report stage is the only stage at which it is possible for the House as a whole to revise decisions which have been taken by a Standing Committee upstairs. In the second place, there can be a timetable in the other place which prevents unnecessary delay and repetition. In the third place, there is in the other place a power of selection by the Chair, and an Amendment which was merely repeating something which had been raised and fully dealt with during the Committee stage would not be likely to be selected. For all those reasons, and because this is a place where we try to impose restraint upon ourselves, because restraint cannot be imposed upon us by the Chair, I suggest that for anyone in this House to argue the same point again on Report stage as has been fully argued already upon Committee stage is, if not an abuse of the procedure of the House, at any rate a great burden upon the patience of noble Lords.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Before the noble Lord sits down—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: —I want to ask him a question. I think that is in order. May I ask the noble Lord whether it is not the case that, if you have a guillotine in the other place, then that hampers the Report stage inevitably, and the Chair has to be more selective, as has the Opposition. Therefore, it is different, and not the same as it is here. As for guillotines—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: —this Government has practised much more guillotining than ever the Labour Government did, and particularly on this Bill.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, if nobody else has anything to say I can only thank
710
both noble Lords on the other side who have spoken, as well as thanking my noble friend for supporting me on this side. I was not quite clear, when the noble Lord, Lord Molson, intervened, whether he was himself trying to take the line of advocating that there ought to be new Rules in this House. He seemed to be critical of the Rules which at present exist, but, of course, he can pursue that elsewhere.
LORD MOLSON: No; merely of the lack of self-restraint.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Order, order!
LORD CROOK: With regard to the reply which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, gave, may I say that he had some doubt in his mind whether what he had to say about the receivership and the court was so put that it could be easily understood. May I thank him and say that it was so put that it was able to be followed, although I shall read it again, obviously, in the morning. I think I understand it enough to say that I found it about the only piece of his speech which was acceptable. So far as the remainder is concerned, I really feel that the noble Lord gave a reply which is related, not to the realities of the Amendment but to the realities of things which the Government themselves have been thinking all along. The noble Lord suggested that if the Amendments were accepted the problem to be faced was whether delay was good or bad, whether there would not be new uncertainty added to the position of staff, and then he went on to say that the day would eventually come when suddenly the central authority staffs would find themselves without work.
My Lords, we have never suggested anything of the sort in Amendment No. 159, as you will see if you read it again with care. Because I was trying to deploy new arguments and not to say the same thing here that was said in Committee, I did not go over the details of the Amendment, but I must remind the Government that what they suggest is, first of all, that there should be consultation by the G.L.C. with the council of each inner London borough and the Common Council. Then all that they do is prepare a scheme or schemes which they put up. The schemes are for

711
orderly delegation, and "orderly delegation" does not mean that you say, "For five years you can carry on with that, but then the chopper comes down and it comes to an end". In case it did say that, subsection (9) goes on to say that the proposals as to the manner in which the delegation and transfer shall be effected shall go to the Minister who, after consultation with the Greater London Council and the council of any borough affected, will, by regulation, him
6.15 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after Clause 46, to insert the following new clause:
Transport service for handicapped people
".—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (6) of the last preceding section, it shall be the duty of the Greater London Council to make provision on and after 1st April 1965 for securing that adequate means of transport are available in Greater London for the conveyance of physically handicapped persons under the provisions of section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948; and accordingly so far as concerns the duty imposed on it by this subsection that Council shall be a local authority for the purposes of that Act.
self give effect to the scheme, either with or without modification. Now I do not find that a recognisable thing compared with what the noble Lord tried to suggest had been moved by us; and, in all the circumstances, I am bound to ask my noble friends to join me in the Division Lobby.
6.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 153) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lawson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Burton of Coventry, B.

Listowel, E.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E.

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williams, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Williamson, L.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Eccles, L.

Mills, V.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

Molson, L.

Aldington, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Newton, L.

Allerton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Ogmore, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gage, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Oswald, L.

Astor, V.

Grenfell, L.

Salisbury, M.

Auckland, L.

Hacking, L.

Sandford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hailsham, V. (L. President)

Sandys, L.

Carrington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sinha, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hastings, L.

Somers, L.

Chesham, L.

Hawke, L.

Soulbury, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigton, L.

Jessel, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

De La Warr, E.

Lothian, M.

Swansea, L.

Denham, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Swinton, E.

Derwent, L.

Margesson, V.

Teynham, L.

Devonshire, D.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Middleton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

(2) On 1st April 1965 there shall vest in the Greater London Council all motor vehicles which immediately before that date were held by the London County Council for the purposes of their functions under the said section 29.
(3) The Greater London Council shall have power to make available for reward any vehicle used in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section.
Provided that for the purposes of Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1960 any vehicle so used shall not be treated as carrying passengers for hire or reward."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 160 and to draw to the attention of the Government the fact that there has been a change in the bowling. As they are now on a particularly sticky wicket we shall hope for better results from this Amendment.

713
The first paragraph of the Amendment requires that
"it shall be the duty of the Greater London Council"
to secure
"that adequate means of transport are available in Greater London for the conveyance of physically-handicapped persons …"
It also requires that the Council shall be a local authority for the purposes of the National Assistance Act, 1948. If noble Lords will look at Clause 46(6), to which my Amendment refers, they will see that it lays down that:
"It shall be the duty of each London borough council and of the Common Council to continue to provide … services and facilities for disabled persons …".
And at the end of subsection (6) is added:
"and any such schemes in force immediately before that date shall continue in force until revoked or modified by further schemes …".
At present the only scheme in force for the transport of disabled persons by a local authority in the County of London is that run by the L.C.C. This Amendment asks that the Greater London Council shall be treated as a local authority for this purpose and therefore that there shall be this right to continue the service which is in existence. I do not doubt that the noble Lord who is to reply will feel, even if he is much too polite to say so, that he has already heard and answered this argument with regard to a variety of services on a variety of Amendments. But there are particular reasons why this particular service should remain, as it were, in one piece. It is not a very large service. By March 31, 1965, the fleet that the London County Council will then have will total 26 special purpose vehicles; 19 of those will be special coaches with hydraulic lifts and 7 will be utility buses. Divide 26 by 12 and it works out at about 2 vehicles for each borough.
The noble Lord will be aware that it cannot possibly be economic or efficient in a completely built-up area such as the one we are considering—although it will consist of 12 boroughs—to split up what is purely, simply and solely a transport service for physically handicapped people into twelve different parts. If the noble Lord who is to reply disagrees with me I would ask him to say why he does so, because I think that this time these questions must be answered effectively if
714
the Government are not going to accept this Amendment. The second point arising out of that is that the workshops, training centres and schools to where these physically handicapped people go from their homes are not evenly distributed throughout the County of London; these people will have to continue to be transported from their homes in the new boroughs to areas across the borough boundaries. There cannot possibly be any argument about this and, again, if the noble Lord disagrees I would ask him to say why.
It means that it is impossible to regard this transport service as one which is confined within any single borough. Inevitably it must continue to transport people over the whole of the greater part of London. Therefore, I would have thought it inevitable, even if we visualise splitting London up, stupidly and expensively, into twelve different units for this comparatively small number of people, that there will have to be co-operative arrangements between the twelve London boroughs for picking up people from one borough and taking them to a workshop or training centre in another. It seems to me to be common sense to say that the service which now exists and which does not call for all these elaborate co-operative arrangements, because it is already one service with one headquarters and one office, to which people can apply for help and with which doctors, social workers and hospital almoners can get in touch when they want a disabled person helped, should be continued. It is not only a question of the carriage of disabled people, but also of information about the service being available at one place.
With regard to the 26 vehicles which I mentioned, the L.C.C. drivers are provided from the Council's large pool of school vehicles. In this way, without a great increase of staff, they are able to cover evening and week-end work and sickness relief. I submit that such would be the incidence of mechanical breakdowns and staff sickness that if the whole fleet of 26 vehicles were divided among the twelve authorities there would be many occasions when the staff would not be large enough and the bus or coach would not arrive, entailing grievous disappointment and unhappiness to handicapped people and setting back the rehabilitation effort.
I submit that this is an exact parallel with the ambulance service. The clause I am now moving suggests the continued operation of this transport service almost exactly on the lines of the ambulance service, which is being continued by the Government in this Bill. Therefore, I would address this third question to the noble Lord. If he is not going to accept this Amendment, would he say what is the difference in principle between what is now in operation, which I am proposing to continue, and the ambulance service? Why should conveying people who are ill or suddenly injured by ambulances be so different from conveying people who have a permanent physical handicap by vehicles from a common pool? It seems impossible to me that it can be argued that there is a difference in principle between these two services.
Whatever justification the Government may put forward, it cannot have been thought out clearly. It seems to me unthinkable that an inner London borough which on April 1, 1965, will have no transport system in force for the conveyance of physically handicapped people, should be required to continue that situation while the L.C.C. transport unit is required by law to discontinue the service which is in existence but which they will no longer be allowed to provide. I would address my fourth question to the noble Lord. If he is not going to accept this Amendment, will he explain how, on April 1, 1965, there will be a service in being for the transport of these disabled people? I cannot see it happening. I challenge the noble Lord to dispute that, in the aggregate, it will be much more costly in vehicles and in men if every borough has to provide its own service.
The only other observation I have to make about this new clause is in regard to subsection (3), which would have the effect of exempting the Greater London Council from the need to arrange for a public service vehicle licence under Section 127 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, should it wish to loan one of its vehicles to a voluntary society and to recover from that society a part of the running costs. Under Section 118, subsections (4), (5) and (6) of the 1960 Act, vehicles used by a local education authority or under the National Health Service (Amendment) Act, 1957, which
716
relates to the use of ambulances for hire or reward or for carrying agricultural workers to or from work, are exempted from the need to obtain a public service vehicle licence, although persons are carried on those vehicles for hire or reward. It is submitted that these vehicles used for carrying physically handicapped people should benefit from a similar exemption. Subsection (3) is of lesser importance but it has some force.
I feel that the clause as a whole is one which should certainly succeed on its merits. I hope, in any case, that the noble Lord will attempt to answer all the questions I have put to him, which arise directly out of the clause and the remarks I have made in support of it, and which have not yet been answered at any previous stage of the Bill either in this House or in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 46, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stonham.)
6.30 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, in the course of my speech on this Amendment in Committee I made some observations about the alleged analogy with the ambulance service, and I think that what I said on that occasion is as relevant today as it was then. Also in my speech in Committee I said that we recognised that in some cases it may be suitable that joint arrangements should be made for what is a specialised transport service. We certainly accept that it is not likely to be suitable, and may not be economic, for every new London borough to attempt to provide its own specialised transport, and that some measure of sharing will be needed, at any rate when the Bill first comes into operation. On the other hand, sharing may not be necessary for every new borough. For example, East and West Ham, which will be combined in the new borough No. 17, may wish to continue to provide a self-contained service as at the present time; and similar considerations may apply in the case of new borough No. 20, which will include Croydon. That is one reason why I do not think we should literally lay down the law about these possible arrangements in the Bill.
In any case, I think it would be premature to make specific provision in the

717
Bill for what the arrangements should be. This is one of the many subjects which needs detailed consideration, including a review of the present arrangements, not only in the L.C.C. area, but in the rest of Greater London. Without such detailed investigation, I cannot accept that the Greater London Council are necessarily the right authority to administer this transport service for the whole of the Greater London area. But, as I said in Committee, there is nothing in the Bill to stop them from providing this service over the whole area if that is what the boroughs would like and if agreement is reached about it. Sharing between groups of boroughs may well turn out to be the most suitable arrangement.
LORD STONHAM: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, since he will not be able to speak again. He says there is nothing in the Bill to stop them—
LORD NEWTON: Nothing in the Bill to stop the Greater London Council acting as an agent for all the London boroughs.
LORD STONHAM: Can the noble Lord say whether there is anything in the Bill that would permit them to act as an agent?
LORD NEWTON: If there is nothing to stop them doing it, there is no reason why they should not do it. That is one of the things left open in the Bill; it is a possibility. I think I made that clear when I was speaking in Committee. But, as I say, it may well be that sharing between groups of boroughs may be the most suitable arrangement; and I have already mentioned the possibility that East and West Ham may wish to have their own arrangement.
The extent to which the new boroughs will own and use vehicles for other purposes, apart from transporting physically handicapped people, is also a relevant consideration, from the point of view of having a pool of drivers and arrangements for servicing. In any case we feel that the legal responsibility for providing transport for the physically handicapped should be with the boroughs, as part of their responsibilities under Section 29, and that any sharing arrangements should, therefore, be on an agency basis, with each borough contributing its proper
718
share of the cost in accordance with the extent of its use of the transport.
In the course of his speech in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, suggested that the decision on what the arrangements should be ought not to be left to the choice of each new borough but should be written into the Bill, because he was afraid there might be disagreement and lengthy argument. Perhaps I could have the attention of the noble Lord: I was referring to one of his arguments in Committee. He was arguing that unless particular provisions were written into the Bill, there might be disagreement and lengthy argument, and that the services would not be provided. But the decision will not be left entirely to the new boroughs, though their views must be sought and taken into account.
The arrangements for the transfer of existing vehicles—that is to say, those owned by the London County Council and by the Middlesex County Council, and other existing counties and county boroughs involved in the reorganisation of Greater London—will need to be determined under an order made by the Minister under Clause 83 of the Bill. The Minister will have to be satisfied that the arrangements are both efficient and economical. This is one of the many administrative questions that will be considered and decided during the period of over a year and a half between the passing of the Bill and its coming into operation in April, 1965. I believe that arrangements of this kind, and, indeed, all the other arrangements, will be able to be made satisfactorily in the time. While I do not think there is any great difference between the noble Lord and myself on this matter, I suggest to him that it is premature to seek to determine in this Bill exactly what the arrangements should be, and that there ought to be discussion between the existing and future authorities before any sort of final decision can be taken.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for what I regard as a helpful reply, and one in which he attempted to answer all the questions I put to him. I am, however, still left very uneasy about the situation. It was at least helpful to have agreement that it is not likely to be economic for every borough to have

719
its own transport service. There will be a need, he thought, to share, which seems to me to be agreeing with the unanswerable facts of the situation as it most certainly will be. But then, in opposing the Amendment, he seemed to place some reliance on the fact that the boroughs of East and West Ham might like to continue their existing service. That illustrates my point: that it will be so much better for the Greater London Council to continue the service which the London County Council is at present running—and for this reason.
The Borough of West Ham, as the noble Lord is doubtless aware, has its own workshops for the blind. In that it is singular among London boroughs. Therefore, it has its own transport service. It is as simple as that. If you go to other areas where there are workshops for the blind, the one in Salisbury Road, Kilburn, for example, is run by a charity; the one in Waterloo Road is run by a charity; that in South London is the Royal London Society for the Blind, and so on. They are not municipal workshops for the blind and, therefore, have not their own transport. So that the one example the noble Lord picked out, of East and West Ham, happens to be the one place where there are municipal workshops and, therefore, a municipal transport service for them and for other physically handicapped people. Of course we should be agreeable to those two boroughs, when they are joined in one, running this existing service, and there is absolutely nothing in my Amendment which would conflict with that or would prevent them from doing so.
The noble Lord will be aware that I have some knowledge of the needs of disabled people. I have worked for them all my adult life, and I would not be advocating what I am now saying from complete ignorance or without any knowledge at all, merely using a brief. These are the facts that are known to me, and that is why I am putting them forward and pressing them. The noble Lord said—and I interrupted him, hoping he would go a little further—that there is nothing in the Bill to stop the Greater London Council from running a service of this kind if the boroughs want it—or words to that effect.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, if I may interrupt, I went on to say that, because there was nothing to stop the G.L.C. acting as agent for all the boroughs, therefore it followed that they had power to do so, and in fact the power to do just that is in Clause 5(3).
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. What I am going to say is robbed of some of its effect by his interruption, but the first words of my proposed new clause are:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (6) of the last preceding section, it shall be the duty of the Greater London Council to make provision …"
I should have thought that that made the position even more clear. The noble Lord said that the decision will not be left entirely to the boroughs; that arrangements for the eventual transfer will be determined under an order which the Minister will have to make under this Bill, and that he will have to be satisfied that the arrangements proposed are satisfactory. It is that kind of provision and that kind of assurance which fills us with considerable concern, because what will happen without this clause is that we should then be presented with a fait accompli. The Minister will consider this, and it means—I have to say it quite frankly—that the same people who are advising the noble Lord to resist this clause will be advising the Minister with regard to what is satisfactory or what is not with regard to the proposed arrangements. I am bound to say that that is not satisfactory to me or to my noble friends, who would prefer this clause included in the Bill. Grateful as I am to the noble Lord for his efforts in this matter, I am afraid that I must ask my noble friends to support me in the Lobby.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, say one thing? The noble Lord said that he objects to the Minister having an ultimate decision over certain things because it would be presenting a fait accompli. A fait accompli is exactly what the noble Lord is presenting in his Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: Except (if I may reply to that) the accomplished fact that what we have now is an efficient service adequate for the needs of the disabled;

721
a service which is doing a job perfectly, and which one wants to ensure is not disrupted. That is something with which everybody is satisfied, and it is the purpose of this Amendment to see that it continues.
Clause 47 [Children authorities]:
6.52 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to leave out subsections (1) and (2), and to insert:
"(1) As from 1st April 1965, the functions of local authorities under the enactments to which this section applies shall be exercised—

(a) in relation to any outer London borough, by the council of that borough;

(b) in relation, to the remainder of Greater London (which remainder shall be known as the Inner London Children Area) by the Greater London Council acting by means of a special committee thereof constituted as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section

and the Greater London Council, when acting as aforesaid as the local children authority for the said area, shall, except for the purposes of any document of title, be known as the Inner London Children Authority, and any reference in this or any other Act to a member or officer of that Authority or, in relation to that Authority, to a member or officer of a local children authority shall be construed as a reference to a member or officer of the special committee aforesaid.
(2) The special committee aforesaid shall consist of—

(a) such of the Councillors of the Greater London Council as have been elected by

6.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 160) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lawson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Somers, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Longford, E.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Crook, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Swanborough, B.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Walston, L.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Williams, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Eccles, L.

Margesson, V.

Albemarle, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Allerton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Forstar of Harraby, L.

Middleton, L.

Amulree, L.

Fortescue, E.

Molson, L.

Auckland, L.

Gage, V.

Newton, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Goschon, V, [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bridgeman, V.

Grenfell, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Carrington, L.

Hacking, L.

Salisbury, M.

Chelmer, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President)

Sandford, L.

Chesham, L.

Hanworth, V,

Sandys, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hastings, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Conesford, L.

Hawke, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Craigton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Swansea, L.

De La Warr, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Swinton, L.

Denham, L.

Jessel, L.

Teynham, L.

Derwent, L.

Lothian, M.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ebbisham, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Resolved in the Negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

local government electors for an inner London borough or the City;
(b) one representative of each inner London borough council appointed by that borough council from among the members thereof;
(c) one representative of the Common Council appointed by the Common Council from among the members thereof;
and any person appointed in pursuance of paragraph (b) or (c) of this subsection shall, unless re-appointed, retire on the fourteenth day after the ordinary day of retirement of London borough councillors falling next, after his appointment, but may resign his membership of the Inner London Children Authority at any time by notice in writing to the clerk of the council by whom he was appointed thereto.
(3) The Greater London Council shall not act by means of the special committee aforesaid for the purpose of issuing any precept or borrowing any money, but shall so act for the purpose of determining—

(a) the amount for which the Council are to precept upon rating authorities in the Inner London Children Area in respect of expenditure of the Inner London Children Authority; and

(b) what amount, if any, is to be borrowed by the Council in respect of such expenditure,

and for the purpose of any appointment falling to be made by the local children authority."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 161. I was very much struck by a phrase used by my noble friend Lord Longford on the Committee stage when (referring to the mentally handicapped) he spoke of the "silent people". I do not suppose that is a phrase that one could relate to children but, in some respects, of course, it is true. Children are extremely noisy, but they are unable, in some cases to express their preferences; and, of course, they have not reached an age when they can make their own choice. There are 9,000 children in London who have either been deserted by their parents or, perhaps because of the circumstances of their homes, have been removed from the custody of their parents. These children need a new guide line. This is provided for them by the child welfare officers, about whom one hears very little but who in fact take over the rôle of the parent. On the Committee stage my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger moved an Amendment in similar terms. She spoke with her usual eloquence and I think the Committee and any of those who heard her would have been struck by the sincerity of her words.
My Lords, we are dealing with a very tragic case. The Bill, under Clauses 47 and 92, will remove these 9,000 children from the custody and protection of an authority—by which I mean the officers of the authority, who, as I said earlier, are the alternative parents. The Landon County Council themselves have raised a series of objections to the Government proposal, but they are not the only authority that has done so. Perhaps one could write off the opinion of the London County Council, in that they are politically opposed to the Government: that they have been opposed throughout to all the provisions of this Bill. But other authorities, themselves intimately connected with children, have also rejected the Government provision. The Surrey County Council in their Blue Book, which perhaps most noble Lords have received, say on page 13:
"So far as the children's service is concerned, the difficulties are so pronounced as to call in question whether the service is really workable on the basis proposed by Her Majesty's Government."
I mentioned 9,000 children, which is the size of the problem in London. It
724
is a problem which, regrettably, continues to increase. I will not go into the reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, speaking from the Cross-Benches on the Committee stage, I think, spoke in some way of criticism of the London County Council's record in what he referred to as "boarding out". He was referring to children in need of care who are boarded out with foster parents. We on this side of the House share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and other noble Lords opposite that, where it is possible, it is far better for a child who is in need of care, and who no longer has a parent upon whom to rely, to be placed in a foster home, where it can be brought up within the environment and with all the customs of a home.
The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, referred to the record in London where 23 per cent., of the children in care were in foster homes, as compared with the proportion of 46 per cent. in the rest of the country. That, in itself, when one quotes figures, would be one criticism. But I think it is right at this stage of the Bill to point out that in the case of London 12·2 per thousand of all children in the Greater London area are, in fact, in care, whereas the proportion in the rest of the country is only half that figure. The difference is due, of course, to the abnormal living conditions, the congestion, and many other factors. One could well say, when one considers the problem of finding foster homes, that the record of the London County Council in this respect, as well as the records of the Surrey and Essex County Councils, both of whom at present have areas within the metropolis, are very good indeed. In fact, I think it is surprising that they have been able to attain such a figure.
We reject the Government proposition on a number of points, and I wish once again (and I hope that I shall not be accused of repetition; because this is a stage of the Bill when we are dealing with a very human matter, and if what we believe is true then we must continue to say it) to make this point. The child care officers—the field officers, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe described them at the Committee stage—and the officers of the residential staff, those who run and organise the homes, are colleagues—and I would stress that

725
word "colleagues". They are part of one service. They work to one end for the benefit of the children in their care. At present (I think my figures are correct), if the provisions go through, nine children out of ten will, in fact, be in establishments run by a different authority and possibly situated in a different area from that from which they originally came. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, at Committee stage stressed the importance of the field officer, and I think he was quite right. He is the person who looks into the problems of the family, keeps the connection—I think this is important—if it is possible, between the child in care and the parents, working in the end not only for the betterment of the child but also perhaps for a reconciliation, the final bringing together of the family.
In the area which we wish to see remain there are to-day nine separate offices staffed by field officers. The Government say that if we place these in the hands of the boroughs we shall extend the number of offices or authorities to twelve; therefore we are only dealing with a marginal increase in the sphere of operation. I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will agree with me that in the case of the London County Council there is one service, one administration, one guiding principle, whereas in the case of the boroughs we may well see growing up—it is unfortunate but I believe it will happen—rather rigid and watertight areas and responsibilities. We may not see the same flexibility and the same approach that one is able to obtain by one particular service, and that is the first point I would ask the noble Earl to give his attention to.
I well recognise that when the initial transitional period is overcome there may well be some advantage in having the borough with its child welfare officer operating. Certainly he or she would know the particular district and the particular environment and particular problems of the area. But we must not forget that so far as the children are concerned this transitional period will last four, five or six years, years in which the characters of the present 9,000 children in care will be established; and perhaps if unfortunately they lose the contact and the confidence they have in the officer looking after them it may well affect their character. Therefore we
726
must take into account that, because of the Government's proposals, for the transitional period we may have tragic consequences of that reshuffle.
I think this is a point which the Government cannot just ride over. It may be that the proposals appear to be tidy but, as I said earlier, we are dealing with a human factor—these 9,000 children. I would suggest—and I am sure there are many noble Lords opposite who will agree with me—that the officers of the present service have in fact established the right contact with the children and perhaps it would be disastrous to have a break, particularly when one takes account of the already broken family.
The third point I wish to make to the noble Earl is this. The new boroughs will have a restricted area and perhaps a lack of social balance. They may have difficulty in finding the right types of residential accommodation and, in particular, foster homes, and I should like to deal with this question separately. In Borough 5 (that is, Stepney and others) there are 1,100 children in care. In the case of Liverpool, which is no doubt a county borough that the noble Earl would quote, about the same number of children are in care. But I would ask your Lordships to consider the position of these two boroughs, if the Government ask us to compare like with like. In the case of Liverpool the area of the borough is eight times the area of Borough 5. From that it will be seen that Liverpool obviously has a greater area and perhaps a greater potential of housing for providing the foster homes or other accommodation, housing and space for the children who are to be kept in an institution.
Perhaps a factor of greater significance, if one contrasts these two boroughs, is that in the case of Liverpool once one gets beyond the built-up area one comes into the country districts, and I think the noble Earl will agree it is infinitely easier to find a foster parent in the country districts than it is in a built-up area. The answer is obvious, of course: in most houses in a built-up area the family is already congested, while in the country things are easier. Therefore, in the case of Liverpool they have these country districts upon which they can call for foster homes, and this is an advantage

727
which would not be available to Borough 5.
The other point I would ask the noble Earl to consider is the fact that this new authority—and they are new, really; fourteen years, I think, is the age of the child service of the London County Council—have passed the stage of laying down their foundations. They are already planning for the future. They have in fact during this period of fourteen years created 120 new small homes, on which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, placed so much stress, with which I thoroughly agree. But, if the Government's suggestions go through, these plans will be set aside. I would ask the noble Earl this—and this is a point to which he must reply: is he satisfied, in particular, that the inner London boroughs, taking into account the already severe congestion, the severe problem of trying to provide residential accommodation, will be able to provide within their area the accommodation, the buildings and all the other types of services that are so essential if the children are to be brought up properly? I have taken advice, not from the London County Council alone but from other authorities. I am satisfied that the boroughs themselves, and in particular the inner boroughs, will not be able, not because they are unwilling but because of the circumstances of the borough, to match the type of progress that is already planned by the London County Council and also the other authorities outside.
The other point I wish to put to the noble Earl is this. Following the passing of responsibility to twelve boroughs we shall lose flexibility in regard to staff. At the present moment, because we have a big authority employing a wide range of experts and specialists in child matters, it is possible for us at very short notice to be able to move a person from one area to another to meet a crisis. I was told only this afternoon of the case of a remand home in the London County Council area where the superintendent fell sick suddenly. It was possible, because of this flexibility within the London County Council area, to move a specialist into that remand home to take charge, and there was no breakdown in the administration of that particular home. Can this House really believe that the
728
resources of a borough authority would be sufficient to give that flexibility? In the case of the remand home you cannot substitute any person; you have to put in somebody who can provide discipline and who has an understanding of the particular inmates. When one is dealing with children who are handicapped, in the sense not that they are mentally ill but are deprived of some particular understanding, you cannot just put in anybody to run the home; you need to have a specialist available.
Another point which I should like to make to the noble Earl is this—I apologise for speaking at such length, but my noble friends and I take the view that this is one of the most important Amendments to the Bill. Because of its size, the Council have been able to develop a first-class training scheme. They have persons who are able to provide education and instruction, as a result of which one is able to obtain first-class staff. Again, because of their flexibility and numbers of officers they are able to release officers in order to take other types of training outside the London County Council area—they may perhaps go to the course that is run by the Home Office. Can we really believe that inner London boroughs, whose resources will normally be stretched to the maximum, will be able to give freely to these particular officers the time to carry out their course? Do your Lordships really believe that the boroughs themselves will be able to provide the same wide range of instruction? I would suggest that the consequence of the Government proposals will be that we may well have to fall back upon the Home Office to increase their opportunities of instruction. I think it would be a tragic circumstance if we lost all that the London County Council have been able to develop in the last fourteen years.
There is one other factor which my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger raised on the Committee stage, dealing with children who come within the ambit of the juvenile court. At the moment it is possible, because there is one centre, to obtain quickly full information on the background not only of the child but of its performance at school, and also the circumstances and the character of its parents. It is obvious that the magistrate will base on that type of information his decision as to what should happen. If

729
there is more than one authority, we may well find that the magistrate will require various other boroughs to provide the same sort of information. This may well require the child to be kept longer in remand than is at present the case.
A further point which I should bring to the attention of the noble Lord is that obviously the practices and policies will vary from one borough to another. We have discussed many times in regard to weights and measures and shops and offices the question of trying to get the same sort of standard. In the case of shops and offices, the Government agreed to set up a central inspectorate to obtain a uniform standard. But there is no such proposal in this Bill. Therefore we may well see various boroughs adopting different attitudes and different policies. What is going to be the consequence on the parents of a child where, in one particular borough, one attitude or decision, or even type of advice to be given, may be decided on, and it will be different in another borough? I think that is something which we should most carefully consider.
One other point I have to put to the noble Earl. I think that he, as the Minister who was responsible and who did so ably in your Lordships' House in regard to the Children and Young Persons Bill, would be one of the first to recognise the contribution that was made to this children's service by the London County Council. Because of their authority, their responsibility and their proven attitude to this duty, they were able to provide the Minister with such information and such advice that he played an important part in that particular Bill. We greatly regret the fact that the Government have decided—I hope they may change their minds this evening—to break up this wonderful children's service.
The noble Earl is one Minister who really does his homework. He not only does it at home, but he goes out and sees what is happening in the field. I think he will agree with me that in the children's service of the London County Council a wide field of specialist measures are provided for the children. On the one hand, you have the foster home. Then you have the family group home, to which the noble Earl paid so much attention. The London County Council have been able to go one stage further.
730
They are able to provide special homes for children who, while not being subnormal, require a little more attention than other children. In this way they are able to be segregated.
Apart from what the authority do, they seek the support of the voluntary bodies who provide homes for the children. I think the House would agree with me that we should pay tribute to those various bodies. At the present stage in the London area the London County Council are able to make one contract, one agreement, with a particular body, whether it is the Salvation Army or some other body. There is one contract, one agreement, one understanding. With twelve boroughs it means that there will be twelve different agreements, twelve sets of negotiations and perhaps there may well be a little competition between one authority and another to find a home. Perhaps the worst aspect of this is that there may be twelve different children's officers representing the boroughs, visiting every home in order to see twelve children from different boroughs. Is it fair to the authority running the school or home? Is it fair, having regard to the background of the children in the home? I cannot believe that it is.
I can well see that the Government wished to create a new structure of government in London. I concede that in some aspects their policy decision may be right, particularly in regard to traffic. Some of us believe that the Government are in fact playing at Party politics. I would not myself put it in those words. I should not wish this particular debate to be decided on Party politics. We are dealing with children who are handicapped in the sense that, for various reasons, they are denied the protection and guidance of their parents. The 9,000 children in London to-day have adopted parents in their officers in the local authority. I should not wish to break the tie between those children and those officers, who themselves are carrying out this work and in whom the children have placed a trust. The Government must make an overwhelming case for any improvement before they themselves can break this tie, and I think the House must be satisfied that an overwhelming case has been made out before they agree to the break. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 67 and insert the new subseotions.—(Lord Shepherd.)
7.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned the need for an overwhelming case if the proposal of the Government is to be accepted. Although the noble Lord was too modest to say it, I think he himself has made out an overwhelming case against the proposal. I wonder whether I might adopt a reflective mood for a moment. I realise we shall break for supper soon, therefore I shall not speak for long. I wonder why it is that the Government, so far as one can judge, are more sensitive to criticism on this particular point than on any other.
Without wishing to go behind the scenes, one is aware, because representations were made at an early stage by various colleagues of ours, that grave defects were recognised by the Government in their own proposal. We were told that the Home Office were anything but happy at this development. Certainly I have not come, across any body of individual opinion in favour of the Government's plan. As so often in the Bill, we run into the theory, either for traffic reasons or some special view about the boroughs, that the services must put up with whatever treatment comes their way. I think it is as true to say of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, as it is of anyone in this House that he is immensely serious in his studies in this field, and I challenge him to say that these proposals of the Government will be in the interests of the children. In my opinion the best he can say is that they will not do any harm. I defy him to say that these revolutionary proposals will actually help the children. Everybody knows they will not.
If I were asked how much I am confident, whether it is not just one politician's view against another, or the view of one group of politicians against another, I would take one lot of evidence out of many. We might turn to the magistrates; their evidence would be very much on our side; but let me refer to the Association of Child Care Officers. I am not referring only to the officers in London, of whom it perhaps might be said that
732
they are biased, although I do not see why they should be, because they are interested only in the children. If we take the National Association of Child Care Officers, what conceivable vested interest would they have in the status quo? Would not the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, at least agree that they are probably best qualified to know what kind of arrangement is in the best interest of the children?
They would certainly be better qualified than the Royal Commission. If we are asked why we are so contemptuous of the Royal Commission's finding in this matter the answer is plain. They made an elementary howler. It is a long time since a really good howler was made by a Royal Commission and it shows that neither the Royal Commission nor those helping them to write the Report knew much about local government in this particular field. Is it surprising that they did not know much about the children's services? I am not relying now on secret information but on what should be properly published knowledge.
When the London County Council gave evidence to the Royal Commission I believe the evidence took three days, but the health and welfare and children's services were tucked into the last part of one of the days and the children's services got practically no hearing at all, so it was not altogether surprising that the Royal Commission made complete fools of themselves when they tried to describe the present children's services, let alone the proposals. There it is. The Royal Commission have put themselves out of court in this matter and yet the Government cling to these proposals.
At an earlier stage in a very full and immensely effective speech the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, did not, I think, underline the point that for the first time in this country we are separating the children's services from the education services. This is a cardinal point. It is regarded as essential in all other parts of the country to keep these together. When the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, replies, can he give us any possible justification for the separation? In my humble submission he will be able to find no conceivable justification, except that we must set up the boroughs and give them something to play with. There is no justification in sociological studies for that theory.

