Sitting of 16 July 1963

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON TRANSPORT BILL [Lords]
    MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL
    Lord Amendments considered and agreed to.
  FACTORY LANE, WARRINGTON (LEVEL CROSSING) BILL [Lords]
    LUCAS ESTATE BILL [Lords]

      GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL [Lords]
      PORT OF LONDON BILL [Lords]
      Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

    CLYWLDOG RESERVOIR JOINT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]
    As amended (on re-committal) considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

    National Gallery (Stonework)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Public Building and Works on what occasion the stonework of the National Gallery was last cleaned; and what estimate he has made of the cost of cleaning it now.
    The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The stonework of the National Gallery was last cleaned in 1951. The estimated cost of cleaning it now is£7,500.
    Mr. Ridley: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it has already got into a shockingly dirty state and that there
    306
    is not much point in floodlighting a building as dirty as this? Can my right hon. Friend see if he can get it cleaned?
    Mr. Rippon: I do not accept the premise.

    Major Public Buildings (Stonework)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will institute a programme of regular cleaning of the stonework of the major public buildings under his control.
    Mr. Rippon: I propose for the time being to continue my present policy of considering particular cases on their merits. I have, however, put in hand a review of the whole matter in the light of increasing experience in this country and abroad.
    Mr. Ridley: Has my right hon. Friend visited Paris lately and seen the absolutely staggering transformation which has been carried out there to public buildings? Will he make a further statement—if he is making investigations—as to his plans in this matter?
    Mr. Rippon: I have, happily, visited Paris from time to time. I think that the progress made there is remarkable, but the circumstances are, of course, rather different. I will certainly consider publishing the review if it proves to be of sufficient general interest.
    Mr. Stodart: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the wonderful transformation which his Department has carried out to the Royal Scottish Academy in Edinburgh and also to Princes Street, and will he undertake further work of that kind in Edinburgh?
    Mr. Rippon: Yes, I will. Work on cleaning the National Gallery of Scotland has started and I expect it to be finished by June, 1964.

    Historic Buildings (Restoration and Preservation)
    Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will prepare and publish an up-to-date book containing all the latest available information and advice on the restoration and preservation of historic buildings.
    Mr. Rippon: I undertook in my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the

    307
    Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on 7th May to consider issuing a comprehensive publication of this character. I am having the necessary material collated and I intend to publish it either in a book or in a series of leaflets.
    Mr. Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the booklet referred to in the reply which he gave was concerned with an out-of-date catalogue of an exhibition which happened many years ago, and will he take steps to remedy this?
    Mr. Rippon: I do not think that my hon. Friend listened to my reply. I think that he is a little unfair to the existing booklet, but I accept that it would be useful to have the latest information published in a new form.

    Banqueting House, Whitehall
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he hopes to complete the restoration of the Banqueting House, Whitehall, and open it to the public.
    Sir D. Gloverasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he has made with the reinstatement of the interior of the Banqueting House, Whitehall; and when he plans to make it available for use.
    Mr. Rippon: I am afraid that the Royal United Service Institution has still not been able to give me possession of the Banqueting House and so it has not been possible to start work on the reinstatement of the interior.
    Mr. Parker: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect that it will be free?
    Mr. Rippon: The hon. Member knows what legal difficulties imply but the Institution is in consultation with the Charity Commissioners at the moment and they are working on a scheme which I hope will enable progress to be made.
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will consider the construction of a subway linking the Banqueting House with the Henry VIII wine cellar, thus providing improved access and a link between these two places of hospitality.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Richard Sharples): No.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is not the present approach to the cellar very poor and unattractive? Could not these two places be used very well together for official receptions and, perhaps, even for selected private ones?
    Mr. Sharples: The Question relates to the construction of a subway. I am advised that the construction of a sub-way would be a very complex and difficult operation and would be very expensive, too.
    Mr. K. Lewis: If my hon. Friend thinks that a subway would be too expensive, will he consider laying a pipeline?
    Mr. Sharples: I think that that question would be better addressed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.

    Treasury Building (Stonework)
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will arrange for the washing down of the stonework at the Treasury when restoration is completed, so that the architectural details of the building may be seen.
    Mr. Rippon: I have arranged for the stonework to be brushed down, to remove superficial soot and dirt and to tone down the new stone used in the repairs. Experiments have shown that washing down would be unlikely to restore the original colouring.

    Hyde Park (East Carriage Drive)
    Dr. Alan Glynasked the Minister of Public Building and Works, in view of the fact that the East Carriage Drive in Hyde Park has now been made a major traffic artery, if he will construct a horse ride parallel to it, and thereby complete the circuit for riders in the Park.
    Mr. Sharples: No.
    Dr. Glyn: Would my hon. Friend agree that now when there is very heavy goods traffic moving down this road at increased speed there is a case for restoring the pre-war track? Would he further agree that, although the number of civilian riders in the Row may be reduced, two squadrons of 230 horses of the Household Cavalry carry out their entire training in the Row?
    Mr. Sharples: I recognise my hon. Friend's interest, but it would be very expensive to construct a track at this time and there is little use for it apart from its use by the Household Cavalry.

    Palace of Westminster and Bridge Street (Members' Accommodation)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will issue a White Paper setting out in detail his Department's proposals for extending and improving accommodation for Members of Parliament in the Palace of Westminster and in Bridge Street.
    Mrs. Emmetasked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) whether he will at an early opportunity inform hon. Members of plans for and progress made with the scheme to provide additional accommodation for Members in the roof over the Thames front of the Palace of Westminster;
    (2) what further progress has been made with the development of accommodation in Bridge Street for Parliamentary purposes.
    Mr. Rippon: I will shortly publish this information and make it available to the House.
    Mrs. Emmet: Could my right hon. Friend give some idea of the timing and when hon. Members might be able to use this new accommodation?
    Mr. Rippon: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the accommodation in the roof. Work on phase I will commence in August. I hope that further details of this and, indeed, of the whole of the Bridge Street scheme will be given in the publication which I will make in a few days.
    Mr. C. Pannell: Between this date and the date of the possible forthcoming debate will the Minister address himself not only to this question but to the matter which arises from it, that is, whether he can consult the Leader of the House and Mr. Speaker and others to set up a continuing committee to supervise any accommodation in the interest of Members? It would be a very bad thing if in the end we had the sort of buildings which hon. Members did not like and the sort of accommodation they did not want.
    Mr. Rippon: I do not think that that is entirely a matter for me. I will certainly draw the hon. Member's views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
    Mrs. Emmet: Will my right hon. Friend consider installing simultaneous translation arrangements in the Bridge Street site when it is built?
    Mr. Rippon: That is a rather specialised question. I will certainly consider it.

    Gloucester Slips, Regent's Park (Car Park)
    Mr. W. T. Rodgersasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will assign the parking facilities at Gloucester Slips, Regent's Park, to the London Zoo in view of the anticipated growth in the number of visitors to the Zoo, the absence of provision for car parking in the current reconstruction, the congestion en the Outer Circle at weekends due to kerbside parking, the loss of amenity and the danger to life this represents, and the anxiety expressed by local authorities about the whole matter.
    Mr. Sharples: No, Sir. The Gloucester Slips car park is at present available to visitors to the Zoo if they care to use it.
    Mr. Rodgers: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the reply makes nonsense of the whole problem? When his colleague the Minister of Transport is trying to get cars off the streets of London, why on earth does he allow cars to be parked on the Outer Circle of Regent's Park when unutilised accommodation is available? If it is not to be allocated to the Zoo, why cannot it be clearly designated for the use of visitors to the Park?
    Mr. Sharples: At the moment, the Gloucester Slips car park is open to both visitors to the Park and to the Zoo. If it were handed over to the Zoo authorities presumably it would be available only to Zoo visitors and we think it wrong to deny facilities to visitors to the Park.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the car park is regarded as a permanency, since it is in itself a considerable loss of amenity to the public using the Park? Is the hon.

    311
    Gentleman aware that one of his right hon. Friend's predecessors assured me that this was only a temporary expedient?
    Mr. Sharples: As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, the Minister of Transport and the Marylebone Borough Council have been considering for some time the possibility of an underground car park in Regent's Park. We expect shortly to receive proposals for our consideration and these will have a considerable bearing on the question of future car parking policy in that region.
    Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either the existence of a car park is a loss of amenity and there is no point in retaining it if car parking is allowed on the Outer Circle, or parking on the Outer Circle is a loss of amenity and there is no point in retaining the car park if it is not utilised. Cannot the hon. Gentleman utilise it in the way suggested instead of leaving it in a state of stalemate?
    Mr. Sharples: I cannot accept that this is stalemate. We need both the Gloucester Slips car park and parking in Regent's Park. If an underground car park were constructed the whole policy could be reviewed.

    Admiralty Building, The Mall
    Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether the Admiralty building, constructed on The Mall during the Second World War, would resist the impact of nuclear bombs; and whether he will arrange on the grounds of amenity for its early removal.
    Mr. Sharples: It is expected that this building would give protection outside the immediate area of an explosion. As regards removal, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) on 30th April.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Does not the Minister agree that this hideous pillbox would be useless in war time and that in peace time it gravely disfigures one of the few remaining unspoiled parts of London?
    Mr. Sharples: Whilst I certainly could not defend this building on aesthetic grounds, I could not agree that it would be useless in war time.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again and
    312
    consider that the beauty of St. James's Park ought to rank very high as a Government priority?
    Mr. Sharples: I do not disagree with that, but it would be very expensive to remove this building and we should also have to find accommodation elsewhere for the civil servants displaced.

    Contracts (Coatbridge and Airdrie)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the total value of contracts placed by him in the Coatbridge and Airdrie district during the last financial year.
    Mr. Sharples: Contracts valued at£15,400 were placed by the Department in the Coatbridge and Airdrie district during the last financial year.
    Mr. Dempsey: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an infinitesimal proportion of what is placed elsewhere? Has he taken into consideration the fact that it is nothing unusual to have 8 per cent. of the insurable population unemployed in this area? Will he not do his utmost in future to ensure that this total will be stepped up to a more realistic level?
    Mr. Sharples: We do all we can to help the development districts, and Scotland shares in the general arrangements. In accordance with our policy, firms in these districts are invited to tender for stores contracts wherever possible and preference is given to them provided that additional expenditure is not incurred.

    Building, Stockton-on-Tees (Construction and Furnishing)
    Mr. W. T. Rodgersasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether the construction and furnishing of the three-storey building to be erected by his Department in Dovecot Street, Stockton-on-Tees, is now scheduled for completion in a shorter period than the 24 months from August, 1963, previously anticipated; and how far considerations of cost have affected the timetable to be followed by the contractor.
    Mr. Sharples: We are at present allowing 22 months for construction and furnishing. We consider that a shorter

    313
    construction period would have involved higher tenders, and that the extra cost would not have been justified by the extent to which earlier completion was likely in practice to have been achieved.
    Mr. Rodgers: May I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for being quite frank in saying that the delay in the completion of what he knows to be an absolutely key building in the town renewal in Stockton is due entirely to the factor of cost? Will he consider it again? If the Government make a proper gesture towards the North-East, is the extra expense not worth while if it enables the local authority to go ahead with some absolutely essential projects? May I assume that the hon. Gentleman is aware that a leading civil engineering contractor says that: the building could be completed easily within 12 months?
    Mr. Sharples: I would not accept that. We realise the importance of this and we have brought forward the starting date, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We have also reduced the time of completion: that is to a total of 20 months for the actual building, which allows for delays, as one has to allow for them, and two months for furnishing. I do not think that that is too bad.

    Prefabricated Houses
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many prefabricated houses he expects to have erected and occupied this year; and for how long it is estimated they will remain habitable.
    Mr. Rippon: My Ministry expects to have five prefabricated houses completed and occupied this summer in the United Kingdom and 101 abroad. Their estimated life is 25 years, but with reasonable maintenance they should last much longer.
    Sir T. Moore: In view of our experience of prefabricated houses after the last war, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that this new experiment will be justified? Is he also satisfied that the introduction of this new type of building will not seriously harm the manufacture of the old traditional building materials, such as bricks and tiles, to which he promised the manufacturers to give high priority and a stable demand?
    Mr. Rippon: These prefabricated houses are not an experiment. I have certainly in mind the building of a number of houses for the Services by industrialised methods, but I do not envisage their being used unless the resulting product is at least as durable as the traditional house. I have no reason to suppose that these new methods, which include the rationalisation of traditional building, will upset manufacturers and others concerned in the construction industries.
    Mr. C. Pannell: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell his hon. Friend that even the building industry has made a considerable amount of progress since the report to the House in 1944?
    Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the traditional manufacturers are a little concerned that the extra publicity that he is giving to the prefabricated idea may well upset the firm demand for their products? One would expect that there was room for both, but will my right hon. Friend work with the established industry to avoid apprehensions affecting their actual production?
    Mr. Rippon: Of course, I will work with them. That is exactly what we are doing. They have no reason for these fears, provided they are prepared to be up to date and to play a part in the introduction of now methods.

    British Embassies, Legations and Consular Offices
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what action he is taking to apply to British embassies, legations and consular offices overseas the standards laid down in the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill.
    Mr. Sharples: I believe that the standards observed in these offices compare very favourably with those laid down under the terms of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill.
    Dame Irene Ward: Has my hon. Friend confirmed that view with the people for whom the Foreign Office is responsible? Is he aware that quite a lot of people employed in the Foreign Office

    315
    are very interested to know whether the facilities of this Bill are going to be applied to them? Has he made inquiries before giving his answer, or is he giving it off the cuff?
    Mr. Sharples: No, Sir. I am not giving it off the cuff. I am informed that the standards for Government offices overseas are generally much in excess of the requirements laid down in the Bill. If my hon. Friend has any particular matter that she would like to bring to my notice I shall be glad to look into it.

    Installations, Palace of Westminster (Emission of fumes)
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what precautions he takes to prevent the emission of fumes from installations controlled by his Department in the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Sharples: Every effort is made to prevent the emission of fumes from installations controlled by the Ministry and experiments are at present being carried out with a view to making further improvements.
    Mrs. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is an incinerator in this building in which rubbish is burned at certain periods during the day, that the fumes go into the rooms in this building, particularly in those rooms on the upper floor where the secretaries and the telephone switchboard girls work, and that these girls are constantly suffering from sore throats? Surely something should be done to avoid this nuisance in this building if the Ministry wants to get decent buildings elsewhere in the country. Can the hon. Gentleman say what can be done to avoid this during the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Sharples: I realise there is a difficulty here. I think the difficulty is caused by the fact that the stack for this incinerator cannot be higher than the roof; otherwise it would make the building look peculiar. Our engineers are carrying out experiments at the moment and we hope we shall find a solution to this problem.
    Mr. C. Pannell: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a long-standing grievance? It not only applies to the rooms where the secretaries work, where
    316
    the smell is occasioned by the burning of garbage and all sorts of things on the ground floor; one cannot even go into the Library without the smell of fish and chips coming up from the cafeteria. This is a foul-smelling place. Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that the remedy to this nuisance has frustrated even the efforts of the Serjeant at Arms? What is his Department going to do to become alive to the inconveniences of this place?
    Mr. Sharples: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very much alive to this problem and we are carrying out experiments to see what can be done to get over it. I realise that this is a problem and we are determined to find a solution to it.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Is my hon. Friend telling the House that he and his right hon. Friend are unable to Gothicise the kitchen chimney?
    Mr. Sharples: I think a Gothicised kitchen chimney would look very odd sticking up over the skyline here.

    Building and Civil Engineering Contracts (Committee)
    Mr. C. Pannellasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he has yet received the report of the Committee under Sir Harold Banwell which is inquiring into the practices adopted for the placing and management of contracts for buildings and civil engineering projects.
    Mr. Rippon: I have received an interim report in the form of a letter from the Chairman, Sir Harold Banwell. I will, with permission, circulate the full text in the Official Report.
    The interim report recommends the greater use of selective tendering by local authorities. The Government accept the Committee's recommendations in principle and will immediately arrange further discussions with the local authority associations.
    Mr. Pannell: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by "selective tendering"? Does he appreciate that there has been a lot of public tendering and that there is a feeling abroad that there is far too much log-rolling among friends and friends' friends? What does he mean

    317
    by "selective tendering"? Will the right hon. Gentleman also address himself to whether the old-fashioned form of tendering might not be looked at again?
    Mr. Rippon: That is exactly what the Committee has been looking at. It has made recommendations which are set out in detail in its letter, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will read with interest. By "selective tendering" I mean tendering off a list of selected firms as distinct from open competitive tendering.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Could my right hon. Friend say when the full report of this very important Banwell Committee will be available?
    Mr. Rippon: I hope, without committing myself or indeed the Committee, that it will be completed by the end of the year.
    Mr. Edelman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that already there seems to be an abuse by which privileged contractors seem to enjoy more than their fair share of work, often undertaking contracts far beyond their capacity? Would he not do much better to recommend that the burden of work should be more widely distributed, so that smaller firms could also have access to some of these contracts?
    Mr. Rippon: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will submit some evidence to the Committee which is considering these matters. I do not accept what he says. If, however, he has information on particular instances of abuse I will gladly investigate them.
    Following is the letter
    27th June, 1963.
    Selective tendering has been used by your Ministry since 1939 as a suitable form of competitive tendering procedure for many kinds of building and construction work undertaken on the Ministry's behalf. The Simon Committee in 1944 recommended selective tendering as the most advantageous form of competitive tendering for building work, and this view has been supported in a number of subsequent reports by independent committees.
    In spite of these views and decisions, it is clear to us from the evidence we have already received that, in the field of public expenditure controlled by Local Authorities, a bias in favour of open competitive tendering, of the type condemned by the Simon Committee, has continued to operate.
    Having regard to the large programme of work involving public expenditure now in contemplation, and without anticipating the contents of our ultimate report to you, we consider as a Committee that in the public interest it is desirable that further steps should be taken by the Government Departments concerned to encourage Local Authorities to adopt the same practice in regard to tendering as that now used by your Ministry. We understand that this may mean the amendment of existing Standing Orders and Financial Regulations by individual Local Authorities and the possible consideration of a Code of Tendering Practice suitable for Local Government on the lines of the Code published by the National Joint Consultative Committee of Architects, Quantity Surveyors and Builders in 1959. These matters can well be settled in discussion between the Ministries concerned and the Associations of Local Authorities, and we believe that some steps in this direction have already been taken.
    Talks of this nature sire apt to be rather time consuming. If Local Authorities are to be given the advantage of this greater freedom in relation to the programme of work which confronts them, then a clear lead must be given by the Government Departments concerned and the discussion to which we have referred expedited. We are making you aware of our views on this particular question so as to avoid the possibility of further delay.
    G. H. Banwell.
    The Rt. Hon. Geoffrey Rippon, M.P., Minister of Public Building and Works.

    Historic Buildings (Minister's Visits)
    Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many official visits he has made to historic buildings outside London since his appointment; and what plans he has for future visits.
    Mr. Rippon: Since my appointment a year ago I have visited 11 historic buildings outside London in an official capacity. I will continue to take every opportunity to visit and revisit historic buildings in the United Kingdom both in my official and in my private capacity.
    Mr. Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that this greatly extended field of his activities is not neglected in the future?
    Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir. It is not neglected now.
    Mr. C. Pannell: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to visits outside London does he also mean his visits absroad?
    Mr. Rippon: No, Sir. My answer was confined purely to visits to historic buildings in the United Kingdom under my care, and not forts on the Yemen border.

    Hampton Court Palace
    Mr. Clive Bossomasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what use is being made of Hampton Court Palace for official purposes during 1963;and whether he will encourage a greater use of the palace in the future.
    Mr. Rippon: So far there are no proposals for using Hampton Court Palace for official purposes in 1963 but I hope that the Cumberland suite, which is shortly to be restored, will be used for Government hospitality on appropriate occasions.
    Mr. Bossom: Could my right hon. Friend persuade the Lord Chamberlain to allow Government hospitality in the banqueting hall and the gardens much more frequently, because I am sure that official Commonwealth and foreign visitors would enjoy functions there and would also enjoy going there by river?
    Mr. Rippon: Quite a number of functions have been held in the Palace since 1961—at least five supper parties, for example. Hampton Court Palace is, of course, a Royal Palace which I administer on behalf of Her Majesty, so that her permission is required for any functions that may be held there.
    Mr. Clive Bossomasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will take steps to acquire suitable furnishings for the many empty state-rooms at Hampton Court Palace.
    Mr. Rippon: The furnishing of the State Apartments at Hampton Court is the responsibility of the Lord Chamberlain but I will certainly draw his attention to my hon. Friend's Question.
    Mr. Bossom: Could my right hon. Friend get some period furniture loaned from the Victoria and Albert Museum or some other national museum to fill up these empty rooms?
    Mr. Rippon: I will certainly pass on that suggestion. I understand that the Lord Chamberlain's present policy is to restrict the furnishings to items with historical associations with the Palace.
    Mr. M. Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Lord Chamberlain to confine his activities solely to Hampton Court and to leave us to look after the House of Commons?
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he has taken to publicise the opening of the restored Cardinal Wolsey rooms at Hampton Court.
    Mr. Rippon: Full information about the restoration of the decorated and painted ceilings in these rooms, and of the remarkable series of early 16th-century panel paintings in the Wolsey Closet, was circulated to all sections of the Press at the time of the re-opening in April, 1962.
    Mr. Digby: Will my right hon. Friend do a little more? Since not one remains of the Palaces built by the Tudor sovereigns, is not this Palace built by Wolsey of particular historic interest?
    Mr. Rippon: I quite agree about the importance of this Palace. We are doing a great deal of work there. I shall do all I can to publicise its value and importance.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Now that such great interest has been taken in one of the great ornaments in my constituency, namely, Hampton Court, will my right hon. Friend open up the blocked doorway into these rooms so as to allow visitors to circulate more freely?
    Mr. Rippon: There is a further Question dealing with the extra work which we are doing. I will consider putting my hon. Friend on exhibition there, if he likes.

    British Embassies (Antique Furnishings and Works of Art)
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what arrangements exist for the purchase of suitable antique furnishings and works of art for British embassies; and what funds are available for this purpose.
    Mr. Rippon: When antique furniture is thought appropriate in an embassy, suitable pieces are purchased on the advice of qualified members of my staff from the funds provided by Parliament.

    321
    Pictures are purchased on the recommendation of an advisory committee of experts set up in 1957, and in 1963–64,£6,000 is provided for this purpose.
    Mr. Royle: Does my right hon. Friend arrange that people from his Department go regularly to the London sale-rooms in order to purchase suitable pieces of furniture, which can often be bought very inexpensively, for British embassies overseas?
    Mr. Rippon: Yes; they cast their net very wide. If he wishes, I will give my hon. Friend some examples of excellent purchases made recently.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an important matter since our embassies are a great advertisement for this country? Will he make every effort to spend as much as he can?
    Mr. Rippon: I concur.
    Mr. Marsh: Will the Minister bear in mind that one of the worries of many hon. Members is the antique appearance of a large part of the Government's Administration already?
    Mr. Rippon: I cannot bear in mind all the hon. Gentleman's worries, but I shall try to think of some of them.

    Richmond Terrace, Westminster (Redevelopment)
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what plans he has for the future of Richmond Terrace, Westminster.
    Mr. Rippon: The intention is to demolish the Terrace and to redevelop the site in conjunction with the new Bridge Street development.
    Mr. Royle: As the Terrace is named after my constituency, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the decision to demolish these magnificent buildings?
    Mr. Rippon: While not accepting the relevance of the connection, I do not think that I can reconsider the position.
    Mr. Allason: Are the interiors in a good condition, and is there any chance of saving them?
    Mr. Rippon: They are not in very good condition, and they provide very poor office accommodation.

    Downing Street (Restoration)
    Sir Harmar Nichollsasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will publish a detailed and illustrated account of the restoration of Downing Street when the work is completed.
    Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir.
    Sir C. Osborne: What was the original estimated cost of restoring this street, what will be the actual cost, and why have the costs been so much greater than originally estimated?
    Mr. Rippon: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the ingenuity with which he relates that supplementary question to the Question. The original cost envisaged in the Crawford Report was£400,000. A provisional estimate of£500,000 was made in June, 1959. I estimate that the final cost of the work will be somewhere between£900,000 and£1 million.
    Mr. C. Pannell: Is this an example of selective tendering, or what?
    Mr. Rippon: It was a special form of contract designed for this particular purpose.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that what we want to see, as regards No. 10 Downing Street, is a photograph of the next tenant?

    Craftsman-made Bricks and Tiles
    Mr. R. W. Elliottasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he is satisfied with the supply of craftsman made bricks and tiles; and what steps he is taking to ensure the survival of a sufficient number of small brickyards.
    Mr. Sharples: Yes, Sir. I am not aware of any difficulties in the supply of craftsman-made bricks or tiles.
    Mr. Elliott: Is my hon. Friend aware that the growth of the huge brick combines has resulted in the closing of many local brickyards? Has not this monopolistic tendency resulted, first, in a

    323
    shortage of common bricks and, second, in the extinction of the possibility in many of the brickyards which still exist of making these special bricks?
    Mr. Sharples: No, Sir; we have not received any complaints in recent months of a shortage of this kind of brick. If my hon. Friend will let me know of any particular case he has in mind, I shall look into it.

    Jewel House Moat (Excavation)
    Sir D. Gloverasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress is being made with the excavation of a further section of the Jewel House moat; and whether he will consider the excavation of the part lying under the roadway and its conversion to a pedestrian subway.
    Mr. Sharples: The moat west of the roadway has been excavated and the face-stones are now being consolidated and rebedded. A waterproof concrete base will then be laid and the east end sealed by a concrete retaining wall.
    We cannot at present undertake to continue the excavation beyond this point.
    Sir D. Glover: Does my hon. Friend realise that, by not proceeding with this excavation, he is leaving unprovided for a very dangerous road where traffic proceeds very fast and depriving noble Lords of another place and hon. and right hon. Members of this ancient House of free access to the Palace of Westminster? If we had a tunnel under the road, would it not help to display some of our archaeological heritage at the same time as providing safe passage to the House of Commons?
    Mr. Sharples: To construct a tunnel under the roadway would be very expensive. From the archaeological point of view, we have a great deal of other work on hand and we could not undertake this at present.

    Abingdon Street Site (Underground Garage)
    Mr. G. Wilsonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he hopes to develop the Abingdon Street site now used as a car park; and what plans he has for an underground car park and gardens at street level.
    Mr. Sharples: Preparations are being made for work to start on the underground garage next month. The surface will be laid out as a public open space, on completion of the garage.
    Mr. Wilson: Why has it taken so long to make proper use of this site? What is happening about the garden? Is there to be a competition, or how will my hon. Friend decide what the layout of the garden will be?
    Mr. Sharples: The development of the site is a matter for the Westminster City Council, and we are acting as its agents in this matter. As regards the layout of the site, a design has been worked out by our own architects which, I hope, will be pleasing to the House.