733
There has been no attempt to prove that local government has been unsatisfactory in the boroughs. No; the boroughs must be provided with services, and we say that while the boroughs are excellent entities—and I have been a borough councillor for a short time as well as being a county borough councillor—and while no one has any prejudice against the boroughs, it is a misuse of Governmental power to destroy a children's service and damage the prospects of some of the most helpless children in our country in order to give effect to a theory for which there is no fact or foundation in any case. I suppose the only real consolation is that the Government are not likely to be in power very much longer, so it is extremely doubtful, to say the least, whether this horrible proposal will ever see the light of day.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in view of the time I was wondering whether we might adjourn now, because I understand there is some problem in the refreshment room and there may be other noble Lords who would wish to speak on this important Amendment.
7.29 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I had anticipated that there might be this possible difficulty, and that is why I approached the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, before we embarked upon this Amendment, and I was given to understand that he thought we should be able to get through quite easily. It was my understanding that he felt we could and should be able to deal with it before we adjourned for supper. On this matter I am very much in the hands of your Lordships. My own feeling is that, since we have embarked on this discussion, we should not break the continuity of our thought but should go forward with it.
LORD SHEPHERD: Very well.
EARL JELLICOE: I do not wish to press this unless it is generally agreeable to your Lordships, but I had taken the precaution of consulting the noble Lord. Let me say straight away to the noble Lord that I would agree there is a certain amount in what he said. I would agree as to the importance of this subject; I would agree that it has its tragic aspects
734
in regard to this whole question of the 9,000 children in care. I would agree with what he said about the sincerity with which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, argued this case in Committee. I would also be the first to agree that the noble Lord himself has argued this matter with deep sincerity. I would agree that this matter should not be judged by the yardstick of Party politics; and finally I would agree that this is a question which should be judged on its merits. I hope that the noble Lord, for his part, will agree that I shall be arguing the case against this Amendment with equal sincerity. I also wish to show that, on its merits, the case for the Bill as it stands is a good one.
The Government's fundamental case is simply this. Given that the system of local government in London is to be changed, what is the best arrangement for the children's service within that new framework? We have believed from the outset, and we firmly adhere to that belief, that this service should be given to the boroughs, along with the personal health and welfare services and housing, as is the case with the county boroughs up and down the country. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that there is no foundation in theory or in practice for this case. Well, there is one foundation, and that is that up and down the country county boroughs discharge this duty effectively. Even the Amendment accepts this view as right for the outer boroughs. I am glad to see this measure of agreement, at least in principle, that the children's service is one that properly belongs to the boroughs.
As I understand it, where we differ is on the question whether or not to depart from this broad principle when we come to the inner boroughs. I freely admit—and, as I informed your Lordships during Committee, my right honourable friend has asked me to take a special interest in this matter—that this Amendment would offer a temptingly easy way out. We should simply have the London County Council service transferred intact to a new authority, and we should not have to concern ourselves with any of the transitional problems which the noble Lord has mentioned, such as the reallocation of staff or property. But, for a number of reasons, I claim that to be a mistaken, and indeed short-sighted, approach.

735
First, the children's service would be divorced from health, welfare and housing. I do not think anyone would argue that it would be a good thing in itself so to divide these personal services. I think we should all agree that they are better looked at as an integrated whole. It is true that the Amendment would offer some compensating advantage by bringing the children's service and education under the same roof. However (and this is the answer to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford) given that a choice has to be made—and the choice does have to be made—between health, welfare and housing on the one hand and education on the other, we believe that it is right to associate the children's service with the former group. I would concede that in the best of all possible worlds it would be pleasant not to have to make the choice. Nevertheless, in all the circumstances we believe that if the choice has to be made—and, as I say, it does have to be made here—the choice that we are making is the right one.
We will, of course, pay close attention to the practical working arrangements whereby child care and education will be linked under the new set-up, and we think that a satisfactory arrangement can, and indeed should, be made. We think it would be more difficult for an inner London children's authority, as is proposed in this Amendment, to devise a close working relationship with the boroughs over health, welfare and housing. Where we can achieve such an association we feel that we should not lightly forgo it, not least when we bear in mind the vitally important preventive work with which children's authorities are to be charged under the Children and Young Persons Bill as soon as it becomes law.
My Lords, the noble Baroness in Committee referred a little scathingly to the significance I had attached to Clause 1 of that proposed Bill. I was very glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, took, as I took, a rather different view. He referred to this tragic figure of 12·2 children per thousand who come into care, and who are in care, in London to-day. The mere fact of that figure shows how much Clause 1 of the proposed Bill is needed. I believe that that work can far better
736
be discharged when there is close co-ordination of the children's service, child care, welfare, health and, above all, housing grouped together. Parenthetically, the noble Lord asked me to acknowledge—and I would be the first to acknowledge—the pioneering work done by the L.C.C. As is the case with other local authorities throughout the country—not all, but some—the contribution it has made to the preparation of that particular Bill has indeed been a useful one.
Another reason why the proposal contained in the Amendment is, in our view, both mistaken and shortsighted is that by its acceptance we should lose the opportunity of bringing the children's service in London down to a more personal level. We should be perpetuating a service of vast size with a big administrative organisation and overheads. It is no criticism of the L.C.C. to say that 9,000 children in care—a seventh of the total for England and Wales—is in theory, and indeed I think in practice, far above any desirable number for any single authority. I would be the first to acknowledge, as I did in Committee, what the L.C.C., the members of the Children's Committee and the officers who serve it have done, and how much effort, enthusiasm and skill they have put into their work. But I suggest that most of what has been achieved has been achieved in spite of, not because of, the vastness of the organisation.
The L.C.C. have themselves recognised the need for the service to be broken down into more manageable units—the nine areas to which Lord Shepherd referred, locally based and headed by senior officers with wide powers on day-to-day matters. But, necessary though such units have proved to be, in our view they cannot hope to have the same degree of local connections as would the twelve borough units, each with its own committee and staff headed by a children's officer and integrated with the remainder of the borough local government structure. I feel that in arguing the case for their Amendment noble Lords opposite have to some extent allowed themselves to be overawed, mesmerised, by this matter of size. I would claim that great size is not in itself a

737
virtue—certainly not in relation to a personal service belonging to local authorities. I should have thought it would be far better to opt, where we can, for the smaller unit.
We heard in Committee, and have heard again on Report, about the wide range and variety of the problems raised by children in inner London. We have heard that the many combinations of age, sex and category can be catered for only by a wide range of specialised residential establishments. I think the argument is that each of the boroughs will have to do that with a much narrower range of accommodation and that the children will suffer. I am inclined to question this great emphasis on residential accommodation. It tends to suggest that institutional care is the desirable norm and that the boroughs will carry on, under more difficult conditions, where the L.C.C. is forced by this ruthless and heartless Government to leave off.
I agree completely with what my noble friend Lord Ilford said in Committee; that care in an institution is a second best. I do not think any of us would disagree with that. But I also feel that there is every chance that the new boroughs should be able to reduce that number in care, and should also be able, and will have every incentive so to do, to accelerate the trend away from these large gaunt institutions—"gaunt" is not fair; but, at any rate, from these large institutions to the much smaller purpose-built family homes about which I talked in Committee.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will make this plain. He is not suggesting, is he, that the London County Council themselves have put a restriction on the number of children that they board out? My understanding is that they would wish to board out as many children as they possibly could, according to the child and its surroundings. But it is the fundamental problem of a built-up area like London which puts the curb on finding foster homes.
EARL JELLICOE: I think I was suggesting two things. One was that adoption of the structure which we suggest should be adopted will accelerate the trend away from the large institution towards the smaller home. Secondly, we
738
think that this will encourage the trend towards boarding out.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord on that point? I know that he withdrew the word "gaunt", and I do not want to return to that. But he is, of course, aware, is he not, that the so-called large homes of the L.C.C. are in some cases a collection of cottage homes?
EARL JELLICOE: I am of course aware of that, and I am also aware that the L.C.C. are anxious to close them down as soon as possible. But what I am arguing is that with this service more personalised, more localised, that trend will be accelerated. But I wonder whether I may come back to the point on boarding out, which I was just about to attempt to answer. That was—and I should be the first to agree—that the conditions in London are not the same as conditions elsewhere. There are special problems and special difficulties. That I should be the first to grant.
I think one can exaggerate the differences between the conurbations, but I believe that the difficulties are probably greater and more intense in London than in any other conurbation. But what I would argue is that I do not think the differences are as great as is the disparity in the figures. I will just cite them. The national average, excluding the L.C.C. area, for boarding out is 56 per cent.; the L.C.C. average is 26 per cent.; the average in Liverpool—a large conurbation—is 52 per cent.; Manchester is 51 per cent. and Sheffield is 70 per cent. I do not think that the differences, although there are differences, are as great as that disparity in the rate of boarding out; and I would suggest that the more this service is localised, the more likely it is that it will be possible to increase this very desirable proportion of boarding out.
My Lords, I should now like to turn to the question of the specialist accommodation. I think that here again this vast range of specialist accommodation which is provided by the L.C.C. has tended a little to be exaggerated. In fact, it consists of four reception centres, containing, I think, 223 children, and

739
four homes for specially difficult children containing a total of 60 children. We are not dealing here with a vast problem, and I see no reason at all why, so far as residential accommodation generally is concerned, each borough should not be brought very close to self-sufficiency. There is no reason why these inner boroughs should not be allocated, according to the proportion of children in care, their proportion of small and medium sized L.C.C. properties. They could be allocated a share of the larger properties.
So far as specialist accommodation is concerned, they would have three choices open to them. They could share properties on the normal common user basis; or they could convert some of their existing properties, which they will be acquiring, into specialist homes; or finally, they could bring new homes into existence to cater for specially difficult children. None of this presents, as I see it, any vast problem. It is true that, given the unequal distribution of property within the inner London area, much of that accommodation, at least initially, will be outside the borough's area, but there is no difference from the position already existing within the L.C.C. A great many of the L.C.C. children's homes are outside the L.C.C. area. Moreover, in so far as the residential accommodation will be concentrated in fewer places, visiting will become easier—and this, I think, is a really important consideration. And I should hardly have thought that the boroughs responsible for this service would wish to perpetuate a situation, which was referred to with some pride by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, at our Committee stage, in which a borough with 800 children in care has those children distributed over 130 different establishments. That, I believe, is a bad thing and not a good thing, as she was claiming. I believe that our scheme will mean far more accommodation, and that the children will be closer to the boroughs, more easily visited, both by parents, where the parents are able to visit, and, above all, by the staff.
I am sorry that I have been some little time over this, but I should like to answer four questions which the noble Lord put to me. He asked me, in the first place,
740
about the juvenile courts. We went into that point at some length at the Committee stage, and there I was at some pains to point out that I thought the noble Baroness's fears, that each juvenile court would have something like 13 different children's officers attached to it, were quite unfounded. We see no reason at all why in the juvenile courts there should be more than one officer, who could be either an officer of the court or a member of the child care staff. It is of course possible that, with a child outside the area of a particular borough's jurisdiction, the court may wish to see the child care officer from that particular borough. That, of course, could be arranged; in fact, such an arrangement already obtains at present, when a child outside the L.C.C. area comes before a court in a difficult case.
Secondly, the noble Lord raised the question of staff: he asked if there would be the same flexibility in the posting of staff. I think the answer here—and I should like to put it quite frankly—is that I do not think there could possibly be the same flexibility. One of the advantages of a larger authority is that when you have staff difficulties you can switch staff. I should be the first to grant this. But I would argue that there are many compensating advantages for the smaller authority. On this point I would again remind the noble Lord that in the county boroughs up and down the country which we have been talking about, when staff fall ill, for example, their arrangements for their children in care do not break down. They make perfectly satisfactory alternative arrangements; and the London boroughs equally will be able to do that.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred more than once to the county boroughs, and said that they are a model and a success. But in the county borough the work must be done by the county borough: there is nobody else to do it; that is an all-purpose authority. But in London there will be a two-tier system of local government, and the real question before the House is: which authority is the best for a given function? That is what we are arguing about. The county borough argument has nothing whatever to do with it. It partly depends on the size of the county borough.
EARL JELLICOE: I agree; but we are dealing with one unit and the possibility of switching over within the confines of that unit.
The third point which the noble Lord put to me was on the training question: will the same facilities for training be available? Here again I should like to pay credit to what the L.C.C. have done in providing training facilities. As regards the Central Council, for example, I think there are something like 200 students at present undergoing that type of training. Some 34 are L.C.C. students. It is quite possible, when the new boroughs are set up and become responsible for this service, that in the immediate transitional stage they may not be able to spare those staff. But I see absolutely no reason at all why, as soon as they get into their stride, they should not be able to allocate staff in this way for training purposes and, indeed, make their own training contributions—as, again, large boroughs do, throughout the country.
The noble Lord also asked me about uniformity—should we not have extraordinarily uneven standards throughout the London boroughs?—and he has referred to the fact that there is no provision for any inspectorate built into the Bill. The reason why there is no provision in the Bill for an inspectorate is that there is absolutely no need for one. There is a perfectly good and extremely well qualified Home Office inspectorate who are perfectly capable of ensuring that there is a reasonable unformity of standards in the administration of this new service by the new boroughs. Finally, there is one point that I do not think the noble Lord made but which should just like to touch on, and that is that some people feel that there is a danger that there is going to be some general post of children in the homes, or worse, on the appointed day. I should like to make it absolutely clear that they will stay in the same places, and there is no reason why staff in charge of them should change, as I think the noble Lord feared.
LORD SHEPHERD: The field officers will change, surely.
EARL JELLICOE: I should have thought there was every chance in the world that in many cases the field officers would be taken over by the boroughs.
742
I think it is utterly misleading—I am inclined to pick a stronger adjective, but I will refrain—to talk in terms of an upheaval among these children, and to conjure up a vision of a general post. I would assure noble Lords that that is not going to happen. We have never hidden our feelings that, for a time, at least, during the transitional stage, and possibly for a teething period thereafter, there are bound to be many problems to be sorted out here. We have never sought to minimise the difficulties of the transitional period, to ride away from them, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, suggested; but we are sure—I assured noble Lords of this in Committee, and I repeat the assurance now—that these difficulties can be overcome, and that there is no reason at all why, during this transitional period, the children at present in care in London need suffer.
We are equally sure that, in the longer term, the new structure will enable the boroughs to create a new and integrated pattern of child care which will benefit those children in our city who most need our help and our guidance. We believe that under this Bill we shall be able to create conditions which, if properly exploited by the new boroughs—and we believe that these responsible authorities will properly exploit them—will in fact advance the interests of the children in care in London. That is my reply to the challenge which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, submitted to me. Because I believe this—and I believe this with as much sincerity as that with which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, moved his Amendment—I believe that we should resist this Amendment and should proceed with the transfer of the children's services to the boroughs, in inner London as in outer London.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think we must appreciate the approach of the noble Earl to this particular Amendment. No matter, perhaps, the size, he always gives it his full attention. We do not take the same view as the noble Earl. We have not the same confidence. In these circumstances, there is only one course open to us. At the beginning of his speech the noble Earl used what were, to me, significant words. He said, "Given change of local government, how best can we deal with the

743
children?". My Lords, we are not satisfied that the noble Earl can assure us that the children will be better off. He cannot give us that assurance. We on this side of the House, from the advice that we have received, much of it from quarters closely connected with children, believe that these proposals are detrimental to their interests. My Lords, in
[The sitting was then suspended at three minutes after eight o'clock and resumed at nine o'clock.]
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add to the clause:
"(4) The Greater London Council may make contributions to any voluntary organisation—

(a) whose object or primary object is to promote the welfare of children; or

(b) who are providing advice, guidance and assistance such as to promote the welfare of children by diminishing the need to receive children into or keep them in care under the Children Act 1948 or the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 or to bring children before a juvenile court."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before your Lordships refreshed yourselves with the excellent dinner in the Refreshment Department, the House had decided that the boroughs throughout the Greater London area should remain the local authorities to deal with children's
744
all sincerity, we have no alternative, therefore, but to divide the House and ask the support of your Lordships.
8.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 161) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Stonham, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lindgren, L.

Strang, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Summerskill, B.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Henderson, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williams, L.

Sainsbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Margesson, V.

Albemarle, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Allerton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fortescue, E.

Molson, L.

Auckland, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Monck, V.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bridgeman, V.

Hanworth, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hastings, L.

Salisbury, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Conesford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandys, L.

Craigton, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Somers, L.

De La Warr, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Denham, L.

Lothian, M.

Swansea, L.

Derwent, L.

Mabane, L.

Swinton, E.

Dundee, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

matters. Consequently, the relevant clause in the Bill, which is Clause 47(3), gives them, among other things, power to contribute, under the Children's Act, 1948, to voluntary organisations whose primary object is to promote the welfare of children. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe, in the course of his speech just before the adjournment, referred to the Children and Young Persons Bill, which is at present in another place and which I hope will come to your Lordships' House unchanged so far as this matter is concerned. Clause 1 of the Bill places a duty upon an authority which deals with children to make available such advice, guidance and assistance as may promote the welfare of children, by diminishing the need to put them in care or bring them before a juvenile court—in other words, preventive work. These local authorities are also going to be allowed, if the Bill becomes law, to contribute to voluntary organisations to help them in their tasks.
In two other clauses in the London Government Bill the Government have accepted the idea that the G.L.C., although it s not the authority primarily concerned with children, nevertheless can make contributions to voluntary bodies which are to assist it in its tasks and your Lordships will see, in Clauses 45(4) and 46(3), that the G.L.C. is to have powers to make these contributions. Therefore, although the G.L.C. is not going to be the children's authority in the Greater London area, it seems to me logical and also desirable that that Council should have the wider powers to make voluntary contributions in this field under Clause 47 as well. My Amendment therefore provides that the G.L.C. may make these contributions, and I hope that it may be acceptable to your Lordships. Of course, this is not in any way going to detract from the work the borough councils would do for children, but would give to the G.L.C. the power to do what a reasonable local authority would want to do—that is, to assist in cases where it thinks it proper a good voluntary organisation doing a job, which in this case is probably not expressly confined to the area of any particular borough.
I must say that I personally have in mind a charity which I consider to be a very good one, of which I am president, the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child. This seems to me to be just the sort of body covered by my Amendment; it is not connected with any other body but is recognised as having a certain value in the children's world. It might be that the G.L.C. would think fit to help such a body by way of voluntary contributions. Of course, I am in no way suggesting that, if my Amendment is accepted, there should be a contribution either to this or to any other particular body. But I consider they ought to have the power to do so if they think fit. I hope that, such being the case, your Lordships would feel it right to bring their powers into line with those in the two earlier clauses on welfare and health matters, and perhaps to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 16, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I do not think that we on these Benches will
746
be moved to oppose this Amendment, but it really is a little Gilbertian. We have the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, steadily supporting the taking away from the Greater London Council of powers that we have sought to give them, and then he comes along with an Amendment to give the Greater London Council power to make contributions. That seems to me to be almost a contradiction in terms. It is a pity that the support of the noble Viscount for the Greater London Council did not manifest itself earlier in more important respects. However, with those few comments on the situation, as I have said, we shall not oppose this Amendment.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, many people, including myself, will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for moving this Amendment, and will be extremely grateful to the Government if it can be accepted. I know of the admirable work of the Society of which the noble Viscount is the distinguished President; and there are many other societies. I am wholly with him in thinking that these societies are much better assisted by a large organisation like the Greater London Council than by the smaller and less important organisations of the borough councils.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, as my noble friend has explained, this is a relatively small but, I hope, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said, noncontroversial Amendment. I must confess that I am personally a little predisposed towards it, because the noble Viscount mentioned the organisation of which he is the distinguished President, the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and Her Child, with which I happen to have, as he knows (and I hope your Lordships will not misinterpret what I am saying here) a certainly family connection. But, as I see it, and as my noble friend explained it, this will give the Greater London Council a power similar to the powers which they obtained on an Amendment moved in another place to make contributions to voluntary organisations in the health and welfare field. That being so, without going into the merits or demerits of this or any other area of the Bill, it seems logical and right that they should obtain a

747
similar power here, more especially as it will be left, as I read the Amendment, to the Greater London Council to decide whether or not to make discretionary contributions to particular organisations. I am happy, speaking both personally and impersonally, to say that, from the Government's point of view, we are very willing to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [Civil defence]:
9.10 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (1), to omit paragraph (b) and substitute:
(b) if relating to the making and carrying out of plans for—

(i) the dispersal of members of the civil population or for their maintenance and temporary accommodation when dispersed;

(ii) accommodating in their areas persons who are made homeless or leave their homes or are refugees or persons repatriated from abroad;

(iii) feeding members of the civil population who are made homeless or leave their homes or are unable to cook meals therein or are refugees or persons repatriated from abroad;

(iv) dealing with damaged or unsafe buildings and rescue of persons trapped therein; or

(v) the training of persons in duties to be performed in circumstances arising out of hostile action or a threat of hostile action;

be exercisable as respects a London borough or the City by the Greater London Council as well as by the Council of the borough or the Common Council, as the case may be;".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, I beg to move this Amendment. We have had some lengthy discussions on services which are already in daily operation and which we wish to improve. We now come to a service which, while it is of vital importance that it should be there and should be highly efficient, every Member of this House hopes will never be used. Whilst it is a change of subject to that extent, there is not really a change of principle in the Amendment to many of the Amendments that have already been moved.
Under the Bill, the Civil Defence function of the Greater London Council is strictly limited, and my colleagues and I feel that it is highly desirable that, for
748
the effective working and co-ordination of the Civil Defence services, the sphere in which the Greater London Council can and should act concurrently with the boroughs should be substantially increased. Nuclear attack—or, conventional attack, for that matter—is no respecter of borough boundaries. We have to accept the fact that in the unhappy event of there being a conflict, London is a major target and is bound to be the object of an attack from an enemy. That being so, the structure of London means that bombs and destruction will not be confined to any single borough. Its ramifications will be extended over a wide area.
Here we have a curious situation. We have the Greater London Council with the overall responsibility for the fire and ambulance services. These are mobile services, and will operate over the whole area. The rescue service ought to operate equally on a wide area. It is no good fetching an ambulance for a fellow who is trapped until you can get him out from the building and render first aid. We have to face the fact that, with an attack on London, the services within the confines of the borough will at least be rendered impotent. It is obvious that a service, ready for operation, will have to be mobile and operated from the perimeter of the Greater London area.
I am surprised at the Home Office, because the fallacy of having borough-based rescue services was shown in the last war. At the start we had separate rescue and first-aid services and then, because people had to be rescued before they could be given first aid, we had combined rescue and first-aid services, in which members of both services could participate. But because we could not operate them on a borough or a town basis, we had to set up mobile columns on a regional basis, ready to move into any situation in which they were needed. I go so far as to say that that type of organisation must be the one which operates for any area which will have concentrated attacks, such as London is bound to have. Therefore, this division of the rescue service from the fire and ambulance services and its operational training, is, to my mind, quite foolish. The rescue service ought to be under the general supervision and

749
planning of the Greater London Council.
Then we come to other services, such as the emergency feeding service, which quite rightly is built around the school meals service. There we have the equipment and the buildings and the staff who are trained in the normal provision of meals and who can be easily trained for the extended service of emergency feeding in time of war. That school meals service for inner London, at any rate, is under the Greater London Council, yet the responsibility for the provision of the emergency feeding service is under the boroughs. I suggest that, if you are going to have in peace time the development and continuation of satisfactory training for a war-time activity of emergency feeding services, it ought to be with the Greater London Council. One turns again to the ancillary service of the care of the homeless. Here again we have the question of emergency feeding and the rest centres. They go hand in hand, and there should be this co-ordination of the service with the Greater London Council; and, at the moment, it is not there.
I said right at the start that we hope that this service of Civil Defence will never have to be used here because of a war-time emergency. That being so, there are a tremendous number of good, patriotic people in this country, not only in London but all over the country, who in the time of an emergency would flock to the recruiting centres wanting to take part, but while we are in a static position, as we are now, going on year after year with the cold war and the rest of it, we have really got only the dedicated, self-sacrificing folk who have come into the Civil Defence service during the period since the war. This group of enthusiasts are encouraged by training so that they can be ready to expand their service, to take on responsibility and the training of new recruits who come in.
I will agree that basic or standard training is to a degree a local matter and can be carried on locally, but the standard of training is going to have a very big effect as to whether the expansion of service can take place when an emergency arises and on the effectiveness of those within the service to make the expanded service operationally satisfac-
750
tory. Therefore, the standard of training has to be really high; for the officers to have advance training; for the instructors who are carrying on the training locally; and for the large-scale combined exercises. You cannot do that satisfactorily on a borough basis.
Take London, for instance. For combined exercises there are only three outdoor training grounds. So there has to be an organisation or some arrangement for an organisation in order that those training grounds can be used by the existing boroughs. I would suggest that the organisation of training, and the planning and provision of the facilities for it, is a very desirable service to be undertaken by the Greater London Council. The provision and training of the service and the co-ordination of services, as I have said, must be over a much wider area than a borough, and the only area that can undertake it is the Greater London Council—unless of course it is to be undertaken by a body associated with the Home Office.
We have the London Civil Defence Regional Headquarters, and it is true that if that headquarters were expanded they could carry out the co-ordination within the boroughs. They could perhaps carry on the organisation of training within the London boroughs. Perhaps it is a bias for local government, but I think that that would be undesirable. I should like to see Civil Defence kept as near a local government service as it is possible for it to be kept. Equally, of course, we want the Home Office to pay as much of the money as it is possible for us to get out of them. But basically it is a local government service, and the function of the Home Office, as I see it—and it is carried out very effectively in many directions—is that of the advice and supervision of the authorities carrying out the general provisions of the Civil Defence Acts.
We must recognise that as time goes by the tactical appreciation of potential war-time situations changes, and these changes in appreciation are reflected in the training, development, planning, and organisation of the Civil Defence Service. That is the function so far as the Home Office is concerned, but the general organisation and giving effect to the Home Office direction is, I suggest,

751
a local government function. And it is the view of my colleagues that that function should be given to the Greater London Council in order that they can carry on the general organisation which the London County Council, and the Middlesex County Council, of course, for its area, have so effectively carried out over a period of years. Here perhaps is an appropriate opportunity to appreciate the voluntary work that has been put in by the Civil Defence volunteers, in both London and Middlesex, to bring their standard of efficiency to the present high pitch, appreciating that they are doing it as a very small nucleus of a service which, if ever the tragedy of war came, would have to be expanded very quickly indeed. I move the Amendment appreciating that the noble Earl who will reply has already shown his enthusiasm for Civil Defence and his understanding of the difficulties involved. I look forward to his giving us the encouragement of accepting this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lindgren. I should like to say parenthetically that during the proceedings on Committee stage and on Report stage I have been greatly impressed by the self-endowed omniscience practised by the members of the Government who are defending this Bill and its, in some respects, tortuous provisions. Nothing we can suggest is acceptable apparently to Her Majesty's Government, notwithstanding that, if I may say so with respect, there is upon these Benches an accumulated experience of local government which is certainly more informed and more closely associated with actual facts than are the Government Department responsible for this Bill.
The Amendment cites the various services which should, in our opinion, be provided by the Greater London Council. I should have thought that if there was a service at all claiming to be organised and run on a fairly wide basis, it is the provision for Civil Defence.
752
Some of us on this side are not without actual experience of running Civil Defence during the last war. My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth was Chairman of the Civil Defence Committee of the London County Council until he became a member of the Government. I was the Deputy Chairman of that Committee, and on his leaving I became Chairman. The powers set out in this Amendment are almost those which were operated, I submit successfully, by the London County Council during the last war. For instance, there is in the Amendment the question of
"the dispersal of members of a civil population or for their maintenance and temporary accommodation when dispersed."
That was evacuation. The London County Council was responsible for the evacuation, first, of the children, and then of the adults in so far as they wished to go out, having been bombed or disturbed by the bombing.
The next power concerns accommodation in their areas of persons who are made homeless—the rest centres. The rest centres were provided by the London County Council. It happened, of course, that in some boroughs there was insufficient accommodation. Even when the schools were taken over, there was insufficient accommodation to house all the persons who had been rendered homeless by bombing. Therefore the London County Council could transfer or send those people to premises and accommodation outside the particular borough in which they previously resided. Had it been a borough function that could not have happened. It did happen because the authority was the London County Council. Then there was the question of feeding the members of the civil population. That started with the London County Council as a meal service, on a cash-and-carry basis. It became a meals service generally for quite a large portion of the people of the Provinces, and ultimately it finished up by becoming British Restaurants. Then there is set out in the Amendment the words:
"dealing with damaged or unsafe buildings and the rescue of persons trapped therein."
That was the rescue service which was run by the London County Council.
Now it is proposed, as regards all those services, to hand them over either straight

753
away, or as regards the meals service in war time, to the London boroughs. The rescue service was, of course, based largely upon the district surveyors, and they were employees of the London County Council. But can one exaggerate the stupidity of proposing that the meals service should be performed by the London County Council during peace time, but in war time it is transferred to the boroughs? It would be a much extended service in war time because of the demands which are made upon it. It seems to me that ineptitude could not go further than this proposal to hand over to the boroughs the Civil Defence services set out in the Amendment.
As my noble friend Lord Lindgren said, not only was it necessary to organise on a wide basis during the last war, but it was necessary to organise on a regional basis, whereas the proposals of this Bill are that it should be mainly upon a borough basis. Really, this is one of the most absurd proposals of this absurd Bill.
9.30 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, we discussed this matter, as you will recall, at some length during our Committee stage. I personally was very glad that we did so because it is an important matter and it was not covered at all during discussions in another place. I feel your Lordships will not wish me to go over all the ground again, ardent civil defender though I am, and in claiming that I am claiming no more than other noble Lords opposite are entitled to claim, including the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, who is sitting on the Cross Benches at this moment.
However I feel I should briefly recapitulate the background as I see it. In the first place, we believe that there should be, generally speaking, a close connection between the normal peace-time functions of a local authority and their Civil Defence responsibilities. I myself feel that that is right. I am confirmed in my belief by some words of wisdom which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, when we were discussion this at our Committee stage. He then said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 250 (No. 90), col 694]:
"Broadly speaking, a good guide was that we should let the local authority which normally
754
discharged a function continue to discharge that function in civil defence."
I think that is a good guide, and that of course is the reason why the Civil Defence responsibilities of the boroughs and of the Greater London Council respectively are grouped as they are in the Bill as it stands.
The result of that is that the Greater London Council's responsibilities in the Bill are limited. They are limited to the ambulance service, to the first-aid service which goes with it, fire—because there will be the fire authority—and certain responsibilities to be defined later in regulations for dispersal planning in conjunction with the boroughs; but, although limited, those responsibilities will be very clear and, indeed, very important. They will however have no operational rôle. I explained the reasons for that at our Committee stage, and I will not repeat them, but the same applies to the L.C.C. at present. We believe, however, that the Greater London Council will have responsibilities, important responsibilities, in operational planning, and I explained how we thought those might develop.
Once more, I do not wish to go over that ground again, but to clear up one point here I should like to make it clear that the Greater London Council will be at liberty to appoint whatever Civil Defence staff they consider necessary in order to discharge their statutory functions, and to give that staff whatever title they think fit. It will therefore be within the ambit of the Greater London Council to appoint a Civil Defence officer.
LORD LATHAM: And it would then leave the staff with nothing to do?
EARL JELLICOE: Either the noble Lord was not listening to what I was saying, or he thought that what I was saying was incorrect. What I was saying was that, although their responsibilities would be limited, they would be very clear and very important. I thought that I used those precise words only a minute or two ago—I can almost hear myself saying them. So much for the background here.
How does this affect our approach to the point of view which Lord Lindgren was putting to us, that there should be

755
certain concurrent powers here exercised jointly by the Greater London Council and by the London boroughs? I should like to say straight away that, save in the defined field of planning for the dispersal of the London population, we are in general against concurrent powers being held in this particular field. In the first place, we do not think there would be any need for such powers. These boroughs are going to be big and important boroughs. We feel that in this matter of the local services of Civil Defence they should be perfectly able to stand on their own feet and to plan for themselves. Secondly, concurrent powers are not exercised elsewhere, not even where the conurbations are. Take the South Lancashire conurbation or the West Midland conurbation, in which the Civil Defence functions are laid fairly and squarely upon the big county boroughs. There is no supervising or co-ordinating local authority superimposed over and above or alongside them—and it has not been found necessary, at least up to now. We may be right or we may be wrong there, but that is the pattern elsewhere in the country.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, in regard to the West Midland conurbation, we had to set up three regional columns. It was considered by the Home Office that the danger of the combined services within the boroughs being wiped out was such that the regional columns should be brought in.
EARL JELLICOE: We should be a little chary of harping too much—although we can learn a lot of useful experience from the last war—upon conditions which might be very dissimilar; and the mobility which I suspect would be possible after a nuclear attack would be much less than was possible after attacks of the last war.
If co-ordination is required on a regional basis—and I would certainly grant that in some respects co-ordination may be required—we have in the Home Office the Civil Defence regional organisation set-up. There would be what we consider to be the correct co-ordinating body there in situ. In general—and this is my fourth point in this respect—to set up powers with con
756
current responsibilities here is merely to blur responsibilities. If ever there was a field where one wants to have responsibilities clearly defined, I would suggest that it is in this field of Civil Defence and that it should be laid fairly and squarely upon one local authority at a time. That is my general reply to the points which have been moderately and reasonably advanced by noble Lords opposite in speaking to their Amendment.
I should like now to turn to the particular Civil Defence services. Lord Lindgren singled out the rescue service where he thought concurrent powers should operate. He argued that rescue demands mobility and that there would be an advantage in adapting the largest possible area, the Greater London area, for the organisation of a mobile service. To that I would only say—and we must look at this realistically—that in post-nuclear attack conditions I very much doubt whether that degree of mobility would in fact obtain. I think that to that extent the noble Lord's argument falls. But he will then reply to me, and say, "Oh, well! The ambulance service operates over the whole." But the reason why the ambulance service is designed to operate over the whole, is merely that it reflects our belief that the peace-time functions and the Civil Defence responsibilities of a local authority should, wherever possible, match.
The second service with which noble Lords dealt was the emergency feeding service. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and the noble Lord, Lord Latham, reminded us that the school meals service plays an important part here. But, of course, it is only one part of a local authority's emergency feeding facilities. As I understand it, when planning their emergency feeding services local authorities are expected to take account of all the catering facilities in their area—not only the schools service, but the Lyons's in their area, the industrial canteens and so on. The London boroughs, as emergency feeding authorities, would therefore in their planning be able, and would be required, to take account not only of the resources of the school meals services, but also of other catering facilities in their area.

757
There is a problem here, and I should like to mention how we propose to tackle it. It is true that, under the Bill as drafted, neither the Greater London Council nor the inner London boroughs would have power to train the school meals service staff of the Inner London Education Authority in emergency feeding. I think that that is a defect, and to meet this point the Government propose amending the Civil Defence (Emergency Feeding) Regulations, 1951, in such a way that the inner London boroughs would be able to train these people. I believe that in that way we shall get round the admitted defect in our arrangements as they stand at the present time. Perhaps I laid myself open to attack there, by admitting a defect which noble Lords opposite have not pointed out, but I wanted to take this opportunity of saying what we had in mind here.
The third point with which noble Lords dealt was the question of the homeless, where they felt that concurrent powers should operate. In my view, there are three good reasons why concurrent powers should not operate here, and why planning for the care of the homeless should be laid at the door of the boroughs, and only at that door. These are my three reasons. In the first place, the authorities normally responsible for welfare matters are those best equipped for making and carrying out plans for caring for the homeless in the event of war. Secondly, we believe that planning for the care of the homeless is essentially a local matter. Thirdly, these plans for the care of the homeless must be co-ordinated—and this is quite essential—with other Civil Defence planning, and responsibility for that other Civil Defence planning is to be placed upon the London boroughs under the Bill. Finally, there was the question of training, on which noble Lords touched; and here again they felt there should be concurrent powers. On this I would merely reply that to have these would again blur the responsibilities—something which I think it is important we should not do. Where we wish to obtain uniformity in training, I would suggest that this is essentially a matter where the regional director and his staff should come in, and in fact do come in.
Those are my reasons for believing that, in the four specific fields which
758
noble Lords singled out, we should not be right to opt for concurrent powers; and, where co-ordination is required, that we should rely upon the regional organisation of the Home Office Civil Defence establishment to be the necessary co-ordinating factor. Noble Lords have suggested that in so doing we are perhaps bringing in the Home Office and pushing out the local authorities. I do not think that that is so, because in that respect the London regional director and his organisation would stand in no different relationship to the local authorities in London than other Civil Defence regional instructors stand in relation to their local authorities.
I should like to assure your Lordships that in looking at this problem and replying to this Amendment I have not done so in any doctrinaire way at all. I have done so conscious of my responsibilities as a Home Office Minister in Civil Defence. It is entirely in that light that I have regarded this Amendment, and it is entirely in the light of those considerations that I suggest that your Lordships would be unwise to accept it. I would recall that, in speaking to a similar Amendment (in fact, I think it was precisely the same Amendment) at our Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I think it was, said in reply that I had made out quite a good case. In fact, I then made out just the same case as I have just made out now, and if it was good then it is equally good now. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords opposite will take the same course now as they did on Committee.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I cannot quite agree with my noble friend Lord Shepherd if he did say that the noble Earl had made out a good case. In some ways there is a case, I agree, but the basic thing is training. I am much more concerned with standards of training at the present time, and with the provision of facilities for training, than perhaps with some of the other things. But the fact is, of course, that, unless the power goes to the Greater London Council, that can be done only by a considerably increased function within the present London Civil Defence regional organisation. I should prefer that power to be with the Greater London Council, as it is at the moment with the London County Council.

759
It is a matter of opinion but, quite frankly, the holding up of the rescue service as a local service is just "bolony", because, although I referred to the last war and to the use of regional columns, one fact is plain. During the last war we had the opportunity of mobility even in such devastated areas as those brought about by the Coventry blitz. If ever such a tragedy comes, you will not have mobility in London for many miles. What is the use of putting your fire brigade, your ambulance and your first-aid units out on the perimeter, ready to move in, as you allow, when you cannot rescue the people in the buildings which are not affected by fire or treat them with first-aid and put them in an ambulance? The whole organisation from that point of view will have to be revised.
Equally, on the question of the homeless, boroughs just cannot deal with the problems. If there were such a tragedy as the dropping of a nuclear bomb, whether on South London or on North London, the whole of the area would be devastated, and the problem of dealing with the homeless who come from it will have to be tackled by the areas outside. The noble Earl says, "Let the Home Office Regional Director do it". But in the normal local government area or county—Middlesex, Hertfordshire and the rest of it—this is a function of the local government organisation, supervised, too, by the Regional Director, with his own sources available, if called upon by the Regional Director, for supporting the services of any other area which happens to be fully stretched or which has perhaps been made immobile. So there must be this co-ordinating function operated by somebody. The boroughs just cannot do it.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord here, but I think he is possibly confusing something which I said. He is now talking of what would happen in an actual emergency, or in the aftermath of a nuclear attack. I dealt with that at great length in Committee, when I pointed out that in such a case responsibility would be transferred to the regions outside London and that the Regional Commissioner would be exercising the co-ordinating function.
LORD LINDGREN: But the Regional Commissioner depends upon the local authority. He does not operate the services: he directs the services. If you are going to have in that respect an operation different from that with regard to training, then I think that is foolish. It would be a far better way to train and to exercise as near as you can to the conditions which will operate in war time. Of course, nobody works then to the last letter of the law, but the drill is more likely to be effective in operation if you used the same basis for training. But I know the enthusiasm that the noble Earl has for Civil Defence, and on this occasion I am not prepared to advise my colleagues to divide. I think the matter will have to be revised, and I shall then have the pleasure of saying, "I told you so". At least, I hope I live to say it. I will not withdraw my Amendment; I prefer it to be negatived.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 51 [Amendments to Shops Act, 1950]:
9.51 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert:
".—(1) The Greater London Council shall be the local authority for Greater London for the purposes of the Young Persons (Employment) Act 1938 and the Shops Act 1950.
(2) In accordance with the foregoing sub-section—

(a) for section 6(1)(a) of the Young Persons (Employment) Act 1938 there shall be substituted:—

'(a) as respects Greater London, the Greater London Council;'

(b) in section 73(1) of the Shops Act. 1950, for the words 'as respects the City of London, the Common Council;' there shall be substituted 'as respects Greater London the Greater London Council;'".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 163, and I hope it will be convenient to your Lordships if I discuss with it Amendments Nos. 164, 165, 166, 167 and 168. That, in itself, should suffice to predispose the noble Earl in favour of what I am now going to say. Certainly if he accepted these Amendments it would mean major alterations to Clause 51, and I therefore thought it might be helpful if I read out Clause 51 as it would read if the Amendments were accepted. It would read:
"No order shall be made under section 54 of the Shops Act 1950 other than an order revoking, either generally or as respects a

761
specified area, a previous order under that section: and the power of making such order under that section shall be exercisable by the Greater London Council and references to subsections (2) to (4) of that section and in any order made thereunder to the London county council shall be construed as references to the Common Council of the City of London and the Greater London Council".
To me, that recital possesses a symmetry which I hope will commend it to the noble Earl. But I appreciate that symmetry is not enough and I want to support it with argument.
The purpose of these Amendments in total is to ensure that the administration of the Shops Act, 1950, throughout Greater London, including the City of London, is transferred to the Greater London Council and not, as under Clause 4 in the Bill, to the London boroughs; and, in addition, that the administration of the Young Persons Employment Act, 1938, which contains provisions relating to hours of employment of young persons in certain occupations, and which is conveniently administered under the Shops Act, 1950, is in the same way transferred to the Greater London Council. The Shops Act deals with the closing of shops on early closing days, in the evenings and on Sundays; and it also contains provisions relating to shop assistants' weekly half-holidays and meal times, employment on Sundays and compensatory holidays.
At present in the County of London the Act is administered by the London County Council except for the provisions of Section 38 regarding sanitary and other arrangements which are administered by the sanitary authorities, and except also in the City of London where it is administered by the Common Council of the City. The Act empowers a local authority to make various orders: for example, to fix days for early closing, to prescribe, within limits, evening closing hours, and to fix late days, for example in the West End of London exempting certain trades from the early closing day provisions. In past years the L.C.C. have made a number of orders under these powers, some of which apply to defined areas and some throughout the whole county, in which, by the way, there are some 65,000 shops. To do this work the Council have appointed twelve
762
inspectors, each of whom, therefore, is responsible for about 5,000 shops.
In detecting infringements of the law, it is an advantage, when an inspector becomes too well known to the offending or recalcitrant shopkeeper, if he can put a colleague not known to the good gentleman to watch his "goings on". If the inner London boroughs become Shops Act authorities, each one of them will have just sufficient work for one inspector. Is the noble Earl satisfied that this work, which is now being done by twelve inspectors under one authority, can be done by twelve inspectors operating under twelve different authorities? My own view—one which I am certain he must subscribe to—is that it will be quite impossible, with holidays, sickness and other consequences, to do this without having two inspectors, which will approximately double the cost right away, without in any way increasing efficiency. In fact, as I shall show, it will decrease the efficiency of the present service.
The powers given to local authorities under the Shops Act to make orders relating to early closing day and evening closing naturally cause difficulties where local authority boundaries cut across or through shopping centres. There are a number of places on the present boundaries of the county of London where a shopkeeper on one side of a shopping centre, with the early closing order of one authority, has to close on one day and a shopkeeper on the other side of the same street, with a differing early closing order, has to close on another day. This is unavoidable. But the point about the Act as it now stands is that this Bill will be virtually certain to increase its anomalies twelvefold, because instead of one authority within the perimeter of the county we shall have twelve, each with different predilections about early closing day. In fact, this may actually depend on the idea of a councillor who is a leading shopkeeper about what day should be his weekly day off.
The cost will be increased under the Government's proposal, the efficiency of the service will decrease and the annoyances which arise will increase. On the other hand, the advantages which would result from the retention

763
of the larger areas of administration throughout the county of London as it now exists would be, first, that it would remove these equalities of treatment between the numerous boroughs, of which, apart from shopkeepers, the public will quite rightly complain; and secondly, will remove the necessity for complicated ad hoc administrative arrangements between the boroughs, which will be a great help.
I know that the noble Earl is going to say that the boroughs will make arrangements between themselves. This is the familiar pattern that we have had: destroy the unity and the efficient administration that exists, and substitute for it an ad hoc getting together which may do the job almost as well as it is now being done. How on earth you can see an advantage in taking something which is co-ordinated and, as it were, administered under one roof, and destroy it, and then say "Ah; but we shall co-ordinate together again and assemble the pieces", is something which I cannot fathom, and it can only be beauty in the most academic mind. Then the retention of the specialist staff will be an advantage which, as I have already pointed out, it will be uneconomic for the boroughs to maintain, or, if they maintain it, will cost a lot more. Further, it will mean the removal of differences of interpretation and the standards of enforcement which are bound to arise and cause resentment.
I am aware that Amendments similar to the one I am now moving were moved in another place and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department then said:
"This is another case in which one has to take a decision on balance, with no completely decisive consideration one way or the other".
It is a practice in your Lordships' House, and certainly in another place, that when there is a tie the Chairman decides not to disturb the existing arrangement. Since we have the Minister admitting that there is nothing much in it either way, I should have thought that was a precedent we ought to follow. Equally, it would seem to me logical that since Greater London is virtually one built-up area it would be in the interests of economy and efficiency that there should
764
be a unified administration for the Shops Act under the Greater London Council.
In Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in rejecting similar Amendments which were then moved, conceded that there was substance in the arguments which we put forward, and particularly those relating to staffing problems, which indeed are undeniable. But even he, agreeing with his colleague in another place, said that, on balance, the Shops Act was essentially a local matter, to be locally administered, and ought therefore to be a borough responsibility. This Bill is dealing with local government, and "local" in this sense, I would submit, is the Greater London Council. In my submission, the noble Earl's suggestion that this raises a borough matter is not borne out by practical experience, and it is not supported by the interests of efficiency and economic administration, which I regard as of paramount importance, and which, indeed, should be so regarded.
If you are going to break something up that is working well, then it should be only for some positive advantage. I feel that when the noble Earl comes to reply he should show us what positive advantages will flow from spending more money to do the job less well than it is being done now. That. I think, is the case he has to answer. By these Amendments we seek to unify, under the Greater London Council, the administration of the Shops Act and the Young Persons (Employment) Act throughout Greater London, including the City, except for the provisions as to sanitation and other arrangements. I believe there is a strong case for these Amendments, and unless the noble Earl can answer the case, particularly on the three points I have put forward, then I feel that I shall have to invite your Lordships to support us in the Lobby. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 36, after ("51") add the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)
10.5 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, we discussed this matter at Committee, and noble Lords opposite pushed their argument to the point of a Division. I said then, and I repeat now, that, like my colleague in another place, I felt that

765
there was a certain balance of argument here. I was quite prepared to concede that there was a case for this Amendment, and I have always found that the argument of the faceless inspector to be quite an appealing one—an inspector whom the shopkeeper does not know. I also made it clear—and I think I can also confirm this—that I did not think this was a matter which need necessarily awaken our deepest political passions. But I hoped I had said enough to convince your Lordships that my approach to this particular Amendment was not that of somebody with a closed mind.
In confirmation of that, I would remind your Lordships that at Committee I myself moved an Amendment transferring one of these public control functions, that for petroleum licensing, from the boroughs to the Greater London Council. Nevertheless, I said at Committee—and I have no hesitation in repeating this now—that, on the whole, in our view the balance of advantage here undoubtedly lies in keeping these control functions for the Shops Act and Young Persons (Employment) Act with the boroughs. So far as I can make out, the noble Lord opposite has advanced no new argument for this Amendment, and by the same token I find myself relying on fairly familiar arguments in resisting his Amendment. In the first place—I think I can say this with less trepidation than if the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, were in your Lordships' House at this precise moment—I should like to remind your Lordships that the Royal Commission considered this matter closely, and clearly recommended that the enforcement of the Shops Act should vest with the boroughs. They pointed out that boroughs of the size which they had in mind should be able to eliminate the sort of problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has referred—the problem of varying shop hours at the centre of London. I would merely remind your Lordships that the boroughs we are now discussing which we have written into the Bill will be a good deal larger than those which the Royal Commission had in mind.
The noble Lord has tried to spike my guns in advance by saying that of course the noble Earl in reply will fall back upon the threadbare argument that where there is difficulty the boroughs
766
will be able to make perfectly sensible arrangements, so that there will not be anomalies wherever boundaries come together, possibly in a shopping area. Spiked though my guns may be, according to his likes, I will in fact repeat that argument, which seems to me a perfectly sensible one if one is dealing with perfectly sensible boroughs. I cannot understand this assumption which noble Lords make that we are dealing with parochial boroughs, with unco-operative or unsensible boroughs, and boroughs which will dance to the tune of one particular shopkeeping councillor. I really think they are overstraining the argument here, and I would claim that where there is need for co-operation boroughs will be able to make the necessary co-operative arrangements.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that in the case of the Shops and Offices Act, which this House dealt with some time ago, the Minister then felt that it was necessary to have a central inspector in to ensure that all the different authorities provided a uniform standard? He felt it was necessary, but obviously the noble Earl does not.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think we are dealing with different functions. The noble Lord asked me if I remembered that. I do not, because I was not in that particular discussion. In the second place, I wish to remind your Lordships that these functions outside the administrative County of London are exercised, not by county councils, but by boroughs and urban district councils, sometimes with a population of no more than 20,000. I will admit that the criteria which apply in cases of urban district councils in an isolated area may be rather different, indeed, very different, from those which apply in a large conurbation like London. Nevertheless, I would maintain that the cases are not so different as to mean that functions which elsewhere can be discharged for populations of only 20,000 need, in London, a catchment area of 8½ million; because in this catchment area of 8½ million it is not only the L.C.C. area which is caught by the noble Lord's Amendment, but an area 450 times the size of the catchment area which works perfectly adequately elsewhere in this country.

767
Again, I would remind noble Lords that even in London the L.C.C. have delegated all their Shops Act functions, save those which concern hours of business, to the metropolitan boroughs. I think a certain amount of proof of the pudding is in the shopping there. As regards shopping hours, the L.C.C. have found it necessary to make different orders for different parts of the county.
A further and important reason why I believe these functions should be properly entrusted to boroughs is that we have already decided under this Bill to transfer many other public control functions to them. The boroughs will therefore inevitably have to set up the public control department, and this department will be fully able to handle the functions which we are now discussing. I should have thought that if they are going to set up a public control department for all the other 16, 17 or 18 Acts which have public control obligations attached to them, it is only sensible to put this other public control function to them, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary. That is where I can meet the noble Lord's argument, or at least I think I can, about the inspectors. It will not be necessary for each of the London boroughs to have a separate or special inspector in order that the borough may be able to discharge its obligations under this particular function. They will be discharging this obligation by calling upon their public control department as a whole, as, indeed, do existing county boroughs within London, like Croydon.
Again, it seems to me logical that this Act should be administered under the same umbrella as weights and measures and food and drugs. Here, again, I would remind your Lordships that these, too, are going to the boroughs. Having said this about the public control department, I should not wish to argue that an administrative convenience is more important that the convenience of the public. However, I maintain that if a large number of public control functions are going to the boroughs, it is much more convenient and much less confusing to the man in the street if, generally speaking, all public control functions go to the boroughs, unless there are strong reasons to the
768
contrary which the man in the street knows.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl took me somewhat to task for suggesting that we were dealing with unto-operative boroughs, and thought there would be no difficulty about their coming together. The fact is we are now dealing with an area which it is proposed to break up, in which some parts close early on Wednesday, some on Thursday and some on Saturday. There is no legislative or administrative dividing line. At the moment it is all one area. Now we are to take that area and divide it up into 12, and the noble Earl tells your Lordships that, when that is done and the new local pride begins to assert itself, the part which closes now on Wednesday afternoon, the part which closes on Thursday afternoon and that which closes on Saturday afternoon will have no difficulty whatsoever in coming together and coming to an agreement. I must say to the noble Earl that whoever gave him that piece of advice has not the slightest clue whatsoever about local government and the people who vote for and compose our local councils. It really is not worthy of the noble Earl, who on almost everything speaks not only with a great deal of sense and sincerity but with considerable wisdom. It is quite unworthy of him, because he knows that this is absolutely impractical and absurd. Of course there will be difficulties and troubles, and we shall have these dividing lines. The local councils will not give way on these matters—indeed, if they have been closing on different days for the last 20 or 30 years why should they?
EARL JELLICOE: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? He said that I knew the argument I was advancing was impractical and absurd. The noble Lord may agree or disagree with the argument, but he is not entitled to suggest that I knew I was advancing an argument which was impractical and absurd. That argues an insincerity on my part to which I do not lay claim.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I entirely withdraw that, because I would never accuse the noble Earl of insincerity. But I am left unfortunately on the other leg; I have to accuse him of ignorance. I do neither with any kind of ill-will, as I am sure he realises.

769
The noble Earl then tried to blind your Lordships with science. He did not quite succeed in blinding me. But, however hard he tried, I would submit that he was unable to disprove that the Government's way of doing things in this Bill is bound to cost a lot more; it will do the job far less efficiently and it will cause far greater annoyance and inconvenience to the public. As in so many things, noble Lords opposite seem resolutely and absolutely determined to dig their own politi
cal graves, and who am I to try to deter them from such a noble enterprise? I shall therefore invite your Lordships to go into the Lobby with me in support of this Amendment.
10.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 163) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 52.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henderson, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Archibald, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Stonham, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Middleton, L.

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Dundee, E.

Merrivale, L.

Albemarle, E.

Eccles, L.

Mersey, V.

Allerton, L.

Effingham, E.

Mills, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Molson, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Fortescue, E.

Monsell, V.

Brecon, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Poulett, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Carrington, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Just, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandford, L.

Conesford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sandys, L.

Craigton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Jessel, L.

Swinton, E.

De La Warr, E.

Lothian, M.

Tenby, V.

Denham, L.

Mabane, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Derwent, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Waleran, L.