    Buildings and Monuments (Coloured Slides)
    Miss Harvie Andersonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what increased facilities for the purchase of coloured slides have been made available in 1963 to the public in places under his control, particularly in Scotland.
    Mr. Sharples: In Great Britain as a whole 393 colour slides are on sale covering 102 buildings and monuments in our care; an increase of 163 and 45 respectively over 1962. In Scotland, where 43 places in our control are now covered and the total range is133 items, slides were introduced in 1963 at five monuments and additional slides provided at five others.
    Miss Anderson: Does my hon. Friend regard that as the maximum use which can be made of this form of advertising? Could he, perhaps, give encouragement to the Scottish Tourist Board by increasing still further the number of slides available?
    Mr. Sharples: We are prepared to increase the number, but the number produced does depend upon the demand and what we try to do is to meet the demand where it is.

    Apsley House
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the total cost of the reinstatement of the side of Apsley House following demolition of adjoining buildings; and

    325
    what proposals he has for reinstating the exposed side of buildings on the other side of the new roadway.
    Mr. Sharples: The cost of reinstating the side of Apsley House is expected to be about£57,000. Of this,£35,000 is for facing the east wall with Bath stone and the balance is for associated works. We are not responsible for the buildings on the other side of the new roadway.
    Mr. Goodhew: Since the Gowers Committee said in its Report that the surroundings of historic buildings are just as important as the buildings themselves, ought not something to be done about this building in any event?
    Mr. Sharples: We have done the restorations at Apsley House on behalf of the London County Council. The buildings on the other side of the roadway are the responsibility of the Crown Estate Commission, which we understand, has in hand the question of reinstating the exposed side of these buildings.

    St. James's Park
    Mr. E. Taylorasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what recent steps he has taken to improve the state of the water in St. James's Park lake; and what are his future plans.
    Mr. Rippon: Towards the end of last year, areas at each end of the lake in St. James's Park were cleared of silt. Samples of the water are taken regularly and pumps are brought into use immediately the oxygen content falls to a level that endangers the fish. I hope soon to make arrangements for the removal of the remainder of the silt at the two ends of the lake and for more permanent arrangements for the aeration of the water, probably by means of a cascade.
    Mr. Taylor: I am sure that the many thousands of visitors there will appreciate the efforts my right hon. Friend has made on behalf of—I almost said the birds—our feathered friends which are so attractive, but can I persuade my right hon. Friend to spend a little more time on the welfare of the fish instead of the sex of the pelican?
    Mr. Rippon: I am very interested not only in the fish but in the birds.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Would the Minister consider making a comprehen-
    326
    sive study of the water in London's various parks so as to make it all as pure as that in Highgate swimming pond for swimmers in the interest of public health?
    Mr. Rippon: It is very much like other water, but I will look into it very carefully.
    Mr. Stodart: Is it the state of the water which has delayed my right hon. Friend in carrying out his promise to the pelican that he would be joined by two female companions before long?
    Mr. Rippon: That is another question. I hope that the pelican will not be lonely for too long.

    Work (Tenders)
    Mr. C. Pannellasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether the Royal Institute of British Architects Declaration is still used when his Department puts work out to tender.
    Mr. Rippon: We adopt a procedure which has a similar purpose and effect. In 1955 all firms on the approved lists of the Government Departments likely to be invited to tender for works over£3,000 in value were asked to confirm, as a condition of remaining on the lists, that they did not subscribe to the practices condemned by the report of the Monopolies Commission on the Supply of Buildings in the Greater London area. Any new firm wishing to be put on Departments approved lists is asked to sign a similar undertaking.
    Mr. Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the R.I.B.A. Declaration grew out of the London Builders' Conference. Is he aware that his predecessor, now Lord Eccles, condemned that practice? Will he be good enough to put in the Library a copy of the new Declaration which he seeks so that we may look at it and compare it with the R.I.B.A. Declaration?
    Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman has written to me and I will reply to him in more detail. I will make available a copy of the form of assurance which firms wishing to be put on approved lists have to sign.

    New Building, Dumbarton
    Mr. Steeleasked the Minister of Public Building and Works why he has

    327
    found it impossible to accommodate the National Health Service Dunbartonshire Executive Council, now seeking new accommodation, in the Crown building being planned for Dumbarton, which would avoid the duplication of common services and thereby save public money.
    Mr. Sharples: Executive Councils, as part of the National Health Service Organisation, are responsible for finding their own accommodation subject in Scottish cases to the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Steele: Why cannot the Ministry provide accommodation in this new Crown building so that the common services are available in the same building? As this money is coming out of the Treasury and the public purse, why cannot we save money by doing this?
    Mr. Sharples: I have stated a general principle on this, but in this case, which I have discussed with the hon. Gentleman, taking into account the rent, repairs and adaptations, I am advised that the cost of accommodation in Dumbarton would be about half that of enlarging the proposed Crown building.
    Mr. Steele: The building which the hon. Member mentions will be vacated by the Inland Revenue and no new contract has been made. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Bernhard Baron Pavilion Regent's Park
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the increase in cost of the scheme, as originally planned, for the rebuilding of the Bernhard Baron Pavilion in Regent's Park; what modifications to the plans are required to reduce the cost and by how much the cost will be reduced; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sharples: It was found that the scheme as originally planned would have cost over£46,000 as against the provision of£38,000 which had been taken for it in the 1963–64 Estimates. The scheme is now being revised with the object of bringing the cost if possible down to the Estimates figure. The revisions proposed include a change in the heating arrange-
    328
    ments, a simpler form of structural design and modifications to the roof construction.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is now over five years since the boroughs of St. Marylebone, Hampstead, Paddington and St. Pancras made most urgent representations for the building of this pavilion? Is he further aware that two years ago it was understood that this pavilion would be built this year? This is a most unsatisfactory situation and a grave reflection on his Department and is in marked contrast to the energy which the Government show in so many other directions at home and abroad.
    Mr. Sharples: I am aware of the delays in going ahead with this construction, but I think it is right that we should come to the right conclusion. I hope very much that these new plans which have been produced will provide the right answer.

    Staff (London and Scotland)
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what proportions of his non-industrial staff are employed in London and Scotland, respectively.
    Mr. Sharples: Excluding locally engaged staff overseas, about 37 per cent. of non-industrial staff are employed in the London postal area and 7 per cent. in Scotland.
    Mr. Lawson: In view of the repeated assertions that Government policy is to bring about a much more sensible distribution of industry, will not the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend take a lead in this matter to see that there is much more effective distribution than has so far been achieved?
    Mr. Sharples: What we are intending to do is to see that all future works services in Scotland should be designed and controlled in Scotland itself, unless there are special reasons for making other arrangements.
    Mr. Smallasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what proportions of his industrial staff are employed in London and Scotland, respectively.
    Mr. Sharples: Approximately 23 per cent. of the Ministry's directly employed

    329
    industrial staff in the United Kingdom work in London and 9 per cent. in Scotland.
    Mr. Small: Has the hon. Gentleman any proposal for increasing the industrial staff? Answers to previous questions have indicated an interest in the Central London area. Is he not aware that it is in the basic interests of Scotland that a higher proportion of industrial staff should be allocated to Scotland?
    Mr. Sharples: That would follow upon broad Government policy, because the industrial staff we employ are mainly engaged on the maintenance and repair of Government buildings and furniture.
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what proportions of his staff in the professional grades are employed in London and Scotland, respectively.
    Mr. Sharples: Excluding locally engaged staff overseas, about 38 per cent. of professional staff are employed in the London postal area and about 6 per cent. in Scotland.
    Mr. Willis: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this and previous Answers indicate that there is still a great deal of room for spreading the activities of his Ministry more widely and doing rather more to assist Scotland?
    Mr. Sharples: I do not think that the hon. Member appreciates what I said in reply to an earlier Question when I said that we intended to decentralise a great deal more and that in future all works services for Scotland will be planned in Scotland, unless there are special reasons for doing otherwise.

    Buildings, Central London (Floodlighting)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he is aware of the general approval given to his floodlighting of buildings of merit in Central London; what is the annual cost to his department in terms of electricity used; and whether he will extend the provisions so that the buildings under his care will be floodlit throughout the whole year.
    Mr. Rippon: Floodlighting of buildings in my Ministry's care in London at present lasts from May to October.
    330
    From May to September electricity is provided free by the London Electricity Board. The cost to my Ministry of electricity used during October is about£600.
    The extra expense involved in floodlighting these buildings throughout the whole year would be substantial and although I welcome the general appreciation of floodlighting, I regret that funds cannot be made available for extending it throughout the year.
    Dr. Stross: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the word "substantial" is a little out of context in this matter when so much pleasure and some inspiration are given for what I regard as little cost? Would he not reconsider the matter so that after the peak hour in the winter, say from seven o'clock, some of these buildings could be kept floodlit?
    Mr. Rippon: It would cost an additional£8,000 a year and I am not satisfied that there is a demand for expenditure of that order.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Will my right hon. Friend keep to his present answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question? Will he bear in mind that this floodlighting of public buildings, beautiful as it may be, is looked upon with some distaste by those villages in isolated areas which still require electricity?
    Mr. Rippon: I will try, as always, to balance conflicting views.
    Mr. Strauss: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the pleasing and warming sight of these illuminated buildings would, in a way, be more welcome to Londoners in the winter than in the summer? In view of the trivial amount of the additional expense which would be involved, would he consider this matter again before it is too late?
    Mr. Rippon: I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's definition of "trivial", but we must bear in mind the need to balance the demand for this facility in the winter against the cost.

  SCHOOL LEAVERS, AIRDRIE (EMPLOYMENT)
  Mr. Dempseyasked the Prime Minister what were the terms of his reply to the resolution forwarded by

  331
  Airdrie Churches Council, complaining about the lack of employment opportunities for school leavers.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): A reply has been sent on my behalf drawing attention to the fall which has occurred in unemployment amongst young people in this area and to the measures which the Government are taking to increase employment opportunities.
  Mr. Dempsey: Is the Prime Minister aware that not so very long ago there were 35 school leavers for every vacancy, whereas in the Midlands there were five vacancies for every school leaver? Is it not shameful to perpetuate this maldistribution of employment prospects? Can the right hon. Gentleman state here and now what plans he has in mind for ensuring that the children of today and tomorrow have adequate employment prospects on leaving school in Coatbridge and Airdrie and North Lanarkshire in general?
  The Prime Minister: In this area very large plans are going forward, with the building of advance factories and other developments, but between February and June in the whole area, including Coatbridge and Baillieston, there was a fall from 373 to 244, although there were 550 Easter school leavers. We are therefore making progress.

  MOSCOW (DISCUSSIONS)
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Moscow discussions between British, American and Soviet representatives.
  The Prime Minister: I would prefer not to make any statement about the discussions in Moscow while they are taking place.
  Mr. Allaun: While appreciating that, may I ask whether the Prime Minister is aware that all the people are hoping for the success of these talks and that they have been disappointed so often in the past five years, when the negotiators appeared to be on the point of success, that they would not forgive any one of the three Governments if they failed them this time?
  The Prime Minister: In spite of that, I do not see the purpose of this Question.

  WATER (UNDERGROUND STORAGE)
  Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to co-ordinate plans between the Home Office, the Board of Trade, and the Ministers of Housing and Local Government, Defence, and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure adequate underground storage of water in the 'seventies for agriculture, industry and domestic needs and in the event of nuclear attack.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is responsible for conservation of water resources. The possibility of increasing by artificial means the quantities of water available underground will be a matter to be studied by the Water Resources Board and the river authorities which it is proposed to establish under the Water Resources Bill. The fact that water underground is comparatively immune from contamination by radioactive fall-out will naturally be taken into account.
  Sir W. Wakefield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there appears to be a great ignorance throughout the country of the potentiality of storing water underground, particularly by planning boards and others who have this responsibility? Could he take steps to publicise to all those who have responsibility for the conservation of water the importance of underground storage of water in view of the great need in so many directions for the use of water in years to come?
  The Prime Minister: I think that this is a very important point, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has called attention to it. Some experiments are already being made in the Lea Valley and in the Trent Valley, and under the Water Resources Bill now before Parliament the authorities will be specially equipped for this work.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I am in sympathy with the hon. Member's desire for planning the underground storage of water, but has the Prime Minister seen Sir John Cockcroft's recent study on nuclear attack on this country in which he said

  333
  that if such an attack were to take place the water supplies of our cities would be completely destroyed?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that if there were a nuclear war quite a lot of things would be destroyed, including all of us.

  SECURITY
  Mr. A. Lewisasked the Prime Minister on what date some three years ago representations were made to him officially by the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) and other hon. Members about the state of security services; and whether he ordered an investigation.
  The Prime Minister: I see many of my hon. Friends who talk to me about many matters, but I do not regard these meetings as official occasions.
  Mr. Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware that it has been reported that the hon. Members in question are alleged to have said that they gave evidence to the Prime Minister of a failing in the Government's security services and that he took no action? Can he confirm or deny the statements which have been made?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My hon. Friend made a passing reference to a discussion, but if we are not to be allowed to have private discussions in this House it will become impossible to carry on our lives.
  Mr. A. Lewisasked the Prime Minister if he has studied the evidence sent to him by the hon. Member for West Ham, North, in regard to the security risks attending the activities in this country of a Czechoslovakian friend of Ivanov; and if he will cause inquiries to be made.
  The Prime Minister: I have referred the Press cutting which the hon. Member sent me to the appropriate authorities.
  Mr. Lewis: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in addition to the Press cutting, he has made any investigations, because it has been reported that the lady in question has been in the habit of giving dubious parties at which very many prominent people have been in attendance? Has he investigated that and sent all the
  334
  evidence in his possession to Lord Denning?
  The Prime Minister: I think that all these matters are under investigation.

  MR. HAROLD PHILBY
  Mr. MacDermotasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement following the further inquiries into the case of Mr. Philby.
  Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister (1) on what date in the last seven years Mr. H. Philby renewed his passport;
  (2) whether Mr. H. A. R. Philby was invited by Her Majesty's Government to return to Great Britain at any time in the last three months; and what was the nature of the reply to such invitation.
  Mr. Greenwoodasked the Prime Minister what instructions were given by his Department to diplomatic representatives in the Middle East as to the kinds of information which should or should not be made available to Mr. Philby.
  Mr. Liptonasked the Prime Minister on how many occasions Mr. Philby was asked to official functions in Beirut by the British Embassy during the last three years.
  The Prime Minister: I have made the most careful investigation into all the relevant events in this case and I have discussed them in detail with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
  I hope the House will accept that it would not be in the national interest for hon. Members to inquire further into the past history of the case and I would ask the House therefore to refrain from any further public discussion of these matters.
  Mr. MacDermot: I appreciate the difficulties about public discussion of this matter, but can I put two questions to the Prime Minister? First, does he not agree that the statement that Mr. Philby worked with the Soviet authorities before 1946 is perhaps the most serious aspect of the matter, in view of the position then held by him? Secondly, did the assertions by the Lord Privy Seal, that the security services had never closed

  335
  their files on this matter and that they thought that it was wise that Mr. Philby should be helped to find other employment, mean that he was still regarded then as being a security risk and, if so, was not this singularly unwise employment to find for him?
  The Prime Minister: I appreciate the hon. and learned Member's knowledge of these matters in which, I think, he has some experience. He will also know the importance of the old tradition of the House that we should not discuss some of these aspects of our national functions. I would only appeal to the House to revert to this older tradition, which I think is in the national interest. I have had the advantage of having discussions with the Leader of the Opposition—another very old tradition of our Parliamentary system—and I hope to have further discussions with him as to the best way in which we can try to regulate these affairs in the general interests of the nation.
  Mr. Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that we well understand why he wants to play this down, but can he specifically answer my first Question, namely, when Philby applied for the renewal of his passport and whether he was questioned by the authorities at that time about his past movements? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is a question not of security but of the facts of the case, which the House has a right to have in its possession?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We lead from one question to another and one question leads to another. It is dangerous and bad for our general national interest to discuss these matters. It has been a very long tradition of the House to trust the relations between the two parties to discussions between the Leader of the Opposition of the day and the Prime Minister of the day. I ask the House now to revert to the older tradition—[Hon. Members: "No."]—which I think is in our real interests. Otherwise, we would risk destroying services which are of the utmost value to us.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I can confirm what he has just said? In the two meetings which we have had, he has given my
  336
  right hon. Friend and me a very full and frank account of this case, which raises a number of issues which, frankly, cannot be discussed across the Floor of the House. While we still have some grave anxieties about the way in which it has been handled, which I think it best we should pursue in further confidential discussions with the right hon. Gentleman, we feel that in the public interest this is a matter which should now be left where it is and not made the subject of further public discussion or public inquiry.
  The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I am always willing to discuss with him, as I was with his predecessor, all these matters which always, through our history, have been questions outside party and which the Leader of the Opposition of the day and the Prime Minister of the day have a right and duty to discuss with each other.
  Mr. Grimond: While appreciating what the Prime Minister has said, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Government and the House also have a duty to the public? A statement was made in the House, no doubt quite rightly, and the public are naturally interested in certain aspects of this case. Apart from the security aspects, there has been considerable speculation about how it came that this man was recommended to a newspaper, which apparently was not informed or warned or in any way asked about the inquiries which subsequently went on. It would be useful for the public at large if the Prime Minister could assure us that there was no lack of liaison between whatever branch is inquiring into Mr. Philby's activities and the Foreign Office, which apparently was not in a position to warn the Observer what was going on.
  The Prime Minister: This question is just an example of the danger of being led into answering exactly the kind of points which the right hon. Gentleman has made. If he had any experience—which, alas, I have and which others have—of the operations which we are forced to undertake in the present condition of the world, he would not have put his question.

LORD PRIVY SEAL (PERSONAL STATEMENT)
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a personal statement.
In the course of answering supplementary questions yesterday by the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on the possible organisation of an embargo on arms supplies to the Middle East, I referred to suggestions and indications that there might be nuclear weapons in the area.
I wish to make it plain that I intended to refer to missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and I certainly did not intend to imply that nuclear warheads are in the possession of any Middle Eastern country.
In view of the importance of avoiding any misunderstanding on this subject, I thought it desirable to issue a statement immediately to the Press explaining the position and to place copies of this statement at once in the Library of the House. I also wrote, at the same time, to both hon. Members concerned explaining the position and enclosing copies of the statement.
I much regret any misunderstanding that may have ensued as a result of my replies to these supplementary questions.
Mr. H. Wilson: I raise this as a point of order, because I understand that it is impossible for us to question the right hon. Gentleman because the statement he has just made is a personal one. The point of order that I want to put is this: is it not highly undesirable that when a Minister has made a slip—which we recognise can happen to anyone—he should be allowed to correct it by a personal statement, which means that no further questions can be put to him?
After all, it could well be that by making a slip in good faith the Minister would cut out further supplementaries. If, the next day, he makes a personal statement—which properly is the prerogative of private Members and not Ministerial Members—it is impossible for the supplementary that was crowded out the previous day to be put.
I submit, with respect, that if, in future, a Minister makes a mistake—and it can
338
happen to anybody—the correct procedure should be to make a Ministerial statement after Questions, which, naturally, a I of us would accept, being made in good faith as it is, and he should not be free to make a personal statement. I should like to ask whether that can be done in future, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the importance of the point the right hon. Gentleman makes will be noted and understood. From the point of view of the Chair, there is nothing out of order in any way in this personal statement as submitted. It represents nothing more than a non-controversial verbal correction. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I take that view, rightly or wrongly. The point which the right hon. Gentleman is making is different, and what he said is not strictly for me. What he said will be noted and the House will bear it in mind.
Mr. Wilson: The reason I put the question to you, Mr. Speaker, is that obviously any personal statement has to be accepted by you as non-controversial, and in a case where there has been a slip, or an error of this kind, there may well be a situation in which the House might not wish to regard it as non-controversial.
For example, there might be a situation in which a Minister might accidentally mislead the House on a matter into which the House would wish to probe. Further, as I have said, the very fact of making a mistake may cause Members to drop any further supplementaries which they might otherwise have put and then have no opportunity of putting them when the true facts are given to the House.
With respect, I submit that on future occasions the right to make a personal statement by a Minister seeking to correct a mistake of this kind should be refused by the Chair.
Mr. Heath: I hope that the House will accept my assurance that I had no desire to avoid any supplementary questions by any hon. Member of the House on this point. I understand that I was following precedent in this case in making a personal statement. I do not think that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) will mind my saying that we discussed this this morning. He fully understood that I was making a personal statement and that it would not be possible to

339
ask supplementaries about it. At the same time, I assured the hon. Gentleman that if other Questions are put down on this matter I shall be willing to answer them.
Mr. Speaker: I should like to make it quite plain that, in the capacity of the Chair, I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has been saying and I appreciate the importance of it, but I am bound to say that I regarded this personal statement in this context as wholly in accordance with precedent in every way, representing nothing but a verbal correction.
Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. I submit that the responsibility for a personal statement must rest with the Chair, and only with the Chair. If a Minister makes a personal statement of this kind, which is, or can be, acutely controversial, it involves the Chair. I should have thought that it was a matter for consideration by you, in the light of your Ruling of 7th November, 1960, that when you approve matters of this kind you take this fact into account, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: I always do. On the face of it there is nothing controversial that I could discover about this statement. The hon. Gentleman may be sure that I shall not neglect my duty in the matter. There was not, on the face of it, any sign of anything that could be controversial.
Mr. G. Brown: Further to the earlier point of order. I acquit the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal of any suggestion that he misled the House, but the risk here is that if a Minister misleads the House, and then comes back with something which he has told you is personal, and which you accept as personal, he thereby cuts the whole thing off. What we are asking you to do, Mr. Speaker, is to look at this statement in relation to the rights of the House, to appreciate how easily the procedure of the House could be misused in this way, and to rule rather more strictly than you seem to have ruled today. If a Minister, in a Ministerial Answer, misleads the House, his correction of it should be in his capacity as a Minister, and not in his capacity as a private Member of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I understand the point, but I think that it is all the same. I shall
340
look at what the right hon. Gentleman has just been saying, but I did not note any addition to what had passed before. Of course, I shall consider the matter at all times. The difficulty is that one has to trust somebody. Let there be no misunderstanding. If I have submitted to me what is prima facie a wholly uncontroversial statement, it is naturally so treated. If, afterwards, it was found that somebody had done something nefarious, or which was not quite right, no doubt the House would deal with it.
Mr. Brown: What you have just said is the very thing that worries me, Mr. Speaker. [Laughter.] I do not think that this is a frivolous matter. You say that one has to trust somebody, but you, Mr. Speaker, are the man whom we trust. Your office is the office that we trust. If you then say to us that something put up to you by a Minister is trusted because he is a Minister, that cuts off the rights not just of hon. Members on this side of the House, but of all private Members. We are very worried.
What we seek to ask you, Mr. Speaker—and I understand that I am not adding anything; I do not think that there is anything that I can add—is to look again at the situation in which you have accepted a statement from a Minister who has said that it was a personal statement. You believing him, because you have to trust somebody, agree to his making a personal statement, and that robs the House of much of its rights. We are asking you to reconsider whether statements made from the Government Front Bench which have to be corrected should ever be regarded as personal statements.
Mr. Speaker: I have already indicated that I will. I much enjoy the right hon. Gentleman's making sure that I understand the point.
Mr. Brown: Very necessary.
Mr. Speaker: But in the right hon. Gentleman's final effort in that behalf he said something which he ought not to have said—if he will allow me to say so. I do not think that he meant it. It is not the case that if it comes from a Minister a personal statement is regarded by me as non-controversial. I judge that aspect of the matter from whichever part of the House the statement comes.
Mr. Wigg: As there is no doubt in your mind what the issue is, Mr. Speaker, may I make sure that I understand it? Is it not the position that the right hon. Gentleman said that nuclear weapons were in the Middle East; that he now says that they are not—and that you regard that as a non-controversial statement?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman's correction, which is of what he himself had said, was in no sense controversial. That is all that the statement related to.

MALAYAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (GIFT OF SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House of a Speaker's Chair to the Malayan House of Representatives, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same, Tomorrow.—[Mr, Iain Macleod.]

BRITESH NATIONALITY
3.45 p.m.
Mr. John Parker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the acquisition of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by certain classes of persons who would otherwise be stateless; to restrict the grounds on which persons may be deprived of such citizenship where deprivation would render them stateless; and to repeal section 20(4) and section 21 of the British Nationality Act, 1948.
My proposed Bill seeks to deal with the very serious problem of an unfortunate minority of people who have no nationality and who have neither the protection nor the rights of a citizen in any modern State. In particular, the children of men and women who are stateless are in a very difficult position. In order to deal with this problem the United Nations called two conferences, in 1959 and 1961, to try to draw up a convention for the reduction of statelessness. It is a very difficult problem to deal with. In 1961, a convention was agreed and signed by the United Kingdom and six
342
other Powers, but it has not yet been ratified by any country.
The Bill would seek to implement the convention n United Kingdom law and to add one or two further provisions in the same field. A child is stateless at birth if it cannot acquire the nationality of the country in which it was born and has not the nationality of either of its parents. There are two legal theories upon which the laws of nationality are based. One is that everybody born inside a certain country should have the nationality of that country. The other is that all children of male persons with a certain nationality, wherever they are born, should have the nationality of that country.
The British Nationality Act, 1948, summed up what had been the law over a long period with some slight alterations. It can be said that we have tried to combine the two theories in our law of nationality.
It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. That means that all children of foreign women born in this country, though they may be illegitimate, have British nationality.
Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality. It is not the fact, however, that children of British women born abroad necessarily have British nationality. For illegitimate children of British women born abroad are not British citizens. A somewhat similar position to that which obtains under British law exists in most West European countries, with some slight variations and exceptions. There is no uniformity, although there is similarity.
But that is not the case in Scandinavian countries, and in some other countries. In Scandinavian countries the children of a woman married to a stateless person are themselves stateless. Further, children born to a foreign woman resident at the time in Scandinavia or these other countries are stateless if they are illegitimate. That means that the children of a British woman born in these countries are stateless if the mother is married to a stateless person or is unmarried.

343
There is, therefore, a considerable problem to be dealt with. An attempt to meet the problem is made in Clause 1(1) of the Bill, which states that all children, legitimate or illegitimate, born to a British mother and who would otherwise be stateless, in future will have British nationality. Other provisions in the Bill include the giving of British nationality to all foundling children deserted in this country. There are not many, but there are disputes from time to time about the nationality of foundling children left in this country.
Further, the Secretary of State would surrender his right to deprive a person of British nationality if by so doing he would make that person stateless. Under the present law the Secretary of State can take away British nationality from a person in certain circumstances and leave that person stateless.
I wish to thank the Home Office for its assistance and good will in helping me to prepare and draft the Bill, and particularly for trying to get the Foreign Office and various other Departments to agree to its provisions. The Bill is an attempt to implement the United Nations convention, to enable ratification to take place later. I submit that this is a small but useful reform, which is of great important to a small number of people. It will do justice to a number of unfortunate persons. I ask the leave of the House to introduce it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parker, Dr. Stross, Miss Vickers, Sir R. Cary, and Mr. C. Royle.