Devonshire, D.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 52 [Licensing of theatres, public entertainments, etc.]:
10.28 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is really only a drafting Amendment. The licensing of certain forms of public entertainment, public music, boxing, wrestling and dancing in the counties which are to be included in the whole or part of Greater London is at present conducted under the umbrella of a number of local Acts. We have thought it right to bring these together under the system at present in force in Middlesex. Certain small Amendments have been made here and in another place, and therefore it is no longer right to call this the "Middlesex system". That is the purpose of the Amendment which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 24, leave out from ("Act") to ("shall") in line 28.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Food, drugs, markets and animals]:
LORD WALSTON LORD WALSTON moved, in subsection (3), after "1950" to insert:
"and the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925—"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to what I think your Lordships will agree is one of the more important Amendments to this Bill, dealing with the diseases of animals and performing animals. Some of your Lordships have expressed surprise to me that there are any performing animals which come within the ambit of this Bill—outside the Palace of Westminster, which I believe is exempt from its provisions; but there are undoubtedly some, though probably not so many as there used to be.
It is a well-known fact that in this country we have always considered animals to be of at least equal importance, if not of superior importance to children. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was founded several years prior to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and I think that alone is sufficient reason for us to look at these Amendments with a good deal of seriousness. I must admit that the
772
importance of animals in London to-day is not so great as it used to be. In the old days the Port of London was the major port for the importation of livestock into this country, some of it coming from other parts of the British Isles, some of it from overseas. That trade has somewhat declined at the present time, but there are still a good many matters concerning animals which come within the purview of the present City of London and the present London County Council.
In general, matters concerning animals, particularly the diseases of animals—and with them go the regulations concerning performing animals—are dealt with mainly by the Ministry of Agriculture, but a certain number of their functions are delegated to the local authorities. In particular, there are various diseases such as foot-and-mouth, anthrax, and so on, which from time to time do considerable harm and present a considerable danger to the population. In order to deal with those at the moment there are two full-time inspectors employed by the London County Council. It is a somewhat specialised job. The normal public health inspector and other veterinary inspectors who have responsibility for these matters do not often have the opportunity of seeing such diseases or recognising them, and it is clearly unreasonable to expect that each of the newly constituted borough councils would have the expertise necessary among their inspectors to be able to cope with these matters.
It is therefore quite reasonable to say that the future administration of these regulations should remain in the hands of the relatively small number—two, three, four, whatever it may be—of highly specialised experts who know how to deal with these things, to recognise them and to follow up any traces that may come their way. It would not only be unreasonable to expect that each of the new borough councils should have experts of this particular kind; it would also be unreasonable to expect that, having got on to the track, as it were, of anthrax, when they reached the borough boundary they would then have to cease following up the clue, return to their office and telephone to their colleague in the next local authority. That is not a very efficient way of dealing with the matter.
Therefore, if we accept that the problem is whether we shall continue to have these two inspectors who are now employed by one central authority continuing to do their job most efficiently in co-operation with the Ministry of Agriculture, or whether we shall make them the employees of a whole series of newly constituted smaller local authorities, clearly it is far more efficient for these people to continue to be employed and administered, as they have been in the past, most effectively, by one central authority, rather than that they should have a whole bevy of new masters collectively to employ them—that, instead of having one master, they should have a multiplicity of them. It is purely for this reason that we are moving this Amendment. We believe that it is going to make the administration of the various regulations easier; that it should be done, as in the past, by one central authority, rather than that this system should be split up and then once more reconstituted. I hope that the logic and objectivity of our arguments will convince the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, that this is a correct Amendment, and that he will now be able to signify his acceptance of it.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 11, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Walston.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has moved Amendment No. 170, but of course it is connected with various other Amendments, as he will recognise, and these Amendments have been considered previously in Committee. The noble Lord did not himself take part, I remember. Their effect would be to give the Greater London Council, rather than the London boroughs and the City, the functions concerning animals which are mentioned in the respective Acts. The matter has been considered very carefully in the light of previous discussions in this House and in another place, and the conclusion has been reached that the best arrangement is to give the London boroughs this responsibility. The day-to-day work in connection with the Acts is not complicated and does not call for a high degree of technical skill. I do not know whether the noble Lord disagrees with me on that point—I think
774
he suggested that he did—but the experience we have at hand to study does not suggest that it requires a high degree of technical skill.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, if I may interrupt, I would not suggest that the day-to-day working of these Acts requires a high degree of skill. But the occasional appearance of the rather rarer diseases, such as anthrax and foot and mouth disease, which are not very common within the confines of the Greater London Council, would require a considerable amount of specialisation.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, but of course if any hint or suggestion of such an outbreak or such a case occurred, my own Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries vets would immediately be called in. I think that particular aspect is taken care of by my own Department. But what the noble Lord proposes would carry it much further. We think that, by giving the day-to-day responsibility to the boroughs, it would be possible to arrange for more intensive coverage of the work, with less travelling and with greater local knowledge. Already the boroughs in the outer London area have satisfactorily undertaken the work, and we think the new boroughs would undoubtedly continue to maintain those high standards as they exist.
The noble Lord mentioned specifically the future of the two lay inspectors employed by the London County Council. It has been found that their work is concentrated in the area of the two slaughterhouses in Islington and Woolwich, and the appropriate new London boroughs would find that the work in each case would keep an inspector fully employed in the two areas. In order to specify under the Bill one area will fall in the City of London and the other will fall in the area to be occupied by the amalgamated boroughs of Greenwich and Woolwich. So if it is thought suitable, as it well may be, one of those two inspectors may be assigned to and employed by each of these authorities. A limited amount of work could be undertaken in adjacent boroughs, but the task associated with slaughterhouses is likely to place a heavy demand on the time of the lay inspectors, and it will be an advantage to have the work in other boroughs done by separate,

775
designated officers. I am referring now to the day-to-day work, and it will be part of the day-to-day work, as it always has been, to report to my Department any untoward, startling or disturbing occurrence in the context of animal health, and my Department will immediately despatch one of our Ministry vets, to study the question.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I must say I am not convinced by it. I think that it would be more satisfactory if these two inspectors, instead of being seconded to and employed by Woolwich and Greenwich and the City of London, were available to travel farther and wider, because it is perfectly possible that some disease will break out—and one has only to look at Harlow, with the typhoid outbreak which has occurred there, from, so far as one can see, imported meat in some form or another, or from processed meat. One can envisage a case of that kind, with possibly some other disease confined entirely to animals, such as anthrax, arising in one of those two main slaughterhouses but not showing any clinical symptoms and not being recognised until it goes to a borough further afield, where there will not be one of these two specialised inspectors. The delays involved in getting on to the noble Lord's Ministry, instead of its being all part of the same organisation, might be fairly serious.
What is more, it is not only a question of actually dealing with the disease once it has been recognised that is difficult: one of the most difficult things is, in fact, to recognise the disease in the earlier stages. So it may be that, through the lack of these specialised inspectors, the disease will not be recognised in time and reported to the noble Lord's Ministry quickly enough. So I am not convinced by his arguments, and I think it is unfortunate that he has not been convinced by mine. But I must freely admit that, although I regard this as an unfortunate attitude on the part of the Government, I do not think it is of such wide-reaching importance that it warrants my asking your Lordships to come into the Division Lobby, with all the necessary delays
776
which are entailed in that. Therefore, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Smallholdings, allotments, etc.]:
10.42 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to make clear that the Greater London Council shall have all the duties, as well as the powers, of a smallholdings authority. As it stands, the clause, by making the Greater London Council a smallholdings authority, gives it the same powers under Part IV of the Agriculture Act, 1947, as a county council on whom the duty of providing smallholdings is imposed—that is to say, any county council other than the London County Council. But it does not impose that duty on the Greater London Council. This Amendment rectifies that omission, and at the same time makes clear that certain provisions of pre-1947 smallholdings legislation, which apply to other county councils, apply to the Greater London Council. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 28 and insert—
("(1) Part IV of the Agriculture Act 1947 (which relates to smallholdings) shall apply to the Greater London Council as it applies to a county council, and accordingly in section 47(1) of that Act (which makes it the duty of every county council other than the London county council to provide smallholdings) for the words 'other than the London County Council' there shall be substituted the words 'and of the Greater London Council'.
(2) The Greater London Council").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. It is necessary to ensure that the Greater London Council, which will inherit the smallholdings estate of the Middlesex County Council, can exercise all the functions now exercisable by Middlesex under pre-1947 legislation. As it stands, the clause covers only one particular function under that legislation. This Amendment extends it to all such functions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 31, leave out from ("under") to ("exercisable") in line 32 and insert ("the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts 1908 lo 1931 repealed by the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1926 or saved by proviso (a) to section 67(2) of the Agriculture Act 1947 which by virtue of section 19(1) of the said Act of 1926 or the said section 67(2), were").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD LORD ST. OSWALD moved to add to subsection (2):
"and in section 71(8)(c) of that Act which relates to the discharge of the functions of County Agricultural Executive Committees in the existing county of London) for the words 'the county of London' there shall be substituted the words Greater London'".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like your Lordships to take this Amendment together with Amendment No. 214, which is consequential upon it. They relate to Section 71(8)(c) of Agriculture Act, 1947. The establishment of county agricultural executive committees is provided in Section 71(1) of the Act, with which I have no doubt your Lordships are familiar. Section 71(8)(c) is related, and specifies that the responsibility for the County of London
"shall be treated as if any such part thereof as the Minister may direct were included in such adjoining administrative county as he may direct".
Unless Amendments were made to this section the Minister would not have any power to apportion the area of Greater London between C.A.E.C.s of adjoining administrative counties. The Amendment proposed will enable the Minister to have the same power in relation to the area of the new authority as he has now in relation to the County of London.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 40, at end insert the said words.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Parks and open spaces]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment arises from an Opposition Amendment discussed in Committee. As the Bill stands at present the Greater London Council may provide new parks only where the proposal is approved by the Minister
"as being for the benefit of Greater London as a whole".
778
Noble Lords opposite thought this was too restrictive. The new formula substitutes some words which it is hoped will find favour while at the same time indicating that, in the Government's view, the Greater London Council should not set out to provide new parks inside Greater London unless they are going to be for the benefit of at least a considerable part of the area. The task of providing local parks should be undertaken by the boroughs. In reference to the later Amendment which follows, put down by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I would say that we feel this formula is not quite strong enough to indicate that any new parks provided by the Greater London Council have to serve a very wide area. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 23, leave out ("Greater London as a whole") an insert ("an area of Greater London substantially larger than the London boroughs in or near which the park or open space is proposed to be provided").—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we on this side give this Amendment a cool welcome; but feel it does not go quite as far as we should like. However, in the circumstances, we suggest that the House supports the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to make it impossible for both this clause and the clause on the Green Belt introduced in the Committee stage to apply to the same piece of land. If any Green Belt land, in the sense of the new clause, is at the same time
"land vested in the L.C.C. or the Middlesex County Council and used as a park or open space",
the more specific provisions of Clause 59 will prevail. The Greater London Council will not be under obligation, in other words, to propose a scheme by 1970 for distributing Green Belt land among the boroughs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 30, after ("57(2)") insert ("or 59(1)")—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.49 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will agree, this is a very complicated issue, and perhaps he will therefore forgive me if I keep closely to my notes. The subsection to which this Amendment refers was added to the clause by the Government in another place during the Committee stage. It provides that until the distribution of parks and open spaces, as between the Greater London Council and the new boroughs, is finalised, the Greater London Council's expenditure on these parks and open spaces inherited by it from the London County Council shall be treated as expenditure for special London purposes and chargeable only to the inner London boroughs, the City and the Temples. This expenditure for special London purposes is likely to amount to approximately only a penny rate in inner London; and on purely practical grounds that would not seem to justify the additional accounting complexities its imposition would create.
This also seems wrong in principle, because the effect of the subsection, as it stands, in inner London would bring not only a penny rate, but also its rateable share of the remaining penny rate in respect of the former London County Council parts and also in respect of any Middlesex part inherited by the G.L.C. Financially, the Bill seems to be weighted somewhat against the inner London area by the provisions of this subsection and Clause 23(6), which also was added by the Government on Report stage in another place. It provides that the inner London area is to meet the housing revenue account deficiencies of the G.L.C. for a transitional period and under subsection (3) of Clause 69 inner London must bear its rateable share for the transitional assistance to the severed counties, although at the present time that arrangement will not be necessary and although it might be that such a system would put a charge on only outer London boroughs.
It provides protection also against the fact that inner London, by reason of its high rateable value, will bear a relatively greater proportion than the outer London boroughs of the expenditure of the G.L.C. It seems wrong in principle,
780
on a major reorganisation which the Government have undertaken, to make special financial arrangements for particular services. It will surely be preferable on all accounts to make a fresh start and treat the whole arrangement as one from the beginning. The case for doing so in respect of parks and open spaces is particularly strong, because nearly 30 per cent. of the area of the L.C.C. parks and open spaces is outside the area of the inner London boroughs. On the Committee stage in your Lordships' House, the noble Earl resisted this Amendment on the ground that the outer London boroughs pay for their own parks, and until a general plan for the distribution of London parks was made they should not also have to pay towards the local parks of inner London.
In our view, this does not alter the argument that it is illogical to draw these distinctions, all of which ignore the benefit which the outer London boroughs themselves are deriving from those areas within the inner part of Greater London. This is a complicated matter. We are raising it now in order to obtain, if we can, further information from the Minister, and perhaps, having had an opportunity to consider the position of the inner London boroughs, the outer London boroughs and the spaces within the inner area which the whole community enjoy, the noble Lord can give us some measure of comfort. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 22, leave out subsection (3).— (Lord Shepherd.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, this Amendment was inserted in the Bill at Recommittal stage in another place, but I would point out that on that occasion, when its purpose was explained by my right honourable friend, the subsection was accepted without further discussion and it did not seem to arouse any anxiety then. I am not sure, even now, why noble Lords opposite should think that it is unfair to suggest that half the special charge should be a precept on the inner London boroughs only. This refers only to L.C.C. parks and open spaces, which at the moment are paid for by the L.C.C. and also by a small precept upon the inner

781
boroughs. I pointed out, and I must do so again, that the outer London boroughs constituted from parts of Essex, Kent, Surrey and so on, pay for their own local parks, and they will be paying in part for the local parks of inner London, as well. They will be sharing among them the other half. We propose to relieve them of half the total for the inner London parks. Had it been practicable, it would have been better from the outset to give the boroughs the administrative and financial responsibility for parks serving local needs, and that will be done by the year 1970, when the Greater London Council have made their plans for devolving these parks to the ownership of the individual London boroughs. But as that is not possible, it was thought that this transitional arrangement was the fairest.
The noble Lord brought in the question of Middlesex, and thought the inner London boroughs would also be paying for the parks and open spaces inherited from Middlesex. In point of fact, the position there is that they are not included in this subsection because the local parks are already in the care of the Middlesex county districts, and the Middlesex County precept for parks is only of the order of ½d., while the local rates for this purpose vary from 6d. to 1s. I think the noble Lord will agree that there is nothing in that point. We do not see why there should be any particular objection to this. It seems to me rather that the inner London boroughs are asking to eat their cake and have it. The parks are mainly for their benefit, and most of them will in due course be transferred to them, and those which are not will be precepted on by the Greater London Council for all the boroughs. Therefore, we consider it reasonable that this half of these special charges in the transitional stage should be borne only by the inner London boroughs and the other half distributed through the whole area.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, naturally we regret that the Government cannot respond a little more in this matter. I think the noble Lord will agree that many of these parks in London are enjoyed and shared by the inhabitants, or are available to the inhabitants, of the Greater London area. It is rather late, and this is obviously
782
not a matter on which we should wish to fight. Having explored the position, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [The Green Belt]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a clarifying Amendment. Its purpose is to prevent possible overlapping between the new Clause 80, which refers to charities in Greater London, and its legal effect is to let charity prevail: charity land will continue to vest "for the like purposes", to quote subsection (1) of Clause 80. Its practical effect is not likely to be substantial, since under either clause the land would go to the Greater London Council. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 33, after ("land") insert ("not being land to which section 80(1) of this Act applies").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, after Clause 60, to insert the following new clause:
Functions under Town Development Act 1952
".—(1) As respects participation in town development within the meaning of the Town Development Act 1952, and as respects the power to contribute towards expenses of such development conferred by sections 4 and 10(3) of that Act on the council of a county borough, the Greater London Council shall be in the same position under that Act as the council of a county borough, and accordingly references in that Act to the council of a county borough as an authority participating or eligible to participate and the references to the council of a county borough in sections 4, 10(3) and 12(1) of that Act shall include references to the Greater London Council; and, for the purposes of any such development in respect of which the Greater London Council have power under the said section 4 to make a contribution to the council of any receiving district within the meaning of that Act, they shall also have power to make available to that council the services of any of their officers or servants.
(2) In section 2(1)(b) of the said Act of 1952, for sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) there shall be substituted the following—

'(ii) Greater London; or

(iii) a county district in an area of continuous urban development adjacent to any big centre of population other than Greater London; or'.

(3) It shall be the duty of the Greater London Council

(a) to implement, or complete the implementation of, any undertaking given before

783
1st April 1965 with the approval of the Minister—

(i) under section 4, 10(3) or 19(3) of the said Act of 1952 (including the said section 4 as extended by section 34(2) of the Housing Act 1961) by any council to whom section 3(1)(b) of this Act applies; or

(ii) under the said section 4 (as extended as aforesaid) by the Hertfordshire, Essex, Kent or Surrey county council in a case where the undertaking was in respect of development relieving congestion in any area falling within Greater London;

(b) to take or complete any action which was agreed to be taken by any council to whom section 3(1)(b) of this Act applies in pursuance of an agreement made before 1st April 1965, being an agreement made with the authority of the Minister under section 8(1) of the said Act of 1952 or an agreement such as is referred to in section 8(2) of that Act;

and the Greater London Council shall have the like rights under any agreement to which paragraph (b) of this subsection applies as the council whose liabilities thereunder they assume by virtue of that paragraph.
(4) References in subsection (3) of this section to an undertaking given or action agreed to be taken by any council shall be construed as including references to any undertaking or action which, having regard to the established practice of that council, should properly be deemed to have been so given or to have been so agreed to be taken; and any dispute as to the existence or extent of any duty, right or liability of the Greater London Council by virtue of the said subsection (3) or as to whether or not any particular undertaking or action should properly be deemed as aforesaid shall be referred to and determined by the Minister.
(5) Any action authorised by an order under section 9 of the said Act of 1952 to be taken by any council to whom section 3(1)(b) of this Act applies may be taken by the Greater London Council; and that Council shall have the like liabilities and rights in connection with any obligation with respect to that action imposed by the order as the council originally authorised by the order to take that action.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause fulfils an undertaking given in another place during Committee on the basis of which a Member of the Opposition withdrew a clause having a similar intention. Its terms have been agreed with the officials of the London County Council, and its purpose is to make clear the arrangements for the transfer of responsibilities in the field of town development. If noble Lords wish it, before sitting down I can go through some sections and explain the position in detail, but if they are content to take what I have said as the
784
gospel truth, I will now merely beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 60, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 [Miscellaneous local authority functions]:
11.1 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to leave out subsection (4) and to insert:
"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment passed before or during the same session as this Act, the authority by whom there shall be exercised on and after 1st April, 1965, any function conferred on local authorities by the enactments relating to weights and measures shall, as respects Greater London be the Greater London Council."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, which would have the effect of deleting the present subsection (4) and substituting for it the subsection on the Marshalled List, which sets out that, notwithstanding anything that we may do in the Weights and Measures Bill, any authority conferred on a local authority by the Weights and Measures Bill should, so far as Greater London is concerned, be exercised by the Greater London Council. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is now on the Government Front Bench, and doubtless he will reply to this Amendment. He may be thinking, as I am, that to-morrow we shall both be busily engaged on the Weights and Measures Bill. The same thought may have crossed his mind with regard to this present Bill as occurred to me: the first line of the burial of Sir John Moore at Corunna:
"They buried him darkly at dead of night".
I will "skip" the next line, out of deference to the noble Lord's feelings, but I would remind him that then came the line:
"They bitterly thought of the morrow."
Since he and I may be engaged on this Bill until to-morrow, we shall approach the Weights and Measures Bill with less feelings of eager anticipation. For this reason, I shall be commendably brief in my remarks on the present occasion.
The purpose of this Amendment, which is quite clear, is to persuade the

785
Government that weights and measures functions in Greater London should be exercised by the Greater London Council, and the reasons for that are to my mind, although I hope to state them very briefly, as convincing as any reasons can be. First of all, it must be better and more efficient for one authority which is already doing the job to continue to do it rather than, as I understand it, the 32 separate weights and measures authorities who are likely to be created by order of the President of the Board of Trade when the Weights and Measures Bill becomes an Act.
There is a shortage of weights and measures inspectors. It is impossible to deny that the job, when performed by 32 different authorities, must require a larger inspectorate and, therefore, a more expensive inspectorate. It is impossible to deny that the inspectors, operating in comparatively confined areas, will be handicapped in their work. They will not be able to stop a fraudulent coal lorry driver who skips across the boundary of a borough and goes off scot-Free. They will be handicapped in their work, particularly with regard to chain stores and supermarkets. When at present they detect an error in a weight in one shop—and it may be one which is probably quite an innocent mistake but one which, nevertheless, affects the housewife or the consumer—it probably applies to the whole chain. At present, this matter can be dealt with conveniently and quickly within the present inspectorate, whereas it could not possibly be dealt with in the same way when there are 32 separate authorities, however well-meaning.
It will also be a handicap, particularly with regard to imported articles, which can be so quickly distributed throughout London and the areas of the 32 different authorities and which will be impossible to check. We shall lose the great advantage of the central office for reference purposes, which is now so extremely useful. We shall lose the advantage of inspectors who are already known by their faces in one area and where there are a number of defaulters or fraudulent persons being able easily to call on a colleague who is not so well known in the area to make his checks and, as it were, do his detective work, because in many of these London boroughs there will really be work for only one full-time
786
inspector, and it will be quite farcical to have only one. There will have to be more; but even if you have two, three or four they will be quickly well known in the area, particularly to the kind of person (the minority, fortunately, among shopkeepers and traders) whom it is their business to keep up to scratch.
They are all highly specialised people and, indeed, the Government have already agreed, for example with regard to the petroleum inspectors in London, that they shall be centrally administered as now, because they are highly specialised people and because their duties at present quite properly take them all over London. It is the same job and it has the great advantage that these expert people who have spent their lives in the job will continue under the same roof and under the same umbrella and will carry on the same job. In exactly the same way, the weights and measures staff are highly specialised, although not numerous, and it will be very much better if they were to remain under single direction.
Then, in the question of decisions, the chain of organisation of the staff, as at present through County Hall, ensures unity of operation. It is sometimes my duty as president of a trade federation of employers to have matters referred to me by Customs and Excise, and I find that over the country, not merely in London, one often finds a local inspector giving a different interpretation of, say, purchase tax or the right classification of a group of a particular kind of goods, and the members of my organisation write to me for an opinion. I settle the matter with Customs and Excise at Kings Beam House and, invariably, the local inspector is found to be wrong. This is the kind of thing which can be put right amicably when there is a central organisation to appeal to; but when there are 32 different organisations in the county of London, each adjudicating on this, in some ways, quite complicated Weights and Measures Act, as it will be, there are sure to be differences of interpretation. There is no central body to appeal to, and, therefore, there is bound to be dissatisfaction.
There are other points I could mention; the unnecessary provision of the extra sets of local and working standards, which are quite expensive, whereas now we need to have only one set

787
in the county of London instead of 32; the extra buildings that will be required when we multiply these local offices by 32; and the less control over what, in my brief, are called peripatetic traders, which really means "smart Alecs" in a motor vehicle who can get away fast after they have committed some offence. I am fairly certain that however long and however sensibly I talk on this particular subject it will not make the case any better; that is impossible. And it may be equally impossible to soften the noble Lord's obdurate heart. I will therefore be content with being absolutely in the right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 23, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, there are two reasons why I am going to resist this Amendment. One is on the question of dealing with this matter on this Bill, and the other, which I had hoped to avoid arguing again, but I see that I must now argue again, is that we want the London boroughs, or some combination of the London boroughs, to be weights and measures authorities in due course.
The first point is this: we believe very strongly that the proper Bill in which to settle who should be weights and measures authorities throughout the country is the Weights and Measures Bill now before your Lordships; and it is being done by that Bill. We think that the re-allocation which is going on throughout the country should be done under that Bill, and of course under that Bill the Board of Trade have the power to appoint the weights and measures authorities. The only reason why this Clause 61(4) comes into the matter is that in the very unlikely event of the Weights and Measures Bill not becoming law, unless this clause was in this Bill we should not have any power to appoint under either Bill the weights and measures authorities. I am not talking about the Amendment; I am talking about the position under the Bill.
In effect, as soon as the Weights and Measures Bill becomes law this Clause 61(4) ceases to have effect, and the
788
appointments of weights and measures authorities will come under the Weights and Measures Act. For that reason we resist this Amendment. We do not think the appointment should be made under this Bill at all, and this clause is in the Bill only as a stopgap in case of accidents. We cannot imagine it is ever going to be used, because the other Bill will become an Act at the same time as this, or possibly before.
The reason why we wish to make the London boroughs, or a combination of the London boroughs, if they so wish, weights and measures authorities is this. The present weights and measures authorities under the existing weights and measures enactments are county and county borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London. As we have stated repeatedly, both in debate on the London Government Bill and on the Weights and Measures Bill, it is the intention of the Board of Trade to make the London boroughs weights and measures authorities, provided that these boroughs remain broadly as proposed in the London Government Bill. If we do it this way, it is consistent with the provisions in the Weights and Measures Bill for the allocation of the weights and measures function to local authorities in the rest of the country. In fact under the Weights and Measures Bill the reallocation would be done in the same way for London and the rest of the country.
Outside the London area the Bill provides that counties and county boroughs and non-county boroughs and urban districts with populations of 60,000 or over shall be weights and measures authorities. When it comes to the question of size (which was the other argument the noble Lord put forward: that the size is too small, and that it would be better to have a larger area), although in the rest of the country 60,000 is the figure above which they are entitled to be a weights and measures authority, in the Greater London area the new London boroughs proposed by this Bill will have populations ranging from about three to five times this figure of 60,000. In the Government's view, it is consistent with the general structure of weights and measures authorities in the Weights and Measures Bill that these London boroughs should become weights and measures

789
authorities. This, I might add, was also a recommendation of the Royal Commission on London Government. That is a second reason why we do not like this Amendment. May I repeat that we think—in fact, we feel certain—that the appointment of weights and measures authorities should, if possible, be made under the Weights and Measures Bill when it becomes an Act.
11.15 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, it is perfectly clear that the Government or some political organisation has given a directive or instruction to Government Departments, to the effect: "Wherever there is the slightest question, do not consider the merits or who can best administer the service, but give it to the boroughs in order to go as far as you can to destroy the composite character of London." This one really is preposterous; it is absurd. You will not have as good a service, because the authorities, although they are substantial in population, are not big enough to carry a proper service; indeed, some of them will mix up weights and measures with other functions. Moreover, you will have one authority doing it on one side of the road, and another lot on the other.
This is preposterous. It ought to be a Greater London service for the reasons that my noble friend has mentioned, but which I will not pursue. It is plain that the Government have left off thinking. In fact, they left off thinking when the Bill first came in. It is merely their prejudice, their dogma all the way along, first of all to destroy the London County Council legislatively because they cannot win a majority on it by the consent of the people, because they do not trust the people; secondly, administratively or by set-up, the Government say, "We must have a Greater London authority; but give it as little power as possible. Never mind about the merits; keep the power away from it. Give it to the darlings of the Tory Party, the boroughs"—where they hope to do well.
It is a bad thing and unreasonable. It just shows that the Government are not thinking at all about what is the right thing to do; they are thinking only of a dogma. So every State Department has been told this by somebody, whether the Prime Minister or, more likely, the Leader of the House of Commons, who
790
is the Chairman of the Tory Party organisation, paid for out of public funds, and he ought not to be. It is a scandal, but it is a typical political scandal such as we are getting accustomed to from this Government. It ought not to be. Somebody has given a directive to the State Departments that the line is to be "Anti-London County Council; therefore, anti-Greater London Council. Try everything you can to split up the capital city because the Socialists are on top of it." The Tories have an underlying fear that the Socialists may even win the Greater London Council, which they do not want to happen. They have done their best to prevent it. That is their hope. So the dogma has run on, and we are not getting Government Departments, even the Home Office, thinking on the merits of these things. The Home Office—
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Has he thought on the merits: that the first point Lord Derwent made was whether this should be discussed to-morrow under the Weights and Measures Bill or to-night?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: That is a totally irrelevant point. This is before the House.
LORD JESSEL: Has the noble Lord considered this? He was talking about clear thinking. I ask him that question.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: You have asked it all right.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, if I had stood up for as long as the noble Lord, they would be shouting at me "Order, order!", even though I put a perfectly legitimate point, as the saying is, "Before the noble Lord sits down". The noble Lord has fallen right into it. The handling of this problem in two Bills of Parliament in the same Session is, in itself, a condemnation of the legislative incompetence of the Government. They brought the provisions into this Bill and they brought them into the Weights and Measures Bill, and having brought them into the latter they are not going to let Parliament settle it. It is going to be settled by the President of the Board of Trade, and he will probably get his instructions from the

791
Chairman of the Conservative Party organisation, Mr. Macleod.
Moreover, we have had the Weights and Measures Bill here before, and wasted our time on it. Therefore I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, barged in, but if he is still the supporter of the London Municipal Society, as his distinguished father was, as President, I do not wonder that he has got himself in a muddle. I have done my best to get him out of it. The truth is the point he has raised shows the legislative incompetence of Her Majesty's Government. They have it in two Bills and then finally they say to Parliament, "We are not going to let you settle it at all. We are going to settle it according to what is politically convenient to us." That Front Bench ought to resign en bloc. This is not a Government, it is a political machine, and the State Departments are not allowed to think on the merits of any questions that come before them. The Home Office knows that it has been wrong on a number of things. I know the Home Office very well. I used to have a great respect for it, but it is now doing its best to make me lose that respect, which is sad. The other Departments are not allowed to think. They have their directives: Destroy the London County Council; give as few powers as possible to the Greater London Council; do anything you can to split London; divide it up, fragment it so that there is no capital city of our great
country left. And these are the patriots who hate the capital city because it is being governed by an enlightened, competent, first-class Labour majority on the London County Council. It is all very well for you to laugh, but we have held it since 1934.
LORD LINDGREN: And without scandals.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: And without doing the capitalist interest for secret money to help us in the Elections. The Progressives held it from 1899 to 1907, the Tories from 1907 to 1934, and we have had the longest stretch of the lot, ever since 1934. That is not an indication of an incompetent Council. It has won the increasing confidence of the people of London. The people of London are not fools. Therefore, my Lords, I am disgusted with the President of the Board of Trade and his representative in this House. They are not saying what they ought to say; they are not carrying out the policies of the Department as they know they ought to be carried out. They are doing what they are told by the evil capitalists and reactionary interests that make this Government tick.
11.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 182) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Summerskill, B.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Henderson, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

De La Warr, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Albemarle, E.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Allerton, L.

Derwent, L.

Jessel, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lothian, M.

Auckland, L.

Dulverton, L.

Mabane, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Eccles, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Brecon, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carrington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mersey, V.

Chelmer, L.

Fortescue, E.

Middleton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mills, V.

Conesford, L.

Grenfell, L.

Molson, L.

Craigton, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Monk Bretton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hastings, L.

Perth, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Sandford, L.

Tenby, V.

St. Just, L.

Sandys, L.

Teynham, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Salisbury, M.

Swinton, E.

Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

11.30 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"() Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, the Greater London Council shall be—

(a) the licensing authority for the purposes of Part III of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1921 (which provides for the licensing of employment agencies), and the said Part III shall extend to the whole of Greater London and accordingly, so far as they relate to the said Part III—

(i) in section 4 of the said Act of 1921 the expression 'the county' shall mean Greater London, and the expression 'licensing authority' shall mean the Greater London Council;

(ii) in section 4C of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1926, the expression licensing authority' shall mean the Greater London Council;

(b) a registration authority for the put.. poses of the Theatrical Employers Registration Acts 1925 and 1928, and accordingly in section 13 of the said Act of 1925 for the words 'As respects the City of London, the common council' there shall be substituted the words 'as respects Greater London, the Greater London Council';

(c) a licensing authority for the purposes of the Nurses Agencies Act 1957, and accordingly, in section 2(1) of the said Act of 1957 for the words in relation to the City of London, the Common Council, 'in relation to the remainder of the administrative County of London, the London County Council' there shall be substituted the words 'in relation to Greater London, the Greater London Council'."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, who has been First Lord of the Admiralty and Minister of Defence, seeing a number of strange faces on the other side, including the Chairman of the Consumer Council, tells me that the Government have called up their Territorial Army reserves. This Amendment is in principle similar to the last one, but is not on weights and measures. There are real moral issues involved in this Amendment. It deals with the licensing of employment agencies, including theatrical employment agencies and agencies for nurses. Again, the question is whether the Government will be good
794
enough to listen to argument about it, instead of retreating behind their dogma that this must be done by the boroughs and not by the Greater London Council. That, I think, was the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, on the Committee stage. I am speaking from memory, but I do not think that that way was specifically provided in the text of the Bill but it could be settled by order or regulation by the Minister under other clauses of the Bill. We understood last time from the Minister of State at the Home Office that it was the intention of the Minister to see that this was a service run by the London borough councils.
The importance of all this is as follows. To take theatrical employment agencies, they are not only dealing with British girls; they are dealing with girls, and men of course, from overseas. They may be dealing with people who come from the United States. It is consequently an international business, as indeed the theatrical business is in many respects international—people in it go abroad and come from abroad. It is therefore of the utmost importance morally to protect people from being exploited or misled by improper people in the business—of whom there may not be many but there can be some—which might have the gravest consequences for people seeking employment through theatrical agencies, particularly in the case of girls and young women. I beg noble Lords on both sides to consider it from this moral aspect of securing adequate and proper protection of those who are seeking a livelihood in this important and interesting field.
I do not wish to imply that the whole theatrical world is wicked, bad and immoral—not at all. I say only that the agencies could deteriorate into something which could be dangerous to the moral welfare of the people concerned. Therefore, we want to put this provision into the Bill; otherwise, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, as the Minister concerned in this case, might act under Clauses 82 and 86 whereby the Part III powers of the Act of 1921, which is a local Act, pass to the London

795
boroughs. The original powers concerned here were obtained by the London County Council a good many years ago, most of them by Private Bill legislation promoted, if my memory serves me rightly, in 1921. The 1921 Act was a local Act. It was promoted by a Conservative London County Council, and I give them all due credit for it. I think they were right to promote it and to bring it under the control of the Council. So its origins are respectable, even from the point of view of noble Lords opposite—and I think that is a point in our favour, as against any prejudice they may have. It provided that the London County Council should be the authority with the exception of the square mile of the City, and there they gave the powers to the Corporation. The reasons for that I understood: they were politically very close to each other, and there was a sentimental feeling about the Corporation—but it really was a silly thing to confer powers on the Corporation for a square mile.
My Lords, there are about 1,330 licensed employment agencies in the County of London. A good many of them, particularly those in the theatrical employment agency field, are in the new borough which will be Wesminster, St. Marylebone and Paddington combined, where there are 716 agencies. I think it was argued on Committee stage that it was right that Westminstee should have the theatrical employment agencies under their supervision because theatre-land is there. I have two answers to that. I do not think it is too desirable that the local authority where the theatres are should have the local control. I think it needs to be further away than that, so that it is living at a certain distance from the industry itself. The other contention was that these are local institutions; they serve a local field, and have a local population. But, my Lords, that is not true.
I was talking the other day to a gentleman who has now prospered still more in the world and got on. He was a theatrical agent. I put to him impartially this consideration which arises out of the Bill. I said, "From your experience, would you regard it as desirable that the body should be local because the people concerned, the people who use the agencies, the seekers of employment, are
796
local, or would you think it should be under the Greater London Council?" He did not hesitate. He said, "I have been a theatrical agent. These people live all over the place. You cannot localise it so far as the places where the people live are concerned. It obviously should be done by the bigger local authority". He was not a politician. I do not know what his politics are. I doubt whether he has often voted Labour, if at all; but that was his unhesitating answer.
Another argument the Government bring up against it is the fact that, in general, in Greater London this is a function discharged by county councils and county borough councils which has been quite common in local government legislation during the present century by Conservative as well as other Governments. But, says the Home Office spokesman, in Essex the power has been delegated to certain non-county borough councils; that is to say, county districts. This is true; but they have hardly any employment agencies in their local government area at all. Therefore it is not a material point. But generally the function is discharged by county and county borough councils. This leads one logically to the point that, as it is now run by the London County Council, under legislation promoted by a Conservative Council, it is logical and sensible that it should be done by the Greater London Council.
Moreover, in a certain number of cases the agencies turn out to be unreliable, fraudulent or wicked. The gathering of witnesses is a pretty skilled job; the hearing of the parties is a quasi-judicial function which is well done at County Hall. I have served on a borough council and have been a mayor, and I have always had rather a judicial mind in these matters and dealt with evidence objectively as a court of law should and ought to do. But it is not every borough council that has enough people of a judicial mind. I would not say that everybody on the L.C.C. has it. When I was Leader of the L.C.C. I did my best to ensure that we had such people on the committee dealing with these semi-judicial matters; and that, of course, should be done generally.
There may be a number of local councils where this is not easy; they can

797
get into legal trouble. The parties are heard and they have to be given a fair opportunity to state their defence. The procedure must be very fair and adequate. They can be represented by counsel or solicitors and they must be treated properly. The councils who prosecute must do so with restraint, objectively and with a fair mind. It is not everybody's "cup of tea" to be able to conduct this in the spirit of a court of law. But you are much more likely to get it done properly on a large authority, with competent solicitors to advise their chief officers. The L.C.C. deals with people from all over London and the United Kingdom and, sometimes, from any part of the world; and for good moral reasons it is important that this should be done well.
The distribution of agencies among boroughs is, of course, exceedingly unequal, as the figures I have mentioned indicate. Where a borough has not many agencies the quality of its officers for this job will be difficult to maintain. The London County Council have a small number of officers dealing with this; but they can spread them out, and they are not always known to the same people; and this is good. They do it well and economically because they have a small, good-quality staff. Some of the boroughs will have to use shops inspectors or weights and measures inspectors to do this thing which is rather out of their line; yet it may affect the future of many people.
In addition there are other employment agencies. There are employment agencies for nurses. I should doubt whether hospitals would engage nurses through employment agencies; they are probably for nursing in private houses. This situation can represent moral dangers to young women. This can easily put them into great difficulties, and the spirit and integrity with which employment agencies carry on their work are important. I could go on for a longer time about this, but the last thing I want to do is to keep your Lordships up unduly. This needs thinking about with the greatest care and sense of responsibility, because moral difficulties and possible betrayals can happen to young people, especially women and girls. I beg the Government to be sympathetic about this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 29, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
11.45 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this Amendment would make the G.L.C. responsible for the discharge of three public control functions. I do not think that the same considerations apply, at least in the same degree, to all three. Without detaining your Lordships unduly, I should like to deal with them separately. Before doing so, however, perhaps I may say (and I hope the noble Lord will not feel that this is in any way patronising) how much I appreciate the terms in which he moved this Amendment.
First, let me deal with the licensing of nursing agencies. From my point of view, this is the easiest of the three cases to argue, and I shall be arguing against the Amendment. The Nursing Regulations, 1961, apply to the licensing of these agencies. Their purpose is to make certain that the persons supplied by agencies are qualified and that their qualifications are suitable to the patients, usually private individuals, with whom they will be dealing. For this reason, supervision by an authority which has medical, nursing and midwifery staff, which can advise on these matters, is obviously a good thing. In Croydon and Surrey, agencies are supervised by members of the nursing staffs of these authorities. It seems to me that the control of licensing in this case should be the responsibility of the boroughs, because they will be the local health authorities and in possession of the requisite staff with the requisite expertise. I have no hesitation in asking your Lordships to amputate the nursing limb from the Amendment.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves nurses, there is another side to the work of these agencies. I appreciate the point about supervision by doctors and nurses, but what is really needed is an experienced officer who knows about where the nurses are going, the habits of the house and the visitors. These agencies have the whole moral future of nurses in their hands; that is a point with which the noble Earl did not deal.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I thought that I covered it, at least by implication. If the noble Earl wants detailed knowledge of personal circumstances to be obtained, this is best entrusted to the local authorities, who have recourse to all the persons who are in control of the personal services of the authority, particularly those most directly concerned with nurses.
The second limb of the Amendment is the part that affects the theatrical employers. It is my understanding, despite what the noble Lord has said, that the work of the registration authority here is very much a routine affair. No expert knowledge is required, and there appears to be, and to have been, little infringement of the requirements. Up and down the country—not only in London—prosecutions have been exceptionally rare. The control over the theatrical employers is one which I feel the London boroughs could take in their stride. Nevertheless, by far the majority of the theatrical employers are situated in London. This could not be described as a local service. I would, therefore, concede that the registration work in this instance could be carried out equally well by the Greater London Council. However—and this is my main point here—since the theatrical employers are often employing agents as well, it is clearly convenient that the work should be carried out by the authority responsible for the licensing of employment agencies.
That brings me logically to the third limb of the Amendment dealing with employment agencies.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: What are you going to do about the theatrical agencies?
EARL JELLICOE: I think the decision there depends on the decision we take about the employment agencies, because the theatrical agents are often employers as well and, therefore, would be caught under whatever we do with the employment agencies. Therefore, I think the one will follow the other. I think, therefore, the most difficult decision which your Lordships have to take to-night is whether the G.L.C. or the boroughs should be responsible for controlling the licensing of employment agencies.
I will not weary your Lordships by deploying the case which I and my noble
800
friends have deployed in support of the view that, generally speaking, these public control functions are usually best dealt with by the boroughs. But I would dwell for a moment on the point that there is a further advantage in these matters being handled by the boroughs—namely, that if they are they can be easily and conveniently combined with the other varied and numerous public control responsibilities which we have already decided to entrust to the boroughs. Unless there are strong and exceptional reasons to the contrary, therefore, I have already argued, and I would argue again now, that it would be right, not only for the boroughs, but also for the man in the street, if these public control functions are entrusted to the boroughs.
The noble Lord has sought to show that in this instance of the employment agencies there are, in his view, strong and exceptional reasons why we should not go to the boroughs, but to the wider authority. I wonder whether I could first deal with the argument on which his noble friend on the Committee stage based his main case, and which the noble Lord has also touched on, and that is the argument that the L.C.C. staff dealing with the employment agencies is a small but highly specialised one: because it has been maintained that if these functions were exercised by the London boroughs, the special experience of the L.C.C. would be lost and an increase in staff would be necessary.
I assure the noble Lord that, whatever he may now feel about the Home Office, I have looked into this particular aspect with a good deal of care since the Committee stage and I feel that this particular argument, which was advanced in Committee and on which he has touched, is open to question. The L.C.C. at the moment have six administrators and four inspectors. I suggest that these could easily be allocated among the London boroughs, and I think this particular inspectorate would almost certainly go to the central boroughs where the majority of the agencies are situated. Therefore, the special experience of these London County Council inspectors will not be lost at the centre, perhaps at the very point where it is most needed. It is true that the outer London boroughs might have to recruit staff to deal with the

801
small number of agencies in their area, but this, I think, would not be a problem, and would not lead to extravagance by an increase in staff, because there the work could easily be combined with other public control functions, as is the case in Croydon, where this matter of the control of employment agencies is discharged, and discharged, so far as I know, perfectly well by the borough.
I would grant that the matter would be different if there were special qualities of expertise required by the inspectors here, but I am assured that although in this field, as in many others, experience tells, apart from that there are no special qualifications required here. I also think it is the case—and this is a point which I put to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition a moment or so ago—that an authority with a small number of agencies is likely to get to know those agencies better than the remoter authority with a larger area to cover.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Maybe too well.
EARL JELLICOE: There is the question of the agencies whose scope is not particularly local. I think that with most of the secretarial agencies in the outer boroughs their catchment area is a pretty local one. I agree that as you come into the centre the agencies are serving a wider area, and in many of them their catchment area goes outside our country. As I have already said, it is probable that the great majority of the present London County Council staff will be taken on by those boroughs in which those agencies are situated, and their experience will be available to deal with it. I myself see no reason why the boroughs at the centre should not be able to investigate complaints which may have a moral implication—I would grant that—against particular agencies, just as effectively as the London County Council have been able to do. I should like to add that the complaints from abroad, from foreign employers, are often made, not direct to the local authority concerned, but via the Foreign Office or the Home Office, who then forward the complaints to the local authority.
The noble Lord has laid great emphasis on the moral implications here. I do not think these moral implications arise in the case of many of the possible infringements which are dealt with under
802
these three Acts. I agree that there may be infringements which have a moral implication, but I suggest that in those cases the boroughs concerned will be no less responsible, no less able and willing, to assess these moral considerations than would be the wider authorities. I said just now that I did not believe that unless there were special exceptional reasons we should depart from our normal principle and make this a G.L.C. rather than a borough responsibility. I do not see that there are special or exceptional reasons here.
Let me add this final word. Frankly, I thought at the Committee stage that the Opposition had made quite a case in speaking to this particular Amendment. It was the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who moved it, if I recall aright. Accordingly, though I did not formally offer to reconsider this point, I have gone into it with a good deal of care since then. Having done so, and having listened to the noble Lord, I must still say that I cannot advise your Lordships to accept his Amendment.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the Minister of State is a very persuasive speaker, so persuasive that at times—I do not say on this occasion—he persuades himself against his better judgment as his speech smoothly marches on from one argument to another. I must say, however, that he has not convinced me. I think he is wrong, and I think he is dangerously wrong. I really think he is on the edge of committing a moral danger here to important sections of the community. What is needed is not so much knowledge of the nursing profession in a nursing agency; it is knowledge of the nursing agency and the kind of people they are. This is equally so, if not more so, with a theatrical agency, in which there are grave moral dangers involved, and we want the most enlightened, judicial organisation to deal with that and to see that they keep in order.
The noble Earl says that there have been few prosecutions and scandals. The most likely place for them to happen, of course, would be London, where these bodies function in greater numbers and with a greater number of people involved than in any other part of the country; and perhaps a reasonable explanation of the fact that there have

803
been few prosecutions and scandals is the good administration of the London County Council, not only when my people have been in a majority but while the Conservatives before them were in a majority. They may have prevented a lot of evil things from happening. Therefore, I do not think that is an effective argument either.
The noble Earl may seek to show that he has approached this matter with an open mind and without prejudice; nevertheless, he comes to the same arguments and the same conclusions as other Ministers have when dealing with this business of whether it should be the Greater London Council or the boroughs. I am genuinely worried about this matter. I have appealed to the Government but, up to now, the Government have not moved. If any
Schedule 12 [Licensing of public entertainments in Greater London on and after 1st April, 1965]:
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved, in paragraph (1) to leave out "place" and insert "premises". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendments 183B to 183K are linked, and I hope your Lordships will agree that it may be convenient to consider them
hope had been held out, we might have considered whether we should go to a Division or not, but I think we must go to a Division. Responsibility is individually on every noble Lord, on both sides of the House; and if something goes wrong with this business, if moral danger emerges to young people, especially young women, I hope that noble Lords will be able to look back on the vote they have given to-night with a clear conscience and no sense of shame. But this is eminently a matter where noble Lords on all sides should exercise their individual judgment.
12.5 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 183) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Latham, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lindgren, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Crook, L.

Middleton, L.

Walston, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Eccles, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Merrivale, L.

Allerton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mersey, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mills, V.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Molson, L.

Brecon, L.

Glentanar, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Perth, E.

Carrington, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chelmer, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

St. Just, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hastings, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Conesford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandford, L.

Craigton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Sandys, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Jessel, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Denham, L.

Lothian, M.

Tenby, V.

Derwent, L.

Mabane, L.

Teynham, L.

Devonshire, D.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dulverton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

together. Like Amendment No. 184 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, they deal mainly with a matter raised by him and other noble Lords on Committee—namely, the adequacy of our present powers to control strip-tease and other establishments in London. In his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, my noble friend who sits on the Woolsack undertook to see whether the provisions of Schedule 12 could be strengthened to provide a more effective

805
deterrent, and suggested that a possible way might be to increase the penalties. This is the principal object of this series of Government Amendments. May I say how much I regret that my noble and learned friend, who I am quite certain would have wished to have spoken to this Amendment, is indisposed to-day.
The substantive Amendment is No. 183H and the others are purely technical and all deal with one rather minor point. At the moment, throughout the Schedule one finds the term "premises" used in one part and "place" in another. This has no significance, and therefore in order to remove this inconsistency the Amendment substitutes the term "premises" throughout. The interpretation paragraph to be added by Amendment 184A defines this expression as "includes any place". This means that outdoor entertainment will be brought within the scope of this Schedule, although perhaps that is not entirely necessary in the special circumstances with which we are dealing here.
Your Lordships will see that the main Amendment substitutes three new subparagraphs for the old sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 10. They do three things. First, the class of persons who will be liable to a penalty is re-defined so as to cover virtually anyone who has clear responsibility for putting on an unauthorised unlicensed entertainment; secondly, the maximum penalty is increased so as to include imprisonment without the option of a fine; thirdly, the maximum penalty for breach of the conditions of the licence is similarly increased. The persons who are to be liable to a penalty if a public entertainment is given without a licence are re-defined in sub-paragraph (1) and I think your Lordships will agree that the new formula is in fact a broad and comprehensive one.
The increase of penalties is made by sub-paragraph (3). As the Bill stands the maximum penalty at present is £200. The new sub-paragraph provides as an alternative or an addition a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. This, I think, is similar to what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, suggests in his immediately following Amendment. I think that we are now providing the Bill with sharp teeth in this respect. I should like to point out that the increase of penalties
806
also applies to a breach of condition of licence. Unless this were done it would be possible for a promoter who had been deterred by the increased penalties from defying the need to take out a licence, instead to take one out and defy the conditions of the licence itself forbidding improper activities. The maximum penalty for this in the Bill at present is a fine of £20, and the Amendment raises this to a fine of £200 or imprisonment for three months or both. The noble Lord in his Amendment has provided for a similar increase in the maximum penalty.
I would claim that here we should put our money on the Government Amendment for two reasons. First, the disqualification procedure which the noble Lord envisages involves two stages. Upon the first conviction of a person for using premises for an unlicensed entertainment the court would have the discretion to disqualify him from holding a licence for a period, or to disqualify the premises in which the offence is committed. The increased penalty would become available only if the person was convicted for the second time or there was a second conviction in respect of a different person using the same premises. The behind-the-scenes promoters of this sort of "joint" employ different people as "front" men. As soon as one place is closed down, another "front" man brings it to life, either in the same place or in another place. I think it was this point that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, was worried about at Committee stage, and it would not be covered by the noble Lord's Amendment. We therefore suggest that a substantial sanction should be available on first conviction, and this is what the Government Amendment provides.
Secondly, the noble Lord's Amendment does not provide more stringent penalties for a breach of condition of a licence. I am sure the breach of a licence should be able to attract these tougher penalties if we wish to close what would otherwise be an obvious loophole. I would therefore claim, regarding the so-called clubs within London which are not bona fide clubs and yet which provide public entertainment—striptease or what-you-will—

807
within this area, that these Amendments do everything which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth would do by his Amendment, and in fact do it more effectively. The area is relatively circumscribed. The Government Amendments would not affect bona fide clubs, nor indeed would the noble Lord's Amendment.
As I said on Committee stage the Metropolitan Police are in fact satisfied that they have sufficient powers under the law as it stands successfully to prosecute bona fide clubs which put on indecent entertainment. Neither the Government Amendments nor the noble Lord's Amendment would do anything to deal with "clip joints" or near-beer clubs. My noble and learned friend in his reply indicated that, so far as the latter were concerned, the Government could not undertake to deal with these particular devices for extracting money from foolish people. An entirely different form of control would need to be devised for these near beer establishments.
In one respect of course the noble Lord's Amendment does go wider than ours. It would increase the penalty for giving a public film show without a licence under the Cinematograph Acts of 1909 and 1952, and there is some evidence that a few such shows of undesirable films are being given, as the noble Lord mentioned at Committee stage. We have not put down an Amendment covering this, because the Cinematograph Acts are general ones covering the whole of the country and it would be outside the scope of the Bill to provide for an increased penalty in relation to Greater London alone.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said at our Committee stage, there are no politics in this part of the Bill at least. I think we all have the good name of London at heart. Since the Committee stage we have considered this matter closely and in the light of observations then made. Although I realise that in one respect possibly his Amendment would go wider than the Government's Amendments, I trust that both he and other noble Lords will feel that these Amendments which I am now moving achieve, especially in relation to the scope of the Bill, the broad purpose which they had in mind.
12.20 a.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, this, of course, is a relatively new matter for the reason that the Bill as introduced had nothing of this substance in its provisions at all, nor indeed did it have these provisions or anything like them when it left the House of Commons. In fact, I am not sure that the matter was raised at all in another place. I thought this out and initiated this Amendment and the discussion on the Committee stage, and I was glad that the Lord Chancellor gave it a not wholly unsympathetic reception. With the noble Earl opposite, I regret the Lord Chancellor's absence owing to indisposition tonight, and I hope very much that he will soon be totally recovered.
I agree that the Government have gone a long way to meet the point we raised on Committee stage. In some respects they went a bit further; in other respects I think not quite far enough. In this case, at any rate, although they could argue that these centres are largely locally placed geographically, they have achieved the miraculous result of agreeing that the supervision shall be by the Greater London Council instead of by the London boroughs. We welcome that degree of advance on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
The point is that we must get these places under control of some sort. They are in danger of becoming a disgrace to London—not that I wish to throw any large-scale slur upon Soho, in which there live mostly honourable and decent people. It is a very interesting district and I have a warm affection for it. However, things have developed there which really are "over the line" and outside reasonable standards, with the result that our country has become somewhat looked down upon by visitors from the Commonwealth and foreign countries, and even by people from the English provinces, and from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is not good. One does not like to feel they are beginning to say that London, or parts of it, are among the most wicked places to be found in the world. It was for these reasons, for the good name of London, that I brought this forward hoping that the Government would respond, and I am grateful that they have done so.

809
There are one or two points about which I am disappointed. The first is the absence of something effective being done about landlords of premises which I should like to see "de-licensed", so to speak. I gather that there are difficulties about this, and the Government feel that they have got the owner of the premises by other means if he requires to be punished. Let us hope that is so. There are two other points which I am sorry about. One is that the cinemas for unlicensed exhibitions are not caught. One of the risks of the situation obtaining now is that as these people who have gone out of line are put out of business, they may look round for some other mischief to get up to in order to make money. As they have a clear field if they run it as a club for film exhibitions, there might be an increase in very bad films which are not licensed. That would be a pity, and it might increase that class of enterprise in ways which are thoroughly undesirable. On that I ought to declare my interest as President of the British Board of Film Censors. If it developed too far it would be unfair to the licensed exhibitor, and would be calculated to give a bad name to London and our country.
The other places I am concerned about are the "clip joints". The Lord Chancellor did not say there was need to do anything, because it was people's own fault if they went there. One noble Duke—I thought he was "trying it on" himself, but he was referring to somebody else who got into one of these shows—found them very dull and unintelligent. He did not think they were worth going into at all; and he may well have been right. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he deserved to lose his money, with which I sympathised. But that was not to say that nothing should be done about them, and I wish something could be done about them, as well as about the other so-called clubs which are not really clubs at all but places opened for questionable purposes.
However, the Government answer, through the Minister of State, that they cannot very well deal with the cinematograph exhibitions because that would require the amendment of a Public General Act in respect of a particular geographical area. I understand that that is the Government's difficulty, though I have noticed from a study of
810
the Bill that there are plenty of amendments to Public General Acts incorporated in this Bill. But there may be another case for them. If that be so, I should like the Government to consider in due course, without prejudice to carrying this through, as it is urgent and important, separate national legislation in order to modernise the law in these ways. I can only say that, on balance, we have got substantially—not altogether—what we wanted within the field of what is apparently legislatively practicable. I should like to thank the Minister of State and the Home Office for having, if not entirely at least very largely, met us on a point which was of urgent importance for the good name of London, and for the good name of our country. In the circumstances I do not propose to move the Amendment which is down in my name.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I make two points to the noble Earl? May I join, first of all, in thanking him and his Ministry for the effort they have put into producing this particular Amendment. I feel that we should express a very special word of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who I think can claim to be the originator of this thought, at least so far as this Bill is concerned. I can speak from my own experience in the early stages of the Bill. There was hardly a day when we met, when my noble friend did not say to me, "Have you done something about the vice clause?" He felt very strongly about it and I am glad to see the result of his labour now before us.
The two points that I wish to make to the noble Earl are these. We have increased the penalties, and we have widened the scope of these particular provisions as regards London. I presume that special legislation would be needed for these provisions to cover other cities in this country. Whilst, in the main, these sordid places exist in London, they have spread quite considerably into places like Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool. I should have thought it was right that the Government should take note of this growth and, that, having accepted that this type of legislation is necessary for London, they should as soon as possible produce legislation to cover these other areas. I cannot help feeling that further inquiry

811
into this type of entertainment is necessary.
I do not wish to speak too much of the rather sordid case that is before a magistrate's court in London at the moment; but one factor which struck me as quite extraordinary—and I wonder whether the Government have appreciated it—was that two witnesses gave evidence to the effect that they were employed in a club at the age of 16. We have legislation governing the age at which a youth can work in a bar serving drinks, but it seems to me extraordinary that we have not legislation which limits the age at which a person, particularly a young girl, can work in that type of premises which employs her to use her particular charms to persuade customers to come, and perhaps to drink more than they should. It would seem to me that the Government, with the evidence that is now coming forward, and also bearing in mind the fact that these practices seem to be spreading, should take a look at the legislation that we have to see whether it should not be improved. I think they would readily agree that improvement could be made. I should hope that the Government, in line with some of their other provisions—for example, the Children and Young Persons Act, to which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, accepted Amendments in regard to the employment of children on the stage—could come to this House, where they would receive full support in bringing forward measures to reduce the possible moral corruption of young people. I think it must be quite clear to us all that something needs to be done in this particular field. It would be beyond the scope of a Private Member's Bill. It would be far too difficult, I think, for a private Member to produce the legislation. I think it now rests upon the noble Earl's Ministry to make a full inquiry into the position, and then to produce legislation as soon as possible.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome which noble Lords opposite have given to these Amendments. On the two points which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, mentioned, I think I dealt with the unlicensed cinema shows. We do not see how they can be brought within the scope of the Bill as it now
812
stands. But I certainly would not preclude our taking a further look at what might be done about this matter in a wider context. On the question of the "near-beer" establishments or "clip-joints", or whatever they are called, here again, as I mentioned, even though the noble Lord was anxious to cover this point, he was not able, I think, in his Amendment, to find a formula which would embrace these particular establishments—and I think it is difficult, because not being places of public entertainment, they would need a different form of control. But, here again, I am quite prepared, in the light of the remarks made, to give further thought to this matter as well.
On the two points which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned, I may tell him that we have made special inquiries about the general position in three of the large provincial cities—Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester. There have, I gather, been a few cases of undesirable entertainment over the last few years, but these have been dealt with satisfactorily by prosecutions under the Common Law, and substantial penalties were imposed. In none of these places, I gather, is there anything comparable to the position which obtains in Soho at present. Here again, I am very willing to look further into the position, but that is my understanding of the position at present.
On the other point—the question of the very young girls employed as hostesses in clubs—all I would say is that I think the noble Lord quite accurately stated the law as it stands at present. It is possible for any girl over school age to be legitimately employed as a hostess in a night club or any other form of establishment. That is the law as it stands—and, of course, it will need legislation to amend that law. All I would say there is that, of course, we dealt only a few months ago with the question of the employment of children when we were discussing the Children and Young Persons Bill. Perhaps it is a pity, since the noble Lord feels so strongly about this matter that he did not raise it with us then.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it did not come to our notice.
EARL JELLICOE: It is, I think, very wide of the subject matter covered by

813
this particular Bill. However, although I would not promise legislation, I can promise to look further into this matter in the light of the noble Lord's observations. The Children and Young Persons Bill is still before another place and if anyone was going to move an Amendment it would have to be done speedily.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl, if there is time, consult with his colleagues and his Minister to see whether an Amendment to that Bill could still be possible in another place? —because I think it would receive the support of this House if it were returned here.
EARL JELLICOE: I am not quite certain. I know that the Bill is very advanced. But I will undertake to present the observations of the noble Lord to my right honourable friend's attention to-morrow.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 183B formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 194, line 30, leave out ("place") and insert ("premises").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move formally Amendment No. 183C.
Amendment moved—
Page 195, line 31, leave out ("a place as is") and insert ("premises as are").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 195, line 35, leave out ("a place") and insert ("premises").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 195, line 40, leave out ("a place") and insert ("premises").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I also move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 195, line 44, leave out ("that place") and insert ("those premises").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 196, line 17, leave out ("in") and insert ("at").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 198, line 2, leave out from beginning to second ("of") in line 22 and insert—
("10.—(1) If at any premises any entertainment in respect of which a licence is required under paragraph 1 or 4 of this Schedule is provided without such a licence being held in respect thereof, then—