British Nationality
Bill to provide for the acquisition of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by certain classes of persons who would otherwise be stateless; to restrict the grounds on which persons may be deprived of such citizenship where deprivation would render them stateless; and to repeal section 20(4) and section 21 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 138.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION MEASURE, 1963
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [9th July]:
  That the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, passed by the National Assembly of die Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  Question again proposed.
  3.49 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: I rise to resume the debate on this Measure which was adjourned in the early hours of Wednesday morning last. I am, I think, expressing the views of all hon. Members who are interested in this subject, whatever view they take, in saying how grateful we are to the Leader of the House for having allowed this Measure to come forward at a convenient hour today and provide sufficient time for it to be fully debated.
  I need not recapitulate the explanation given by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), who moved the Motion on Tuesday last, because I imagine that the general scope of the Measure is familiar to hon. Members. It is, perhaps, more important that I should deal with the two weighty speeches in opposition to the Measure made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr).
  The House will be aware that this Measure seeks to reform our ecclesiastical courts—that is, the courts which exist to deal, on the one hand, with conduct cases, cases of unbecoming conduct on the part of a clergyman of the Church of England or of neglect of duty, and secondly, the other class of cases called reserve cases, which concern matters of doctrine, ritual or ceremonial.
  A number of Measures which come from the Church Assembly pass through this House with little or no discussion because they are uncontroversial, but this Measure is an important one because the ecclesiastical courts are part of the judicial system of the country. They are, and always have been, the Queen's courts. The judges are the Queen's

  345
  judges. The decisions in those courts are reported in the Law Reports and form part of the law of the land. In that sense, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Church of England is of a different order from that of domestic tribunals dealing with matters arising in other denominations.
  I should like at the outset to suggest how the House should, in general, approach matters coming from the Church Assembly. It should, I suggest, be impressed by the fact the Measure was carried through the Church Assembly without a division. No vote was taken on any amendment. As the House knows, the Measure is the result of several years' careful work and discussion stemming from a Report, generally known as the Lloyd-Jacob Report, published in 1954 or 1955, followed by a Committee which eventually produced this Measure.
  The Measure was then fully debated in the Church Assembly, was given general approval and was considered in detail. A number of amendments were presented. Some were accepted, none was pressed to a division and, eventually, the Measure was given general approval without dissent. I imagine, therefore, that the House would prima facie take the view that if the Measure has that degree of approval in the Church Assembly a clear case must be made out to invite this House to reject it. By the terms of the enabling Act, this House merely has the right either to reject or to accept the Measure. We have no power of amendment.
  My view is that the House has two functions. In a case in which there is evidence of a strong minority opinion in the Church of England, this House clearly has a duty to ensure that that minority's rights and opinion have not been disregarded. The House has a general duty to protect any minority opinion.
  During recent weeks, I have received, as, no doubt, other hon. Members have done, a number of letters from constituents objecting to this Measure. I have considered very carefully all those letters and circulars I have received. I am conscious that there is genuine concern in certain quarters of the Church about some of the provisions of this Measure. Of the two speeches
  346
  which we have heard in opposition to it, one was by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, who is a Methodist, and the other was by an Anglican, a member of the Church of England although representing a Church of Ireland constituency.
  In so far as opposition to the Measure comes from within the Church, one is entitled to take the view that however sympathetic one may be to some of the arguments which have been advanced, it is unfortunate that those in the Church who oppose the Measure did not take their opposition to a division so that the strength of the minority opinion might be tested. It is a disadvantage to the House of Commons if minority opinion fairs to test its own strength in the Church Assembly and then asks this House to reject a Measure which has been passed without a vote by the Church Assembly. On the other hand, this House must also have regard to the opinions quite legitimately and so well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, who is not a member of the Church of England but who is a Methodist and, therefore, had no opportunity of putting his views before the Church Assembly.
  The reason why this House must consider the Measure carefully is because hon. Members have contended that it raises major constitutional issues. I assent to the view that a Measure could be passed with unanimity in the Church Assembly which raises such constitutional issues affecting the rights of Her Majesty's subjects that the House of Commons should intervene. Therefore, it is proper that we should consider the grounds on which this opposition is based, which involves consideration of the merits.
  The first and, chief objection by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West to the Measure was that it removes the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the final court of appeal in what are called reserved cases: that is, ecclesiastical matters involving doctrine, ritual or ceremonial. While I have the greatest possible respect, as, I am sure, we all have, for the impartiality and wisdom of the Judicial Committee, there is no magic in that court being the final court of appeal in ecclesiastical matters. Nor is there any historical justification for its

  347
  retention. The jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee dates only from about 1832. Incidentally, as was pointed out last week, there has not been any appeal in a matter of ecclesiastical doctrine for over fifty years.
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: Can the hon. Member say how often the bishops' veto has operated to prevent any such causes being brought?
  Mr. Fletcher: I am coming to that.
  The origin of the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee is derived from the fact that the Sovereign is the fount of all justice in ecclesiastical and in civil cases, and has been since the Conquest and before. Therefore, there has always been that constitutional right of appeal to the Sovereign. Prior to 1832, however, the Sovereign delegated responsibility for advice on these matters to a specially-constituted court of delegates appointed ad hoc for the occasion. The provisions in this Measure amount to a reversion to a previous state of affairs, because it is proposed that a commission of review should be set up to deal with any case that arises. As I have said, there have been no cases for fifty years.
  The constitution of the court as proposed in the Measure is that it should consist of three Lords of Appeal in Ordinary being communicant members of the Church of England and two bishops being members of their Lordships' House. Thus constituted, the court would seem to be a very appropriate court to which the Crown should delegate supreme responsibility in these matters.
  It was said by my hon. Friend that one ought to have complete confidence in the integrity of the judiciary—as we all have. But there is another element to be considered. It is important also in matters of this kind that the ultimate court of appeal should be one of special competence to try matters of this kind. Whereas in the days of the Court of Delegates it was assumed that those adjudicating would be members of the Church of England, there were instances in the last century, of ecclesiastical appeals to the Judicial Committee, when some of the judges sitting had no special ecclesiastical qualification.
  348
  Whether my hon. Friend likes it or not, in some quarters that was a matter of grave concern, and if it is still a matter of concern to some members of the Church, it does not seem to me entirely unreasonable that this new court should be substituted in which all members will be suitably qualified. There will be the further guarantee that, because of the predominance of the lay or judicial members, the judicial aspects of the tribunal will predominate over the spiritual elements.
  If I myself had been drafting the Measure with a completely free hand, I should not have drafted it in this way and constituted the court exactly as it has been constituted. Nevertheless, I find it very difficult to believe that this modification in the constitution of the ultimate court of appeal is a sufficient ground to justify this House in rejecting a Measure which, as we all acknowledge, is overdue, and which contains a large number of clauses upon which there is complete agreement.
  I want to say one other thing in reply to my hon. Friend on this subject. He seemed to suggest that this provision in the Measure was something which might make it more difficult to produce that rapprochement or reunion between the Church of England and some Nonconformist bodies which is devoutly desired by a great many members of both professions. In saying that, I am quite sure from the inquiries I have made that my hon. Friend was not speaking for the consensus of Methodist opinion in this country. [Hon. Members: "Oh".] I am quite sure that a change of this kind would be far more likely to facilitate reunion than the reverse.
  Having said that in regard to the jurisdiction of the Privy Council, may I—
  Mr. George Thomas: I never pretend to speak for anyone but myself in this House, but would my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) give his authority for suggesting that the Methodist Church supports this move?
  Mr. Fletcher: Yes, I certainly will.
  Mr. Sydney Silvennan: What has the Methodist Church to do with it anyway?
  Mr. Fletcher: The specific point was this. It has been put forward in certain quarters as an obstacle to reunion that

  349
  the supreme court having ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the affairs of the Church of England is Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. To what extent that view is important or valid I do not know. All I am saying is that it is not generally felt that the particular change introduced by this Measure is likely to be an obstacle to reunion. On the contrary, in many quarters it is felt that it may well remove an obstacle.
  I now pass to the other issue which was raised by both my hon. Friend and the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South.
  Captain Orr: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the composition of the court, would he deal with the subject of the qualification of the Lords of Appeal? Does it not introduce a religious qualification for the very appointment of a Lord of Appeal?
  Mr. Fletcher: I certainly will deal with that, although I really had not thought it necessary to do so.
  The argument which was put forward was that, since under this Measure the commission of review to be appointed by Her Majesty is to include three Lords of Appeal being communicant members of the Church of England, one or two consequences may follow. One is that we may find a situation in which there are not three Lords of Appeal who are communicant members of the Church of England. So, as it was said, this Measure may limit and restrict the discretion of the Crown in all future appointments of Lords of Appeal. Personally, I believe that that is the merest pedantry. We shall no doubt hear what the Attorney-General has to say on the point. But I do not believe for a moment that this is a serious contention. I do not believe that it can influence or limit in any way the appointment of future Lords of Appeal.
  My reason is as follows. Knowing the comparative rarity with which this commission will ever sit, it is easy to imagine that if the situation arises in which the court has to be constituted and there are not three Lords of Appeal who are communicant members of the Church of England, then some ad hoc provision could be made by simply selecting other senior members of the judicial bench with the appropriate qualification. But I do not
  350
  really believe that this highly attenuated argument is really sufficiently strong to justify the rejection of this Measure.
  Mr. Ede: Did my hon. Friend, the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) mean by that that in certain circumstances an appointment to the judicial bench might depend upon the religious convictions of the person proposed to be appointed?
  Mr. Fletcher: No, Sir. I mean exactly the opposite. I do not think that the provisions of this Measure will in any way affect any judicial appointment. That is my view, and I hope that it is generally accepted.
  Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend dealt with the case where three communicant members of the Church of England could not be found on the appropriate judicial bench, and he then said that there would have to be some arrangement by which such a person could be appointed.
  Mr. Fletcher: No, Sir. To be more specific, let us suppose that a situation arose in which there were not three communicant members of the Church of England sitting in the House of Lords as Lords of Appeal. It would not be a very difficult matter to find somebody in the court of appeal to act as a substitute. Provisions could be made to legalise that. This contingency is so unlikely to happen that if this is the ground on which criticism to the Measure is based it exposes the weakness of the opposition being made.
  I prefer to pass on to deal with what I think is a more serious and, perhaps, more generally accepted criticism. That is, it is said that this Measure retains what is generally called the bishops' veto. For many years—between 50 and 100—no prosecutions against a clergyman has been able to take place without the bishops' approval. The reason for this is that, unfortunately, there is a wide disparity between the strict letter of the law of the Church of England and the practice that obtains in most Churches. The Church of England is governed by the Act of Uniformity approved by this House in 1662. This prescribes that certain set forms of worship and no other shall be used in every parish church.
  It is well known that as a generally accepted mutter of convenience there are

  351
  variations and departures in practically every church in the land. The singing of one of the prescribed psalms may be technically illegal. Thus, every clergyman in the country is exposed to purely frivolous and vexatious prosecutions unless the bishops' veto is retained. That veto has existed and this Measure would retain it. Opponents of the Measure are opposing it on the ground that the bishops' veto may be abused.
  I make three observations on this. First, this veto was accepted and endorsed and embraced without a division by the Church Assembly itself—bishops, clergy and laity. Secondly, it is designed to prevent frivolous and vexatious prosecutions. Thirdly, it is said, by those who have written to one and have sent circulars, that it is difficult to justify, and there may be technical objections to it. These are academic and hypothetical objections. In practice, it works well. I have not heard any suggestion, for the last thirty or forty years, at any rate, of a single specific case in which it has been even contended that any bishop in the land has exercised this veto wrongly, or dishonestly, or unreasonably, or in a way that could be criticised or censured.
  The veto exists for the protection of the clergy against what would otherwise lead to chaotic litigation. Furthermore, I suggest that, in the middle of the twentieth century, it would be most unseemly if we were to contemplate any return to the situation in which technical irregularities of an incumbent were treated in the quasi-criminal atmosphere that existed in the nineteenth century. That seems contrary to me, contrary to the spirit of our society and something that we should all deplore these days.
  One knows that the Church of England has its difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, said that the Church of England wanted to claim the benefits of establishment but was not prepared to pay the price for it. I dispute that. Part of the price for the establishment which the Church pays, and willingly pays, is its readiness to submit Measures of this kind, because they affect the whole body of Her Majesty's subjects, to the judgment to this House. It does so willingly, and confidently, believing in the good sense of this House.
  I believe that we should be serving the cause of peace in the Church of England
  352
  and, I hope, peace with other Churches of the Christian faith, if we adopt this Measure.
  4.14 p.m.
  Sir Cyril Black: As other hon. Members have done, I had to consider carefully whether, as a Free Churchman, it is fitting that I should participate in this debate. I came to the conclusion, after full consideration and after examining the precedents as far as I was able, that I have a duty to do so. Firstly, I think that it is accepted that, while the Church of England is the national church by law established, it has to come to this House on the very kind of matter with which we are now concerned. Therefore, Parliament is involved and not, I suggest, only those hon. Members who happen to be members of the Church of England. This concerns all hon. Members while the Church continues to keep its present status in relation to the State.
  Secondly, I felt constrained to speak because I have had a number of communications on this matter both from churches and individuals in my constituency who are gravely concerned about certain proposals in the Measure and have asked me to express their apprehensions in the House. I cannot think that it would be right for me to disfranchise, as it were, my constituents in this matter merely because they happen to be represented at this time by a Free Churchman and not by a member of the Church of England.
  I therefore think it right that I should intervene, although I hope that what I say will be expressed in the fullness of Christian charity in dealing with the matters we all want to see satisfactorily settled—those of us who come within the membership of the whole Christian Church.
  My constituents are concerned about two matters to which reference has been made in the debate. I do not want to repeat the considerable, weighty and lengthy arguments that have been adduced to the House on these two matters—the abolition of the appeal to the Privy Council and the retention of the bishops' veto. I think that probably nearly everything that can be said about them has already been said.
  The retention of the bishops' veto is, I think, a matter of greater concern to my constituents than the appeal to the Privy

  353
  Council, and I want to mention two aspects because I do not think that the case was quite correctly stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) when he commended the the Measure to the House. I am anxious, as I am sure that all hon. Members are anxious, to understand exactly what is involved in this Measure, and I would like to be clear on these two points. First, my hon. Friend said:
  "On the question of the bishops' veto I am going to say that this in no way alters the present position in reserved cases. It is a minor extension recommended by the Lloyd Jacob Commission…if we were to take the grave step of withholding consent to this Measure we should not get rid of the bishops' veto. The status quo which includes the bishops' veto in reserved cases would still remain."—[Official Report, 9th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 1163.]
  My understanding is that this Measure does not maintain the status quo but very considerably alters the status of the bishops in this matter. If I am correctly advised, I do not think that it is accurate to say that the status quo will still remain. It is, of course, a retention in the sense that in the 1874 Act the bishops have the right of veto. But they are able to exercise that right only with full publication of what they are doing and why they are doing it, whereas in this Measure the right of veto would be entirely a private matter and the bishop would be under no obligation to impart anything but his decision to anyone at all.
  If I am right on that point it is not, in regard to the bishops' veto, a matter of retaining the status quo but, if I may say so, of considerably enlarging the position of the bishop in a way which I think would not commend itself to a great many people.
  Mr. Fletcher: I think it only fair to say that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) is wrong. The fact is that there is one of a large number of isolated instances in which the bishop is required to give his reasons. There are all the other relevant particulars embodied in this Measure in which the bishop is under no obligation to state his reasons at all.
  Sir C. Black: As I understand the intervention, the hon. Gentleman is saying that I am partly right, but not completely right. I am wrong in some circumstances and I am right in others.
  354
  My authority in this matter is an eminent member of the legal profession who sits in another place and, as I know, has made a great study of ecclesiastical matters. He is an honoured and distinguished member of the Church of England. I am not a lawyer, and I am certainly not inclined to quarrel with lawyers. I take the point which has been made. But even on that point I gather that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) agrees that I am right in part, but not wholly, and that in some circumstances the status quo is not being maintained but that a new position is being brought about.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) has seen the letter in The Times today from the Bishop of Chester, who probably knows as much about this Measure and its background and details as any person. He says that if this House were to reject the Measure we should not be getting rid of the bishops' veto, but we should be "back where we are now, with the veto in full force." That is the view of the Bishop of Chester.
  Sir C. Black: Yes, where we are now, with the veto in full force and, at any rate in some circumstances, the bishop, if he exercises the veto, under an obligation to give reasons in public why he has exercised it. The obligation would be removed if this Measure is passed today. Therefore, it is not correct to say that it is merely a question of maintaining the status quo. It is altering the status quo, I suggest, in a material particular and in a way in which many people think it undesirable that it should be altered.
  I come or to the second point which I wish to make about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, who commended the Measure to the House. That is in regard to the Lloyd-Jacob Commission. I suggest that, here again, it is not correct to say that this Measure is in line with the recommendation on this point of this Lloyd-Jacob Commission. The Commission said that the full inquiry on the decision whether the case should be tried or not should be made by a body which is more widely representative of the Church than the bishop of the diocese where the case has arisen. If the Church had accepted that recommendation, made

  355
  by a Commission which had been set up by the Church, in my opinion all the criticism and the difficulty on this point which is likely to arise would have been avoided.
  I do not think that we can look at this Measure except in the context of the fact that in the Church there is a great disregard of the law—there has been for a very long time past—on the part of a great many leading members of the Church as well as the ordinary clergy in the parishes. A large number of men in the Church who, in every other matter, would be people most scrupulous in the observance of every duty and obligation that came upon them, seem to take the view that if they happened to disagree with an obligation that the law affecting the Church imposes on them, they have no obligation to observe it and that it is, in fact, their duty not to observe it and, as it were, almost to make a merit of the fact that they are not observing it.
  This is a matter which causes great concern and distress to many Christian people inside and outside the Church of England. I look with a great deal of apprehension, as do a number of Churches and constituents of mine, on any proposal likely to make it more easy for this kind of thing to happen. It has been said during the debate that a great deal of the law by which clergymen are bound is antiquated, unduly restrictive and not in accordance with modern thought and ideas.
  I am quite willing to believe that that may be the case. But surely the remedy is for the Church to come to Parliament and to bring its law into line with what would be appropriate at the present time, rather than to perpetuate and extend a system in which it is to be made easier and not more difficult for the law to be disregarded and flouted. That is the wrong remedy.
  Mr. Peter Kirk: That is precisely what the Church did in 1927 and 1928 and this House refused to allow the Church to bring its law up to date at that time.
  Sir C. Black: I am coming to that in a moment, if my hon. Friend will bear with me.
  356
  Before I leave this point I am bound to say that it is a cause of offence to a great many loyal Christians in the country, inside and outside the fellowship of the Church of England, that in so many ways the law of the land is being flouted and disregarded by those whose duty it should be to observe the law in all particulars.
  I happen to hold the view—I ask hon. Members to consider this point—that so far as possible matters affecting the Church—not only the Church of England—we have this problem in other Christian churches in the land—should to the utmost extent possible be carried with the good will and active approval of the largest possible numbers of members of the Church. It is not right, for instance, that the Church should be looked upon as merely a House, such as this House, in which the majority think it proper to "steamroller" through its legislation and to impose its will upon the minority whether the minority likes it or not.
  As a Free Churchman who has had something to do with the conduct and the management of affairs in my own Church, and who, on various occasions, has presided over committees and councils, may I say that my efforts have always been to avoid bringing matters to a vote at all. Where there is a difference of opinion it is better, if possible, to adjourn the matter for a time so that people may think more about it. In such matters of this kind I would almost lean over backwards before giving my support to carry through a Measure which would be burdensome and grievous to the conscience and judgment of a large number of people with whom I might not agree, but whose conscience and judgment, nevertheless, as members of the Body of Christ, are entitled to be respected.
  That, of course, is not to say that one would take the view that no action should be taken by the Church because a mere handful of people disagree with it. I would suggest that Churches should conduct their affairs with a view, as far as possible, by the exercise of patience, tolerance and restraint, to carrying the great body of their members with them.
  It seems to me—I am coming now to the point to which my hon. Friend referred—that this is where the Church

  357
  has been making a mistake in the policies that it pursues. He referred to the great Prayer Book debates in 1927 and 1928. It is a fact that the Church at that time could have achieved 95 per cent. of what it wanted, without any difficulty, without any controversy, and without any hardship to the consciences of its members. But it pursued a course on two occasions of throwing away the whole because it could not carry 5 per cent. That is what the Church is doing at this moment in regard to this Measure.
  We are all put today in the intolerable position of having before us a Measure with which, I think, all of us agree as to 95 per cent. of it. But we are put in the position that the Church through being obstinate—I do not use the word unkindly—about these two matters, which are difficult and burdensome to a substantial section of the members of the Church is introducing a matter of controversy when it could achieve 95 per cent. of its Measure, and all that really matters for the purpose of its future government, without causing this difficulty and disaster.
  Sir Spencer Summers: Does my hon. Friend realise that if the change from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council were not included in this Measure the main purpose of its being brought here would go?
  Sir C. Black: If the main purpose of the Measure is to deal with a situation that has not once arisen for fifty years, the only logic of that position must be that there can be no great urgency or importance about the Measure. That seems to me to be a singularly weak argument on that point.
  Mr. Kirk: Is my hon. Friend now maintaining that there should be no reform of any institution of the Church of England if there is any opposition to it, even if that opposition is not prepared to divide the Church Assembly against it?
  Sir C. Black: Of course I am not. I thought that I made it clear that a mere handful of people could not hold up the whole Church. Surely my hon. Friend is not saying that in regard to the Prayer Book. A majority of Members voted against it on two occasions.
  358
  I still adhere to my point that in Church matters there is everything to be gained by tolerance, restraint, moderation, and paying a great deal of attention to the consciences and judgments of people whom we may regard as reactionary or misguided, but who are, nevertheless, entitled to be heard and considered in the fellowship of the Church of Jesus Christ.
  As a Free Churchman I must say this, and I think that I shall probably carry most of the House with me, at any rate on this point. I regard it as quite intolerable from the Church's point of view that the Church should have to come to this House and submit its Measures to the kind of debate upon which we are forced by the circumstances of the case to engage ourselves in at this time.
  I regard it as wholly wrong in the case of a spiritual and supernatural society that that society should be compelled to accept appointments by political persons of the main figures in its ministry, and should be compelled to come to this House in regard to matters of ceremony, doctrine and ritual. I can think of few assemblies that are less fitted to undertake duties and responsibilities of this kind than the House of Commons. I would personally hope that for the sake of the Church this situation may be drastically changed at an early date.
  Let me explain my position clearly in this matter. I would not, as a Free Churchman, lift a finger to impose a separation of the Church from the State upon an unwilling and reluctant Church. While the Church wishes to maintain its present relationship with the State, I would not regard it right for me as a Free Churchman, to impose by any action or word of mine disestablishment upon it.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but I have a feeling that he is going rather wide in what he is saying now.
  Sir C. Black: I shall, of course, endeavour, as I always endeavour, to keep strictly within the bounds of order. All that I was endeavouring to suggest to the House, and I shall not pursue the point at any length, was that there might be good reasons for not passing this Measure,

  359
  for the reason that some other Measure would be more appropriate to accomplish the purpose and the best interests which the Church itself has at heart. But in view of what you have been good enough to say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall not pursue the matter further.
  I should like to say a word about one point which the hon. Member for Islington, East made. He questioned the statement made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) as to the effect of these proposals upon the possibility of reunion between the Church of England and the Methodist Church and possibly other Free Church bodies. I am absolutely confident that there will have to be a much more drastic separation of Church and State than this Measure envisages before there will be any possibility of union of the Church either with the Methodists or any other Free Church bodies. I do not believe, stated at the best, that this Measure makes reunion more easy. I am inclined on the other hand, to take the view of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West that it makes it more difficult.
  Before I close I should like to say this word, which, I hope, will not be misunderstood. I have been interested for many years in the ecumenical movement, and I rejoice beyond measure at the enormous improvement in church relations which I have seen in the last twenty or twenty-five years. I should be reluctant to do anything that could adversely affect that great movement of the spirit, as I see it, within the Christian bodies of this country and of the world. I should hate to think that I had said anything this afternoon that would be regarded as unfair, or which would cause any distress or grief to any of my hon. Friends in this House, in the Church of England, or in any of the other Churches.
  I would very much hope that my hon. Friend, who commended the Measure to the House, might even now consider the wisdom of withdrawing it, in view of the criticisms that were made in another place, the criticisms that some of us, with great reluctance, have been compelled to make in this House, and in view of the not inconsiderable body of objection to this Measure within the Church of England itself. It would be a mistake, I think, to underestimate either the number of people in the Church of England who
  360
  are opposed to this Measure or the strength of their objection and opposition.
  I cannot think but that the Church would gain in credit by recognising that it might be wise to withdraw this Measure, to withdraw these two particular matters which are a source of offence to so many, and to bring the Measure back with those two proposals amended in a form which would enable the Measure to be commended to practically everybody within the Church itself and practically everybody in this House.
  It will be a very great pity if we were compelled, at the end of the day, to vote on this matter. If we are, I shall be compelled to vote against, but I shall do so with great reluctance and with a heavy heart.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. James MacColl: The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) did not need to apologise as a Baptist for taking part in this discussion. No one in this House has suggested that it is not the right of Parliament, constitutionally and legally, to reject any Assembly Measure. It is the right of any hon. Member, elected to represent his constituents by voice and by vote, to express his views. That, I think, imposes on him as an individual and on the House as a whole a very solemn responsibility not to do it lightly and not to act with a lack of thought or lack of the wisdom which we all have to address to these matters.
  The hon. Member got into some difficulty with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, over discussing Establishment. This places one in a little difficulty, because it was clear from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) that although it is perfectly true that nothing in this Measure deals with Establishment at the background of the debate has been the feeling about Establishment. I am not suggesting that hon. Members have put it as crudely as this, but it appears to me that there is liable to be a certain feeling that, "We do not like the Established Church and, when the Church is put into the position of having to come to this House to get its Measures, we shall give them hell; that will teach them to have second thoughts about Establishment". I think that is a fair commentary on what the hon. Member was saying.
  Sir C. Black: I am sure the hon. Member would not wish to attribute to me any wish to give the Church "hell". I tried most carefully to avoid that.
  Mr. McColl: I should like to make clear where my views are on Establishment. I should not want to sit up late at night in order to preserve the Established Church. The Anglican Church over many parts of the world is disestablished and in many parts of this country it is disestablished. No one suggests that it loses in its quality of life as a Church from the fact that it is disestablished. I think it true, however, that although in many ways life would be easier for the Church if it were disestablished and life in many ways would be less humiliating, at the same time it would be a less charitable body and would be demonstrating less effectively to the country and to the world great quality and the great contribution that it can make to spiritual life by the fact that it is a body of people with very varying views and outlooks who try to live together in peace and harmony.
  I want to underline that point. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), looking at these things from across the Irish Channel, gave an unfair picture of the Church of England He gave a picture of the Church of England as being dominated and controlled by a small clique of people who have grasped power and who are using power in order to develop their heretical and lawless behaviour.
  Captain Orr: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but that is a distortion. Can he produce any quotation to substantiate his comments?
  Mr. MacColl: Yes. The hon. Member said:
  "This Measure will inevitably work against it. It is a Measure produced by a party within the Church, and it will eventually divide both the Church…and the Christian people of the nation at a time when we are seeking unity."
  A little earlier he said:
  "…there are many in this Church and in others…who would be deterred if they were to see the bishop elevated into being something like a petty tyrant."—[Official Report, 9th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 1182.]
  I think that is an unfair picture of the Church of England.
  362
  As I see the Church of England there are two extremes in it. At one extreme there are people upon whom loyalty and consistency are obligations which weigh with them very lightly, who do not behave with a due regard to the feeling, the corporate feeling of the Church. At the other extreme there is an equally small and extreme body of people who are utterly intolerant and try to rivet the Church down to a most rigid and fundamental interpretation of legalism which to the great body of the Church is quite intolerable.
  Between those two wings over the great body of the Church there is not this feeling of friction, tension and hostility which has been presented to this House. They are people—whether High Church or Low Church, modernist or traditionalist, whether they like ritual or do not like ritual—who have a very real and determined desire to live together in charity and peace with each other, to share each others' pulpits and meet together at the altar in communion and they form the concerted body of the Church. I think this Measure reflects the views of those people and the great body in the Church of England.
  It is not true to say that this Measure has been pushed through by some kind of conspiracy. I mention my own experience. I read about this Measure in its early days in the one way which the majority of British people can learn of the Establishment, in the columns of The Times. I discovered in the summary given in The Times certain things about it which I disliked. I wrote to the Secretary of the Church Assembly about them. Those points were carefully and courteously considered and, in the end, after full consideration, amendments were made in the light of what I had said. Therefore, I think it quite unfair to suggest that there has been a rigidity and unwillingness to consider constructive criticism.
  Of course there are things which not everyone likes, but there come a stage in any society when one has to make a final decision. I think the best body to make that decision is the Church Assembly, a democratically elected body representative of the Church. One may challenge whether it is a really representative body. Hon. Members may look at their own consciences and

  363
  their constituencies. They can look at their own trade union branches. I think they would have difficulty in putting their hands on their hearts and saying that every decision taken by every assembly and congress is truly representative of everyone. Of course, in these matters democracy never works perfectly, but we get a rough and ready approximation to the feelings of the people.
  This is a reasonable attempt to put the affairs of the Church on the judicial side in order. The question was put by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, "Why don't you get rid of some of the difficulties about enforcing the law rigidly and put your house in order?". This is part of the operation of putting one's house in order. We are at the beginning of an extensive period of reform. There are all sorts of canons to come in future which will be part of that operation. It makes it terribly difficult for the Church to put its affairs in order if it is in fear the whole time that whenever a major reform comes up it will be obstructed and prevented from going through and if more and more say, "I searched my conscience and thought a lot about it and unhappily I shall have to oppose it." If that is the price of Establishment, it means that the whole nature of Establishment must be examined. I should not worry about that very much, but I think that the country as well as the Church would lose something by persistent moves towards disestablishment.
  Mr. John Page: Can the hon. Member see any situation in which he would approve of Parliament opposing a Measure put forward by the Church Assembly?
  Mr. MacColl: There are occasions on which the Church Assembly may have acted hastily, in which there may have been a very close division of opinion within the Assembly, or in which there may have been a disregard of some fundamental principle of natural justice on which our whole system of law and good order in this country depends. Theoretically, all these things may happen. I do not think that anybody can say that they have happened in a Measure which was passed without a division in all three houses of the
  364
  Assembly, and which went to another place and was passed there without a Division. It is difficult to say that that is the type of Measure which is so grossly improper that the House must reject it.
  Two points have arisen. The first concerns the Judicial Committee, and I would make only this comment: the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South claimed that the public, the ordinary common man in the street, felt very strongly on this point. If the hon. and gallant Member stops one in three in any street in any town and puts the question, for example to the milkman, "What do you think of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and its exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction?", I think that he will get rather a forthright answer. This is a very subtle lawyer's point.
  What is behind it is the real point that it is extraordinarily difficult to interpret spiritual things and matters of doctrine in terms of judicial, legal reasoning. This does not apply only in the case of establishment. There is no need for my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to nod his head wisely and to say, "Disestablish". But this does not only affect established churches. I should like to give an illustration of that. A relation of mine was counsel in the famous case which was brought by the Wee Frees against the main body of the Free Church when they wanted to unite with the United Presbyterians in Scotland about sixty years ago. We had the extraordinary position of a subtle-minded agnostic Hegelian like Haldane trying to argue with the House of Lords about whether the Westminster Confession was Arminian. This is not the kind of field in which our judicial system, in spite of its many advantages, works well. Therefore, in matters of interpretation of doctrine it is desirable to have an interpretation by persons who have some knowledge of the matter. The example which I gave illustrates the danger which can occur if we rely only on a secular tribunal.
  Another point concerns the bishops' veto. There have been attempts to frighten us and to paint a picture of an earnest orthodox legal churchman being threatened by a ritualistic-minded incumbent brandishing candles at him

  365
  and dousing him with holy water, while the bishop will not interfere to protect him. But that is not the position at all. In point of fact the illegalities which the hon. Member for Wimbledon denounced so ferociously are taking place in almost every parish and in almost every church in this land. Take the Athanasian Creed. I wonder in how many churches the Athanasian Creed is said on all the feast days on which, according to the Prayer Book Rubric, which is part of the Act of Uniformity, it must be said. Look at the exhortation to come to Holy Communion good, forthright, straight stuff which must be said, but in how many evangelical churches is that said every Sunday? Manifestly, is it not.
  We had a letter today from an incumbent from Cornwall on the subject of the northward position. I once heard a story of a priest with very High Church principles who went specially to take a celebration in a low church. With the courtesy and consideration which most members of the Church of England show each other, he said, "I do not want to offend the faithful in this congregation. I do not want to shock them by taking up an eastward position. I will take up a northward position". After the service was over the vicar's warden went for him in the vestry and said, "We do not want any of your infernal ritual here. We trust the congregation. We do not get round the table to look at them to see the way in which they arc behaving. We expect our incumbent to worship with them and to trust them by turning his back on them". That is a true story, and it shows the fantastic ideas of what is and what is not permitted and what is and what is not legal.
  The real picture of the working of the bishop's veto is not that of an intolerant, irresponsible incumbent forcing things on his congregation. It is that of the ordinary, decent, sincere incumbent who has his church officers behind him, who has talked to his parochial church council and who has worked out a system of worship which is acceptable to them and from which they derive strength and comfort. But he is open at any time to be the victim of persecution and threats from people who are not concerned in this matter and who are liable to use this kind of thing as an instrument of controversy and perhaps of malice.
  366
  It is in that situation that the bishop, who is, after all, pastorally responsible for his diocese, must consider the position. The bishop is not a glorified Chief Whip, as the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, seemed to imply. He is there as the father of his diocese, pastorally responsible for it and wanting to avoid scandal, and upon him is placed the responsibility of bringing the parties together and trying to reach a settlement. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, with the respect which I have for his great sincerity and deep piety, that in his attitude on this matter of the bishop's veto he is on the side of intolerance and persecution and not on the side of freedom and tolerance in Christian charity.
  4.58 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): I intervene at this stage in case I may be of some assistance to the House in matters which are to some extent legal. I do not, of course, speak on behalf of the Government either to recommend or to oppose this Measure which is be ore the House. This is a Measure when is entirely for all hon. Members, and for each of them separately, to consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), who said that whether one is a member of the Church of England or not one ought still to make up one's mind about this Measure, is perfectly correct. We must all consider this as a matter of whether we are prepared to allow this Measure to pass or whether we feel that it must be opposed.
  There are some controversial matters which partake of the law and of jurisdiction, and as these matters are within my daily duties it would perhaps assist the House if I said a word or two on this Measure, although I commend to the House much more the spirit of the speech of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and other speeches which looked to the spiritualities behind the Measure, at what the conclusion may be and at what the effect may be on the Church of England as a whole and all its members.
  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) that this is a Third Reading debate. Parliament his delegated to the Church Assembly the task of promoting Measures

  367
  of this kind, and the Church Assembly has promoted this Measure with infinite labour and care. We now have to look at the Measure broadly and generally and at all its provisions. We must see whether, even though there may be some objection able points in it, we think that the Measure as a whole is acceptable, or whether those parts which anybody might find objectionable are so objectionable that they must lead to a vote against the whole of the Measure. This is the position which we find ourselves in frequently on Third Reading, when there may be matters that we would have wished to have amended in Committee but when, nevertheless, despite objections which we would have liked to have proved in Committee, we are prepared to accept the Measure as a whole. We do not have the Committee stage of this Measure. We have not had the opportunity of dealing with it. Therefore, we can approach it only upon the basis of deciding whether the Measure as a whole ought to be passed.
  The object of the Measure is the recasting of the ecclesiastical courts and of their whole methods of working. It was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon that it was unnecessary to reform the courts themselves while the law of the Church to a great extent required putting in order, but one must start with one of them. It is known that substantial consideration is now being given to the reform of the canon law and many other matters. It must be a matter of choice whether the law of the Church is reformed first and unsatisfactory courts left to enforce it, or whether it is not more sensible to reform the courts first, so that there is the machinery to enforce the law, and then to reform the law generally.
  Sir C. Black: I thought that I made it clear that I was in favour of the reform of the courts and that I accepted 95 per cent. of the Bill. It is only on the two points that have created difficulty that I have hesitation.
  The Attorney-General: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sure that is right. All the speeches we have had in the debate so fax have shown that there is a realisation that the reform of the ecclesiastical courts of the Church of
  368
  England is a very necessary measure which ought to be put in hand as soon as possible.
  I had the experience of appearing in the Bryn Thomas case under the 1892 Act. I was very impressed as a result of that experience with the necessity for a substantial reform in such cases and of the legislation affecting the courts dealing with them. Therefore, we come back to the question whether there are features of this Measure which hon. Members find so objectionable that they think that the whole of the Measure, which combines very many useful, proper and necessary provisions, must be rejected.
  May I therefore deal shortly, purely from the legal point of view, with some of the questions which have been raised on these two points, first of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and, secondly, of the bishop's veto?
  What I think the Hause has to do is to compare the position of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and its powers as they have existed up to the present time with the proposal for a Commission of Review under the Great Seal which is contained in the Measure, the Commission to be composed of three Lords of Appeal and two either archbishops or bishops.
  Mr. G. Thomas: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal at the same time with the fact that there is a religious test foe the members of the Commission of Review?
  The Attorney-General: I hope I shall try to deal with most of the points which have been raised. To a great extent, the re-introduction of the bishops into the supreme court of appeal in ecclesiastical matters is a reversion to the historical situation. It is worth looking at the historical situation. From the Conquest until 1533 it was not the position that appeals were to the Crown. They were usually to Rome, with the consent of the Crown. This was the position until the Act of Henry VIII. From 1533 until 1876 bishops were either part of the Court of Delegates or of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. During the period from 1840 to 1876, while there was a statutory requirement that at least one bishop should be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council when sitting on ecclesiastical

  369
  matters, research shows that this requirement was observed in only about 50 per cent. of the cases. Nevertheless, until 1876 the position was that bishops did compose part of the membership either of the Court of Delegates or of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
  Captain Orr: Surely it is a fact that in the Court of Delegates bishops very seldom sat on these questions?
  The Attorney-General: I am afraid that my knowledge is not detailed, but such inquiries as I have made and such information as I have show that judges, civilians and bishops sat with regularity throughout the whole period from 1533 down to 1833, though there were periods when the Court of Delegates did not operate very much because the Court of High Commission was being used under the Prerogative. Nevertheless, the idea of the Court of Delegates was that it should include bishops, as with the Judicial Committee. Therefore, it is only since 1876 that the position has been that the supreme court of appeal in ecclesiastical matters has not included bishops. It has included three assessors who were either one of the archbishops or one of four other bishops who were nominated. Therefore, the difference involved in introducing the bishops into the Commission of Review at present is that they become again, as they were before 1876, members of the court instead of being assessors, as they have been since 1876.
  As to the position of the Lords of Appeal, it is correct to say, I think, that the introduction of the provision that they should be communicant members of the Church of England is new, in the sense that it has never been part of the statute law before, although in the days prior at any rate to 1833 no such provision was necessary, because the judiciary always were members of the Church of England in any event because of the Test Act and other matters, and it was not necessary to have any other statutory provision.
  Therefore, between 1840 and 1876 the problem never really arose, because I think that during that period the vast majority of the Lords of Appeal were members of the Church of England. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) raised doubts about whether there would be sufficient Lords of Appeal available to
  370
  staff a Commission of Review with three members present. My hon. and gallant Friend raised the further doubt whether it might not be necessary for the Crown to make a particular appointment of a Lord of Appeal in order to keep up the numbers of those who were communicant members of the Church of England. I should have thought that these matters at present and in the foreseeable future are not very probable.
  The present position is that there are nine active Lords of Appeal. Admittedly, two of them are Scotsmen and there may be a presumption against their being members of the Church of England, though they still can be. In addition to those nine active Lords of Appeal, there are the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice and sometimes, though not at present, the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, who are also Lords of Appeal. In addition, there are the retired Lords of Appeal, who at present include Lord Goddard, Lord Simonds, Lord Tucker and Lord Oaksey.
  Therefore, the pool from which communicant members of the Church of England can be drawn is at the present moment pretty extensive. If one ever reached the situation in which the nine practising Lords of Appeal, plus the two or three ex officio members, plus the retired members, were not likely within their numbers to include at least three communicant members of the Church of England, I should have thought that the Church of England and its position in the States as a whole would have reached a situation in which much more radical measures would be necessary than adjusting the supreme appellate court. The hon. Member for Islington East (Mr. Fletcher) said that if that situation were reached it could be dealt with by legislation, but I should have thought that it would be much more likely that there would be disestablishment if only such a tiny proportion of the Lords of Appeal were members of the Church of England.
  Captain Orr: How many of the present number of Lords of Appeal my right hon. and learned Friend is quoting are communicant members of the Church of England?
  The Attormey-General: I do not know that. I considered whether I ought to

  371
  obtain that information, but I did not think that it was right to embark upon personalities in inquiries. It is thought that there is an ample pool at present and that there is likely to be that ample pool in the foreseeable future.
  Mr. Ede: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman sure that there is a definition in the words "communicant members of the Church of England" that can be tested, or are we to assume that anyone with an income of more than£1,000 a year is a member of the Church of England?
  The Attorney-General: The right hon. Member's last assumption would be very ill-founded. The members of the various Churches which form our community have all types of incomes. I am merely saying in the distant future, there may be a situation in which the availability of Lords of Appeal who are communicant members of the Church of England may become a question, but I would not have thought that that is likely in the immediate or for seeable future.
  Another objection which has been raised is about whether previous decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should or should not be binding. The Measure provides that they shall not be binding on the Commission of Review, which is to be set up, in matters of ritual, doctrine and ceremonial. That does not mean to say, what I apprehend will be the position, that the previous decisions of the Judicial Committee will not be of high persuasive authority regarding issues before the Commission of Review. I think that the Commission of Review would certainly treat the previous decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as of very high persuasive authority indeed; but they would not be absolutely bound to follow them.
  Mr. Driberg: Even when they contradict each other?
  The Attorney-General: The courts have found themselves in difficulties when two courts seemed to have contradicted each other. They must then resolve the matter and, in such cases, they cannot be bound by either. It is not necessary that the Measure should
  372
  provide whether or not these decisions should be binding. When one is considering the setting up of a new Commission of Review for a new purpose, on a new basis and with new hopes, so that it will be able to make a new approach to these difficult matters of doctrine, ceremonial and ritual, it would be right not to make previous decisions binding, providing that those previous decisions are of higher persuasive authority.
  The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has itself said about one of its own previous decisions that, while it was fully sensible of the weight to be attached to previous decisions, their Lordships were, at the same time bound to examine the reasons upon which the decisions rested and to give effect to their own view of the law. Thus, even the Judicial Committee has thought that it was entitled to go behind the reasons on which previous decisions were based.
  Mr. Fletcher: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that which has been doubted in some quarters; that while the decisions of the Judicial Committee will not be binding upon the Commission of Review, they will still remain a part of the law of the land?
  The Attorney-General: Speaking for myself, I take the view that they will remain the law of the land until they have been reversed by a subsequent decision of the Commission of Review or by legislation which alters them. It does not mean that they cease to be the law of the land. It means that if the same point comes up and it is necessary to give the matter reconsideration in new litigation, they do not have to be followed, though they are of high persuasive authority.
  Captain Orr: Surely that puts the law in doubt?
  The Attorney-General: It may be that some people will think that a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was wrong and that it should not be allowed to stand. To that extent, the Law may be in doubt as to whether or not it should stand. If the general opinion of the ecclesiastical lawyers is that a decision of the Judicial Committee is plainly right, then there will not, of course, be any likelihood that it will be reversed on a subsequent hearing.
  Mr. Driberg: Surely the absurdity of the whole procedure of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in matters of this kind is shown by a statement made by their Lordships in 1870, in an appeal against a charge of heresy—of heretical opinions—when they said:
  "These prosecutions are in the nature of criminal proceedings and it is necessary that there should be precision and distinctness in the accusation."
  Is it not impossible for there to be precision and distinctness on such a matter?
  The Attorney-General: I am not sure, but I hope that in judicial proceedings there would be a good deal of precision and distinctness and that even on matters of ritual, doctrine and ceremonial people who need to know exactly what the position is will be able to find it out by going to the courts.
  Mr. G. Thomas: Is it not perfectly clear from that exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and the Attorney-General how important it is that in deciding questions of doctrine and ritual it should not be people who are emotionally involved who should be deciding these matters but, rather, lawyers who can bring a detached mind to the proceedings?
  The Attorney-General: That intervention brings me to my next point. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) for having again this afternoon led me on to the next matter I wish to discuss. Six Commissions have sat on this subject since 1883, prior to the time of the Lloyd-Jacob Commission. All of them recommended that the Judicial Committee should cease to be the final court of appeal in ecclesiastical matters and that some other court was necessary. The general basis on which they came to this decision is probably best summed up in the following words from the Report of the 1906 Commission, which included not only the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Davidson, but also the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Alverstone:
  "A Court dealing with matters of conscience and religion must, above all others rest on moral authority if its judgments are to be effective. As thousands of the clergy, with strong lay support, refuse to recognise the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee, its judgments cannot practically be enforced.
  374
  Those who most desire to repress irregularities are those who have most to gain by the substitution of an effective tribunal for a Count which, because it is powerless, encourages rather than represses disorder".
  This was the basis on which the 1906 Commission, among others, made its Report. It is the fundamental approach on which it has been decided by the Church Assembly and those who have considered this matter as to whether or not one should remit this subject to the lay judges, many of whom may not appreciate—and the hon. Member for Widnes mentioned this—the very important and deep doctrinal and ceremonial difficulties that are involved in their decisions.
  It is a fairly frequent experience that matters of judicial decision are remitted to judges who have had long experience in matters of this kind. Perhaps this is not a very exact analogy, but on the whole the commercial courts of this country are staffed by judges who have experience in commercial matters. This is wise in many respects, provided that the experience of the judge is not likely to involve him in becoming embroiled in the incidents of the dispute. I think that we can trust the Lords of Appeal to be able to be sufficiently detached and to approach these matters with proper detachment, even though they are to some extent implicated by being communicant members of the Church of England.
  The recent history of decisions by the Judicial Committee does not show it in recent years to have been a very active bulwark of the law of the Church of England. It last decided a case on doctrine, ritual and ceremonial in 1892. The last conduct cases concerned Archdeacon Wakeford in 1921 and the Rector of Stiffkey in 1912. As to faculty cases, there has been no appeal to it since 1928. It will still retain the power to decide faculty cases not involving doctrine, ritual or ceremonial. It has, therefore, not played a very active part in these matters in the last 70 years or so.
  The bishop's veto has caused very many hon. Members anxiety, and has been the foundation upon which they have thought that this Measure should be opposed on that ground alone. Trying to strike a balance, it is fair to say that some people might take the view that there are already sufficient safeguards in the Measure; first of all, in conduct cases, by providing that an examiner shall see

  375
  whether there is a case to answer and, secondly, in matters of doctrine, ritual and ceremonial, by providing for an inquiry by the Committee of Convocation—again, to see whether there is a case to answer.
  The arguments on the other side may be put as being, first of all, that all discipline Acts and Measures since 1840 have preserved the bishops' right of veto in, if he thinks fit, both conduct and reserved cases. Dealing with the point discussed just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, about whether, having exercised his veto, the bishop has to state his reasons for exercising it, the position under the 1840 Act—which covers doctrine, ritual and ceremonial—is that he does not have to state any reason at all. He simply has the veto, and that position would be continued in this Measure.
  Under the 1874 Act, however, which covers ritual and ceremonial only, the bishop has to state his reasons for exercising his veto. The 1874 Act is an optional alternative to the 1840 Act in matters of ritual and ceremonial only. In 1874 it was considered that a more efficient procedure was wanted for ritual and ceremonial cases. That was why the Act was passed. It provided for a quicker and, in many ways, a harsher operation of the judicial process, but it was so harsh that six clergymen were sent to prison, and public opinion almost immediately turned against the use of that Act, and it has never been used since 1881.
  The position, therefore, is that while the present Measure would remove the necessity for a bishop to state his reasons in ritual and ceremonial cases under the 1874 Act, that situation has never arisen since 1881. This Measure, therefore, assimilates the whole position to what it was under the 1840 Act, which deals with doctrine, ritual and ceremonial together.
  The second argument advanced in favour of the bishops' veto is that it is not unusual in the civil law to have some initial filter to prevent proceedings being taken. This is particularly so when the mischief is known but there is considerable difficulty in defining the exact circumstances in which prosecutions ought to take place, and also when, by enforcing the strict letter of the law, oppression might be caused to those against whom proceedings may be taken.
  376
  In those cases, it is quite normal for Acts of Parliament to contain a provision that no proceedings are to be brought without the consent of, for instance, the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General. One of the more recant Measures was that dealing with "horror comics". It was very difficult to define what a "horror comic" was, so it was thought right that no one should launch proceedings without preliminary consent.
  A similar preliminary discretion is not unusual in the professions. The letter from the six lawyers dealt with schoolmasters and doctors. As far as I know, there is no professional body to deal with unprofessional conduct of schoolmasters, but in the medical profession the position is that the President of the General Medical Council can, and often does, stop complaints at their very first stage without even referring them to the Penal Cases Committee, which conducts a preliminary investigation similar to that provided for in the Measure. There, we have another example of a preliminary right to stop proceedings at the very beginning.
  Finally, it has been said that the veto is necessary in order to give an opportunity for reconciliation and discussion before any body within the Church is allowed to embark on the bitterness of litigation.
  I respectfully submit that the real approach to this problem is that it is not a technical question, as a matter of law or practice of whether it is in accordance with our usual standards—there are examples either way in the ordinary law. The real question is whether individual hon. Members consider that bishops will use this power responsibly, fairly, sensibly and properly for the benefit of the church, or whether they think that the bishops will use the power to stifle proper litigation and prevent the enforcement of the law within the church.
  If hon. Members take the second view, they are perfectly justified in saying that the continuation of the bishops' veto is objectionable. If, on the other hand, they think that up to now the bishops have used the veto sensibly and for the benefit of the Church, and without trying to stifle proper investigation of complaints and enforcement of discipline in the Church, and will so use it in the

  377
  future, I suggest that that view should lead them to support the Measure.
  I am sorry to have detained the House for so long. I only intervened in order to try to assist in getting precise some of the issues raised about the Judicial Committee and the bishops' veto. I do not speak on behalf of or against the Measure; it is entirely a matter for all Members of the House.
  5.26 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I take the view in regard to this Measure and its progress through the House which was generally stated in, if I may say so, most admirable terms by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). He said that he had received some letters from constituents on this Measure. Although I have not received any letters from my constituents, I had an interview, at his request, with the bishop of the diocese in which my constituency is situated.
  It was then brought home to me—I had almost forgotten it—that as early as 1945 I had an interview with the then Archbishop of Canterbury, who explained to me, a Non-conformist, that he was engaged with the Church Assembly in a general revision of Canon Law, and rather hinted to me that, if he succeeded in getting his Measures through, they might come before Parliament at an early date. I understand that these discussions are still going on, and I gather from The Times newspaper that they are likely to go on for some considerable time yet. We must not conduct this discussion today without realising that this Measure is part of a number of issues that will be brought before this House at some time in the future.
  I am quite sure that all who listened to him will be grateful to the right hon. and learned Attorney-General for the way in which he has explained the history of the matter. Apart from that, we have had a good many dogmatic statements. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) snapped at one hon. Member, "You're wrong," without giving any reason why that hon. Member should be thought to be wrong, or more wrong than my hon. Friend himself. However, from the learned Attorney-General we have had the history given, as far as one could judge, quite impartially. I share the view ex-
  378
  pressed by Sir Cyril Norwood than there are two faiths held by people in this country, one a faith that is a revelation for all time, quite unalterable, and another faith which is progressive and widening as the knowledge of men widens.
  When we think that the Canon Law and the whole of the matters that we have been discussing this afternoon date back in their present form to as long ago as 1604, that is, before Newton or Darwin had considerably widened men's knowledge about the universe and man's part in it, is is very difficult indeed to imagine what can be a proper court to deal with accusations of heresy. Nobody now imagines that anyone would think of prosecuting Colenso for heresy or that the Church Assembly really did very much good in 1868 in devoting almost entirely its whole discussions to what Colenso thought about the first two chapters of Genesis.
  The difficulty that confronts us is that we have to deal with procedures that were instituted for the mental and spiritual outlook of 1604 and that we try to apply them to the circumstances of today. I think it is a great pity that we in this House should have to consider whether we are going to pass or reject the considered views of the Church Assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) said, "Why did not the minority divide against the majority?" Well, of course, that is a mere House of Commons trick, and I am sorry to see an effort made to apply it to spiritual affairs.
  I take the view of the hon. Member for Wimbledon, that in these matters, no matter in which particular Church those who belong to a Church may be, we know that at the same Communion, that at any discussions with regard to the business of the Church, men of very widely differing views are taking part whose real unity consists in the spiritual truths which they accept and they are very loth to say anything that might be a cause of offence to any member of the Church who does not quite hold the same views as they do on some remote theological point.
  Mr. Driberg: May I interrupt my right hon. Friend? I have the greatest sympathy with what he is now saying on this point, but when he accuses me of a trick,