(a) any person concerned in the organisation or management of that entertainment; and

(b) any other person who, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that such an entertainment would be so provided at those premises—

(i) allowed the premises to be used for the provision of that entertainment; or

(ii) let the premises, or otherwise made the premises available, to any person by whom an offence in connection with the entertainment has been committed,

shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) If any premises in respect of which a licence under the said paragraph I or 4 is in force are used for any entertainment otherwise than in accordance with the terms, conditions or restrictions on or subject to which the licence is held, then, subject to paragraph 11 of this Schedule—

(a) the holder of the licence; and

(b) any other person who, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that the premises would be so used—

(i) allowed the premises to be so used; or

(ii) let the premises, or otherwise made the premises available, to any person by whom an offence in connection with that use of the premises has been committed,

shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) Any person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) of this paragraph shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both.
(4) If the holder of a licence under the said paragraph 1 or 4 is convicted by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(a)").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 198, line 24, leave out ("place") and insert ("premises").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 198, line 28, leave out from ("no") to ("being") in line 29 and insert ("person shall be guilty of an offence under paragraph 10(2) of this Schedule by reason only of those premises").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 198, line 36, leave out second ("in") and insert ("at").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 201, line 16, at end insert—
"Interpretation
20. In this Schedule, the expression 'premises' includes any place".—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Functions as front 1st April 1965 with respect to land drainage, flood prevention, etc.]:
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, there are a number of Amendments to Schedule 14. None of them make any substantive changes to the Bill. They bring the Bill into line with other legislation. I do not propose to speak to them all at the same time, but I will attempt to link as many of them together as I can for the convenience of your Lordships. I should like to speak, first of all, to Nos. 186A and 186P. These Amendments are necessary because it is possible that the abolition of river boards and the repeal of the River Boards Act, 1948, proposed by the Water Resources Bill, will not take effect before April 1, 1965, when Schedule 14 is to come into operation. As drafted, paragraph 6 and 13(3) refer to any river authority or river authority area and the Amendments introduce references to any river
816
board or river board area. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 203, line 5, leave out from first ("river") to ("the") in line 7 and insert ("board area or river authority area a provision of the Act of 1930 which is excluded by paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the River Boards Act 1948, or any corresponding provision of").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, we have no objection to these Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this Amendment makes it clear that the provisions of paragraph 7, dealing with Local Act powers, will be subject to the savings for the property and functions of the Port of London Authority contained in paragraph 14. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 203, line 8, after ("Subject") insert ("to the provisions of paragraph 14 of this Schedule and").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, some concern has been felt at this Amendment and at the inclusion of paragraph 14 at the end of the Schedule. The L.C.C. are responsible for flood protection throughout their area. They are responsible for the banks of the main river and other watercourses, not only here in Westminster but also in the London Docks. That this responsibility is a serious one will be obvious to everyone who remembers the flood disaster about 35 years ago, when people were drowned within a few hundred yards of this place through the Thames overflowing its banks. Many noble Lords will be surprised to know that even in London Docks the responsibility for flood protection rests not on the Port of London Authority but on the L.C.C.
The Council feel that, since the G.L.C. are inheriting these powers, they will be intimately concerned with how they are to carry out their responsibilities and how they will satisfy themselves, through their engineers, that the position is satisfactory. If there is a sort of blanket exemption given to the P.L.A., as is done by paragraph 14, it seems that there is a considerable weakening of the powers of the G.L.C. to carry out their task. I am told that there have been conversations since the Bill was introduced and that various proposals and counter-proposals have

817
been made. I believe there was a hope at one time—perhaps the noble Lord can tell us whether there is still a hope—that, an Amendment may be moved before the final stages of the Bill which will modify the effect of paragraph 14. We should like to hear something to reassure us and to remove these doubts.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right. The precise terms of the saving to the Port of London Authority are still under discussion, and it is possible that an Amendment of paragraph 14 may be necessary. We realise that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 186J, and perhaps I may take these two together. If I may mention for convenience No. 186J first, this Amendment substitutes a simpler definition of the watercourses to which certain local enactments are to apply. There is no substantive change to the Bill. The simplification is partly brought about by the use of the definition of "London excluded area" at page 205, line 35. Amendment No. 186C is a drafting Amendment consequential on the introduction of a new definition of the Tidal Thames. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 203, line 21, leave out ("accordingly") and insert ("as references to the London excluded area").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the noble Lord gave us a very soothing explanation of the Amendments. So far as I have been able to see, they are by no means easy to understand. Amendment No. 186J is in much simpler terms than were in the original, and that we can understand. But we are in some doubt about what is the meaning of "London excluded area". We know how it is defined; that we can read on page 205, line 35. But what does it define? In rather surprising terms it speaks of so much of the River Thames
"as lies in the Thames catchment area or the Lee catchment area or the area of any river authority."
It would seem that, if the term "catchment area" means what it is normally accepted to mean, the whole of London
818
must lie within that area. That needs some elucidation. This is an excluded area. What area is it excluded from?
Further to that, there seems to be some discrepancy between Amendment No. 186C, which is to delete the word "accordingly", and the terms of the new paragraph 8, which are brought into the Bill by Amendment No. 186D. The point is that the definition of the London excluded area at page 205 does not include any part of the Lee catchment area. Yet the new paragraph 8 specifies that the Lee catchment area is included in the area for which the Greater London Council will be responsible. That seems to be the difficulty. In fact, there are three difficulties in this Amendment: the question of the catchment areas and whether London is outside the catchment area of the Thames; secondly, the question of the meaning of "excluded"; and, finally, the inconsistency between this paragraph and the other one in this Schedule.
12.52 a.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, with regard to the first two questions, it was possible to have that explained to me with the help of a map, which is a facility which I am not permitted in your Lordships' House. I think I can explain it to the noble Earl by saying that the term "catchment area" is used only in relation to the Thames and the Lee, and it corresponds to a river board area in other parts of the country. Therefore, it is more or less synonymous with a river board area in other parts of the country. The excluded area is the area into which no river board area, and neither of the two catchment areas, the Lee Conservancy catchment area and the Thames catchment area, in fact enter. There is an area bounded by the borders of the surrounding river board and catchment areas, leaving in the centre an excluded space. It is a curious form of English to describe it, but I am assured that no better form can be found. I can also assure the noble Earl that it would be somewhat easier to understand if he had a map before his eyes. As to the discrepancy which he describes, I tried hard to follow the noble Earl, but I am afraid I have not been able to follow exactly what puzzles him about it. Has it in fact been covered by my very poor definition of what the excluded area is?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his attempt to explain the excluded area. I take it that the term "catchment area", as used here, is as defined in legislation about the river boards.
LORD ST. OSWALD: That is right.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: And does not bear the meaning which one usually associates with it?
LORD ST. OSWALD: It is not in layman's language. The noble Earl is quite correct.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Then the discrepancy. We read in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 7:
"… in those enactments references to … the county of London shall be construed"
and instead of the word "accordingly" we are to read
"as references to the London excluded area."
That is clearly referring to the next page and excludes the River Lee Catchment area. Yet the next Amendment, No. 186D, brings in a new paragraph 8 which is going to read, as it seems to me, that the area includes the Lee Catchment area, for the paragraph includes the words:
"… for the protection of land from flooding by such of the river's associated watercourses as lie within the flow and re-flow of its tides in the Lee Catchment area."
There does seem to be an inconsistency there.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not believe that there is an inconsistency. What the new paragraph 8 does is to preserve the effect of local Acts which give the London County Council certain powers over the Lee in the Lee Conservancy Catchment area, and not in the excluded area. I should like to think that this evening, from Dispatch Box to Dispatch Box, we should be able to sort this out, but, as I say, without a map in front of one's eyes it is very difficult; but I do not think from listening to the noble Earl that there is any inconsistency. If he will allow me to study his words afterwards and to see whether I am right or he is right, then there is still time to correct any inconsistency. At the moment I may not be following him properly, which is very possible, and he may not be following me very well, which is even more understandable; but I do not at
820
the moment think that there is any inconsistency. If there is, I shall certainly look into it and perhaps we can have a word about it and do our best to correct it.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, may I sum up our doubts by saying that what we question is whether it is correct to amend paragraph 7(b) so as to provide that references in the local enactments of the County of London should be construed as references to the London excluded area, which, as we have seen, does not include the Lee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD LORD ST. OSWALD moved to leave out paragraph 8 and to insert:
"8. Subject to the provisions of section 21 of the Metropolis Management (Thames River Prevention of Floods) Amendment Act 1879 and to any provision made by an order under section 83 or 86 of this Act, the power of the Greater London Council under the said Act of 1879 and the other enactments relating to the tidal Thames to approve, require the execution of and execute flood works for the protection of land from flooding by the river Thames in the London excluded area shall be exercisable by them for the protection of land from flooding by such of the river's associated watercourses as lie within the flow and re-flow of its tides in the Lee Catchment area.
9. The River Boards Act 1948 shall have effect subject to the following modifications:—

(a) until the repeal of that Act by the Water Resources Act 1963 takes effect, any reference to a county borough, whether as such or as a local authority, shall be construed as including a reference to a London borough council and the Common Council;

(b) in section 9(5) (so far as applicable by virtue of section 9(10) to the Conservators of the River Thames and the Lee Conservancy Catchment Area), the reference to local authorities shall, without prejudice to the foregoing sub-paragraph, be construed as including a reference to the Greater London Council, London borough councils and the Common Council."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ask the House to consider Amendments 186D and 1860 together. The new paragraph 8 transfers to the Greater London Council the powers of the L.C.C. over certain tidal watercourses in the Lee Catchment area. The new provision preserves the status quo pending a full review of the local legislation to be undertaken under Clauses 83 and 86. The new paragraph 9(a) applies to the River Boards Act, 1948, in Greater London until such time as the Water Resources Bill comes into

821
operation. This will enable the Kent and Essex River Boards to precept on the part of the London boroughs in the river board areas if the new river authorities have not taken over by April 1, 1965.
The new paragraph 9(b) is a redrafting of the previous paragraph 8. Under Section 9(5) of the River Boards Act, 1948, river boards and also, by virtue of Section 9(10), catchment boards, are required to afford to local authorities access to records of rainfall and river levels. After river boards have been abolished it will be necessary to preserve this power in relation to the Thames and Lee Catchment Boards because they will not be abolished. The Amendment makes it clear that only the catchment boards are involved. The power to secure access to records is also made available to the Common Council in addition to the Greater London Council and the London boroughs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 203, line 29, leave out paragraph 8 and insert the said new paragraphs.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I would ask the House to take 186E and 186F together. These two Amendments constitute a redrafting of the previous paragraph 9 which dealt piecemeal with the application of the Water Resources Bill in greater London. The first Amendment is a blanket provision which will ensure that under the Water Resources Bill and any order made thereunder the new London boroughs and the Common Council will have all the powers of county boroughs and that references to local authorities will include the Greater London Council, the borough councils and the Common Council. The Second Amendment sets out more fully than before the various classes of orders affecting river authority or catchment board areas which might entail modification of the drainage arrangements in Greater London. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 203, leave out lines 35 to 43 and insert ("subject to any provision made by an order under section 83 of this Act—

(a) references to a county borough and the council thereof shall be construed as including references respectively to a London borough and the council thereof and the City and the Common Council;

822

(b) without prejudice to the foregoing subparagraph, references to local authorities shall be construed as including references to the Greater London Council, London borough councils and the Common Council").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I beg to move—
Amendment moved—
Page 203, line 45, leave out from ("under") to ("shall") in line 46 and insert ("that Act altering the area of a river authority, or designating a new area and establishing a new river authority therefor, or conferring function; on the Conservators of the river Thames or the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board (being an order affecting Greater London or any part thereof)").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD LORD ST. OSWALD moved in paragraph 12 (a) to the first "for" in subparagraph (b) and insert "any payments made by the council of that borough". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to take 186G and 186H together. The object of these Amendments is to give a London borough discretion to decide what parts of the borough should be charged with precepts received in respect of drainage work carried out by various authorities—that is, a river or catchment board or the Greater London Council. Under the original draft of the Schedule a London borough would have charged a river board precept on the part of the borough within the river board area and the G.L.C. precept on the excluded area. The Amendments will enable a borough to charge the precepts either over the whole of their area or over such part as they consider just and equitable.
The first Amendment is purely introductory. The second Amendment is in two parts. The first part amends paragraph 12 of the Schedule. Read in conjunction with the existing paragraphs 10 and 11 the effect is that drainage precepts are to be levied as rates for special London purposes on those parts of the borough to which they relate, unless the council exercise their discretion under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. This section enables a council to determine that a precept shall be defrayed in one of three ways—first, out of the general rate fund; secondly, out of an additional item on the general rate for part of the borough; or thirdly, out of several additional items on the

823
general rate at different levels for different parts of the borough. In making their determination the council must have regard to the benefit, if any, derived by the various areas. The second part of the Amendment introduces a new paragraph 13. Its effect is to make the provisions of paragraphs 10 to 12 subject to Clause 66 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 204, line 13, leave out from beginning to first ("for") in line 16 and insert ("any payments made by the council of that borough").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 204, line 20, at end insert ("or such part thereof as the council of that borough shall determine under section 23 of the Act of 1930 (whether as originally enacted or as applied by any other enactment).
13. Paragraphs 10 to 12 of this Schedule shall have effect subject to section 66 of this Act").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I should like to take Nos. 186I and 186K together. The first makes it clear that it is only rivers actually mentioned by name in the Table and the tidal Thames that are to be main metropolitan watercourses. The others, described by the term "associated watercourses" but not mentioned by name, will be metropolitan watercourses. The second Amendment, by setting out the names of the Ravens-bourne tributaries, secures that these rivers are main metropolitan watercourses without the reference to the Ravensbourne Act in lines 27–8 of page 204. The Amendment is designed simply to clarify the position. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 204, line 26, leave out from ("watercourses") to end of line 28 and insert ("mentioned by name in paragraphs 2 to 4 of that Table").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
1.5 a.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the noble Lord tells us that the watercourses not mentioned by name here are classed as metropolitan watercourses as distinct from main watercourses. Can he say whether there are, in fact, any watercourses flowing into the River
824
Ravensbourne other than the Chaffinch Brook, the Beck River, the Pool River, the Quaggy River, the Kid Brook, the Kyd Brook, and the Lower Kid Brook? Are there any other rivers in Kent which flow from the Kentish Hills and are watercourses? There are other quite well-known London rivers that used to be genuine watercourses—the Fleet River, the Effra, the Westbourne and the Tyburn, and a few others. What about them? Can the noble Lord tell us about them?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I believe that there are no rivers other than those which the noble Earl has already recited flowing into the Ravens-bourne; but all other rivers are in fact covered by the terms of the Bill as it stands. I should like him to take my word for that. I should not wish to recite them all, but they are in fact all covered by the terms of the Bill as now drafted.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether that covers the Wandle?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The Wandle is mentioned by name.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 204, line 35, column 1, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
("1. So much of the river Thames as lies within the London excluded area, including all its associated watercourses within the flow and re-flow of its tides in that area.")—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 205, column 1, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 4 and insert ("the Chaffinch Brook, the Beck River, the Pool River, the Quaggy River, the Kid Brook, the Kyd Brook, the Lower Kid Brook").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, under the River Boards Act, 1948, the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for the definition of statutory main river in river board areas, both urban and rural. He is similarly responsible for the definition of "main" river in the two catchment board areas. Between them, the catchment boards and the river boards cover the whole of England and Wales except the London excluded area. Thus,

825
although there are differences between statutory main river under the River Boards Act and metropolitan and main metropolitan watercourses under the Bill, it is appropriate that the same Minister should be responsible for what is broadly the same function in relation to the excluded area on the one hand and the rest of the country on the other. I beg to move this Amendment, No. 186L.
Amendment moved—
Page 205, line 21, after ("Minister") insert ("of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 186M and 186N together. Their effect is to give the Minister power to schedule metropolitan watercourses. I think that what has been said already explains why we think that necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 205, line 23, at end insert—
("(a) the whole or any part of a watercourse within the London excluded area shall become a metropolitan watercourse; or").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 205, line 25, at end insert ("or").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 205, line 34, at end insert—
("'flood works', in relation to the tidal Thames, has the same meaning as in the local enactments relating thereto").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 205, line 38, after ("any") insert ("river board or").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Rating and valuation]:
1.12 a.m.
LORD CROOK LORD CROOK moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that nothing in this Act or in the said enactments shall—

(i) authorise the Greater London Council to issue any precept for the levying of rates, or a London borough council to make or levy any rate; or

(ii) prejudice the power of any existing authority to issue any precept for the levying of rates, or to make or levy any rate;

in respect of any period before 1st April 1965."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a completely new Amendment which was not moved in the Committee stage. I would remind those of your Lordships who were present at the Committee stage that, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, I spoke on the Question, Whether Clause 90 shall stand part of the Bill? I did so broadly for the reasons which have now led us to put down this Amendment. I then pointed out that the proceedings on the Bill had completely failed to give us at any time any explanation adequate accounting for what we regarded as the failure to provide for the issue of precepts and the making and levying of rates.
The Government did not think it was very like cricket for me to raise the issue on the last clause in the last hour of the discussion, but the explanation then given by the Lord Chancellor was quite unacceptable to my noble friends on these Benches and we then proceeded to a Division. I said then, and I repeat now, that it was not my fault that the matter was raised so late. It was entirely due to the fact that the Government had never dealt with the subject. I addressed myself to a valid point—and I think it was made clear by the Lord Chancellor—that the Government recognised there was some merit in it when he promised to study the points I had advanced. He suggested it was the intention of the Government, once this Bill had become effective with its full effect from April 1, 1965, to use powers under Clause 81 to issue an order which would provide for the issuing of precepts and the making and levying of rates during the twelve months before that date.
During that discussion the Lord Chancellor promised that after he had carefully considered what I had said he would communicate with me. That was a month ago. I have heard nothing and I have had no alternative but to put down the Amendment now before your Lordships. In our view, this is a vital problem. It became more vital owing to the way in which it was handled by the Government. In the first place, the Bill failed to deal with the matter, and then when I raised it on Question, Whether Clause 90 shall stand Part of the Bill? I was told of the action of the Government in waiting until the Bill was passed and then, after Parliament had disposed of the matter, issuing their own directive.
Let me briefly explain to your Lordships, so as not to keep you at this early hour, what are the main points involved. The county and borough authorities referred to in the Bill would need to make a rate to be levied in 1965 and 1966, and in order to levy the rate they must start preparations in 1964. The first commencement of the job is the collection of estimates, and to secure the proper rate payments the rate must be made before the end of March, 1965; that is, before the operative date included in this Bill. My Lords, although the boroughs are to be elected in May 1964, under this Bill they do not come into effect as rating authorities until April 1, 1965.
So the question put to the Government, at the conclusion of the Committee stage on Clause 90, was how were the practical difficulties to be overcome so as to solve the problem of making the rate for the first year. Then I went on to point out that a similar timetable was necessary if the Greater London Council, for their part, were able to issue this precept before the boroughs could make their rate for 1965–66. Many of your Lordships connected with local authorities will know that the power for a county like the G.L.C. to issue precepts can be only by special provision in law. In this case it is in paragraph 23 of Schedule 2 to this Bill. The machinery for the issue is presented by Section 9 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. Your Lordships will have noticed that this section of the Act is applied to the G.L.C. by paragraph 5 of Schedule 14 to this Bill only as from April 1, 1965.
Doubts arose on the matter, particularly in the absence of Government statements. The first was the absence of the 1d. rate product. Section 9(2)(d) of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, requires every rating authority, before February 1 in each year, to send to the county an estimate of the amount to be produced in the next financial year by a rate of 1d. in the pound levied in the rating area. It is obvious that that information is essential for fixing the amount in the pound which is to be levied by way of any precept which may be issued. I therefore asked the Government on Committee stage for an explanation as to the situation that the G.L.C. must have these estimates before
828
February 1, 1965, since the Council would come into existence only on April 1, 1965, some two months afterwards.
The second doubt which I put to the Government was whether the Council must issue the precept within the time limit required by Section 9(2)(e) of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, which is not less than 21 days before the beginning of the financial year? I then suggested what we thought was the simplest way out: that the relevant enactments should be applied to the G.L.C. and to the London boroughs from the time the authorities came into being, with a provision to be put in the Bill that enactments would not authorise these councils to issue any rate in respect of any period before the date of their formal appointment on April 1, 1965. We thought that we had put our finger on an important administrative weakness. We did not exactly get a bouquet or note of thanks from the Government, but we thought we might be told that our last-minute intervention had avoided a bad situation. In fact, we were told three things. First, that we had raised the matter very late; second, that we should have a communication from the Lord Chancellor after he had studied the matter; third, that, anyway, once the Bill was passed, at the effective date of April 1, 1965, the Government proposed to use Clause 81 to issue an order which would do all these things, notwithstanding that Parliament had never had an opportunity for proper consideration of the matter.
As to the first point, the matter was raised in the other place months ago. As to the second, we have had no communication from the Lord Chancellor. As to the third, we remain convinced—whether or not our Amendment is accurate or the best in phraseology—that what is not in accordance with practice or precedent is that an Act should contain a deferred date for its application, but that after Royal Assent the Government of the day should issue an order—which they have indicated in advance they will do—to bring in some part of the Act at an early date. In the clear belief that this matter should be dealt with in the Act, we have put down this, as we hope, carefully drafted Amendment for the consideration of your Lordships this morning.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 9, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Crook.)
1.21 a.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, would qualify the immediate operation of Clause 62, so that the Greater London Council could issue no precept and the London borough councils could make no rates in respect of any period before the 1st April, 1965, while the power of existing authorities to issue precepts and make rates for such periods would be preserved.
The noble Lord I am afraid, seems to be, if I may say so, slightly resentful that the Government have made no statement on this during the Committee stage. He also seems to be under the impression that he has been not quite fairly treated, because, having brought up this matter then, and having had a promise from the Lord Chancellor that he would be informed about this matter and what we intended to do, he has heard nothing further. I must remind the noble Lord that I myself signed a letter to him of June 21 on this very subject, and that he has in fact received a letter on this point. He will remember that I wrote to him two letters, one of which was dealing with another subject about investment values referring to another Amendment, on which I believe he expressed himself satisfied, and the other one was this letter, and I understood that he had received it. I say, in my own defence, that we have not neglected this matter at all, although I was given to understand that the letter was not entirely to the liking of the noble Lord and his advisers, and that this Amendment would probably be moved.
But now I am afraid I have not very much to add to the argument that was put forward in that letter. This is largely the gist of it: that we believe that the method pursued in the Bill as now standing is the better manner of providing for a transitional period, and that this is really a question of practicability. In the Government's view it would be impracticable to deal with all the transitional and supplementary provisions without making the Bill a quite unmanageable document. Even if it were practicable, it did not seem desirable to clutter the Statute Book with provisions dealing with matters of administration,
830
which are really once-and-for-all interim problems, and which, once dealt with, would have no further part in the Bill and would be finished. Therefore the Government's conclusion was that the present method of dealing with transitional supplementary provisions through regulations would be better in the rating and valuation field, as well as in the other fields to which Clause 83 will apply. It was in fact Clause 81 at the time of the Committee stage, but it is now Clause 83.
There are some pitfalls in adopting the noble Lord's alternative suggestion put down in this Amendment. I think I should point out that, under Schedule 15, paragraph 19, of this Bill, the Greater London Council would become responsible for appointing members of local valuation panels in the administrative county of London. Now one half of the members of these panels are due to retire on April 1, 1964, and, under the Bill as drafted, members will be nominated and vacancies filled by the London County Council. But there will be no Greater London Council at that date, and thus under the noble Lord's Amendment, if carried, there would be a hiatus at the very time when the panels will be under their highest pressure, because this Clause 62 would come into operation before April, 1965—and that refers to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 204B. That is one of the difficulties. There will be other matters of this nature, I think—a variety of other statutory provisions. If a thorough search were made, they could be identified and dealt with by Amendments to the Bill, but only at the cost of excessive length, in order to deal with a problem which, I will emphasise again, is entirely transitional in character.
The alternative, of course, would be to accept an Amendment of this kind and then to deal by way of orders, again under Clause 83, with the transitional arrangements which will be necessary to continue in force the present enactments—because others are involved besides rating—in their application to the metropolitan boroughs and the L.C.C. until April 1, 1965. One has to do it one way or the other, and we believe that by far the simplest way is not to clutter up the Bill with all these matters but to deal with them by orders; not to interfere at the moment with the metropolitan

831
boroughs and the L.C.C., but to deal with it as a transitional arrangement in respect of the Greater London Council. I hope that the noble Lord will now believe that there are sound reasons for adopting this method, and that, whichever method was adopted, there would be complications.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, first of all, may I express my regret to the noble Lord for a complete injustice to him in saying that I had not heard. I am afraid that, at this kind of hour, after the 15 to 16 hours that some of us have been at work, it is a little difficult to remember.
LORD HASTINGS: I do not blame the noble Lord for mislaying correspondence: I have done quite a bit of it myself.
LORD CROOK: I withdraw any criticism that I had not heard. As to the comments he has made on the terms of the Amendment moved, I think the best thing for us to do is for noble Lords on this side to have a look to-morrow morning in the OFFICIAL REPORT at what has been said in reply, so that we may consider it. This Amendment has not been put down casually by myself, as might have been thought. It is the result of careful thought by those who are concerned with county and borough administration in the L.C.C. and in certain boroughs who have themselves taken part in its drafting. I should certainly like to consult with them. I take the point that the noble Lord has made about the large number of transitional arrangements to be made. I think the one thing we should like to feel a little more happy about—I think I do know, but I should like to be assured about it—is whether the orders for these transitional arrangements will come before the House in due course for approval. I do not know if the noble Lord could let me know.
LORD HASTINGS: Whether they are to come before the House?
LORD CROOK: Whether these orders are to come before the House for approval.
LORD HASTINGS: I am not quite sure: I do no think so. Some are subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, and others are not.
LORD SHEPHERD: Would the noble Lord look at this point?—because surely it is important. The noble Lord made a plea that he did not wish to clutter up the Bill, and said he thought it would be more expedient for the sake of simplicity to proceed by order. I would have thought that if it is a subject which should be within the Bill but in respect of which an order is used for simplicity, then the particular order should come before both Houses of Parliament.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Chargeability of part of rating area with expenses incurred for another part thereof]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a drafting and consequential Amendment similar to an earlier one in Schedule 4, No. 66.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 34, leave out from ("Council") to ("or") in line 35.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 69 [Transitional assistance to certain counties]:
1.31 a.m.
LORD CROOK LORD CROOK moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "fivepence" and insert "twopence". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to speak again so soon; but this is another important financial Amendment, the main effect of which is to help the population of counties like my own, Surrey, and others. I think it is true to say that when we get the following complementary Amendment, to be moved by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, we shall get a complete picture. What is clear about my own county is that it will have perpetual damage to it of the order of a 1s. 3d. rate, on the old figure, or 5d. on the new; and that the Minister's reduction from 6d. to 5d., which was supposed to be a great concession to counties like Surrey, is completely academic where that county is concerned. The second concession of the Minister also becomes academic because if the county receives nothing, it does not matter whether it receives nothing for five years or for eight years. It is calculated that the remainder of Surrey

833
left, after amputation has taken place, will cost Surrey approximately £925,000.
At the risk of boring your Lordships by repeating figures that some have already heard, I would recall that Surrey loses 48,311 acres, which is something under 8 per cent. of its present acreage; but on that acreage it loses 674,840 population, which is 40 per cent. So, on 8 per cent. of the acreage of the county that goes, it loses 40 per cent. of its population. And, to develop that figure, it will lose in rateable value £38 million, which is 43 per cent. of its total. The build-up figures are that 8 per cent. of acreage wall go, taking 40 per cent. of the population and 43 per cent. of the rateable value.
An examination of the rateable value per head of the population undertaken by the council shows that it is now £52 10s. 0d. It will be £49 17s. 0d., and the rateable value of the part going to the Greater London Council will be £56 13s. 0d. per head. The calculations of the county treasurer which have been made available to the noble Lord who will reply—and I have no reason to believe the Government disagree with this kind of figure—shows that there will be an immediate increase of 11d. in rates, due to the lesser rating resources. In addition, there will be the very heavy cost of highways that will now fall on the county, as one can imagine, if one realises that 8 per cent. of the acreage (very little of it highways) is going to be taken away. There is nothing that Surrey can do about that. It is a permanent cost.
Then there is the question of the administrative costs. What is the position about this? The county treasurer's estimate was that it means 4d. on the old figure, 1¼d. on the new, again a permanent costing, so far as can be seen, for this reason: that, although reduced in size so that only three-fifths of the population are left in the county, it will not be possible for the county in its new form to shed two-fifths of its staff or of its services. What the ratepayers of counties like Surrey are saying is that they have to find 1s. 3d., or 5d. on the new rate, to help the Government to carry out its plan to do away with the L.C.C., but they are not doing anything for Surrey at all.
I could go on to refer to education costs and how they will arise, and to
834
the difficulties that there will be in general, but other Members of your Lordships' House who live in Surrey are likely to follow me and I will not develop that. Reforms, even if they are good, ought not to be carried out without consultation, and one of the great complaints of the County of Surrey, and I have no doubt of other counties, is that this Bill has been presented with no consultation having taken place at all. It is no good saying, as I imagine the noble Lord will try to say in his reply, that Surrey had a chance of making their case to the Royal Commission—in fact, they did give evidence—because the complaint that the counties and boroughs have is that under an ordinary reorganisation of boundaries under the Local Government Act, 1958, every local authority would have been able to consider the proposals and, if objection was made by them, automatically there would have been a local inquiry under Section 23 of the Act. Only after that inquiry and the opportunity for the locality to be heard would it be possible for the Minister to lay his order.
All that was cut out by the procedure adopted here, of imposing this Bill without an opportunity for Surrey citizens to express their views. The Bill brings about a complete revolution of boundaries, staff and organisation, and, in our view, the Government should pay for what they are doing. In this Amendment we are trying to reduce the figure, and in the next Amendment which my noble friend is moving, to provide that the money is to be found, not by the L.C.C. or the G.L.C., but by the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 34, leave out ("fivepence") and insert ("twopence").—(Lord Crook.)
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crook. On Committee stage we had a full discussion of this Amendment, which was then ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and at this late hour I do not propose to go into a great many figures. The new Surrey comprises an area approximately 92·33 per cent. of the old but the rateable value will be only 57·43 per cent., so that there will