  379
  this really is not quite fair. There have frequently been divisions and votes in perfect charity and good temper within the Church Assembly, and there were divisions on that crucial debate on the revision of the Prayer Book in the Assembly. That was one of the arguments used in this House for rejecting the Book.
  Mr. Ede: We are now dealing with another matter.
  Mr. Driberg: There was no division, but there could have been.
  Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend did bring it up as a reason for accepting this Measure, that it was not divided against in the Church Assembly.
  We are sometimes asked in our constituencies why we gave a certain vote. It is always very convenient to say, "As a matter of fact, there was not a vote on that issue" or, "I did not vote", or, "If there was a Division I did not vote in it". That is what I call a Parliamentary trick. I am not insinuating that my hon. Friend was trying to do anything underhand in the House, but we are faced with this difficulty. I say this for myself. I do not believe that the Church is co-terminus with the State. It has not been since 1688. The disaster of 1662 abides with us still, but I do not believe that the Church and the State are co-terminus. I believe in the gathered Church, that is, in a group of people who for spiritual reasons form themselves into a Church without any support from the State other than the preservation of the property that they have managed to acquire.
  Therefore, that being so, I do not think it would be right of me to cast a vote on this Measure if a vote is called. The Church Assembly, as far as I am concerned, is the church meeting of the Church of England. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will realise what I mean by that. He is a Baptist. I was brought up a Congregationalist and we both believe in the congregational system of church government. I regard the Church Assembly as the congregational voice of the Church of England in this country.
  I would object to anyone from outside coming into my Church and telling me
  380
  how that Church should be governed. If I accept that for myself I am certainly not going to invade that position for the Church of England. As far as I am concerned, I am thankful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving us the history of the matter. I am bound to say that I think we ought to leave the Church of England's internal differences to the Church itself and the less those of us who are not in the Church of England say about it the more likely we are to bring about a general understanding that we hope will eventually lead to a wider reunion of the Churches than has yet been contemplated.
  5.38 p.m.
  Sir Spencer Summers: I intervene in this debate with some trepidation because, unlike a number of other hon. Members who have taken part in it, I am neither a member of the Church Assembly nor of the Ecclesiastical Committee of this House. I am not conscious of having taken part in a debate of this kind before, but I have played some part in the British Council of Churches, and I sat with the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) on a commission not many years ago. I reinforced my knowledge by reading all the debates in the Church Assembly and the Report of the Lloyd-Jacob Commission.
  I hope that I may be forgiven for a personal word at this juncture because I think it has a bearing on the views that I wish to express. I was brought up in the low church and, as a consequence of my upbringing and my education in these matters, when I was first made aware of some of the controversies with which we are here concerned I felt suspicious of what was going on. Since I have read the debates and, in particular, the views expressed by the Lloyd-Jacob Commission I am bound to say that the views with which I started to investigate the subject have been drastically altered, largely because I find that this really is not a subject fit for legislation at all.
  One of the chief objections of those who have told us that they intend to vote against this Measure is the change from the right of Appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We had two powerful speeches the other night advancing objections to that change. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) took the view that it would be a

  381
  great pity to abandon that particular court because
  "…it is one of the few remaining bulwarks we have, ensuring that the law is preserved and recognised in the Established Church."—[Official Report, 9th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 1168.]
  The other objector, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), took precisely the opposite ground. He took the view that the law was consistently flouted.
  Far from its being a bulwark for the preservation of the law, it was in his view a valueless instrument. That is endorsed by an extract from the 1906 Report quoted in the Lloyd-Jacob Commission Report where it is said that
  "…many, if not most, of the things pronounced unlawful by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have become of general usage…"
  It seems strange to me that those who dislike the innovations of the modern day in the Church should be so keen to preserve the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in this context, knowing perfectly well that it is ineffective in the rôle they assign to it.
  One cannot at one and the same time insist upon preserving a dam against illegal practices and then complain of flood damage by illegal reforms which have got over the dam. The fact, as has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, is that the law is not being upheld. This is part of the answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South when he complains that the judgments of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the past are no longer to have the same force under the new arrangements. If they contradict each other and have not had the effectiveness which some hon. Members wish they had, what is the point of lamenting their passing? The truth is that the Judicial Committee does not command the confidence of those who wish to see the maintenance of the law respected.
  Mention has been made of the question whether it would be right to alter the system of enforcing the law first, or to deal with the changes in Canon Law and then alter the methods of enforcement. I think that the right method is to tackle the courts first so as to make quite certain that when changes in Canon
  382
  Law are make there will be effective means to try to see that they are observed.
  I turn now to the objections voiced on the qualifications of the Lords of Appeal. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West complained of the risk of their being "emotionally involved". I hope that the hon. Member will not mind my saying that I take strong exception to the suggestion that a Lord of Appeal known to be a communicant member of the Church is ''emotionally involved" to that degree. It is a reflection on the judgment of such Lords of Appeal to say that they would not be able to do their job properly because they would be emotionally involved. There are a number of instances, and the Attorney-General told us of one, where it has been thought wise for judges experienced in a particular field of the law to be concerned with it primarily. Here I would have much more respect for those who interpret ecclesiastical law if I knew that they were experienced in that phase of life.
  The question of confidence is one of the utmost importance and I should like to reinforce this view by quoting once more a paragraph to which the Attorney-General referred and which I think strengthens the point which I wish to make. It is said in the 1906 report that
  "A Court dealing with matters of conscience and religion must, above all others, rest on moral authority if its judgments are to be effective. As thousands of clergy with strong lay support refuse to recognise the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee, its judgments cannot practically be enforced".
  That is why it has been thought proper to come forward with proposals to amend the law in this respect.
  I quote from the view of the Lloyd-Jacob Commission that
  "To make new provisions for the trial of offences against the law, considerable sections of which are no longer observed and in addition are contrary to the mind of the Church as expressed in its practice, is sheer waste of time. To expect the ecclesiastical courts to administer such a law, is to require them to make decisions that are either contemptible or ridiculous'.
  There is much truth in the suggestion that because there is no confidence in the present system of maintaining the law, lawlessness is encouraged.
  I believe that those who dislike departure from uniformity in current practice should take encouragement from the fact that a system of courts which

  383
  commands confidence may very well reduce the amount of diversion which is going on at present. This question of the qualification of the Lords of Appeal has been linked with the aptitude of Members of this House to play a part in this sphere. It is said that if communicant members of the Court of Appeal are necessary in this field then the question arises of what conditions are to be applied to Members of Parliament in order that the same principles shall apply.
  The day may come when the make-up of this House is thought unsuitable for the rôle now discharged by it and the Church some day may well take the view that it is no longer willing to be influenced by or to be subordinate to Parliament. I, for one, would very much regret it if that day ever came, but I do not think that the analogy which has been voiced in this connection is strictly relevant here. Parliament has decided in its wisdom that what has been colloquially called the committee stage of such matters shall be dealt with by the Church Assembly. There is no reason why in our wisdom we should not say that certain courts are best designed to discharge functions in respect of the Church if they are composed of Law Lords who are communicant members of the Church. Whether we are members of the Church of England or not, we might well take the view that it is in the interest of the Church of England that such courts should prevail; and this need not carry with it the doctrine that we ourselves some day may have to follow the qualifications which are called in aid for other people.
  I do not want to deal with the question of the effect upon establishment, except to say that the emphasis so far has been placed on the effect of establishment on the Church. I want to emphasise the effect of establishment on the State. I think that it will suffer grievously if after all these years the close association between Church and State no longer exists.
  I turn now to the bishops' veto. I suspect that the reason why the Lloyd-Jacob Commission drew a distinction between the rôles of the bishops in respect of ceremonial and ritual, on the one hand, and in respect of doctrine on the
  384
  other was that it knew quite well, as we all know, that the law is persistently flouted in terms of ceremonial and ritual.
  Therefore, it wanted the bishops' veto so long as this disparity between law and practice existed, to prevent the self-evidently impossible situation which would be created if people in the field of ritual and ceremonial continually invoked the law. "But", it said, "we do not wish the same position to be set up for the bishops in respect of doctrine." I am sorry that the Church Assembly took the view that it did on this matter. I am sorry because of the fears that the decision of the Church Assembly has aroused in many minds—notably the well-informed citizens who wrote yesterday to The Times and who were answered today by the Bishop of Chester.
  I am sorry, therefore, that these suspicions are aroused. But it is purely on suspicion that these criticisms have been voiced and these fears have been referred to. No evidence has been adduced that bishops have abused their powers, or got into collusion with parsons who are under criticism; that has never been adduced as a reason for not wishing the bishops to continue with the same kind of discretion as they have done in the past. I do not doubt that these fears, which have been voiced not only here but in the Church Assembly, will be borne in mind by the bishops when they come to exercise these discretions, because I hope that this House will pass this Measure.
  I think, therefore, that the test of the wisdom of the Church Assembly in this respect will be found in the manner in which the opportunities open to the bishops are used. I hope they will take note of the comments that have been made in this respect when they come to use their discretion.
  This debate is the forerunner of what I imagine will be much more crucial debates in the future when the question of the Canon Law comes to be revised. I am a little disappointed that so much of the thread running through the contributions to this debate indicates a feeling that it will be no bad thing if disestablishment eventually emerges. I am sorry about that, but this is not the opportunity to dwell on that at any length. At any rate, I think we delude ourselves in this House if we regard ourselves as omnipotent when it comes to

  385
  differences of opinion between Church and State.
  Nor do I believe that these matters of doctrine are susceptible to legal processes. In what I regard as this very wise Report of a Commission of which Mr. Speaker was a distinguished member, the following passage occurs:
  "An ecclesiastical court in the Church of England can play only a limited part in the correction of unsound doctrine."
  Again:
  "In any case the circumstances in which the Church of England carries on its mission make proceedings in an ecclesiastical court a remedy for dealing with unsound doctrine one which should be resorted to only as an extreme measure."
  It is becoming platitudinous to say that wherever one looks today change is in the air. There is change in racial predominance, in educational opportunity, in the acceptance of tradition. Challenge is everywhere. Notions which were accepted for years are now questioned. Ideas on divorce are being challenged; the virtue of chastity is being challenged; the rôle of the laity in the Church is being challenged—indeed, the interpretation of Christ's teaching as well.
  In those circumstances, I do not think we would be right to cling to the old restrictions, which fundamentally is the idea lying behind some of the criticisms that have been made of the changes here proposed. I believe that the strings between Church and State should be made of elastic. The trees that survive the storms are those which bend. The rigid ones break.
  In recommending this Measure—and I hope the House will pass it—I conclude by reading one last, and not long, extract from the Lloyd-Jacob Report which sums up so much of the attitude which I think should be displayed in dealing with these matters. It says:
  "Law is necessary to the life of the Church as we believe the divine law to be inherent in the being of God. But the law must not be imposed on the Church from outside; it must spring from its own inner determination. It must knit into one all that is positive in the various traditions and schools of thought in the Church. In obedience to such a law, bishops, clergy, and laity will find their service of God and His Church more fruitful and more enduring."
  5.56 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I offer a few remarks in this debate with the greatest reluctance and
  386
  diffidence. The question before the House is whether the House should approve certain proposals which the Church of England asks us to approve in connection with the administration of its affairs.
  The duty of coming to a decision on that question lies equally on all Members of the House of Commons. We do not evade that responsibility or obligation by taking no part either in voting or in speaking, because abstinence in such a connection is itself a positive act since it may influence the result one way or the other. I have absolutely no criterion which will enable me to decide aye of no the Question which is before the House today. I know that there is a long history of religions and constitutional struggle lying behind these questions, going back many hundreds of years, and so it would be wrong of me to say that I have no interest in the matter. An academic interest, a constitutional interest, perhaps, but these do not enable me to decide what is right or wrong in the administration or the administrative law of the Established Church of which I am not a member.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) quoted from a Report which said that the law of the Church of England ought to be worked out from inside the Church and ought not to be influenced by outside direction or imposition. I can understand that. It is even a stronger case if we say that a fortiori it ought not to be influenced or affected by the people who have no personal interest and no constitutional interest in it, and that they have absolutely no right whatever to interfere in matters with which they are not concerned and on which they are totally incompetent to judge.
  That is the situation in which I find myself. I am called upon by the law of the country as it stands to offer advice, or an opinion, or at the very least a hope, on questions on which I am utterly unqualified to judge and on which, if I had an opinion, which I have not, the opinion would be totally valueless and would be rejected with contempt by all those people to whom these matters are vitally important.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman,

  387
  but he is going a little far. We are not debating the right of the House to take action. What we are debating is the Motion,
  That the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  We are debating whether we should pass that.
  Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was not endeavouring to express any opinion at all, one way or the other, about all the controversies which lie behind the disputed question of the Established Church. I recognise that that would be out of order, although it might be a question upon which I could form more definite opinions than I can upon the one which is now before the House. If I am out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall not proceed for a moment, but I submit that it is in order to explain the difficulty which I and other Members of the House who are not members of the Established Church feel in performing the duty which is constitutionally laid upon us by the present situation.
  I quite agree that it would not be right to go beyond that and say whether, when or how the present position should or should not be altered. But it cannot be irrelevant in considering the question which is before the House to point out that if every Member of the House of Commons were to vote upon it, one way or another, at the end of the day a question vitally important for the Church of England could be decided by a majority of votes of people who did not belong to it and were not affected one way or the other. I was pointing to the anomaly. It is a difficult one.
  It might be said that one could resolve the dilemma by abstaining, by not coming, by not speaking and by not voting. I have already explained why I do not think that that resolves the dilemma at all. There is another reason why the dilemma is not resolved. I have responsibilities to a constituency. If I abstain altogether, offering no comment and no vote, my constituency is disfranchised. There may be many
  388
  people in my constituency who have a strong view one way and many others who have a strong view the other way. They have a right to look to their Member of Parliament to represent them in the House of Commons in deciding questions which only Parliament can decide. But which way?
  I suppose that there are in my constituency, as there are in the House of Commons, many people who are not merely not members of the Established Church but not members of any Church. I do not know how many agnostics or atheists there are in my constituency, but I am sure that there are some. Suppose that I were to endeavour to assess the consensus of opinion in my constituency and, without reference to any opinions of mine, if I had any, to express that consensus and vote in accordance with it in the House of Commons. That would be no more satisfactory. Indeed, it would be even more anomalous than if Members of Parliament acted on these matters without reference to their constituencies. We are here dealing, as a matter of law, with something which imposes by the will of Parliament, with or without the backing of constituents, a system of law binding only on those who are members of the Established Church.
  It cannot be said that this situation does not involve us all in great embarrassment. I feel this embarrassment. Something was said a few minutes ago about matters which are not before us now but which may soon be before us. In the mid-1930s, there was such an occasion, I think, in regard to the Book of Common Prayer, and it is suggested that even that question may come again either before this Parliament or the next. Something was said also about alterations to the Canon Law on which, somehow or other, the House of Commons is, for these purposes at least, the final authority.
  It is a totally anomalous situation. I do not imagine that anyone who has, as I believe many people have, the real good of an established faith at heart can really think it tolerable for ever to submit that faith—which, after all, is a personal matter, a matter of what men and women believe, what they believe in common, and what acts of worship they perform in common—to

  389
  law made by a sovereign authority which has within it a majority having no interest in the matter at all.
  Sir S. Summers: If this is not a speech in favour of disestablishment, will the hon. Gentleman make clear what is the point of his remarks?
  Mr. Silverman: I am sorry if it is not clear. My point is that the present situation is anomalous. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman were to ask me how I would deal with this anomalous situation, I could give him an answer, but Mr. Deputy-Speaker would stop me before I got it out. All I am dealing with at present is the anomaly itself, and our rules of order prevent my offering an answer. What I ask the House to do is to realise that the Question now before it raises the anomaly in the acutest possible form.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: For the first time since I have been in the House listening to a speech by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) he has cleared my mind. I say that particularly since it followed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers). Until now, all the speakers who have taken part, including the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, with his great legal knowledge, have had either legal knowledge or theological expertise. For a few minutes, I shall try to show the way in which I, as an ordinary man in the pew, have tried to work out the answer to the problem which faces the majority of hon. Members in dealing with the Measure before us.
  The questions which we, the unknown, have to ask ourselves are three. First, what is the relationship between the Church Assembly and this House? Second, why is this Measure now brought forward? Third, what should be the action of the House tonight?
  What is the relationship between Parliament and the Church Assembly in regard to this Measure? The Attorney-General, in what I thought was a most convincing speech, said that the House delegated to the Church Assembly the responsibility of preparing and presenting to the House Measures of this kind. None the less, although we delegate that
  390
  responsibility, we have not delegated our responsibility to vote upon and put these Measures into law.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury quoted words in the Lloyd-Jacob Report which say that in a true Church the law must spring from the bishops, the clergy, and the laity. This raises a great difficulty for us because it would, surely, be wrong to expect any clergyman to submit to the authority of laymen, who may not even be of his own faith, the detail of what he should or should not accept in his beliefs and practices. Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said, we have this responsibility thrust upon us, and, after very careful thought and struggle, I have come to the conclusion that this House must do what the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) suggested, seek to look after the position of the minorities. That has been the duty of this House again and again, and I believe that in this Measure we have a perfect opportunity to do so again.
  I deprecate the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and, I may be right in saying, my hon. Friend the Member for Bebbington (Sir H. Oakshott), who suggested, in the most subtle and diplomatic way, that if the House rejects this Measure it will lead almost overwhelmingly to an urging for disestablishment. It is wrong that we should have a pistol held at our heads and that it should be said, "Here is a Measure. You have to be the rubber stamp, otherwise we walk out." I do not believe that that is right. I believe that it would be for the worse both for the State and for the Church if disestablishment took place.
  We all know that this Measure is the first of a number of important revisions which will take place in the Canon Law, particularly the ones in future which will reflect on doctrine, ritual and the practices in the Church. This Measure deals with ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and I should have thought that this House, as, so to speak, a lay body in its rôle of protecting the minorities, has a quite clear position which it could take up. I have no knowledge of ecclesiastical jurisdiction except, first, that I have found since the beginning of this debate that each Sunday I break the ecclesiastical law by reading the lesson in church and,

  391
  secondly, because I once met a Dean of Arches at a cocktail party.
  Why is this Measure brought forward now? It is the first of many. I think that the other Measures which will come forward particularly fall into the category of the quotation from the Lloyd-Jacob Report which my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury made. I think that in the future discussions which take place concerning ritual and the practices in the Church, we should rely very much on the Church Assembly and accept all the views which it puts forward, because I do not think it right that this House should have responsibility for these details. It is, therefore, most disappointing that the Church Assembly has not taken this opportunity to remove the doubts in the minds of the minorities in the Low Church about the bishops' veto and the appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. After the speech of the Attorney-General and others, the latter point ceases to worry me, but I still feel that the bishops' veto which we are re-enshrining—admittedly it exists, but we are re-enshrining it in new law—is something that we should not be asked to accept by the Church Assembly.
  Sir S. Summers: Can my hon. Friend cite any case in which it has been abused in the past?
  Mr. Page: As an ingenue, I cannot. But this is what is so important, and this is where the argument falls down. It is in the very legislation which we shall see over the next five or six years, in the new laws concerning ritual, where I believe the bishops' veto could be used against the interests of the minority in the Church. That is why I think it so particularly disappointing that we have bean asked to accept this Measure. We do not have the opportunity of amending; we have only the opportunity of accepting or rejecting.
  In conclusion, may I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover. First, he has sensed the real strength of opinion among many of us in the House who speak for a minority, possibly, of our constituents, but we are speaking for our constituents. I have heard only from constituents who have asked me to oppose this Measure and it is because they came to see me and persuaded me to take an interest in it that I have done
  392
  any homework at all, shabby though it may be. Will not my hon. Friend have the grace this evening to withdraw this Measure—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—take it back to the Church Assembly and ask it, as an act of Christian understanding of the difficulties of a minority, to re-present it to us with a tiny alteration which merely says that, instead of the bishops' veto, there will be the committee or another more simply produced committee? I think that that is something which we have a right to ask because, as the Attorney-General said, this is a Third Reading debate, but the people making the law have not had the opportunity of listening to our points of view on Second Reading, during the Committee stage, and so on.
  The second thing that I would ask my hon. Friend to do is to persuade those in the Church Assembly and to use his great influence with the Leader of the House to see that when future Measures like this come up, this House has an opportunity of taking note of, say, the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, before this report goes back to the Church Assembly so that it has some idea of how our minds are working.
  If my hon. Friend will give an undertaking to accept the latter proposition, I will abstain. If, however, he cannot give such an undertaking, I regret that, with the greatest reluctance, I shall have to vote against this Measure and, with even more reluctance, feel that, because I do not think there are sufficient safeguards for the minority, I shall have to look with some hostility on further Measures of this type which we know will be presented.
  6.18 p.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I would begin by saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain On) that, although I sympathise with a great deal that they have said, I hope very much that they will not force a Division against this Measure.
  I first became aware that this Measure was likely to come before us when I received the letter which I think a great many, if not all, hon. Members received from the two archbishops which was sent

  393
  out in July last year. It warned us that in the coming years we should have a number of very important Measures coming before us. On the back of the letter there was a very short passage about the ecclesiastical courts, with which this Measure is mainly concerned.
  Like some other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I was brought up in what by modern standards was a very low church manner. As a boy, I was probably horribly bigoted about it, but as I have become older I have become more generous towards those who prefer other forms of worship. A great deal of the ceremonial which I meet in churches today means nothing whatever to me, but I do not want to deny it to those who are perfectly happy with it.
  However, it is not made easier for us to pass this Measure by the outrageous indiscipline prevailing in the Church at the moment and the flouting of Parliament's decisions. I do not want to enter into an argument about establishment and disestablishment. Indeed, I think that it would be out of order to attempt to do so. I was immensely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) that when he introduced the Measure he did not use as an argument for it the threat that unless we passed it, disestablishment would be hurled at us. The only person who has used that argument has been the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), and I interrupted him while he was making it.
  The hon. Member for Barking suggested very strongly that disestablishment was bound to become a major demand unless we passed this Measure. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West that it is insufferable that as Members of Parliament we should have pistols put to our heads. It is not those who have taken the greatest possible trouble in preparation of their speeches introducing or supporting the Measure who have been holding pistols to our heads. I deeply deplore the observations of the hon. Member for Barking the other night when he held that pistol.
  Mr. Driberg: No.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I will give way in a moment. The Church of England is a most remarkable body. The fact that
  394
  it can embrace the hon. Member and me is quite something. Obviously, there are as many shades of opinion inside the Church of England as there are inside the House of Commons. I would be the last to deny the hon. Member the right to say what he genuinely believed, but I say to him with all the sincerity that I can muster that he is very much mistaken if he believes that he is making the case for this Measure by saying that unless we pass it we will have disestablishment thrown at us.
  Mr. Driberg: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) about the Church of England in general. Indeed, I have often compared it, as a typically English institution, with the Labour Party—in its comprehensiveness embracing many different points of view, but with an underlying unity among all of us. None the less, I hope that he will not misinterpret what I said the other night. It was not meant as a threat, I said exactly the opposite. If the hon. Member reads Hansard carefully, he will see that I said that the Archbishop had warned that a "major snub" from Parliament to the Church would, or might, precipitate disestablishment. I said that I did not know whether this Measure was sufficiently important for that.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I hope that the hon. Member is as grateful as I am for having had the opportunity of clearing up what he meant.
  Mr. Driberg: Yes, indeed, most grateful.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: At the same time, we have to remember what the Archbishop of Canterbury himself said in the address he gave at his enthronement at Canterbury. He made the address on 27th June, 1961. I have the report from The Times. It is only in indirect speech, but it should be quoted. The report says:
  "Here in England the Church and the State were linked together, and they used that link in serving the community. But in that service and in rendering to God the things that were God's, they asked for a greater freedom in the ordering and in the urgent revising of their forms of worship. If the link of Church and State were broken, it would not be they who asked for this freedom who broke it, but those—if there be such—who denied that freedom to them."

  395
  I must confess that there be such, because I am one of them.
  I am not prepared to give absolute freedom to the Church in anything, any more than I am prepared to give absolute freedom to any citizen in this country. The Church must be governed and, as long as it is established, it must be governed by Parliament. I know that this is an argument for disestablishment and that those who want disestablishment use it. I know that there are others who, with me, are not prepared to give the Church complete freedom such as the Archbishop of Canterbury asked for.
  Mr. Driberg: Would the hon. Member say what he thinks about the Scottish solution, which is so often recommended? The Church of Scotland is established, but is free in various respects.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: To be honest, the only knowledge I have of that is more Episcopalian than Presbyterian, and I would prefer not to be diverted into that argument if I may be excused.
  Nevertheless, having said all that I have said, I still think that we ought to pass this Measure. In offering my support, I should like to say that if the Church wants to get this reform of Canon Law—and Heaven knows that it is necessary—if it wants to get a readiness by Parliament to help it to bring about those reforms, I beg the Church, with everything with which I have to beg, to try to get some discipline into itself to show that if we give the sort of things which the Church is asking from us—the right to hold experimental types of services—we shall get obedience when the Canon Law has been amended.
  This is the appalling thing that makes it so difficult for some of us to support this Measure. I am prepared to do so if the Church is prepared to play its part, but as a churchman I cannot tolerate the gross indiscipline in ritual, and so on, throughout the Church. In saying that, I hope that no one will think that I am anti-ritualist. As a soldier I believe that there are certain ceremonial drills for which there are suitable uniforms. If there are to be ceremonial drills in Church, let us get them laid down.
  This Measure is worthy provided that there is a willingness throughout the clergy, particularly the clergy, to obey
  396
  whatever rules there are in the Church. So long as there are those rules and they are grossly disobeyed, the sort of court which might be set up does not matter very much if nothing is brought before it. This is the issue before us tonight. Do we think that the new court would be effective if it were used? I believe that it would.
  Sir Hendrie Oakshoot: Is my hon. Friend aware that the arguments which he has been advancing are the classic and textbook arguments for passing this Measure?
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I think my hon. Friend must have misheard me. If my hon. Friend had listened to me, that is precisely why I shall vote for it.
  6.29 p.m.
  Mr. John Arbuthnot: We always have good debates when we discuss Church matters, and this debate has come up to the high standard which we expected of it. It has been characterised by a sincerity of purpose and a wish by all Members who have spoken, whether they have been for or against the Measure, to do what they believe to be best in the national interest, and that is also in the interests of the Established Church.
  That all views do not agree is natural and is also healthy. The Church Assembly—and I should like later to say a word about the relationship between the Church Assembly and the Church of England—will undoubtedly profit from the discussion that has taken place on this Measure. By our very nature, we may be inclined in the Church Assembly to take a rather narrower view than we ought. And I am sure that the discussion that has taken place in this House will have brought to light views from which the Church Assembly will profit in its efforts, when the time comes, to put forward proposals to bring the law of worship more into line with current thought and practice.
  Most valuable contributions have been made by Members who are not members of the Church of England, and it is right that this should be so. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) seemed to think that contributions from those who were not members of the Church of England were regarded by Anglicans as an unwarrantable intrusion.

  397
  Let me assure him that nothing could be further from the truth and that these contributions, whether they are with us or against us, are welcomed for the sincerity with which they have been expressed.
  I also thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for his intervention on the legal aspects of these matters in which I find myself singularly naked. My right hon. and learned Friend helped me, and, I believe, helped the whole House considerably.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) took me to task on two scores. First, for what I said about the bishops' veto. My hon. Friend is wrong, in that under the 1840 Act which covers cases of doctrine, ritual and ceremonial, the bishops' veto is absolute and he need not publish his reasons. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, all cases today are taken under the 1840 Act, so I hope that my hon. Friend will acquit me of misleading the House.
  Sir C. Black: I certainly would not wish to accuse my hon. Friend of having misled the House. What I said, if I might remind him of it, was correct. It might have been of very limited application. I agree, in view of what has been said, but I said that in the 1874 Act the bishops have a right of veto, but under that Act they were only able to exercise that right with full publication of what they were doing and why they were doing it, and that is correct.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: That is true under the 1874 Act, but that is not the Act that is being used. Cases taken today come under the 1840 Act. My hon. Friend and I took different points from the Lloyd-Jacob's Report, but neither contradicts the other.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) suggested that the Church Assembly was not representative of the Church of England, and he went on to argue that it was therefore unfitted as a body to which should been trusted the preparation and the detailed scrutiny of Measures such as this.
  Captain Orr: I do not think that I went on to say any such thing. If my hon. Friend looks at what I said, he will see that I was merely dealing with
  398
  the argument that this Measure came from the Church of England. I said that, because of the unrepresentative nature of the Church Assembly, one must distinguish between Measures coming from the Church of England and Measures coming from the Church Assembly.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I should have thought that for all practical purposes they were one and the same thing, since for better or worse Parliament has laid this task on the Church Assembly. I suggest to my hon. Friend, however, that his original premise was a false one.
  Any baptised member of the Church of England, not even a communicant member, over 17 years of age, who wishes to do so can be on the electoral roll, provided he is not a member of any religious organisation which is not in communion with the Church of England. The basic franchise, therefore, is as broad as it can be. It is those on the electoral roll who elect the diocesan representatives, who in turn elect the members of the Church Assembly, and election to the Assembly is by proportional representation.
  From experience of the Church Assembly, I express the firm view that all shades of the ecclesiastical spectrum are represented there. There is only one respect in which the Church Assembly may not be representative of the Church of England, and that is a respect which applies to this House of Commons as well. It is that membership is of necessity confined to those whose personal circumstances enable them to give up the time to be members. This is a matter which is always under review, but it is difficult to see a solution.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West drew attention to the advantages which accrue to the Church from establishment. This is undoubtedly true, but it is a two-way traffic, and there are immense advantages to the State in having an established Church. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) was wrong in suggesting that I threatened that disestablishment would follow the rejection of this Measure, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H Legge-Bourke) for having come to my defence, since I was particularly careful not to make such a suggestion.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what be is going to do about the appeal which his hon. Friend made in respect of the bishops?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: That will emerge during the course of my speech.
  I was sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West felt that the abandoning of the Privy Council as a court of appeal would be a bar to reunion with the Non-conformists. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the position of the Church of Scotland which is an established Church and is certainly not subject to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and, judging from my knowledge of Scottish history, would never wish to be.
  This debate has followed very much the lines which I forecast in my opening speech, the main issues raised being the bishops' veto and the replacement of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott) gave wise counsel on this matter.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South suggested that the replacement of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by an Appeal Court on which will sit two bishops and three Lords of Appeal was dangerous. He drew a picture of the possibility that there would not be sufficient Lords of Appeal unless the Crown introduced a religious test. This was dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and I cannot think that this situation would ever arise in practice.
  Captain Orr: My hon. Friend will recollect that the Attorney-General was unable to tell us how many of the present Lords of Appeal were communicant members of the Church of England. He could therefore give no guarantee that such a situation did not exist now.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The Lords of Appeal entitled to sit under the Measure are defined in the Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1876. They number 22 Lords of Appeal at the moment, and I cannot conceive of the situation arising where less than three of them would be communicant members of the Church of England. I therefore suggest to my hon. and gallant
  400
  Friend that his fears are groundless in practice.
  Hon. Members may think, as did the Church Assembly, that it is reasonable that where the matters being considered are spiritual matters, those who sit in judgment on them should be expected to have some background knowledge of those things on which they are called to judge. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) and the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) seemed to me to put this in its proper perspective.
  As to the retention of the bishops' veto, this House will not get rid of the bishops' veto by rejecting this Measure. The clergy are subject to legal sanctions which do not apply to the generality of the public at large. It is right, therefore, that the clergy should have all proper safeguards against frivolous and malicious prosecutions. The House may think that the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) put the matter in its right perspective when he pointed out that the bishop, in exercising his veto, was exercising a pastoral function. I would put it that he is exercising an emollient function, for the better ordering of Church life.
  I know that extreme evangelical opinion fears that some bishops who tend to be High Church will exercise the veto in a way unwarrantably to defend High Church practices. I myself tend to be Low Church, having been baptised a Presbyterian. I am therefore sensitive to evangelical opinion. I do not think that it can be said that the bishops have abused the veto—and in this respect the veto in the proposed Measure remains unaltered in respect of doctrine, ritual and ceremonial. It follows from the light of experience gamed that we have no reason to think that the bishops will exercise it wrongly in the future.
  It would be only right to add that the bishops did not seek the inclusion of the veto. It was felt in the Church Assembly that this was a proper safeguard for the clergy which ought to be continued in the bishops' hands. I therefore suggest to the House that the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament was right when it reported to us that this Measure was expedient and ought to proceed, and I hope that we shall now feel it proper to pass the Motion.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 60.

  Division No. 165.]

  AYES

  [6.41 p.m.

  Allason, James

  Hayman, F. H.

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Hendry, Forbes

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Hiley, Joseph

  Parker, John

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Partridge, E.

  Balniel, Lord

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

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Peel, John

  Barnett, Guy

  Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Percival, Ian

  Batsford, Brian

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Pott, Percivall

  Biffen, John

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

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bingham, R. M.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Pym, Francis

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Ramsden, James

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Braine, Bernard

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Brewis, John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rhodes, H.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

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

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Bullard, Denys

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Russell, Ronald

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Sharples, Richard

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

  Kerans, Cdr, J. S.

  Short, Edward

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

  Kirk, Peter

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Speir, Rupert

  Chataway, Christopher

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Leather, Sir Edwin

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Cooke, Robert

  Leavey, J. A.

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Cooper, A. E.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Costain, A. P.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Talbot, John E.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'str, Moss Side)

  Dempsey, James

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

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Temple, John M.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lubbock, Eric

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Driberg, Tom

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  du Cann, Edward

  MacArthur, Ian

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Eden, Sir John

  McInnes, James

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Errington, Sir Eric

  McLaren, Martin

  Turner, Colin

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

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

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Finlay, Graeme

  Maddan, Martin

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Fletcher, Eric

  Maitland, Sir John

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Marshall, Sir Douglas

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Freeth, Denzil

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Whitelaw, William

  Galbraith Hon. T. G. D.

  Mawby, Ray

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Gardner, Edward

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Gibson-Watt, David

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

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Woollam, John

  Grosvenor, Lord Robert

  Moyle, Arthur

  Worsley, Marcus

  Gurden, Harold

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Sir H. Oakshott and

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Mr. MacColl.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  NOES

  Aitken, Sir William

  Darling, George

  Gunter, Ray

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Bell, Ronald

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Bence, Cyril

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Benson, Sir George

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Blackburn, F.

  Finch, Harold

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

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

  Gammans, Lady

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Gourlay, Harry

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Cordle, John

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Manuel, Archie

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Redhead, E. C.

  Watkins, Tudor

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Whitlock, William

  Mills, Stratton

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Woof, Robert

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Wade, Donald

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Randall, Harry

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mr. G Thomas and Capt. Orr.

  Resolved,
  That the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure, 1963, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

RHODESIA AND NYASALAND BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(PROVISION FOR DISSOLUTION OF FEDERATION.)
6.50 p.m.
Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, at the end to insert:
"and provided that no such person is compulsorily transferred to the employment of territorial or other public institutions".
This Amendment meets the wishes of the generally expressed view during the Second Reading debate that we should be as generous as possible to those civil servants who, through no fault of their own, are likely to suffer because of the break-up of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. These civil servants were under contract for their terms and conditions of service to the Federal Government. There is no doubt that they worked hard in order to make a success of the Federation, and I am quite sure that their endeavours secured the respect and good wishes of everyone. But it is quite likely—I put it no higher—that there may have been circumstances where a civil servant incurred the displeasure of someone, or perhaps upset some person, and for these reasons he would not wish to be under an obligation to serve other than in the federal service to which he belonged. I should say that that would be a very rare case, but it could happen.
In any circumstances, these civil servants were under an obligation to serve the Federation and I think it would be
404
wrong to force them to go to any other kind of authority for employment. I have not the least doubt that if they went to one of the territorial services they would give the same high standard of service as was given to the Federation. But we all know that if a servant is transferred against his wishes, it does not always follow that his service in the new position is as good as the service which he gave in his former position.
I am confident that if we accept this Amendment, so that there is no compulsory transfer of Federal civil servants to any other form of employment or public institution in another territory, it will not stop those civil servants, who always serve us so well, from seeking to do the best they can for whatever territory may wish to employ them. But I think we should take the opportunity in Parliament to let it be seen that they will not be forced to take alternative employment.
The First Secretary of State (Mr. R. A. Butler): I understand the motives which prompted the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) to move this Amendment, but I am not quite certain whether it is necessary to include the Amendment in the Bill. I have been refreshing my memory not only from the contents of the White Paper, of which the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, but also from my recollection of the conference. I am not aware that anybody at the Falls, in any deputation or delegation, was in favour of compulsory secondment. No delegation suggested it on a permanent basis.
The only reference to compulsory secondment arose from some interest shown by the Northern Rhodesia delegation which thought that it would be appropriate for federal officers to be compulsorily seconded to the Territorial Government for an interim period—this would be only a short period—in order to ensure that the transferred services were adequately manned during the initial stage. The Southern Rhodesia Government agreed that an interim period would

405
be needed for the transfer of the full public services, but they thought that the services could be maintained by a process of voluntary secondment. That was the only reference at the conference, except for the reservation by the Federal Government.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to pay tribute to the civil servants who served the Federation, and to enlist our sympathy. But we agreed at the conference that this matter should be referred to post-conference machinery, as it was called. I am able to inform the Committee that the sub-committee, which is referred to in the new machinery in the White Paper, has already met in Salisbury. The object of the machinery which was set up and of the committee which is meeting, was to resolve questions of this sort, with the result that already yesterday there has been a consideration of this matter in Salisbury with a view to further elucidation.
The Federal Government reserved their position on this question, even on a temporary compulsory secondment until there had been full consultation and agreement with the Federal Public Service Association. We started discussions with the Association at the Falls. Representatives of the Association came there to review this matter with us. In paragraph 20 of the White Paper it is stated:
"The Conference agreed that the post-Conference machinery should take full account of the views of delegations including the reservations entered by the Federal Government"—
that is that there should be no compulsory secondment—
"in the arrangements to be made to cover this standstill period, and should continue the consultations begun with the Federal Public Service Association as part of the general discussion that would be necessary with the Association about the comprehensive settlement of public service issues."
As no one wants compulsory secondment for its own sake and as we now are setting about considering the question whether any temporary period is necessary and as the Federal Government have reserved the position that it must be voluntary and not compulsory, I do not think that we should carry the matter further in the Bill.
When I introduced the Bill on Second Reading I said:
406
"…it in no way prejudges what the nature of those provisions may be….Their terms can be determined only when the arrangements to be made in connection with the dissolution of the Federation have been settled through the special inter-governmental machinery, which is referred to in the White Paper, established at The Victoria Falls Conference."—[Official Report, 11th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 1427–8.]
We therefore maintain that however important this subject is—I claim that it is very important, and that it is perfectly right to discuss it during the Committee stage—it would not be right to prejudge the discussions, with which the Federal Public Service Association would be associated, on this one aspect of the general problem of the Federal public service. In my view the position about compulsory secondment has been completely reserved for this machinery to discuss. There is no proposal for permanent compulsory secondment. The proposal of the Northern Rhodesia Government has had reservations put to it by the Federal Government; the Federal Public Service Association has been consulted, we obtained its views before the decision, and so the anxieties of the right hon. Gentleman are not likely to be fulfilled. I suggest, therefore, that instead of altering the Bill to the extent of putting in something which would prejudge the machinery we have set up, we should leave the matter for the machinery to discuss.
Mr. Bottomley: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I assume that the consultations with the Federal Public Service Association will be continued?
Mr. Butler: Yes. They are continuing this very day and will continue for the next week or two pending a final report by the Committee.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. James Griffiths: I think that the First Secretary is right upon the general approach to this problem, and perhaps my right hon. Friend will consider withdrawing his Amendment, but I ask for a definite assurance in these matters. We have had some experience of this in other territories, and sometimes some branches of the public service have been left outside. I do not want to mention them now, but it will be familiar to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Department of Technical Co-operation, which has handled some of

407
these problems, that some people have been left outside these arrangements, and it has been a great disadvantage to them. I hope that there will be full consultation with the organisations representing all branches of the service in the Federation.
Am I to understand that this matter has been only considered on a basis of temporary transfer for a transitional period, or is it still being considered whether it will be permanent, compulsory transfer from the Federal service back to the territorial service? I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was quite clear about that. What I am particularly asking is that there shall be the fullest consultation with the representatives of the organisations representing every branch of the Civil Service.
Mr. Butler: I can give that assurance. I shall see to it that the observations made by the two right hon. Gentlemen are telegraphed to Salisbury so that the Committee can consider the representations put forward by the official Opposition on this important matter. That will guarantee that these points are looked into. There is no question, as far as I am aware, of permanent compulsory secondment. The only proposal put forward by one of the territorial Governments was for a transitional period in which, in order to make the machine work, there should be a temporary period of compulsory secondment. This was objected to by the Federal Public Service Association, and it is now on the lines of voluntary secondment that discussions are taking place. I do not know what the result will be, but I shall see that the observations are telegraphed so that there will be no delay.
Mr. Bottomley: In view of what has been said by the First Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out from "Parliament" to the end of line 24.
This leaves out the words:
"so however that this section shall not authorise the amendment of the constitution of any of the Territories;"
During the debate on Second Reading we were informed by the First Secretary
408
that those words were inserted at the request of the Southern Rhodesian Government. We on this side of the Committee would like to know a little more about the exchanges which took place on this matter at Victoria Falls between the right hon. Gentleman, on the one side, and Mr. Winston Field and his colleagues, on the other.
We were informed during the debate on Second Reading by the Attorney-General that no secret pledges or undertakings were given to the Southern Rhodesian representatives during the course of the Conference. I should like to ask: was any undertaking asked for? If so, was it refused, or did the right hon. Gentleman, who, we all know, is a past master at this sort of thing, somehow turn the question aside? Was the issue of independence for Southern Rhodesia not discussed at all?
We have put down this Amendment because we want to be quite sure that these words do not represent a further stage in the disastrous process by which Her Majesty's Government have handed over the substance of power in Southern Rhodesia to a European minority. I suppose that the future of Southern Rhodesia is one of the most difficult problems, if not the most difficult problem, that Her Majesty's Government today have to face. It is a difficulty very largely, if not entirely, of their own making.
If anyone cares to look back at the debates of 1961 when the reserve powers were sacrificed and the new Constitution for Southern Rhodesia was introduced, and at the events which have since occurred, he will see that the Government received a great many warnings from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), and many other hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and those warnings have been amply justified by the march of events.
We had a further debate on this subject on 3rd December last. On that occasion the change of Government had not then taken place with Southern Rhodesia, and we were urged by a number of hon. Members opposite to have faith in the liberal intentions of Sir Edgar Whitehead. Now, of course, Sir Edgar Whitehead has disappeared from the scene.

409
Her Majesty's Government find themselves today in a hideous dilemma. They have handed over all internal authority to the European Government of Southern Rhodesia, but they have not been able to divest themselves of all responsibility to the outside world for what goes on there. We are still answerable for Southern Rhodesia in foreign affairs and at the United Nations, and we are regarded very widely throughout Africa as having some actual measure of responsibility for the policies which the Southern Rhodesian Government pursue. We cannot escape that dilemma because, however formidable the undertaking might be, it is still open to this Parliament, as a matter of law, to suspend the Southern Rhodesian Constitution. It was done in the case of Malta and once in British Guiana, and we gather that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations may have been threatening to do it again. I am not suggesting that at this stage it should be done in relation to Southern Rhodesia, but I would press the Secretary of State, or the Attorney-General, or whoever is to reply, for the assurance for which we asked him last December—the assurance that independence will never be granted so long as effective political power is confined to a small racial minority. We all pressed him at the time, and the right hon. Gentleman said this:
"As to withholding independence, all I can say is this. Southern Rhodesia is part of the Federation, No question of granting independence, therefore, arises in present circumstances. There are no proposals for granting independence to Southern Rhodesia and, therefore, we must regard this question as purely hypothetical."—[Official Report, 3rd December. 1962; Vol. 668, c. 1064–5.]
That was last December. It is not hypothetical today.
We all know—and this was emphasised in certain very remarkable speeches from hon. Members on the other side on Second Reading; the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) and the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balaiel)—that this is a matter to which the upmost importance is attached, not merely by the Southern Rhodesians themselves but throughout the whole African Continent. This is something which may ultimately involve the whole future of the Commonwealth. I and my hon. Friends have put down this Amendment in order that we
410
may press the Government still further to reveal their mind on this vital issue.
Mr. R. A. Butler: I am only too glad to reply to the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) but I must make the preliminary observation, which was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in his speech on Second Reading, that this Bill has nothing to do with either granting or not granting independence to Southern Rhodesia. Nevertheless, with as much care as I can, I will answer the arguments as they have fallen from the hon. and learned Member so gracefully this afternoon.
The position is that if we take this Amendment literally we find that it does not apply very much in relation to this Bill. Only such
"incidental, supplemental and consequential provisions"
as appear necessary or expedient for the purpose of the Order can be made by this Bill under Clause 1(1). The various
"incidental, supplemental and consequential provisions"
are in subsection (2) of Clause 1. Therefore, any major alteration of the Constitution of a territory could not be permitted either under Clause 1 or under the Long Title of the Bill.
If we omitted the words to which the hon. and learned Member has drawn attention, we would not omit a very great or dangerous provision, but only one which could have been governed by the terms of Clause 1(1) of the Bill. If we establish that as a matter of law—and he is better at this subject than I am—we see that in fact no great difference would be made. These words were inserted simply to remove doubt, a doubt felt by the territories, not necessarily only by Southern Rhodesia—and the territories are referred to in toto—lest any reference to amendment of the constitution of the territories might be brought into this Bill.
Therefore the Government could not accept that these words should be left out because we want, out of greater care, to make sure that there is no provision in this Bill which would alter the Constitution of a territory. Having made that preliminary observation to show that the scope of the Amendment is somewhat limited, I shall endeavour to answer

411
some of the points made by the hon. and learned Member. He referred first to exchanges with the Southern Rhodesian Government at the Victoria Falls.
I ought to make clear that these fell into two different categories. There was one category which, as announced in the White Paper of 18th June, resulted in a conversation arising on the subject of the future independence of the territory. The other exchanges took place on the Bill itself. These were largely on legal points.
I can deal with that second form of exchange immediately by saying that only in minor detail did they suggest amendments of the form of the provisions we were going to put into the Bill, and I do not think they would interest the Committee. They were only detailed points and this happened to be one of them. It was put in for greater care so that we would not appear to be altering the Constitution.
The hon. and learned Member referred to other exchanges at the Falls which related to conversations I had about the possible independence of the territory. My noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) raised this point in the debate on Second Reading and asked if there were any secret pledges. The Attorney-General, in winding up that debate, said there were no secret pledges. I should be very glad to reinforce that statement personally as I was responsible for the talks. There were no secret pledges given or exchanged with the Southern Rhodesian Government on the subject of independence.
I think I can usefully say that the situation remains as summarized in the White Paper at the end of our talks in London, namely, that while the matter is open we have not got any farther than the suggestion we made there that we would look to the Southern Rhodesian Government to make proposals to us for any amendments of their Constitution which would result in broadening the basis of representation of the legislature to take effect as soon as practicable and we also discussed in that White Paper the future development policy on non-discrimination. That is where the matter lies. There are no secret pledges and I have nothing to add on that matter today.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. J. Griffiths: This is what many of us are concerned about, that there were discussions between the First Secretary and the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia in which the right hon. Gentleman speaking for the Government—I hope I have got it accurately—said that he would like to explain the plans there in relation to the future Constitution and, secondly, on non-discrimination. Was it understood that they should be preliminary to independence?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The whole matter is completely open. We have not up to date received any suggestions which would enable us to carry the matter further.
The hon. and learned Member said that it was still open to Parliament to suspend the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia. I was very glad to hear him say that he was not himself suggesting that. The Government take the line that there has been a 40-year convention, since 1923, with Southern Rhodesia that we should not intervene in their constitutional matters. I make it clear that I am glad to accept what the hon. and learned Member said. The Government, as the Bill makes clear, have no intention of interfering or intervening in the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia. The line of our conversations throughout with the Southern Rhodesian Government has been that this Constitution, introduced in 1961, has the powers of self-amendment in it and anything almost can be done by way of amending the Constitution. The exchange of letters referred to in this White Paper relates to amending the Constitution on the lines that the initiative should be taken by the Southern Rhodesian Government themselves. They are quite capable of taking that initiative; the powers are there if it is desired to use them.
I do not think I have anything further to add except to point out that under the terms of the Bill it is not possible to make anything more than minor alterations to a Constitution and we do not propose to make alterations to a Constitution but we propose to adhere to these words. I should make plain that there are no secret pledges. The position about this very important and weighty question of possible independence of Southern Rhodesia is in the

413
further correspondence. I have nothing further to add tonight and if initiative is taken in relation to this question of amendment it must be taken by the Southern Rhodesian Government in relation to its own Constitution.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: We are glad to have from the First Secretary a repetition of the assurance that there are no secret agreements about independence for Southern Rhodesia concealed in the arrangements for the dissolution of the Federation. The more often this is said the clearer is the air, and therefore the greater the possibility of getting some sort of constructive advance in the end.
We fire still somewhat puzzled by some of the points made by the First Secretary. He was resisting the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) on the grounds that the text it is proposed to delete is essential for the purposes of the Bill. On Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman himself was kind enough to explain why those words were in the Bill. He said that this assurance was especially sought by the Government of Southern Rhodesia. We got the impression from those words that it was not something which Her Majesty's Government had wished to concede initially but that they were making a concession to the Government of Southern Rhodesia. We on this side of the Committee certainly felt that Her Majesty's Government would have been wiser to have preserved their freedom of manœuvre in this matter.
There was one other matter in what the First Secretary said which puzzled me a great deal. That was when he declared that there had been a convention for 40 years that we did not interfere in any way with the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia. If he meant that for 40 years there had not been positive interference by this country in the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia, I suppose that historically he was accurate, but the word "convention" normally has a stronger meaning, some sort of positive understanding, either written or unwritten, that these things should not be done.
The First Secretary knows that until very recently the Government in this country enjoyed reserve powers to dis-
414
allow legislation affecting the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia. He knows that there was considerable doubt and anxiety on more than one side of the House about the surrender by the Government of those reserve powers. Indeed, the Opposition finally went into the Division Lobby against the Government's proposals in that respect.
It therefore disturbs us a little as an indication of the Government's thinking that they seem to believe that for 40 years they have had no positive right to influence the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia and that they therefore allowed this Clause to be inserted somewhat casually, thereby limiting still further the freedom of manœuvre in this matter which we believe the Government ought to preserve for themselves.
The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): With respect to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, he was not quite accurate in saying that the convention had existed for 40 years. It arises out of 40 years' history and it has coalesced or congealed into the formality of a convention much more recently.
Mr. J. Griffiths: What does the First Secretary mean by "convention"?
The Attorney-General: I will come to that. This arises out of the way in which the Commonwealth has grown up. It does not arise only in relation to Southern Rhodesia but goes back into the history of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other countries and the circumstances in which, in the course of their development, it was usual or conventional for the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate in respect of their internal affairs. The way in which the convention is usually stated is that we in the United Kingdom Parliament do not legislate for self-governing colonies without their consent in respect of matters which are within the responsibility of their own Legislature.
As I said on Second Reading, the application of the convention to any colony depends on the stage of development of self-government which that colony has reached. It is obvious that by the time of the Statute of Westminster, although nominally it had the legal powers of legislating for the internal

415
affairs of Canada and some other countries, the United Kingdom Parliament would not have thought of doing so.
I think that my right hon. Friend is right in saying that 40 years of history of Southern Rhodesia has brought about a situation which was first recognised in 1961—namely, that as from 1961 we in this Parliament have recognised that the convention has put us in a situation in which it would not be right for this Parliament to legislate for matters which are within the competence of the Legislature of Southern Rhodesia without the consent of the Southern Rhodesian Parliament.
I understand that that is the only position which has been taken and that all that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary says on this Bill is that these matters may be debated upon another occasion; the convention and its relevance to the powers of this Parliament and whether they should be exercised may be subject to discussion hereafter. But the Bill is aimed only at the dissolution of the Federation and not at any other matter. The Federation can be dissolved without any amendment of the constitution of any of the territories, and it was thought that it should be made plain that Orders in Council under the Bill would not be used for that purpose. Of course, that does not in any way inhibit the use of the powers of this Parliament in such a way as this Parliament thinks right and proper.
Mr. J. Griffiths: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that explanation. We well remember that there was a claim in respect of the Central Africa convention that this House would not legislate about the Federation without its consent, which is precisely what we are doing now. The record ought to be put straight.
It is right to say that this House has not legislated on matters which were competent for the Southern Rhodesian Government within their own constitution. But I have heard it said in the House that there have been many occasions in the course of that long history in which Southern Rhodesia has consulted Her Majesty's Government through the Dominions Secretary, and later through the Commonwealth Relations Office, and matters have been
416
settled. The practice was that there were consultations and that these consultations sometimes led to the modifications of proposals which the Southern Rhodesian Government had put forward without the necessity of coming here for legislation. It is important that this should be on the record, since it means that the Southern Rhodesian Government recognised that on matters concerning discrimination, in respect of any Bill which they proposed there was consultation with Her Majesty's Government through the usual channels and by Ministers. I am sure that the First Secretary does not suggest that there was never consultation in that way between the Government and the Southern Rhodesian Government.
I understood him to say that no proposals had been received from the Southern Rhodesian Government, though he indicated that Her Majesty's Government would like to see proposals on these two problems of the constitution and discrimination. I think that that is his view and the Government's view—that they should not put forward any proposals but should wait for Southern Rhodesia to do so.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(Supplementary provisions as to Orders.)
Mr. R. H. Turton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, to leave out subsection (3).
My right hon. Friend the First Secretary will notice that there is a strange alliance. I have welcomed the adherence to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) and his two colleagues because, although normally we do not agree on all aspects of this Rhodesian problem, this is a constitutional problem and all of us are worried about the constitutional aspect of this subsection.
Clearly, when we are dealing with alterations of a constitution, it is right that Parliament should use the normal procedure of examining the proposals in draft and approving them—in other words, that they do not use the negative procedure. Here the First Secretary is departing from the normal constitutional methods if an Order is made