835
be a great loss, and services such as education will suffer. On Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Hastings said [OFFICIAL REPORT, VOI. 250 (No. 91), col. 834]:
"The Government do not feel that they should aggravate the difficulties of those ratepayers by asking them to pay too much to the truncated counties. It is the Government's desire to hold the balance between the two groups of authorities and they feel that the present figure of 5d. is about right."
I know that when boundaries are changed between counties obviously problems of this kind cannot always be gone into with complete deliberation. But this is a very big Bill, and the boundary changes here are in many ways much greater, and will have a greater impact, than normal boundary changes which take place in the course of time.
I think the Government should give consideration to the kind of people in Surrey who will be affected by these changes. They are mostly (I apologise to your Lordships for repeating this, but it is important) people living on fixed incomes, or young people who have to travel to London or elsewhere to their normal jobs, and have possibly great expenses on mortagages, season tickets and so on. They are going to be faced, as has been said, with approximately a 10 per cent. rate increase over and above the last revaluation. Even if the Government find the figure of 2d. too drastic, I must confess that I am disappointed that they have not come forward with some proposal. I know they can refer to Clause 83, but this is a complicated clause and extremely difficult to understand. I should have thought that at least some kind of review could be suggested because these figures are going to hit people hard. They are not mythical figures, but have been gone into carefully by the Surrey County Council, who have gone to great trouble to brief noble Lords as to what the implications are. I do not propose to detain your Lordships any longer, but I would urge the Government to give further thought to this and, even if they cannot accept the figure which has been put down in the Amendment, which I submit is a reasonable figure, to come forward with some more concrete proposal on the next stage of the Bill.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Auckland said, we had a long debate on this in Committee. Noble Lords have abbreviated their remarks, and I do not intend to deploy all the arguments that I put forward on the last occasion, which are to be read in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I would remind noble Lords, however, that I said then that local government reorganisation is something which goes on from time to time. It is supposed to be in the interests of local government, and as a general principle these reorganisations should not be accompanied by assistance from one authority to another. Therefore, the clause is not intended to provide compensation for loss of territory or rate resources. Its sole purpose is to cushion any sudden and substantial increase in the rate.
We have to consider outer London, and we know that their representatives are opposed to the clause as a whole. The severed counties, of course—especially Essex and Surrey—consider that the clause does not go far enough, so obviously we have to strike a balance; there has to be a compromise. In deciding that level of the increase which justifies a cushion, we must realise that some of the new London boroughs in outer London will themselves, as a result of the reorganisation, be facing rate increases, and that is because boroughs will be amalgamated, some poor boroughs with some rich boroughs, and so on.
Because of those increases, there is in the Bill, in Clause 83(2), which was amended in another place, paragraph (d) to make it clear that, where an area having heavy losses is merged with an area which is gaining, the losses and gains can be introduced gradually. So there has to be a special provision to alleviate pressure on rates in some of the outer London boroughs, and some of them may—I do not want to commit myself, or name any names—well be facing rate increases of the order of 5d., which is the figure now estimated that Surrey itself will be facing. Therefore, we are faced with this double situation.
Another point which I must put forward—and I am not sure that I did so on the last occasion—is this. We cannot tell, of course, how successful the severed counties will be in adapting their expenditure to the new circumstances. The

837
loss is to be determined in terms of 1964–65, and the transitional assistance through the whole period of eight years will be based on that original figure, and will not be valid whatever happens to their expenditure or income in the future. It will be based on the 1964–65 estimates. Without a threshold, it is possible that these counties may adapt themselves so successfully that the speed with which they adjust their administration might outstrip the rate at which the transitional assistance shall run down, thus enabling them, at the expense of ratepayers in Greater London, to show a lower rate in the pound than they would have done apart from this reorganisation if we were to set the threshold too low.
I admit that the 5d. limit is an arbitrary figure, and the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, suggested that we could perhaps suggest another figure, even if we cannot accept the suggestion of 2d. in the Amendment, or that we could have a review, or something of that kind. I considered very carefully afterwards whether we might lower this by another 1d., and the matter was gone into. I think this will probably be confirmed by noble Lords supporting this Amendment. We felt that the lowering by another 1d. would be regarded as derisory by the two counties concerned, and not worth while. The Surrey estimate of 5d. is only an estimate and on the whole we believe, if anything, it might be a little bit less rather than a little bit more than that. Therefore, they might not benefit in the least even if we lowered this figure to 4d. When we are considering Essex, although its original estimate was an increase in the rates of 1s. 2d. that has now been reduced to, I think, 8½d. I do not think that even 1d. there would be greeted with open arms, if I may put it like that. On the other hand, any further reduction, even by 1d., would very much increase the indignation, I am afraid, of the Greater London authorities. I do not think, on the one hand, we should get any thanks from Surrey and Essex, and, on the other, we certainly should not get any good will from the Greater London authorities. So, unless we are going right down to 2d., as suggested, this figure of 5d. might just as well remain as it is.
There is the other consideration—although I told my noble friend Lord Gage at Committee stage that, of course,
838
this was not to be considered a precedent—that when it comes to local boundary commissions' recommendations and reorganisations of the provincial local authorities, in those few cases where there may be a real need for some compensating financial adjustment, the figure we set here is I think bound to be at the back of people's minds. Here again, I do not think we want to encourage too much of this sort of thing in the Provinces and we do not want a general climbing on to the band-waggon, which might occur if the threshold in regard to Greater London were set too low.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, said there had been no consultation. That is true in so far as there has been no possibility of a public inquiry, but of course there has been a very considerable exchange of information of a financial nature in respect of the estimates and expected rate increases and, therefore, we are not operating in the dark. My Lords, I cannot really take this matter any further and I am afraid that the Government do not see their way to changing the figure of 5d. as set in the Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and my noble friend Lord Crook were speaking for Surrey, just as in another place Members of Parliament on the side of the noble Lords opposite, as well as on my own, also spoke for Surrey. But the noble Lord mentioned the question of Essex and I am glad he did because, while Surrey may be complaining bitterly of the way the Government are treating them, Essex have more to complain about. The permanent damage to Essex will be greater than the permanent damage to Surrey.
The noble Lord suggested that, if the rate of 5d. were reduced to 2d., or a figure somewhere between them, it might be possible for the county councils to increase their expenditure in such a way that they would be able to obtain sums from the ratepayers of the Greater London area. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will agree with me to the extent that this matter has not been dealt with merely across the Floors of both Houses of Parliament. There have been detailed discussions between the treasurers, the financial officers, of the two county councils, and the Minister's representatives, and I think I am right

839
in saying that, broadly, the figures we have dealt with at Committee and Report are figures which the Ministry have agreed are acceptable.
The figures that we have, which I will not quote to-night, indicate that in the case of Surrey there will in the first year be a loss, or an extra burden on the ratepayers, of nearly £1 million and, in the case of Essex, it will be in the region of £1½ million. Therefore, if we take all the county councils concerned, the truncated county councils, we have perhaps a global figure of £2½ million. In the case of Surrey this will represent 5d. on the new rateable values. How would that apply for the ratepayers in the Greater London area, which the Government have decided should make a contribution if a contribution was necessary? Instead of 5d. in the pound it would be approximately 1d. in the pound.
The whole burden of the Government case is that this Bill is for the improvement of local government in London. It is going to be carried forward for the benefit of the Londoner at the expense of the ratepayers of Surrey, the ratepayers of Essex. I should not think it unfair to say that some compensation should be paid to those counties for the permanent damage. I hope that the new counties will continue with their development programmes, but I believe that some of the counties may well have to consider some of their forward planning and their possible expenditure in view of the new burdens of rates that are being put upon the householders. This is a problem which county councils will have to face.
I do not believe that the Government are prepared to move in this matter. I am sorry that that is so. I suspect that they put the figure at 5d. with a reasonable knowledge that there would be only a small amount for the Greater London area to pay out; it was set
deliberately at that figure, not on any question of equity or justice to the counties concerned, but so that it would look all right in the Bill. That is how I imagine this transitional arrangement was made. I hope that the House will feel that the counties have made their case. Perhaps we, who have been speaking for them, speak inadequately, but the case has been made to the Minister and outside. This is not a Party matter; it is not only a Surrey matter; it is an Essex matter and a Kent matter, according to degree. I ask the House to support my noble friend, should he feel that he should press this Amendment to a Division.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I think there is very little for me to reply to. I am bound to say that the more one hears about this Bill the more one is staggered that it was ever presented in this way. It is a little difficult to understand. Surrey is to lose a 5d. rate and some of the people supposed to be getting the benefit of the reorganisation in London, the noble Lord admits, may themselves face an increase of as much as 5d. It is very difficult to know why. This great spending spree is going on to achieve this end. I would remind the House that the Royal Commission said in this regard:
"Changes we propose are of such magnitude and represent a surgical operation of such an unusual kind that special treatment seems to be justifiable."
They went on to suggest transitional arrangements for relief of the burden of rates. In view of the Government failure to meet us on this final opportunity, I invite your Lordships to join me in the Division Lobby.
2.0 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 187A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Shepherd, L.

Auckland, L.

Latham, L.

Stonham, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Eccles, L.

Merthyr, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mills, V.

Brecon, L.

Ferrers, E.

Molson, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Glentanar, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carrington, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Perth, E.

Chesham, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn. E. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Hailsham, V. (L. President)

St. Just, L.

Conesford, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Craigton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandford, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Sandys, L.

Denham, L.

Jessel, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Derwent, L.

Lothian, M.

Tenby, V.

Devonshire, D.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Teynham, L.

Dulverton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dundee, E.

Mersey, V.

Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

2.5 a.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out words after "for the year 1965–66" down to and including "county purposes", and insert:
"the Minister of Housing and Local Government shall pay out of moneys provided by Parliament—".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, upon which Amendments 189 and 190 depend, deals not with the measure of the compensation to be paid to the severed counties but with the question as to who shall pay the compensation. I thought that my noble friend Lord Crook made a convincing case that the compensation proposed under the scale set out in the Bill was utterly and totally inadequate, and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in any way refuted by noble friend's submissions.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, again referred, as he did at the Committee stage, to an assumed parallel between the transfer of territory or the extension of boundaries which normally takes place, and this proposal for wantonly ravishing the country adjacent to the county of London. The analogy is by no means complete; nor is it convincing. The question, however, is: who should pay this compensation? Who is responsible for the compensation being necessary? It is the Government; not the ratepayers of the intended Greater London Council and the severed counties. And if the Government are responsible for the situation which will arise as a result of the truncation of these counties the Government should pay, not the ratepayers. They are not the authors of this Bill and they do not approve its dismantling
842
provisions. They did not ask for it. It has been imposed on them and on the intended severed counties.
No one wants this Bill except the Tory Party and the London Municipal Society. No one, except the purblind embittered Tory Party, wants this Bill. The Government should pay for their handiwork; they should pay for their misdeeds, and not give the burden to the Greater London ratepayers, who in any case will have to pay a higher rate as a result of the increased expenditure which will inevitably ensue from the dislocation that will follow the operation of the provisions of this Bill. The services, if maintained, will certainly for a number of years cost more under the dismantling proposals contained in the Bill. The severed counties will suffer also. They have to bear up to the additional burden of a 5d. rate before they get any compensation. Therefore, we say that the compensation should be paid by the Government, and not by the ratepayers of Greater London. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 21, leave out from ("1965–66,") to the end of line 24 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has repeated, or summarised, the case he made during Committee, and I can do no more and no less than summarise the case I made on that occasion. It is, of course, that Greater London is being reorganised for the benefit of the people who live in it, and that there is no reason why the general taxpayer at large throughout the country should be asked to pay for this reorganisation. It is perfectly reasonable that the people who live in Greater London should pay towards any form

843
of compensation that is to be given to the severed counties. That is what we propose they should do. They are not going to be asked to pay more than they can reasonably stand.
On the other hand, it would be quite wrong if noble Lords got the idea that the Exchequer would not be paying anything. The fact is that the Exchequer will be paying to Essex a higher rate-deficiency grant, in the sum of £610,000, and to Kent an additional £680,000; so that they will be making a contribution of £1,300,000 to these counties, in addition to the amount they will receive from the outer London boroughs.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, the deficiency grants are payable under existing legislation.
LORD HASTINGS: Yes, I know.
LORD LATHAM: Do not make a virtue of it.
LORD HASTINGS: This is additional to the present situation. But I do not think I can agree, and I do not think noble Lords on this side of the House can agree, with the idea put forward, that whatever the Government do in respect of local legislation the taxpayer and the country as a whole should pay for that particular enactment.
LORD LATHAM: Yes, but this is unique for its iniquity.
LORD HASTINGS: That is a matter of opinion. The noble Lord thinks it is, and we do not think it is iniquitous at all. It is unique, because we have the courage of our convictions to do something that badly needs doing. In that respect it is unique, and no doubt this Government will be recognised in later years for having taken on this task at a time when it needed taking on, and it will be seen in later years that great benefit will accrue to London as a result.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, here again the noble Lord says that my noble friend Lord Latham has said much the same as he said in Committee. I do not expect that he has. I expect he has put it differently and even more persuasively. But one of the purposes of having a Committee and a Report stage is so that the Govern-
844
ment can consider fairly and objectively the arguments that have been put to them in Committee. They will therefore have a chance of modifying their opinions and changing their minds. Again we see they have a grievance against this Report stage altogether. There is nothing in this—
LORD HASTINGS: I did not say that I had a grievance at all. I was merely saying that the noble Lord had repeated his case and I had to repeat mine. We made a lot of changes in this between the Committee and Report stages.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: You made some—not on this point. The noble Lord then proceeded to excuse himself by saying there was nothing he could do but to repeat what he had said at each stage. I do not complain about that, except that that makes it clear that the Government have not considered the arguments in Committee on this point.
Then the noble Lord said that the Government would be paying a figure of about £600,000 to the surviving truncated county of Essex, and so with the others. But that, as my noble friend Lord Latham said, is surely under existing legislation. If the action of the Government results in a decrease in the rateable value of a county, and, therefore, a decrease in the product of a 1d. rate, then automatically under the Exchequer contribution arrangements the Government grant goes up. The Government are not putting their hand in their pocket and saying to poor old Essex, Surrey and Kent, "Look, boys. We are very sorry, so we will hand out this additional money which otherwise you would not have got, and we are only doing it because of new legislation that enables us to do it." They have no need to expect any thanks for this, because the truncated counties automatically get the increased grant as the Government have taken away a substantial part of their rateable value.
This is one of the most wicked pieces of bluff, and almost thievery, that I have ever come across. It is going to be put in cold black and white legislation, or black and green legislation. What does it mean? They first of all start by saying that they want to enlarge the London County Council area, to increase the population of the new area from the

845
existing 3¼ million to about 8½ million, and still call it local government. They do that for a political motive, in the hope that they will get a majority on the Greater London Council which, owing to their unpopularity among the people of London, they cannot get by popular consent. So they are going to legislate it out of existence at the behest of the incompetent, antiquated London Municipal Society, supported by the Leader of the House of Commons.
Having done that and enlarged the new Greater London area by truncating these surrounding counties, they then find, owing to Labour speeches and the efforts of Surrey and others, this opposition. Kent and Essex have been a bit soft about it, but Surrey has put up a fight. That is why we backed Surrey: and, my noble friend Lord Crook having backed Surrey in conjunction with Lord Auckland—they joined forces on the argument—Lord Crook goes into the Lobby, Lord Auckland stays. Lord Auckland has been boasting in the local paper, the Surrey Comet, that he is going to fight this to the bitter end, as a bold Baron. I hope my noble friend Lord Crook will expose in the Surrey Comet the weak, runaway, sit-on-the-fence tactics of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. I am sick of the sight of him, the way he comes into the field and then runs away.
Now, having enlarged the area of Greater London and cut into the surrounding counties—the Government have done this; not London, but the Government—they then come to this House and say, "We have done it. We have committed the murder. We have committed the theft. Now let the compensation be paid by the citizens of Greater London as a whole"—those people who never asked for it to be done; indeed, who opposed its being done. Of all the brazen, dishonest impudence that I have ever met in the whole of my Parliamentary life, this is about the limit! They
initiate the foul deed; they do the foul deed. They go into these respectable Conservative counties, tear them limb from limb, steal half their population, or getting on for that, and perhaps more than half their rateable value; and then, instead of producing the money to compensate these truncated counties, they say, "London can pay it". That's a nice thing! Why should I, as a ratepayer of London, pay for the sins of Her Majesty's Government? It almost tempts one to sit down in Parliament Square—which I assure your Lordships is the last thing I am going to do; I have too much sympathy with the police. But that is what they are doing.
This is an utterly dishonest financial transaction, worthy of the late Horatio Bottomley in his most exciting financial days. This is a tricky, dishonest Government—I nearly called them corrupt, but I am not sure that that would be in order. It is a terrible Government: and we have to pay for it. We are also paying to some extent because we have to share the richer rateable value of the City of London, the City of Westminster, the Royal Borough of Kensington and, I think, Marylebone, which we had in the county of London and which were very useful to the London County Council in its expenditure, with a wider area. So we lose all that. Then the Government come along, having committed this foul deed, and say, "You Londoners can pay for it", while they could pay for it out of the Exchequer's pocket. The Government are mean, the Treasury are mean—and, thank heaven! the Government will go out at the next Election, which is why they are holding on as long as they can.
2.28 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 188) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Shepherd, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Stonham, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Chesham, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Carrington, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Brecon, L.

Chelmer, L.

Conesford, L.

Craigton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Molson, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Monk Brettan, L.

Denham, L.

Hastings, L.

Perth, E.

Derwent, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Devonshire, D.

Jellicoe, E.

St. Just, L.

Dulverton, L.

Jessel, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Dundee, E.

Lothian, M.

Sandford, L.

Eccles, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Sandys, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Tenby, V.

Ferrers, E.

Mersey, V.

Teynham, L.

Glentanar, L.

Merthyr, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mills, V.

Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

2.32 a.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 80, to insert the following new clause:
Surplus lands, etc.
".—(1) Any land which immediately before 1st April 1965 belonged to the London county council or the Middlesex county council and was not required for the purpose for which it had been acquired, or had been subsequently appropriated, including any land so belonging which had been laid out and developed under section 12 (Power to develop lands &c.) of the Middlesex County Council Act, 1944, section 33 (Development of land by Council) of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1955, or section 31 (Acquisition and development of derelict land) of the Middlesex County Council Act, 1956, shall on that date vest in the Greater London Council; but, not later than 31st March 1970 or such later date before 1st April 1975 as the Minister may direct, the Greater London Council shall, after consultation with the London borough councils, prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme with respect to that land—

(a) containing proposals as to what part, if any, of that land it is, in the opinion of the Greater London Council, necessary or desirable to transfer to the councils of specified London boroughs for use for or in connection with the exercise of the functions of those councils, and giving their grounds for that opinion;

(b) in the case of any of that land proposed to be transferred, indicating any necessary modifications of any local Act or other instrument with respect to the land in question;

and the Minister, after consultation with the Greater London Council and any London borough council concerned, may by order give effect to the scheme either without modification or with such modifications as the Minister thinks fit.
(2) The Minister shall not make any order under section 83 of this Act in relation to any land to which this section applies except for the purpose of giving effect (either with or without modifications) to a scheme submitted to him under this section."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which deals
848
with the surplus land and properties which the L.C.C. have acquired over a number of years, in the main for redevelopment and road building. The figure which I gave on Committee of the value of this property was in the region of £40 million. I have no reason to retract that statement. This property is bringing to the L.C.C. an annual income in the region of £400,000. I understand that the Government propose that this property, which will be surplus to the L.C.C., should be transferred by ministerial order, under Clause 83, to the boroughs in which the property exists. In the main, this property is located in boroughs which are wealthy. It has been acquired out of the money of the ratepayers of the whole of the L.C.C. area and, if there is to be any transfer, in some way that value should go to the benefit of the ratepayers of the Greater London area.
I understood the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, to say on Committee that there was no question of a free transfer of this property from the L.C.C. to the boroughs and that some method would be adopted by which the value of the property would be transferred to some authority, which he did not name. He did not say that the value of the property would in fact go to the Greater London Council. We should like to know to-night from the Government what they propose to do to ensure that the value of this property which has been acquired from the ratepayers of London, should be disposed of in such a way that the ratepayers of the Greater London area should benefit. I hope the Government can give us a reply; they were unable to do so on the Committee stage. With those few words, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 80, insert the said next clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I accept the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, of £40 million, and also the annual income of about £400,000 derived from this capital asset. In addition, I can add the information that this property is let by the London County Council on ground leases due to expire at varying times from the present to about 40 or so years hence. In the first place, it was bought against future needs, and some of it may now be ripe for development. We admit all that.
The difference between the Government and noble Lords opposite is essentially over the method of transferring these properties to the new authorities. But I think lying behind this Amendment is the fear of noble Lords that property paid for by the London County Council and the ratepayers of the London County Council area in respect of which that whole area is now benefiting might be given more or less en bloc to particular boroughs. On the Committee stage the noble Lord mentioned particularly the Borough of Westminster, pointing out that it is already the richest one. On the other hand, it seems clear from what the noble Lord has said that he has no objection to these assets of the London County Council being handed over en bloc to the Greater London Council, although that would mean that different ratepayers from the present would be benefiting from the transfer, because it would then be spread over the ratepayers of the whole of the area of Greater London, which is more than twice the area. So there is no question of keeping this property for the benefit of the same ratepayers, as now.
The Government's intention is that transfers to the new authorities should be accomplished by order under Clause 83, with provision as required for the transfer also of rights and liabilities. This would be done only after the fullest consultation with the authorities concerned, which will include the Greater London Council after it is set up. The Government believe that the permanent disposition of most, if not all, of the properties can be settled by April 1, 1965, when the new authorities assume their functions. There is no reason why this should not be so. If, in the event, it seems desirable to defer the final decision in respect of these particular properties, there is nothing to prevent an order under
850
Clause 83 from transferring them to (let us say) the Greater London Council until the final disposition is made by subsequent order.
Orders under Clause 83 will, by virtue of subsection (4) of that clause, attract the provisions of Section 151 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which deals with financial adjustments upon alterations of areas or the creation of new authorities. The section enables authorities to make agreements for the purpose of adjusting property, income, debts, liabilities and expenses. Such agreements may, for example, provide for joint use of properties and for payment by either party to the agreement in respect of property, debts, functions and liabilities.
There should be no difficulty in most cases in determining who should be the appropriate new authority to take over a property from an existing authority and, in all probability, the rights and liabilities going with the property. But there is no reason why, for example, an order under Clause 83 could not provide for an agreement or an adjustment in accordance with Section 151 of the 1933 Act between two of the new authorities: the one to whom the property is transferred and the other who might be held to have an inherited interest in it; that is to say, the Greater London Council. The point of that is, of course, that the noble Lord is thinking of profits that might be made owing to the appreciation in value, and in the case of large properties it might well be that, although that property was transferred for redevelopment to a borough, the Greater London Council have a share in that redevelopment, and agreements to that effect can be made. On the other hand, there would be no doubt quite small properties ripe for redevelopment which obviously would be on a local borough basis, and it would be suitable to make that over direct to the borough.
The noble Lord is quite wrong—and I am sorry if I gave him this impression at Committee stage—in thinking that it is the Government's intention automatically to transfer to local boroughs. It is not. I have outlined what may well happen. There can be a sharing between more than one borough, or it can belong entirely to the Greater London Council, or there can be a sharing between the borough and the Greater London Council. These matters will be

851
worked out after full consultation. On any two stage operation of vesting in the Greater London Council pending a final determination, that determination could similarly bring in its train adjustments between the Greater London Council and the authority in which the property is vested.
I am afraid that in Committee stage, not being an economist, I became rather involved in talking about compensation, and noble Lords, perhaps also not being economists, followed me up the garden path on that one. It was a question not of compensation but the transfer of assets and liabilities. I hope that on this occasion I have explained the matter more fully so that noble Lords can understand it and will be satisfied that this matter can be looked after more expeditiously under Clause 85, with justice to everybody concerned.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I intervene for the purpose of making a personal statement? It is only honourable that I should do so. I was told that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, had not voted in the
Clause 83 [Supplementary and transitional provision]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, paragraph (b) of Clause 83(2) provides that
Division about Surrey. I now find that he did vote. I think he was rather quick through the Lobby before we saw him. Nevertheless, he did vote, I went for him, as I was entitled to do if he had not voted. I am now advised that he did vote, and I wish to tender my apologies to the noble Lord and thus set the record straight.
EARL. ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have listened to the explanation on the Amendment—
LORD MOLSON: The noble Earl was talking all the time. He did not listen at all.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I heard a great deal of what may well happen. It may be all right. We will read it in the morning, but we will divide just to make certain.
2.43 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 192) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Aldington, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Eccles, L.

Merrivale, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mersey, V.

Brecon, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mills, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Glentanar, L.

Molson, L.

Carrington, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Chelmer, L.

Grenfell, L.

Perth, E.

Chesham, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Hastings, L.

St. Just, L.

Conesford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Craigton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Sandford, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Jessel, L.

Sandys, L.

Denham, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Derwent, L.

Lothian, M.

Teynham, L.

Devonshire, D.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dulverton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Waleran, L.