417
at any time before 1st October. My view is that these Orders will be of such tremendous importance for the future of the Commonwealth, for the future of the three Territories and, in particular, for the future of the Federation public servants who were discussed in an earlier Amendment, that Parliament should use the draft form method for any matter whenever it is introduced. It would be wrong for Parliament to say that we should use this rather less effective way of looking after our responsibilities by the negative procedure during August and September. Surely the disappearance of the Federation and the constitution of the three Territories is of such great Commonwealth importance that Mr. Speaker would recall the House of Commons to consider any such draft Order if it were proposed at that time. That is the first point which I make.
7.30 p.m.
My second point is whether this subsection is necessary. Chapter X of the White Paper makes the timetable quite clear. It states that it is the general wish to set a target date of 31st December. The Committees are to complete their work by about mid-September, and the White Paper suggests that the Governments concerned will then have to collaborate, and these collaborations should be finished by about mid-October.
Therefore, in his own White Paper the First Secretary is not envisaging any draft Order before mid-October at the earliest. This provision operates only during the months of August and September. It is clearly inconceivable that an Order would be introduced in August, or indeed in the first fortnight of September. We are narrowed down to the last fortnight of September. I hope that my right hon. Friend will appreciate the great importance of the work he is doing and that it is vital that Parliament should be responsible.
If the negative procedure is used, what will be the position? Once the Order was made, whatever view either side of the House of Commons took about the dissolution of the Federation, it could not repair it by the negative procedure. This is not like an Order of a minor character which can be prayed against after 10 o'clock. This is of major constitutional importance. In my view, it is the failure
418
of a very great experiment. Members of the Labour Party and some of my own colleagues think that we should have taken this step a long time ago. I do not mind this difference of opinion. I believe that both sides of the Committee would regard this as a major constitutional step and want to be quite clear that the Order was correctly made. Therefore, in my view it should be laid in draft and should not be in operation until the draft has been approved by Parliament. I earnestly ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether this subsection is necessary.
Mr. D. Foot: On this occasion I find myself very much in sympathy with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). The great difficulty with which the House of Commons is always confronted when dealing with delegated legislation is that we have no power of amendment. We may have, and sometimes do have, Measures of the very greatest importance embodied in an Order in Council or in a set of Regulations, but in the ordinary way we must pass them or we must negative them en bloc. That signally derogates from the power and authority of the House of Commons.
The matter can be got round in various ways. For example, the Government of India Act, 1935, on which we spent a great deal of time some years ago, contains a provision enabling Parliament to amend the Orders in Council which were made in relation to the Indian Constitution. I know that that raises certain difficulties between the two Houses, but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we have from time to time managed to get round the difficulty by laying the Orders or the Regulations in draft. If I remember rightly, the first time this was done was in relation to the Military Training Act when we introduced conscription in 1939. It is a device to which the House has resorted from time to time.
When dealing with the negative procedure, when we can only pray to annul an Order in Council which has already been made, and a fortiori an Order in Council which is already in operation, the House of Commons is deprived of any effective control. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we are not dealing here with minor and consequential matters. We are dealing with matters of the

419
highest importance to the people of all the three Territories concerned.
Therefore, I support the Amendment. We should on this occasion ask the Government for an assurance—I will not say an assurance of a substantial character, but at any rate an assurance—that it is not their intention to bring forward any Orders in Council during the Parliamentary Recess. The difficulty could be circumvented if we could be assured that the Government do not intend, at any rate in the absence of an emergency, to use this form of delegated legislation until the House returns in October.
Mr. Bottomley: Again I join with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in making a plea to the First Secretary of State. This is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman and I have joined forces on a matter concerned with Africa, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to do so again. The right hon. Gentleman is probably picking up something to which I referred on Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I said then that it was an inconvenience to Parliament and it was undemocratic to give these powers in this way. I said that we had to recognise that at times an Order in Council may be necessary but that we should surely all agree that, whenever possible, legislation should be passed by an Act of Parliament and not by an Order in Council.
I also said that it was particularly unsatisfactory that Parliament should allow delegated legislation of this kind, even if it is subject to the approval of the House, by which an Act of Parliament can be amended by an Order in Council. I said that on this occasion it was reasonably safe to do that, because all the Governments concerned were agreed, but I still think that it is undesirable and should be avoided, if possible.
I gave an example of how the House of Commons on one occasion inadvertently enabled a territory to do something which was not quite in accordance with the wishes of the House of Commons. This was done because of the Order in Council procedure. Once the Government have taken a decision, all that the House of Commons is called upon to do is to give assent to some-
420
thing already accomplished. We all know that it is difficult to upset something once it is established. It is better, if there is the opportunity, to make representations before a decision is reached. I hope that it will be possible for the First Secretary of State to accede to this joint approach and accept the Amendment.
Mr. R. A. Butler: My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) drew a clear distinction between subsection (2), which is the affirmative procedure and deals with the draft of the Order, and subsection (3), which gives permission to introduce an Order before 1st October and then for it to be annulled by Parliament on resumption. We were fully aware of the striking difference between these two proposals when we inserted subsection (3) into the Bill.
I want to explain exactly what is intended in subsection (3) and what is not intended. My right hon. Friend drew attention to the timetable in the White Paper. He very rightly pointed out that some of the main committees cannot have reported by the time that this provision under subsection (3) expires. The earliest that any of them could have reported would have been the middle of September, and that would barely give time for laying an Order.
Therefore, I want to make it clear to my right hon. Friend and to the Committee that subsection (3) is not designed to deal with the major issues, on which we shall wish to get the approval of Parliament. It is not designed to deal with the assets and liabilities, or the public debt, or the public services, or any of the major issues in the White Paper. I give that undertaking to show that the issues upon which the affirmative will of Parliament will be sought under subsection (2) are all likely to be reserved till later in the autumn, and indeed it will be getting into the winter before we can possibly have the work ready. I give the assurance that in any case we should not use subsection (3) for all these major issues.
It may be asked what use it has; and this leads me to the one difficulty I have in meeting the Committee on this point. When we were in discussion with the Governments at the Falls there was a

421
strong wish, led by the territories—particularly Northern Rhodesia—that functions should be transferred at as early a date as possible. This provision, therefore, is taken solely to facilitate the transfer of a function upon which there is agreement between the Federal and Territorial Governments, and to transfer such a function provided that the men, that is the public services, and the money, referred to in the White Paper, are available for the function to operate properly. I should find it difficult to omit the subsection because it would mean that I could not transfer any function before 1st October and, very likely, not before the end of October or November or whenever Parliament may meet in the autumn.
Our work on these major issues will not be ready until that date and if we were not to have subsection (3) in the Bill it would not give us an opportunity to transfer a function before the late autumn or winter. That might lead to considerable anxiety on the part of the territories. In view of the representations that have been made today by hon. Members I had better have a further consultation with the territories to see whether they think they still attach importance to what they said about the early transfer of functions.
If I find that there is not the same insistence as I thought, we can remedy this matter in another place. However, I would not like to take any further step tonight in view of my undertakings to the Governments concerned regarding the transfer of functions. I hope that these remarks indicate that we understand the Parliamentary anxiety on this point. What I have said will give me a little further rein to continue my discussions with those intimately concerned and, at the same time, safeguard the interests of Parliament.
Mr. Turton: I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has commented on the arguments that have been adduced. It may be that the territories will still want to have this power for that limited use of the transfer of functions in the period between August and 1st October. If so, would my right hon. Friend consider, in another place, making that clear in the subsection; in other words, limiting this power to orders dealing with the earlier transfer of func-
422
tions? That would be a drafting matter and I do not expect my right hon. Friend to give me a reply to this suggestion immediately. I hope that he will consider this along with the wider question and, having thanked him for the helpful way he has responded to the points made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

WHITE, FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES (GRANTS)
7.45 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): I beg to move,
That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
I suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it might be for the convenience of the House if, at the same time, we discuss the following two Motions:
That the Herring Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): If that is agreeable to the House.
Mr. Soames: In determining the details of the subsidies and Orders before the House there are two points of departure. One is the Government's general policy set out in the 1961 White Paper, which was implemented by Parliament in the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1962, and the other is the current situation in the: fishing industry. I will address my remarks to both of these.

423
Basing itself on the Report of the Fleck Committee, the House will remember that the Government laid down in the 1962 Act—and this carried with it the agreement of the industry—the blueprint for the next 10 years. The idea was to provide financial assistance, through subsidies on a diminishing scale, over that period during which the industry, helped by the Government, would adapt itself to the changes which we all knew were taking place or were in prospect. The extension of limits off Iceland, Norway and the Faroes was one of the new factors in the situation while the growing competition by many fishing nations on the available grounds was another. There is also the compelling need to improve the quality of fish for the market. All these factors demand new types of vessel, new forms of fishing and new techniques of marketing and distribution.
While the adjustments to be made must be primarily decided by the industry, the Government can and must play their part, especially through an expanded effort of research and in the application of that research to the industry. The improvement in techniques, by which new vessels are able to catch more fish, will itself have an effect on the future of the fleet. Some sections of the fleet have been and will be restricted by the extension of limits off shores where we traditionally fish. The main purpose of the subsidies for the trawler industry is not to stop this necessary readjustment taking place but to make it as smooth as it can be in the circumstances.
Recognising that the fishing industry is inevitably prone to ups and downs from year to year, we provided some latitude and flexibility in the Act in two respects. First, the basic subsidy rates can be reduced from one year to another by between 7½per cent. and 12½per cent. according to the circumstances. However, before the Measure was passed, we agreed with the industry that in this particular year we would only make the minimum reduction provided for, so that the basic rates in the Scheme are simply 7½per cent., below those of the year just ended. Secondly, we provided for special rates of subsidy to be available for those sections of the fleet in particular difficulty, up to a maximum of£350,000 in any one
424
year and of£2½million for the ten-year period as a whole.
What in fact has been the position of the trawling side of the industry? We know that results last year were disappointing; so much so that some owners have not been able to meet their payments to the White Fish Authority for the loans they had for building new vessels. Average operating losses amongst English near-and middle-water vessels were greater in 1962 than in 1961. The Scottish middle-water boats did slightly better in 1962 than in 1961, but were still, on average, suffering losses—
Mr. Charles Loughlin: I appreciate that the Minister may not have the whole information, but can he give some indication, in the losses to which he is now referring, of the loss per vessel?
Mr. Soames: The vessels vary so much in size, the ports from which they operate and the grounds on which they fish that I could not give an average. There is also the difference between the operating profit-and-loss account, on the one hand, and the accounts after allowing for depreciation on the other. Many more sections made a profit on the operating account, and it is mostly when depreciation is taken into account that the losses have been incurred. But I am afraid that I could not give the hon. Gentleman an average off the cuff.
The distant-water fleet, too, did worse in 1962 than in the previous year although, overall, there was still a small profit, even after allowing for depreciation.
In the first part of this year there has been a change in the pattern. We do not yet have profit-and-loss accounts for the first four or five months of the year, as we have for the whole of 1962, but the figures of landings and proceeds show the way things have been going. English near-and middle-water boats have done much better. In the first five months of the year catches have been up by more than a quarter compared with the corresponding months of last year, and although average prices have been slightly lower, gross takings have been up by over 20 per cent.—a considerable improvement.
In Scotland, on the other hand, the takings have been marginally down on last year—by about 1 per cent.—although

425
here, again, this has been due to lower prices rather than to poor catches. It has not been as was feared by many of us—and I must say that I shared that fear—that as limits were extended against us we might find ourselves with considerably diminished catches. That has not been taking place. The catches have been up—it is the prices that have been lower.
However, taken as a whole, there has been an improvement in the near-and middle-water fleets—an improvement which we hope will be maintained. I have just this morning had the latest figures of landings at Grimsby which show that the North Sea fishing continued to be very good during June and, so far, during this month as well. May, June and July are usually the worst months for fishing in those waters, so it looks as though we have promise of a good season in the North Sea.
Distant-water catches have been less good. Whereas the distant-water fleet had been doing better in 1962 than the middle-and near-water fleet, in the early months of this year some sections of the distant-water fleet have done distinctly worse compared with the early months of 1962. The proceeds for the older distant-water boats at Grimsby, Fleetwood and Hull have dropped by anything up to£50 a day.
It was against this background that we had to fix the special rates of subsidy for the trawler fleets—as opposed to the basic rates, which are pre-ordained in the Act. In view of the rather divergent trends in recent months, and on the recommendation of the fishing industry, we have decided to make an Order covering only the next six months. We will look at the position again in the autumn, decide what additional assistance maybe needed for the second half of the next subsidy year and see whether the balance should be shifted from one section of the fleet to another—
Mr. James H. Hoy: When the right hon. Gentleman says that he did this with the agreement of the fishing industry, is he talking of the agreement reached with the British Trawlers Federation? I am told that the Scottish Trawlers Federation object to this proposal and think that six months is far too short a period. They
426
think that the period should be twelve months. I would be grateful if the Minister would clear up that point.
Mr. Soames: It was the British Trawlers Federation that was anxious that the period should be six months. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had discussions with the Scottish trawler owners, who took the opposite view, thinking that it should be for the year. After consultation, we decided that the arguments were in favour of the six-month period. I know that there are some hon. Members who feel that we should do it for 12 months and not take, as it were, more than one bite at the cherry, but the whole purpose of these special subsidies is to help particular sections of the fleet over a bad patch, and I look on them rather as a task force that we should not commit to a greater extent or for longer than need be.
We decided on the six-month period because it may be that at the end of this period we will see quite a different pattern emerging than we have seen up to date. The sum of money involved is not very large when compared with the total takings of the fleet, but it is probably wiser to do it six months at a time. It need not always be so.
For this six-month period we have committed about£165,000, which is rather under half of the maximum available for the year. The British Trawlers Federation put in claims for a large number of classes of vessels in England and Wales, and the Scottish Trawlers Federation asked for special subsidies for all classes, but did not propose any specific rates.
The detailed rates we have fixed are set out in the Scheme. I shall not weary the House by going through them in detail but there are some things that I must say about them. In view of the poor results this year, special rates are being paid to several classes of distant-water trawlers that have not previously had special subsidies. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) has in the past expressed the view that distant-water trawlers should be excluded altogether from the special subsidies—mainly, I think, because most of the fleet is owned by the larger companies—but we have to take account of what is happening to the class of vessel as a

427
whole. I think that it would be unfair to the smaller companies in the distant-water section to exclude them merely because most of the vessels are owned by the big companies. It would also be unjust to the crews as well as to the owners to have different rates for similar vessels from the same port merely on the basis of ownership.
However, as I say, this is for a six-month period. We shall look at the rates again in the autumn and adjust them if the circumstances of the different sections of the fleet have changed, as well they might. As a general rule, I would not expect many of the newer oil-burning distant-water vessels to require special subsidies for any length of time, nor do I think that it would be right to continue supplementary subsidies for the very old distant-water trawlers that are now really obsolete.
Determining the special rates of subsidy must inevitably involve an element of judgment and cannot be expected to please everyone, but I think that, within the limits of what it is possible to do by way of supplementary payments, what we are proposing to do this time is broadly acceptable to industry.
These arrangements apply only to the trawler fleets. For the inshore and herring fleets we do not have the same arrangements for automatic reductions in the basic rate of subsidy as we do for the trawling fleet. While our aim is still to see a gradual reduction in subsidies for the inshore fleet, we look at the position year by year and take it on its merits. Inshore fishermen have been gratified by the Government's decision to free themselves from the various treaty obligations which bind us to the three-mile limit. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] An extension of our limits would clearly be a major factor in long-term prospects for our fishermen, but they appreciate that that must await the outcome of the conference which we have proposed.
Last year most sections of the inshore fleet did rather better than in 1961 and some considerably better, though there are exceptions in specific ports in Scotland and in England and Wales. Pilchard fishermen, for instance, have had poor catches. The 70-ft. to 80-ft.
428
trawlers have not done so well, and neither have the Danish type of seiners making longer voyages in the North Sea. The general picture, however, is reasonably good and we are leaving the basic rate of 1s. 3d. per stone for gutted fish unchanged from last year. We propose a reduction in the rates for ungutted fish from 1s. 1d. to 1s. per stone to give a more realistic differential, and we have added a new rate of 6d. per stone for ungutted fish not sold for human consumption.
Up to 1961 stonage rates were paid only on fish sold for human consumption. In 1961 this qualification was removed. This has over-stimulated industrial fishing, particularly for sprats and whiting in Scotland. The new rate will discourage this while still giving a reasonable subsidy to fishermen who have to sell to the market some of their catch for industrial use.
The industry has for some time wanted us to introduce daily rates instead of stonage rates for the smaller vessels, and last year we decided to switch to daily rates for vessels down to 60 ft. in length. This has been generally welcomed, though in Northern Ireland fishermen would like to see a stonage rate reintroduced, as a number of their people have been made worse off by the change. We have considered this but have decided to continue with the daily rates for this class. We are not yet extending these to smaller vessels which will remain on stonage rates.
The herring fleet did better in 1962 than for some years. Rather more fish was landed and there was a substantial rise in price as well. Average profits for the smaller Scottish vessels went up by more than£500, and for the larger English vessels by about£750. Therefore, we have been able to reduce subsidies all round by£1 a day. We are also proposing to replace the rather costly oil and meal subsidy operated through the Herring Industry Board by a direct payment to fishermen of 25s. a cran on herring sold for oil and meal. This has been accounting for less and less of the catch over the years and last year it was only 1 per cent.
All these subsidies together will cost about£4½million in 1963–64, and the third Order which is before the House will provide for a further£4¾ million

429
so as to have a small margin of£¼million in hand, as one cannot attempt to be too exact over subsidies. This will bring the total amount spent or to be spent since these subsidies first started to£35 million. This is a substantial sum of money. It ought, however, to be seen in perspective.
The current rate of subsidy of about£4½million compares with the value of British landings of white fish and herring in the United Kingdom in 1962 of nearly£50 million. Therefore subsidies represent less than 10 per cent. of the industry's gross income. While not minimising their value to the industry, let us recognise that other factors are and must be even more important in determining the financial state of the industry. Nor would many in the industry like to see it any other way.
Conditions of access to fishing grounds, access to markets and marketing possibilities are all matters of great importance for the future of the industry. There are both domestic and international implications to this. On the domestic side there is a big job to be done in improving fish quality and expanding the market in this country, and I look to the White Fish Authority under its new management for constructive and positive policies in this field, to which I am sure the industry and trade will respond. There is a job to be done in fitting the fishing fleets to exploit the resources of the seas to meet the market demands for good quality fish, both fresh and quick-frozen. This is the industry's task with the help of the assistance which the Government have given and are giving by way of grants and loans for new vessels.
There is also the international side, and this, too relates both to production and markets. On the production side there is the problem of fishing limits and of access to resources, and there is the problem of working out and applying sensible conservation policies to the fishing grounds. On the marketing side, Europe is beset by protective policies for a product which is not in surplus if we look at Europe as a whole and where, indeed, there is scope for considerable expansion of demand.
We cannot solve the production and market problems independently of each other. Neither can any single country
430
or group of countries solve this twin international problem of themselves. Nothing less than Northern and Western Europe as a whole together can do it. This is why we have proposed the European Fisheries Conference of the E.F.T.A. countries, the E.E.C., and neighbouring countries which belong to neither one group nor the other. The E.E.C. has 170 million people and it catches less than 2 million tons of fish. The E.F.T.A. has half that population, 90 million, and a fish catch more than twice as large. This is an imbalance which can be solved only by the two together.
Since my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal announced our intention to convene such a Conference we have been explaining our ideas in more detail bilaterally to the countries concerned and finding out their views on the matters to be discussed. We have had discussions with our E.F.T.A. partners and they have agreed to the Conference on the basis that we have proposed, namely that it should consider questions of trade and access to markets on the one hand and access to fishing grounds on the other.
We have had talks with the European Commission and we are in the process of following up with E.E.C. countries the invitations which we have already sent to them and we hope to hear formally from them in the near future. But it looks as though September, the date which we originally suggested, may prove too early and that the conference will have to be held somewhat later in the year. We regard this conference as of the highest importance for the fishing industry. We have told other countries that the United Kingdom delegation will be led by a Minister and while, of course, it is for each country—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but perhaps he can help me. I cannot relate the arrangements for this conference to the Order which is before us. Could the right hon. Gentleman help me by saying how the two can be related?
Mr. Soames: I think there is something in what you say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. On the other hand, with regard to the amount of money involved, I think that considerable extra moneys might be required if the conference were not brought to a successful conclusion.
Dame Irene Ward: Have another go!
Mr. Soames: We have told other countries that the United Kingdom delegation will be led by a senior Minister and while, of course, it is for each country to determine how it will be represented, we believe that other countries share our view of the importance of the work which this conference will have to do.
Mr. Loughlin: Will the Minister tell us whether he has consulted the various bodies affected, the various trade associations, the British Trawlers Federation, the merchants and so on, before giving instructions to the representatives of the British Government?
Mr. Soames: This is not a matter of giving instructions to the representatives of the British Government. The process that we have been going through is to discuss with the nations who we hope will be participating in this conference, what the agenda will be. Of course, we have had discussions with the British Trawlers Federation. We shall be having other discussions on matters affecting the interests concerned before the conference takes place. There is a lot of preparation to be made for a conference of this sort, and we are in the process of going through those preparations in order that it will be successful.
Europe can together, but only together, develop rational and sensible policies for the fisheries that we have in common to the benefit of fishermen and consumers of all countries concerned. The measures of financial assistance which I invite the House to approve tonight must be viewed as only one part of the Government's policy of support for our fishing industry. Of much greater importance for the long-term future of the industry will be the successful solution of these problems, both on a national and an international level, of conservation, catching and marketing. In these the Government and industry have their part to play, and both will play it.
Mr. Anthony Crosland: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up one matter? I understood him to say that the total of subsidies amounted to 10 per cent. of the gross income of the industry. I have not heard this figure
432
before, but if this is so it must amount to many times the net profits of the entire industry. Would that be the case? I am not trying to catch the Minister out.
Mr. Soames: The gross takings are of the order of£50 million a year. The subsidies are£4½million. There were losses after depreciation in the last year, but there were operating profits. I am afraid I could not give the hon. Gentleman the figure for which he asks.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. James H. Hoy: If I may take up the last point of the right hon. Gentleman, we are grateful for the fact that he is a little more informative about who is going to represent us at this proposed international conference than was his Parliamentary Secretary a week ago. Apparently at that time no decision had been made on whether it would be a senior Minister, or who it would be. All I wish to say on this point is that when the conference does take place—it will be very important for the future of this industry, and that is why I think it is related to the Order which we are discussing—I trust that we shall have adequate representation from all sections of the industry, including the workers as well as the owners. That is essential if we are to have a sensible solution to this problem.
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that this problem cannot be settled unilaterally. We on these benches have been saying that for years, and, indeed, we have heard from the Government the case for having an international conference to deal with this problem. Inasmuch as they have now agreed on this course, we are grateful, but we are a little disappointed to hear the further intimation from the Minister that it may have to be postponed from September. We thought September was late enough. The Lord Privy Seal made his announcement in April of this year. We thought that the Government would have selected the team to attend the conference and would at least have made up their minds on what type of agenda they wanted. I only hope that a little more effort will be put into this and that the conference will not be put too far back, because it is of the

433
utmost urgency that we get on with the job.
The Minister said that when these subsidies were being fixed certain matters were taken into account, such as changes which were taking place, including loss of grounds, new techniques, better quality and so on. He also said that we had intimated that we no longer felt ourselves bound to the three-mile limit which exists at present. This occasioned some "Hear, hears". The Minister has only given this intimation; he has taken no action. I agree that actions taken unilaterally, whether by this country, Iceland or any other country, will not solve this problem. The answer is to get international agreement. It may be that because of the circumstances of today we have got to take this action which is being forced upon us to preserve our own fishing grounds for our own fishing fleets.
The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), said that he had no figures of the average losses of the near and middle-water trawling fleets in the past year. But the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is a little better informed. According to the figures issued by the Scottish Federation of Trawler Owners, the losses last year of the near and middle-water fleets on average amounted to£2,700 for motor trawlers and£5,900 for oil-fired steam trawlers. I have not the figures for Great Britain as a whole, but these are the figures published by the Scottish Federation, and the Minister will be able either to confirm or deny them.
As regards the special grant, I am glad that the Minister rectified what he said. The Scottish owners feel that to take two bites at this little cherry is really too much. It is a very small amount. In any one year it cannot exceed£350,000, and, of course, it can be done only on a few occasions during the ten years, because the maximum grant for this purpose is£2½million. We took out the maximum last year, despite the fact that the grants were then running at their maximum rate. It is not something which one can repeat, because there will be no money to do it. This is the problem confronting the industry. Of course, the Minister can do something else. He can increase the£2½million which is at
434
present available under the Act. Perhaps he will be compelled to do so.
I agree with the Minister when he says that all those figures must be put into proper perspective. We can do this only by examining the out-turn on the accounts for the year which has passed. One of the most misleading headlines I have ever seen in the newspapers was the one about£5 million a year more for the fishing industry. I: is, of course, nothing of the kind because, as a result of what we are discussing tonight, the fishing industry will get much less this year than it did last year. I hope that it was not the Ministry which was responsible for that headline; I can only say that every newspaper which I read had the same headline.
What we are doing, as the Minister said, is to make provision in the Order for an extra£4¾million and in the two Schemes we are dividing it between the white fish industry and the herring industry. We are doing no more than that. If we put it into proper perspective, perhaps the Press will understand exactly what we are doing.
Are the new rates of subsidy sufficient, having regard to last year's workings? Last year's workings provide some illuminating figures. In Scotland, payments due at the end of the last financial year showed that the accumulated arrears amounted to£515,800, that is,£308,000 due to be repaid on the principal and£207,800 of interest. That is what the industry had not met at the end of the year, when subsidies were running at a rate 7½per cent. higher than proposed under the Schemes before us tonight. This reveals a worsening of the position compared with the previous year to the extent of£355,700. It is not a very encouraging picture.
In Great Britain as a whole, the situation of the fleet has grown steadily worse. The total arrears are, according to the Annual Report of the White Fish Authority, on principal£746,097 and on interest£508,802, revealing that in Britain as a whole the industry has failed over the past year to meet its commitments to the White Fish Authority by rather more than£1½million. These are staggering figures, and they are to be compared with a deficit for non-payment of moneys due in the previous year of£417,000. In fact, the position has worsened by 200 per cent.