Dundee, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

orders dealing with transitional provisions may make the necessary substitution where any authority affected by reorganisation is represented on or appoints members to some other body. In the case of the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board the membership is set

853
out in their Local Act of 1950. The majority of members are appointed by local authorities, but four are elected by groups of local authorities in accordance with special procedure, and some of the local authorities are inside and some outside the Greater London area. This Amendment will enable the necessary substitution to be made in the case of elected members as well as appointed members. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 38, leave out from ("persons") to end of line 40 and insert ("elected by, or appointed by or on the nomination of—

(i) any council affected by Part I of this Act; or

(ii) any two or more bodies who include such a council;").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to move Amendments 193 and 194 together. No. 193 is intended to pave the way for 194, and the purpose of 194 is to enable Territorial Army and Air Force associations to continue unchanged for the time being, despite the changes made in the Bill to the areas of counties—London, Middlesex and the peripheral counties. Your Lordships know that recently there has been a major reorganisation of the Territorial Army as a whole, and we thought it wrong that there should be within a year or two a reorganisation of Territorial Army associations in Greater London. The purpose of the Amendment is to obviate the need for any such reorganisation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 7, leave out from ("in") to second ("of") in line 10 and insert ("section 148(1)(a) to (h) and (2)").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 20, at end insert:—
("(2A) The provision which may be made by virtue of paragraph (e) of the last foregoing subsection shall include the making, in relation to any association mentioned in section 2 of the Auxiliary Forces Act 1953, of the like provision as may be made in relation to a public body under section 148(1)(a) to (h) of the Local Government Act 1933, including provision for continuing in existence any such association and the area for which it is established or authorising the establishment of any such association under the said Act of 1953 for the
854
whole or any part of Greater London and in either case for the appointment of a president and vice-president of any such association.")—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Transfer and compensation of officers]:
2.55 a.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 195, 196 and 197 together. They are all linked with previous Amendments, and their purpose is to ensure that when any agreement is made between the Greater London Council and a borough council under Clause 24(7), any local government officers who are transferred as a result of such an agreement will be entitled to the general protection of the provisions contained in Clause 84. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 15, leave out ("shall include") and insert ("or by section 24(7) of this Act shall include such").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 16, after ("Act") insert ("or, as the case may be, in pursuance of any agreement under the said section 24(7)").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 17, leave out ("such.)—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection 3(a), to leave out the words after "the transfer" down to and including "new terms and conditions of employment". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. Amendment No. 197C depends upon Amendment No. 197A. Both Amendments are concerned with the conditions of transfer of the various staffs of the bodies to be transferred, and the staff are naturally anxious as to what their position may be. The first Amendment seeks to improve the limited measure of protection which the Bill affords to transferred officers in respect of their existing terms and conditions of employment. It would ensure, for instance, that any officer engaged on duties which were not reasonably comparable to those on which he was engaged immediately before the transfer, through no fault of his own but as a consequence of the Bill, does not

855
suffer a worsening in his pay and conditions. It is, of course, the doctrine of non-worsening.
There are several grounds on which this Amendment No. 197A is justified. It was put forward, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will recall, during the Committee stage, and although the noble Lord gave an answer to some of the arguments which were then used, there were certain of the arguments which were unanswered, and it is hoped that the noble Lord will be able to answer them this evening. There is the general point of real importance, that local government officers have chosen their employment in the belief that it is characterised by a high measure of security, and they have accepted (I think this is generally agreed to be the case) a lower monetary reward for that reason. If Parliament destroys or lessens that security, it should give full protection against the ensuing loss. I think perhaps one could say that that is no more than fair.
The total loss which officers could suffer in this major upheaval may well affect more officers than is usually the case, and it is likely in any case to be more substantial than is normal. A fall in salary is a particular disadvantage for those who are about to retire on ground of age. The amount of the pension is determined by the average salary in the last three years of service, and so a reduction in income means a corresponding reduction in pension. This is particularly serious for those officers who have many years of service and who are approaching retirement. In this connection, the Minister in another place on April 1 said this—I quote from the Commons OFFICIAL REPORT, Volume 675 (No. 89), col. 67:
"I give a firm undertaking that pensions rights are protected and will be protected by order."
That was said on recommittal in another place on April 1. It is difficult to see how the Minister proposes to protect the pension rights of officers who suffer loss in salary in the circumstances to which this Amendment refers, unless this Amendment is accepted.
A fourth objection arises from the difficulty of defining "comparable
856
duties". This problem is difficult enough in the ordinary way, but in an operation of the size and complexity involved by the Bill, necessitating a transfer of officers between authorities, with different staffing structures, different conditions of service and different sizes of service, the difficulty of defining "comparable duties" will be most acute and may give rise to much dispute. The Parliamentary Secretary did not, I think, meet this point. Perhaps he would seek to do so this morning.
Then there is the point that protection is sought in the amendment which is being incorporated in orders made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under the Water Acts of 1945 and 1948, which provided for the amalgamation of water undertakings. I understand that orders are currently being made which protect the pay of staff and water undertakings being transferred without any regard to reasonable comparability between their former and new posts.
My Lords, this is particularly relevant to this issue since it is the declared intention of the Government to transfer the functions and staff of the Metropolitan Water Board to the Greater London Council by a later Bill. It would be even more anomalous for the staffs of local authorities in Greater London and of the Metropolitan Water Board to be treated differently. The extension of a complete protection to all transferred local government officers in Greater London would not, it is thought, in economic circumstances be a major risk to the public purse. Noble Lords will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, devoted some of his remarks at the Committee stage to the question of the measure and burden of compensation in this connection. So far as I can estimate, it would not seem that the Government need be apprehensive that there would be a large liability arising from acting on the basis of the Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 19, leave out from ("transfer") in line 19 to ("he") in line 21.—(Lord Latham)
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I rise to support this Amendment moved by my noble friend. The first Amendment deals with the same question that I raised in the Committee stage, and I understood then that the noble Lord, Lord

857
Hastings, would consider the case which I submitted. I am sure it is realised that this Bill, when it becomes law, will profoundly affect the livelihood and the future prospects of thousands of local government officers. Obviously, therefore, the provisions of the Bill dealing with the position of officers have been most carefully examined, and while I admit that the Government have included in the Bill some protection for the staff, which is good as far as it goes, serious apprehension is still felt by the officers at the inclusion of the words in this clause which this first Amendment seeks to delete.
Broadly speaking, as the clause now stands the salary and other conditions of employment of an officer may be adversely changed without any prior consultation or negotiation of any kind with the officer's trade union—usually, of course, the National and Local Government Officers' Association. I cannot believe that that is the intention of the Minister in charge of the Bill, but I can assure him that there is grave apprehension among the staff at the possible effects of the clause if it remains with the words which we seek to be deleted included in the clause. I am asked to make the most urgent plea to the Government to accept the Amendment.
I feel certain, too, that everyone appreciates the very heavy responsibilities which this Bill imposes on the local government staffs if the provisions of the Bill are to work smoothly, efficiently and successfully. I therefore plead with the Minister, or Ministers, not to retain in this clause a phrase which can seriously undermine the whole structure of Whitleyism which has made such a contribution to local government. I earnestly ask the Minister to accept the first Amendment which was moved so well by my noble friend Lord Latham.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I said during our discussion on Committee stage that, although the Government of the day moved many Amendments which noble Lords opposite welcomed, I would consider the further re marks made by the noble Lords, Lords Latham and Burden, but I did not hold out very much hope that I should be able to produce a different answer at Report stage. The Government have considered this matter further, and I am afraid that in respect
858
of this Amendment noble Lords will be disappointed. On the other hand, I shall reply at some length, because the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has put a number of questions to me and I propose to answer them.
First of all, I would remind noble Lords—some of whom may not have been here when we were discussing this subject before—of what the Government did during Committee stage. We put down Amendments which went a long way to meet the views put forward on behalf of local government staffs. The changes then made assumed that for transferred officers there would probably be an initial period during which they would be employed by their new council, but their final post and terms and conditions of service would not have been settled. During that interim period all officers would be ensured not only their previous salary but also their salary scale which would include any increments to which they would have been entitled under their previous employer.
Then we provide that, when an officer's post had been settled and recorded in black and white, then, if that post was "reasonably comparable" to his pre-transfer job—as in the vast majority of cases it would be—again his pre-transfer salary scale was assured, so that that officer would go to the maximum to which he was entitled under his previous employer. Regarding the definition of "reasonably comparable", I might as well here answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, and remind him that the expression previously in the Bill was "similar duties". We changed that in the then existing Clause 84, and "reasonably comparable duties" is an expression borrowed from the compensation regulations. These regulations have been in force for many years, and there is an established way of settling disputes through tribunals set up by the Minister of Labour. I think that those words are a great improvement on "similar duties", and there should be no difficulty in interpreting them reasonably.
I ought to point out, too, that the officers likely to be affected are very few indeed. After all, we are not proposing to reduce the opportunities for local government service. On the contrary, there are likely to be more

859
opportunities, in addition to which there are already many vacancies existing in a number of grades of local government. One is led perfectly reasonably, I think, to the conclusion that very few officers indeed are likely to be declared redundant, or to suffer any diminution of salary, and for them, as we know, the well-established compensation arrangements will be available.
It has been asked before—it was in the Committee stage, and I think it was asked again or pointed out later—why, if there would be only comparatively few officers affected, could not the Government give an absolute guarantee that even these few would not suffer at all, because the public expense involved would be small? Really, my Lords—and I emphasised this previously—there is an important question of principle at stake; and that is whether it is right that local government employees, whose salaries are met from taxation, should receive payment which is not necessarily related to their duties. This is a principle with a much wider application than the comparatively few instances which we expect will occur as a result of the reorganisation of London government. That is the main reason for rejecting the Amendment, which would be giving a blank cheque, as it were, to all local government employees who would be affected by this Bill.
To come to some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Latham: first of all there is the one relating to security, suggesting that local government officers accept lower salaries in return for greater security. I am not sure that that is a good argument nowadays. Probably before the war that was so, but now there is surely a wide range of jobs just as secure as local government or the Civil Service, and with full rights of superannuation benefit, compensation, pension and all matters of that sort. I do not think there is a very strong argument that local government officers are obliged to receive a smaller salary on the ground that there may possibly be greater security. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, it is precisely those persons who enlisted in the local government service between the wars who are concerned and anxious
860
about their situation—precisely those; and then those conditions did apply.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord also referred to the possibility of a fall in salary which would have repercussions on the pension, and he mentioned that my right honourable friend gave a firm undertaking that pension rights will be protected. Of course, the compensation provisions cover the repercussions on pensions. The compensation is also payable for a reduction of pension rights; and my right honourable friend's undertaking will, of course, be honoured by orders under Clause 83. The general provisions to which I am referring are, of course, in Clause 84(4).
I have dealt with the point of similar duties, and there remains, finally, the point about water undertakings. I think the noble Lord said that they had a better measure of protection when there was amalgamation of water undertakings. But that is a much more limited thing; and, although it is true that the normal provision in an order is that the particular employee shall not receive a lower salary than he enjoyed before the protection, it is not absolute, in the sense that there is no guarantee of continued employment. A water undertaker would therefore not be prevented from discharging a transferred employee either as completely redundant, or even in order to re-engage him at a lower salary. The possibility that this could happen is illustrated by the comparable provisions of compensation which are contained in the Water Acts. I think that is the answer to the noble Lord. So they really are not any better off than the people covered by the proposals in this Bill. I think that answers all the points. As I say, I am afraid that on a matter of principle I cannot accept this Amendment; and we believe we have gone a very long way to reassure all local government officers.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for dealing with the various questions which I raised. Of course, it is one thing to preserve pension rights, but, as I stated in my opening remarks, the pension can be seriously affected if there is a loss of salary, because the pension is based upon the last three years of service. It is idle, if I may say so, to seek to answer

861
that question merely by saying that pension rights are guaranteed. Pension rights must be guaranteed, otherwise there are no rights. But, as I have said, the pension depends on the salary.
Then, on the other point which the noble Lord made, with regard to water undertakings, I should hesitate to think that that ought to be regarded as a white elephant. After all, water undertakings are at present mainly—increasingly so, at all events—public undertakings, and they do not dismiss staff in the free and easy way in which staff in other avocations may be dismissed. I should not have thought that that was really an adequate answer. However, I should like to raise a point which is the basis of this first Amendment, and that is the fact that in Clause 84(3)(a) the following words occur:
"until he is served with a statement in writing of new terms and conditions of employment".
It is a little cavalier, is it not, that a person can, as it were, the day after the conditions of employment have been settled on the basis of the transfer, receive a letter terminating his employment? Could the noble Lord enlighten us on that? Is that the intended purpose of the words?
LORD HASTINGS: I think the noble Lord has misinterpreted it.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, to apply his mind to that phrase which we wish deleted from this clause? I need hardly say that long practice in local government service has led to salaries and other conditions of employment being determined by negotiation and agreement or award, and we want that practice to continue. I am not asking for all salaries and conditions of employment to remain the same for all time while these people are in the service, but I am pleading that this system of negotiation should continue before there is any alteration or variation in the conditions of employment or salaries of any person or officer transferred. That is the clear issue I have asked the Minister to consider because, as this clause now stands, any of the new local authorities could, by a stroke of the pen or by a letter to the individual, adversely affect the conditions of his employment or lessen his salary.
862
I think noble Lords will agree that this case is not adequately met by saying there are compensation arrangements in the Bill. That does not meet the case that any variation should by long-established practice be by negotiation as between the employee, the trade unions and the employing authority. That is the simple case I am putting to the Government. Nothing that has been said up to now has dealt with that very substantial point.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I do not think I can answer at length. That, of course, is the intention of the Government and the purpose of it. If these words were left out there would be a blank cheque and permanent employment on present terms and conditions. Of course, they presuppose proper negotiations.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.24 a.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (3)(a), after "employment", where that word last occurs, to insert:
"being terms and conditions of employment which have been settled by agreement or award".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which, was withdrawn by me during the Committee stage on the undertaking of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, to have further thought about it and to discuss the matter to see whether anything could be done to meet the submission of noble Lords in this respect. Since no alternative Amendment has been put down, we have put this one down again. Its object is to ensure that any new terms and conditions shall not be imposed unilaterally by the employing authorities but shall be settled by agreement or award, as has been common practice in the public service for a long time.
When the Amendment was considered at Committee stage in this House the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said: [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 250 (No. 93), col. 1035]:
"… one has to take into consideration that local authorities' salaries and conditions of service are normally the subject of negotiation and, if necessary, of arbitration, …"
Moreover, an Amendment on the subject, which had been tabled at Report

863
stage in another place and which described the terms and conditions of service as those which were settled by agreement or award, was ruled out of order by the Speaker. However, the Minister later indicated his assent to the acceptance of the Amendment, and I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Commons of April 2, col. 342. It is difficult to understand why the Minister is now unwilling to accept an Amendment which accords with the existing practice and to which he indicated that he assented. I hope that the Minister has not changed his mind and that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary may be able to say that the indication made by the Minister will be implemented and that his assent to this Amendment will be given. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 21, after ("employment") insert the said new words.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, since Committee stage we have given a great deal of thought to this question and to whether it would be desirable to include an Amendment on this point in the Bill, assuming that a suitable one could be devised. Unfortunately, we have come to the conclusion that it will not be possible, and again I will try to explain why to the noble Lord. Local authority salaries and conditions of service are normally negotiated through the well-established method of the Whitley Councils, to which the noble Lord, Lord Burden, referred, which rest not on statutory powers but on the support which both employers and employees give to the principle of negotiated agreement. The Government are extremely reluctant to intervene or to take any action which would affect the present basis on which these arrangements rest by writing into this Bill, and for the London authorities alone, a statutory requirement on this point. We do not believe that either the borough councils or the G.L.C. will behave inconsiderately or irresponsibly when arrangements have to be made for safeguarding the interests of staffs which will be transferred to them, nor do we believe that there is really any danger of the fears which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, now and on the previous occasion. Naturally, there will be consultation with the Whitley Council and the
864
L.C.C. Staff Association, which I am told is most vigorous and effective.
The noble Lord raised the point about my right honourable friend's agreeing to an Amendment in another place, and quoted col. 342. In point of fact, that was in the Standing Committee. There were two Amendments on the Marshalled List, and when an honourable Member suggested that my right honourable friend should agree to one of them, he merely nodded. The Amendments were never discussed, because the Committee never got to them, and one cannot say to which my right honourable friend precisely nodded. In any case, I think that that is a rather flimsy argument, because my right honourable friend produced other Amendments which superseded those which were going to be discussed on that occasion, Amendments which were moved into the Bill on Committee stage in your Lordships' House. I am afraid, therefore, that we shall not be able to do anything about this matter. I am sorry to disappoint noble Lords, but I hope that they will accept my reason as a perfectly legitimate one.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I agree that the position is somewhat difficult. I understand the noble Lord's point that, while the Government are firmly behind the position that the Whitley negotiation and agreement should be maintained in the new set-up, they are reluctant to write that into the Bill. The trade unions of the officers are extremely anxious that that position should continue in the future, and I am sure the last thing the Government want is that it should be broken down. But should any of the new local authorities be reluctant to continue what has been the established practice for local authorities generally, what measure of help or encouragement can the Minister give us? It is not unknown in local government to find a council which tries to break down established practice, and the trade union concerned has to use all endeavours to get that council into line. May we take it that, should any incident of that kind arise in the future, bearing in mind the discussion that we have had here on the matter, we can count on the good will of the Minister or the Ministry to see that any recalcitrant authority is gently persuaded to come into line with other local authorities in the country?
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, it is a little unusual, I should have thought, for the statement made by the Minister in another place during the Committee stage to be regarded as being a weak basis upon which to found a reasonable claim of this kind.
LORD HASTINGS: There was no statement.
LORD LATHAM: A statement by the Minister that he intended to accept the Amendment as then put. However, I do not want to press that point too far this morning, having regard to the fact that the noble Lord said that he and his advisers had searched for an Amendment and found it difficult, if not impossible, to frame one dealing with the various aspects of this question. In the hope that the matter can be approached, as I hope it will be, in the spirit that led to the considerations of whether an Amendment could be drafted, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 41, leave out ("or of any instrument") and insert ("this Act or of any instrument (including any agreement under section 24(7))").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.35 a.m.
LORD CROOK LORD CROOK moved to add to the clause:
"(6) (a) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, the staff commission referred to in that subsection may give directions to the Greater London Council or a London borough council requiring them to submit to the commission and to such bodies representative of staff employed by local authorities as the commission may specify, at such date before 1st October 1964 as the commission may specify, such details as may be prescribed in the directions of their proposed establishments of staff, together with a statement as to the places, situations or employments which they propose should be filled by persons to be transferred from existing local authorities in Greater London or should be made open to holders of any place, situation or employment in Greater London, or generally;
(b) any person affected by the provisions of any details or statement submitted under the foregoing paragraph, or any body representative of persons who are so affected, may appeal to the commission against any such provisions within twenty-one days from
866
the date of such submission, and the Minister shall make regulations governing the manner in which such appeal shall be made and the procedure on such an appeal;
(c) within two months after the receipt of any details and statement submitted as aforesaid, the commission shall notify the Minister and the submitting authority of any objections which the commission may have to such details and statement and of any recommendations they may wish to propose to remedy the matter;
(d) except with the approval of the Minister or the commission, the Greater London Council or a London borough council shall not advertise for, or appoint, any person as a member of their staff until two months after their submission to the commission of the details and statement referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection;
(e) any scheme in respect of the transfer of staff prepared by a joint committee of existing authorities appointed under section 85 of this Act may if submitted to the staff commission and to such bodies representative of staff employed by local authorities as the commission may specify, before 1st October 1964, be accepted by the commission as a discharge in whole or in part of any obligation of the Greater London Council or a London borough council to submit the details and statement referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection;
(f) in carrying out their functions under this section, the commission and the Minister shall use their best endeavours to ensure that the Greater London Council and any London borough council, in making appointments to specific places, situations or employments, shall, so far as possible, fill such places, situations or employments from among persons who are holders of places, situations or employments which are affected by any provision of, or of any instrument made under, this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move this Amendment. I am sorry to detain your Lordships from your breakfasts after thirteen hours, but we feel that it would be quite wrong to let you go away without considering the rather important subject of the Staff Commission which is set up by this clause, which we suggest must be made into an effective safeguard for the staff by making its functions more specific. We think they should be defined in the Bill on certain lines, which I will try to give very shortly.
The first is that the new authorities shall, by October 1, 1964, submit to the Staff Commission their proposed establishments, together with a statement of what posts will be filled by staff to be transferred from existing local authorities in Greater London and, secondly, what posts will be made open to competition

867
among existing staff of local authorities in Greater London and, thirdly, by open advertisement. Secondly, within some specified time after that the Staff Commission shall be able to object, thus enabling a Ministerial direction to be given under the clause. That in turn will allow individuals affected to be able to appeal to the Staff Commission.
The third suggestion is that no new authority shall advertise or appoint any staff before submitting the proposals to which I have referred for the approval of the Staff Commission or the Minister. The fourth is as to the tentative schemes for the transfer of staff to new authorities which have been prepared by the joint committees of existing authorities. These, we think, should be capable of submission to the Staff Commission for approval in anticipation of the setting up of the new authorities. We desire, further, to secure that the Staff Commission and the Minister shall ensure that the new authorities, in making their appointments to specified posts shall, so far as possible, fill them from staff already employed in comparable posts by the existing local authorities in Greater London.
In short, we think it is important that the Staff Commission shall be given teeth with which to safeguard their staff. It seems important to us that they should play their part in helping to maintain the standard of the local authority services to be transferred. The London authorities obviously must have suitable structures—structures which will enable them to organise their services, to provide for inspection and staff control, and to provide those opportunities for promotion which the staff of the London County Council in particular know of, and regard as one of the attractions of the service to which they belong.
In our view, it is important, therefore, that the Staff Commission should be able to consider their staffing pattern and to take into account the special characteristics and the needs of each borough. Knowledge of the establishments proposed by the new authorities will facilitate the arrangements for fitting into them the staffs from the existing local authorities. I have tried to keep clear and short the kind of proposal which is contained in our Amendment, which I move in the hope that the Government will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Crook.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I would remind noble Lords that when this clause dealing with the transfer and compensation of officers was considered in Committee stage, I moved into it the new subsection (5) as a new Amendment to set out more clearly what the main tasks of the Staff Commission will be. They were in very general terms, and now they are considerably more detailed. Principally, the Staff Commission will be considering and keeping under review the arrangements for the staff transfers which will result from the changes proposed by the Bill, and also the way in which the new authorities recruit staff. They will also consider any other staffing problems arising out of the Bill which are referred to them by the Minister. Their conclusions and advice may be given binding force, so far as local authorities are concerned, by direction of the Minister.
Through the local authority and staff organisations the Commission will be made fully aware of the views, hopes, anxieties and apprehensions felt by the people affected by reorganisation. If they come to the conclusion that the best way in which they can help is by taking steps such as those suggested by the Amendment, the Commission will be able to do so, asking the Minister to give any mandatory directions which may be needed.
I think really that answers the point brought up on the previous Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, as to the powers and intentions of the Minister in this general matter of staff transfers and, of course, this will be done as the result of the setting up of the staff Commission. Certain things might be envisaged, and they are going to consider the way in which senior posts in the boroughs will be filled, especially the posts in those services which will be transferred to the borough councils from the county councils; and also the extent to which posts in Greater London should or should not be open to local government officers now working in other parts of the country. So far as possible, it is the intention that London staff should be given preference. I think the final point I can mention is that they will

869
probably be setting up some appellate machinery for the hearing of individual appeals.
I think I should tell your Lordships here that it is our belief that the Commission's work will go on after 1965, and it will probably have to remain in existence for two or three years afterwards to deal with consequential readjustments, but no precise time-limit can be given at the moment. I hope that I have been able to assuage anxieties of the noble Lord and that he will feel that the Commission will do the job as desired by noble Lords opposite.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his statement, but, really, the feelings that need assuaging are not so much mine as those of the staff concerned. I am sure they will read the reply which the Minister has given to the shortened statement I have made, and I hope they will read it with some satisfaction. I will read it carefully myself tomorrow.
Straight away, I must say that I am glad to learn that the Commission will take account of all the representations and worries, and that the Minister will not hesitate, if necessary, to make quite firm decisions. I was glad, too, to learn about the filling of senior posts, and particularly to learn of the intention of the Government, which will make staffs very much more happy, that they will see to it that in the main the London staff get the first look in. I was glad also to hear the noble Lord say that appellate machinery would be established. That will give some satisfaction. Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lord for letting us know what I do not think any of us quite appreciated before, that the Commission not only will go on after 1965, which we thought was possible, but are going to do so for as long as two or three years. Having said that and got this matter on record, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 [Local Acts and instruments in and around Greater London]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the next Amendment, No. 200, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 35, leave out ("Greater London") and insert ("the relevant area").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 87 [General provision as to inquiries]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I could explain this to your Lordships but as it is extraordinarily complicated I am sure you would not wish me to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 3, leave out from ("to") to ("were") in line 5 and insert ("any local inquiry caused to be held for the purposes of this Act by any Minister as if that Minister").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, after Clause 90, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957
".—(1) The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) In Part II of Schedule 1, in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, after the entry relating to the South of Scotland Electricity Board there shall be inserted the words 'The Staff Commission established under section 84 (5) of the London Government Act 1963'.
(3) In Part III of Schedule 1, both in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and in its application to the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland, in the entry relating to local government officers—

(a) after the words 'England and Wales' where they first occur there shall be inserted the words 'of the Greater London Council';

(b) the words 'of a metropolitan borough' shall cease to have effect; and

(c) the words 'outside London' shall cease to have effect:

Provided that the repeal made by paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not take effect until 1st April 1965."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is the first of a batch of Amendments on the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957. Amendments Nos. 202 and 203, which for some reason, come after 204 on the printed list, go with it, and also 207, 209 and 216. The only new element introduced is a provision contained in subsection (7) of the proposed new

871
Clause which disqualifies members of the Staff Commission from sitting in the House of Commons. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 90 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 92 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 105, line 36, leave out from ("4(4)") to ("the") in line 38, and insert ("and section (Amendment of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957) of this Act and the repeals made by this Act in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 105, line 45, leave out from first ("the") to ("not") in line 46 and insert ("said section (Amendment of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957) and the said repeals, the provisions of this Act other than this subsection shall").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Miscellaneous modifications of enactments as from 1st April 1965]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, under Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, 1892, before a licensee of the Postmaster General can, with the authority of the Postmaster General, exercise the powers conferred on the Postmaster General by the Telegraph Act he must obtain the consent of the appropriate local authority. This Amendment makes it clear that the appropriate local authority in Greater London is the Greater London Council. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 212, line 21, at end insert—
("2A. In the Telegraph Act 1892, in section 5(2)—

(a) for the words 'London of the county council' there shall be substituted the words 'Greater London of the Greater London Council';

(b) for the word 'London' in the second place where it occurs there shall be substituted the words 'Greater London'; and

872

(c) after the words 'which the' there shall be inserted the words 'Greater London Council'.")—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this Amendment can best be taken with No. 213. The purpose of the first Amendment is to modify the Civic Restaurants Act, 1947, so that the London boroughs and the City of London will be able to exercise the power given by the Act. The Act empowers certain local authorities to establish and carry on restaurants and supply meals. The second Amendment is consequential on the first. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 212, line 41, at end insert—
("7A. In the Civic Restaurants Act 1947—

(a) for section 1(1)(a) there shall be substituted—

'(a) in Greater London, the council of a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London;'

(b) in section 4(3), for the words 'metropolitan borough' there shall be substituted the words 'London borough'.").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the changes provided in the Bill in the structure of local authorities in the Greater London area. Section 1(1) of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, 1949, provides that for the purposes of Part I the local authorities shall be the Common Council of the City of London and the councils of metropolitan boroughs, county boroughs and county districts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 212, line 41, at end insert—
("7B. In section 1(1) of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949—

(a) for the words 'metropolitan boroughs' there shall be substituted the words "London boroughs";

(b) in paragraph (b) of the proviso, after the word 'county' there shall be inserted the words 'or in the Greater London Council'.").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 213, line 6, leave out paragraph 10.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 214, line 27, leave out paragraph 16.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, now that I have returned to your Lordships' House for the third time from where I have been, twice yesterday and once to-day, although that was three hours ago, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence while I explain the substance of this rather complicated Amendment. It is an Amendment which I accepted in substance at Committee when it was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, subject to being redrafted. This is the redraft. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 217, line 5, at end insert—
("(b) in section 87, any reference to the administrative county of London shall be construed as a reference to Greater London other than the outer London boroughs, and in subsection (1) thereof, except in relation to proposals submitted thereunder to the Minister before 1st April 1965, the reference to the London county council shall be construed as a reference to the Greater London Council;").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. I felt I had to say this in order to get my name on the record at this very early hour of the proceedings. In any case I am very thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 18 [Repeals]:
3.50 a.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 219, line 42, at end insert—

("5 & 6 Eliz. 2. c. 20.

The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957.

In Part III of Schedule 1, both in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and in its application to the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland, in the entry relating to local government officers, the words 'outside London'.")

—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment repeals for Greater London three additional sections of the Burial Act, 1852, the subject matter of which is adequately covered in later Acts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 220, line 16, leave out from first ("to") to ("so") in line 17 and insert ("40, 42 to 44, and 50").—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord did tell us that the subject matter was adequately buried? Is that so? Was that in his brief?
LORD HASTINGS: I said "adequately covered".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment extends the repeals in the Burial Act, and is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 220, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert—
("Sections 53 and 54.
Schedules (A) and (B).").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to repeal Section 130 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, the powers of which have been incorporated in another measure some 160 years more up to date. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 220, line 32, leave out ("Section 120") and insert ("Sections 120 and 130").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting and consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 220, line 34, leave out from ("7") to ("so") in line 35 and insert ("and 9 to 17").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a most necessary adaptation of Section 18 of the Burial Act, 1855, to fit the circumstances to Greater London. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 220, line 36, at end insert—
("In section 18, so far as relating to Greater London, the words 'burial board or', in the second place where they occur, the words 'as the case may be', in the second place where they occur, and the words 'or burial ground', in the third place where they occur.

875
Sections 19 and 20, so far as relating to Greater London.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment preserves, in its application to Greater London, Section 23 of the Burial Act, 1857, which contains a provision for Orders in Council requiring action to be taken to prevent vaults and places of burial becoming injurious to health. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 220, line 41, leave out ("24 and") and insert ("23 to").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, these Amendments to definitions in the Telegraph Act, 1892, are necessary to bring the Act into line with the new system of local government in London. I beg to Move.
Amendment moved—
Page 221, line 58, at end insert—

("55 & 56 Vict. c. 59.

The Telegraph Act 1892.

In section 9, in the definition of 'urban sanitary authority', the words from 'and a sanitary' to '1891', and the definition of London'.")

—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.55 a.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 233, line 55, at end insert—

("16 & 17 Geo. 6. c. 45.

The Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act 1926.

Section 27(b).")

—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the general provisions of Schedule 14. It repeals in Greater London certain provisions of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, which were repealed for the rest of the country excluding the L.C.C. by the Local Government Act, 1933. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 224, line 24, leave out column 3 and insert—
("In section 32(2) the words from 'under those Acts' onwards.
Section 53(2)(a) and (b).
Section 69.
876
In section 73, the words from 'or (b)' to 'boundary lines are altered'").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 226, line 23, at end insert ("Section 266(1)(ii)").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 228, line 37, at end insert—

("10 & 11 Geo. 6. c. 22.

The Civil Restaurants Act 1947.

In section 3(3), the words 'other than the administrative County of London'.

Section 3(4).")

—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 228, column 3, leave out lines 40 to 42 and insert ("In section 71 (1), the words 'except the County of London'").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 232, line 30, leave out ("(4)").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 234, line 28, at end insert—

("5 & 6 Eliz. 2. c. 20.

The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957.

In Part III of Schedule I, both in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and in its application to the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland, in the entry relating to local government officers, the words 'of a metropolitan borough'.")

—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would it help the House it I indicated that it is not our intention to move Amendments Nos. 217, 218, 219, 220 or the batch from 221–225?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I support the noble Lord in his decision not to move these Amendments.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. Before I move it and before we totter away, I should like to thank my noble friends for their steadfast attendance. I am glad that the ranks of reform and righteousness have held so firm, and I should also like to thank them, if I may, for the support, both vocal and moral, they have given to me and to my noble friend. At the same time I think it would be quite wrong for me not to congratulate noble Lords opposite on the eloquence, sincerity and the brevity of the few, but pithy, observations which they have contributed in the course of our short discussion. Finally, I think it would be appropriate for me—and I am sure I carry my noble friends with me—to say a word of thanks to the staff of this House for their succour to us in our sore travail. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—

("1963 c.

The London County Council (General Powers) Act 1963.

Section 15")

—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we wish to be associated in particular with the words of thanks of the noble Earl to all the staff throughout this building who, through the long stages of Committee and of Report, have given us first-class service. I should like to thank my own friends for a fantastic effort in
878
sustaining an attack and inquiry upon this Bill. Our task is not yet finished. We have still the Third Reading in front of us. There are some who have complained of repetition; there are some who have complained about the length of time we have taken on Committee and Report. But, my Lords, we have in fact altered this Bill very considerably. I think that the House will be surprised when it sees the number of Amendments that will have to go to another place. Whether this was through our persuasion I do not know; I believe that in some cases it was. At least we have given the Government time to consider many of their own ideas. Therefore we have performed a task.
I think we shall also wish to thank the noble Lords, the Ministers, for their care and attention in their replies. Not always has their case matched their own eloquence, but they have met their task with good humour, which I think was shared all round on Committee and Report. In spite of the strain of late nights, we have always kept our good temper and understanding. I think that what we have done is a great credit to this House. We will leave it at that, at this stage. There is still the Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 18th of June last discharged, and Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at two minutes past four o'clock.