435
In the light of these figures, we have to consider the future. In the main, the figures apply not to the distant water fleet because most of these sections are vertical businesses rather than distant water enterprises only, except that there are some smaller concerns within the distant water fleet which are not covered by the large organisations. In the main, the losses were made by the middle and inshore fleets. The situation for the near and middle-water fleets is serious. Only last week, the Scottish Federation described it as extremely critical. In the circumstances, we must look a little further than the subsidies themselves.
First, however, let us just look at the subsidies a little further. Last week, the Scottish owners said that they thought that there should be a new formula. They felt that, in the light of the present facts, the subsidies ought to be based on need and not on the formula laid down at present. I know that any attempt to differentiate between one and the other would present difficulty, but this is the state to which they are being driven by the results of the industry.
Let us consider what will happen as a result of the Schemes. These are the figures which, I think, most people understand. If one takes the average middle-water boat fishing from Aberdeen, Granton and Lowestoft, they will all suffer substantial reductions compared with last year. At Aberdeen and Granton, the daily subsidy rate goes down from£4 13s. to£2 12s., at Fleetwood from£4 18s. to£2 9s., and at Lowestoft from£2 3s. to£1 4s. This is the sort of pattern throughout the whole of the proposals contained in the Statutory Instrument. But what it means in hard cash to the average trawler owner is that there will be a cut in subsidy of between£700 and£800 per annum.
This is a substantial cut to impose in view of the losses which the fleet has already returned. It is no use the Minister saying that this was to take it over a transitional period, because obviously it is not doing that. This was a provision laid down in the principal Act and which was reached in agreement with the British Trawlers Federation, but I am bound to remind him that it never commended itself to hon. Members on this side. We never believed that it would work from the start,
436
and the Federation very quickly came to the conclusion that this agreement would not work in the industry. This is the position which confronts us, and we must face up to it.
It is the same with the herring industry. I was interested to hear the Minister say that the same applied in this instance, despite the improvement in the herring industry. There has been an improvement, but, as a result of it, it also will receive substantial subsidy cuts. I am sure that my hon. Friends and others will want to ask some questions about the proposal to pay 25s. per cran for commercial use. I know that at present this represents only 1 per cent. of the catch, but what is the intention? Will there be some great industrial expansion which will enable this catch to be used? Is the Minister getting rid of this section of the industry or freeing it to sell its products for industrial purposes? Is that his intention, or does he foresee any development in industrial plants to enable the catch to be used for this purpose? These are questions which must be answered.
I want to direct the Minister's attention to a new passage in the Statutory Instrument. It may have been in previous orders, but I cannot trace it. I refer to paragraph 12, headed "Conditions relating to payments for voyages" in the Statutory Instrument dealing with the white fish industry. Subsection (3) states:
"No grant shall be payable in respect of a voyage if the appropriate Minister is not satisfied that in the course of such voyage fishing has been diligently and vigorously prosecuted."
I cannot remember having seen such a provision in any order before. However, I may be quite wrong. I should be grateful if the Minister would clear up that point.
I should like to know who will make the decision. Who will decide whether during the voyage fishing has been "diligently and vigorously prosecuted"? I think that this is a piece of nonsense and that the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary had better give us a satisfactory explanation or propose an Amendment to remove it. I cannot see the purpose of it and I should like to know exactly what it means.
In its Report, the White Fish Authority says that we have to maintain

437
the industry at its present level over the next ten years. I take it that that refers to the level of catch. But, like the Fleck Committee, it did not make any proposals about how that could be done. This is the important thing. If we are to do this, we have to decide what type of fleet we want to meet our needs.
The only excuse which I could accept from the Minister is that he has never faced up to this problem because we have to wait to see what international agreement we can get and then fit our fleet into the pattern set for Europe. That is the only logical excuse, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman never thought of it, but I give it to him. It would be the only tenable excuse because these subsidies will not do what the White Fish Authority wants to do—they will not give us better boats, newer techniques, better quality, or better marketing. These things must be done by the Government in conjunction with the industry, and only when they settle down to that task will they find a solution to the problems undoubtedly facing the fishing industry. What we are debating tonight will bring no solutions to the problems now facing the near and middle-water fleets. Unless conditions improve tremendously,£700 or£800 will be added to the next annual loss and out of that stage will be born bankruptcy.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Scotland—because the industry is vital to many parts of Scotland where it means the livelihoods of many men—not merely to pay lip service to the industry, or to the part it may play in the service of the country, but to be prepared to take the necessary action to make it possible for men to earn a decent livelihood during their working days.
8.33 p.m.
Mr. J. M. L. Prior: We have all enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy). I am not certain that he was not a little unfair when at one stage he was talking about the white fish subsidy and the automatic reduction of 7½per cent. each year. He said that Opposition Members had made their views perfectly plain and did not consider that this would be enough. There were also doubts from hon. Members on this side of the House,
438
but the Opposition did not vote against the proposal and presumably thought that as the British Trawlers Federation had accepted it, it was reasonable for hon. Members to do so. The onus is very much on the Federation for having accepted the; principle of this scheme under the 1962 legislation. I am glad that the hon. Member mentioned the "extra£5 million" as it was called by the newspapers. This was generally reported throughout the country and gave a completely wrong impression of what the fishing industry was to obtain for the coming year.
The hon. Member's speech showed the difficulty of generalising about the industry. His experience must be very much coloured by what is happening in the Scottish ports, in the same way as my own is coloured a little by what is happening in my own constituency port of Lowestoft, where the picture is a good deal rosier than it is in Scotland. One is bound to reflect that, although some of the difficulties may be due to bad fishing, many could be overcome by good management, The management of the industry at Lowestoft is considerably better than in many other ports. No doubt I shall be shot down for having said that, but I believe it to be true.
One of the difficulties we have had this year is that the near and middle water fleet operating in the North Sea has been catching a lot more fish. This has probably been caused by the cold weather which has driven the fish further south. When we were making big catches in January and February, we were told that we were never again likely to see catches like them, but good catches have continued well into the summer and this again may to; due to the fact that colder water is now coming further down the North Sea. This undoubtedly means that at the moment we are catching more high quality fish than has been caught for many years.
The worry seems to be that although we are catching this good fish, prices in the shops are not rising, and in fact the demand for fish continues to fall. I think that this highlights the main problem of the industry today, which is to catch the right quality fish, and, having caught it, to sell it properly. We must concentrate on getting the marketing side right, be-

439
cause unless we can stabilise the quantity of fish sold, and improve its quality and its marketing, it will not matter what we do on the catching side, which I think will largely look after itself.
I am certain that the distant water fleet is bound to decrease in size over the next few years. It has been catching a lot of poor quality fish for which there is no sale. I think that the owners of the big companies are capable of making the adjustment themselves, and my right hon. Friend's job will surely be to see that the White Fish Authority does not give more grants and loans to build new vessels than is justified by the scrapping policy.
We all welcome the setting up of this fishing conference, but I wonder whether we understand some of the difficulties that my right hon. Friend will have, and is having, in getting the other countries of Europe to sit round the table to discuss these problems with him? I was lucky enough to have the opportunity of going to Lisbon and listening to some of the remarks of our E.F.T.A. partners about the conference. They expressed a desire to co-operate to the full in setting up a fishing conference, but I was left with the impression that they were in no hurry to get round the table with us.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the initiative that he has taken, and which I think he is pursuing urgently. I wish that other countries, whether E.F.T.A. or E.E.C., would regard the conference with the same degree of urgency as we do. I hope that we shall get this conference going by the end of September, but if we do not, I hope that we shall hold it as soon as we can. It would be better to hold it later in the year rather than to try to rush it through and get nowhere with it. I can see only too well that if we try to hold a conference at a too early date it will get nowhere, and the spadework had better be done properly first.
The fishing industry is of vital importance. No one would doubt what the hon. Member for Leith said about it. Like every other primary producing industry, it has difficult days ahead of it. It is producing a commodity in competition with many others. One has only to think of the introduction of the broiler chicken to realise that this could have an enormous impact on the sale of fish,
440
but if the merchanting and catching sides of the industry are prepared to co-operate with one another, I believe that the industry will preserve its own future and enjoy an expanding market. But if, as one fears at the moment, the industry is split up into different sections with the merchants in one part, the retailers in another, the fish friers in yet another, and the catching side standing aloof and not taking much interest in what happens, I think the industry will be in grave difficulty. I hope that my right hon. Friend will do all he can in the next year to bring the various sections of the industry together. This is of great importance. It is with this very much in mind that we welcome the fact that the industry, in England at any rate, is prepared to accept these subsidies for the coming year.
I am certain that from the point of view of my port of Lowestoft a supplementary estimate for six months—when fishermen can see what they are doing for the rest of the year—is much to be preferred to an estimate for the whole year. It is a supplement to the ordinary subsidy, and if the fishermen do not want it they should not have it. On the other hand, if they need it badly, as they may do—because in fishing conditions can change very quickly—by all means let them have it. With those words, I welcome the Schemes.
8.41 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: Following your advice, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall not say very much about the forthcoming conference, except that we realise that it will be of importance. I welcome it and hope that it will succeed. I have only three points to make about it. First, I hope that those who go to it will be very well briefed about the special problems of certain parts of the Scottish coast. Secondly, the question of preservation, which the Minister mentioned as being among the subjects to be discussed, is an important one. Thirdly, I hope that catching methods will be discussed.
This brings me to the question of the herring industry. This year Shetland has had a good herring season. Up to 10 days ago there were good shoals of herring, and prices were good. They have gone now, but even so the season has been successful. As the Scottish boats

441
have gone, I take it that they are getting herring off the Buchan coast. Therefore, the outlook is not too bad.
Nevertheless, we are seeing more and more of these powerful fishing fleets in the North Sea. There are the boats of the Russians and the Poles, and lately there have been 10 or 12 Swedish boats at Lerwick, all trawling for herring. Perhaps it is a pity that they trawl herring. It brings the fish ashore in a bad condition, compared with the condition of herring caught by drift netting, but this is the way that they operate. Some years ago I went out with a well-known skipper, George Leslie, who had an experimental trawl at the stern of his boat. It was a mock-up affair. I do not know whether the Scottish Office or the Herring Board is carrying out experiments at the moment on trawling for herring, or what the view on trawled herring is, but this is a matter which requires close attention. It must be a very powerful method of catching herring. These steel ships, with their up-to-date apparatus, make our ships look rather old-fashioned, to say the least. One wonders how long the drift net will be able to hold its place.
I now want to turn to a specialised matter which is of great importance and urgency for some boats in my constituency. As the Scottish Office at least will know, one difficulty about white fishing at Lerwick is that there is a very small market in Shetland. This does not matter so much to the large boats, because they can either run to Aberdeen or ice the fish aboard and send it down in good condition with the south bound steamers. But the small boats have to look to the market in Lerwick or Scalloway. After there had been a crisis last with the two main buyers—Mac Fisheries and Ice Atlantic—to take the landings at Scalloway and Lerwick, but this arrangement runs only until April in the year, starting again in September.
The reason for this is that Mac Fisheries requires its plant during the summer for freezing herring. At the moment neither Mac Fisheries nor Ice Atlantic is buying white fish; their stores are full and the freezing plant is fully occupied with herring. So, for a period during the summer, practically the only outlet for the catches of the small boats in Shetland—of which there are 15 or 20—is, I am afraid, for, conversion to
442
meal and oil. The catches are sent across to the gut factory in Bressay for processing. The fishermen have been getting a price of 1s. 10d. which is composed of 9d. for the price and 1s. 1d. subsidy. The subsidy for ungutted fish not for human consumption is now being reduced to 6d. This heavy reduction of 7d. will make the fishing unremunerative. I do not regard this as a satisfactory situation even at the best of times. At present good quality haddock is being caught. To my mind, it is wrong that good quality haddock should be sent to a gut factory. So I do not think the situation satisfactory even when it is working well.
But now we are faced with a period during August when there is no market for the fish for human consumption and there is only the unremunerative market provided by the gut factory. For a period the position of the fishermen will be serious. In the long run I think that we should attempt to find another outlet for their catch so that it may be used for human consumption. It may well be that we should go in for bigger boats. But there are these 15 or 20 boats and one or two of them are in places where the Scottish Office is trying to encourage the fishing, starting more or less from scratch. I hope that the Scottish Office will give this problem urgent attention to see what may be done in conjunction with the White Fish Authority.
I do not know what it is possible to do. It is plain that no one can amend the Order and therefore it is impossible to get a greater subsidy maintained for an extra month. It may be possible to make up the difference to these boats in other ways or to find some temporary outlet for the catch. One would think that what ought to happen is that the fish should be well iced and boxed and sent to Aberdeen, But in summer the fish would have to be well handled, and the crews find difficulty in handling the catch on their small boats.
Another thing which could be done would be to try to bring some other buyer to Lerwick or try to persuade Mac Fisheries or Ice Atlantic, even though reluctantly, to take the small amount of fish which is landed by these boats. The maximum landings would be about 240 boxes a day. Although there

443
are 15 or 20 boats they are not all fishing. It would be a serious blow if the crews of these boats left the fishing. It would seem a pity that, for the lack of a market for a comparatively short time, great difficulties should be occasioned to their families. I am sorry to worry the House with this problem which is small as regards the numbers affected though serious. But this is an occasion when we speak of our constituencies, and my constituency will definitely be gravely harmed by the reduction of the subsidy from 1s. 1d. to 6d.
8.48 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Howard: I make no apology, as did the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), for mentioning points affecting my constituency for this is a subject which is very important to my constituents. I am sorry that the Minister is not in the Chamber at the moment because I wish to praise him. Normally I am rather critical of my right hon. Friend on these occasions. He mentioned that it has been a bad year for the pilchard fishing in the West Country. I wish to ask what has been happening about the research into catching methods which the White Fish Authority has been conducting for the past two years. We were told that we should receive an answer soon last September, but we still had no answer. We suppose that the research is proceeding. The matter is one of great importance to my constituents.
I wish to refer to the extraordinary statement on page 4:
"No grant shall be payable in respect of a voyage if the appropriate Minister is not satisfied that in the course of such voyage fishing has been diligently and vigorously prosecuted."
This seems to me a most extraordinary thing to put in a scheme. How anybody can say whether this is being done or not I do not know. I should like to point out that this is one of the reasons why we have been pressing for years that the smaller inshore boats, below 60 ft., should get the day payment. This is one reason why we have had our difficulties. I will not weary the House because I have referred over and over again to the question of unemployment benefits as they affect inshore fishermen. Because of this men tend not to go to sea, and perhaps
444
when they read that paragraph they will be even less inclined to go because of the difficulties which I have mentioned so many times.
I come back once again to the shell fish industry. We have been on this question of limits for 14 years and we were told over and over again that nothing could be done, but, thank goodness, something has been done at last. Therefore, as long as I remain here I shall go on pressing this case for the shell fishermen. In my constituency in Porthleven they are beginning to freeze shell fish, and this will help.
I should like to refer again to the matter of the deputation which I took to the Minister, when we asked if the Government could give some assistance towards the provision of some central plant in Cornwall which would not only deal with processing and freezing fish but also with horticultural produce as well.
I am glad that the Minister has come into the Chamber because I wish to say publicly how grateful I am to him for what he has done on this question of extension of limits. I know that he personally has had a lot to do with it. He served notice in time to take action next year. A year's notice has to be given and it was given in time to reserve our right to extend.
The House will know of the appalling menace of the factory fishing methods. It is reported that in the next few years the Russians will have 750 factory trawlers, and this will be a terrible menace. We have already seen the effects in our part of the world where, by a sort of minesweeping operation, they steam up and down and drag everything out of the sea. This is a very great menace and it has to be dealt with. I am pleased that the Government are doing something about it.
As to policing, we shall have to think carefully on how it is to be done. I am going to make the somewhat revolutionary suggestion that it should be done by helicopter. I think there is no reason why it should not be done in that way, with the appropriate fishery protection vessel in the offing, so that it can be called up at the right moment. We know that helicopters have other jobs to do, such as air-sea rescue, but I suggest that helicopters might be very useful in this

445
regard as they are when used by U.S. coastguards. I hope that the Government attitude will not be too appeasing as on many occasions I have thought that the Foreign Office ought to have "appeasement" written over its door. I hope the Minister will not be swayed by the objections of the French on some obscure agreement which is resting in the dust of some Foreign Office archives. I hope he will not pay too much attention to this as they have not paid very much attention to us in the recent past.
I welcome the Minister's initiative and his preliminary efforts in Lisbon towards convening this conference. We all know that it is extremely necessary at this time. I wish to add my word to those who have said that we should have adequate representation at the conference. Before they set out, those going to the conference should have adequate and frequent consultation with my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he is as pleased as I am to see the setting up of the National Association of Inshore Fishermen, a body of which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) shares with me the presidency. It is a body with the aim of trying to co-ordinate the views of inshore fishermen and I hope for great things in that regard.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the imbalance between E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C. countries. This is extremely important. The Scandinavian countries have large catching fleets and not many people to sell to, while the E.E.C. countries have large populations and not many ships catching fish, but where do we come in? There is often a danger that the Board of Trade is so keen to encourage everything to improve our exports that it is apt to allow things to slide in, such as imports of frozen fish. That is a position which must be watched very carefully. I hope there will be adequate co-ordination between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Board of Trade on this question.
Mr. Soames: It will not have escaped the notice of my hon. Friend that in the agreement we made within E.F.T.A. for the acceleration of tariff reductions fish were mentioned, but there was no acceleration or reduction in tariff when fresh fish or the present fillets were concerned.
Mr. Howard: I know that, but I want to be quite sure that that is kept to.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Leith about long-term policy. While we welcome these subsidies and the help the Government give to the industry, we have to think about the long-term policy. We have had the Fleck Committee and all sort of inquiries into the industry, but they have not produced a long-term answer to its problems. We have dealt with limits, but what is thought about the future of factory ships and different trawling methods and the best grounds to explore in order to catch fish? What sort of ideas are there on first-hand sales? What sort of ideas are there on marketing? Is the supermarket to come in and direct selling to big stores? We want some more definite answer on all these things than we have had in the past. There have been inquiries, but no solution.
There is wholehearted effort by the Government to try to keep the industry going, but we have to face the question of its long-term future. For these reasons I welcome the idea of this and any other conference which can bring people together to develop this great industry which, as my right hon. Friend said, is not so prolific as some people might think. We have to think seriously of conservation and the long-term future. While I welcome the proposals and once again thank my right hon. Friend for what he is doing, I hope that the Government in the year after the conference will be able to give us views a little more definite on the long-term future of this great and vitally important industry.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: I am very much tempted to follow the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) and to have a little fun at the Minister's expense in relation to the paragraph of the Scheme to which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) referred. Even if the three Ministers went to sea and went fishing, I doubt whether they would be able, even though they were on the fishing grounds, to determine whether the fishing had been
"diligently and vigorously prosecuted."

447
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary made a comment under his breath, but I would tell him that so many things are involved in fishing that I question whether he would be able to answer that point even if he were on the fishing grounds. I think that the Minister might look at this provision, because it is nonsensical.
I want to follow the hon. Member for St. Ives on the last point which he made—the policy which the British fishing industry will pursue in the next 10 years. It is accepted by all sides of the industry and by the Minister that these 10 years are the important years in the industry's future. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith closed on this note. But there can be no major policy in the fishing industry until the Government afford the industry the importance and significance which it rightly deserves. We are debating the industry earlier this evening by coincidence, by a slip-up; somebody did not get to the beat as quickly as he should have done. Had he done so, we should have been debating the industry about 2 a.m. This is a disgrace. I believe that the fishing industry is of sufficient importance to the country to justify a full day's debate. I put it to the Minister that he ought to consider the future policy to be pursued by the Government, if they are to be here for long, and the industry as a whole, and that we ought to have a debate in the House on the industry's future policy.
At present the industry is divided into three separate component parts without any co-ordination of any kind, although each of the component parts is vitally dependent on another. It is true that in certain aspects of the industry there is a vertical chain, which means that there is some co-ordination of policy—not much, but some. There is not sufficient even in that section of the industry, and I shall refer to that in a moment. We have the producing side with a complete absence of organisation for fishing; it is pursuing a policy which is most costly in time and money and which compares unfavourably with that of every other fishing nation in the world.
Then there is the merchanting side. In each port there is a multiplicity of merchants working on the basis of a domestic industry. I understand from the Grimsby merchants that pre-war
448
there were 600 merchants in Grimsby, as compared with 400 today. I ask hon. Members to imagine the colossal waste involved in 400 merchants operating in such an industry. There is no control over inland merchanting.
I am fortunate in that I have been deep sea fishing and have gone through most of the processes involved, even inland wholesaling and retailing. There is more money lost to the industry by some of the malpractices in the inland markets than I care to think of. We are putting into the industry subsidies which, according to what the Minister said tonight, are designed to assist it for the next 10 years. I remember our discussions on the Bill under which these subsidies and Orders arise. The deep water fishermen then made a plea—I should say that the companies made a plea, because it is the major combines in the industry that make the plea and not the fishermen themselves—that, if we extended subsidies to the distant water section of the fleet, they would organise themselves and explore possible developments.
The hon. Member for St. Ives asked whether it would be possible to go in for factory fishing, whether it was best to devise the fleet on the basis of stern trawling, or whether it should be a mixture of the refrigeration and the factory ship. The plea was that, if we gave them subsidies in the same way as we were at that time giving subsidies to the inland and middle water sections, they would use the subsidies to organise themselves on the producing side. We have just heard that the British Trawlers Federation is in such dire difficulties as to the future organising of its side of the industry that it wants to limit landings and fishing and, all in all, it wants to contract.
The hon. Member for St. Ives talked about fleet fishing. He condemned the Russians and the Poles for fishing in this way.
Mr. G. R. Howard: I did not condemn them. I merely said that they were fishing in this way and that, unless we had an extension, there would be a grave threat to our inshore fishermen.
Mr. Loughlin: I invite the hon. Gentleman to read in Hansard tomorrow morning what he said a few minutes ago.

449
I went to sea last year. The best way to examine this problem is to go to the fishing grounds and see what is going on and what the deficiencies are on the producing side. I had the privilege of being a guest aboard the Grimsby trawler "Northern Jewel" owned by Associated Fisheries. We went to Bear Island and I went along for two main reasons. I wanted, first, to bring myself up to date on the latest navigational and fish-finding aids. Great strides forward have been made with this equipment and I wanted to learn about the latest methods. Secondly, I wanted to see if any changes had taken place in the organisation for fishing as a result of the introduction of the latest instruments.
I saw just how wasteful is the British fishing industry. I am not being discourteous to the company of which I was a guest. After my visit I prepared a memorandum and sent it to the firm. I indicated the sort of criticisms and suggestions I had in mind, pointed out that I intended to make use of the information I had gained but said that I would gladly consider any information they would wish to give me on my views. I have yet to receive a reply from the company. It seems that it is so much concerned with the industry and the importance of fishing that when an hon. Member of Parliament makes certain suggestions and criticisms it does not take the trouble to reply to his letter. I say this without wishing to be discourteous to the firm.
The ship on which I was a guest was skippered by probably the most efficient captain I have ever known—and my brother is a skipper. His approach, including his attitude to the latest scientific aids, was excellent. He had all the necessary records with him and, particularly from the scientific point of view, he is probably more efficient than a great proportion of the skippers fishing from this country. This ship is owned by a company within a combine, and within that combine are a large number of companies. I regret to say that there is absolutely no co-ordination of the activities of the various subsidiaries and, to prove this, I give merely one example.
When we were on the fishing grounds there was a fish stop. On the V.H.F. radio a conversation was going on and
450
I gathered that the fish were running in a certain spot. We were searching for fish, as were a number of Grimsby and Hull trawlers belonging to the same combine. We eventually discovered that a ship of a sister company to the "Northern Jewel" had discovered where the fish were running. That sister ship was fishing on grounds along with the Russian fleet, the German and Scandinavian fleets and, more important, the Norwegian ships which were fishing for the British market. We were searching for fish and I thought then, as I do now, that all the time that trawlers spend searching for fish costs a great deal of money. If British trawlers are wasting time and money on the fishing grounds the subsidies are being wasted.
What happened was that before the fish ran off the other countries' ships had got their pilot boats away and were searching for the fish. They transmitted their information back to the ship that was in charge of the fleet, and they all steamed off. We eventually came across them again, fishing as fleets. That means that they were producing fish at a far cheaper rate, because they were able the catch in quantity without waste of time or money—because it must be remembered that when a vessel is finding the fish it is using a lot of expensive fuel. If we were producing fish at the same rate, I am convinced that these subsidies, particularly for the deep-sea side of the: industry, would be such chicken feed that they would not matter.
When considering paying these subsidies we must first get clearly in our minds what we want to do. Do we simply want to bolster up an industry that does not desire to be efficient? Associated Fisheries, apparently, does not want to know anything about the co-ordinating of ships on the fishing grounds, and if that is so it cannot plead with us far assistance. The situation is fantastic. If we have an enormous number of ships operating in the same combine for the same owners but so organised as to make ours the most inefficient industry in the whole of the Continent of Europe, at least, and we are then asked to subsidise the vessels, it is in the nature of a scandal.
We must tell the industry, tell the British Trawlers Federation, that we are prepared to give it every possible assistance, that we will accept that it

451
makes a tremendous contribution to our food supplies and to our balance of payments problem, and is vital in defence, but that if it wants Government assistance for an unlimited period it must be prepared to make itself a little more efficient.
As to the forthcoming conference to which the Minister has referred, it will be recalled that I asked him whether he intended to consult various sections of the industry. I understand that the merchants whom we met quite recently have complained that they have never been consulted by the Minister on the Conference or on any other matter. I say to the Government that the only possible way to secure efficiency in the industry and a successful conference is by obtaining the opinions of all sections of the industry, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leith said, the workers' side.
The fact that I criticise the industry does not mean that I am standing on the sidelines carping about its defects. I think that the industry will have increased difficulties next year when the limits are extended to twelve miles, and in waters other than those to which the limit applies at present. At the moment a very high proportion of our Iceland fleet is fishing round the 6-mile limit. I received a letter at the weekend from a friend who is a working skipper in the industry. He says that while he is not too badly off at present he does not know what will happen to British fishermen fishing the Iceland grounds in twelve months' time.
It is essential that the Minister should look again at our relationship with Iceland in the matter of the 12-mile limit, because this will mean in part a 24-mile limit. It will mean that the Iceland fishermen will scoop the cream of Iceland fishing. This has nothing whatever to do with conservation. It means that the Iceland Government are hoarding to themselves a fishing ground which traditionally has been part and parcel of the British fishing grounds.
I do not think that we should have a 12-mile limit here, but in our attitude towards other Governments on the question of fishing limits we must be a little tougher than we have been in the past. I do not believe in gunboat diplomacy. I do not believe that although possibly
452
from a military point of view we could bully Iceland or bully Denmark in relation to the Faroes we should do that. That type of diplomacy and of bullying is a bad thing in which to indulge, but we, too, ought not to be bullied. We should at least be saying that if the attitude is to be that the British fisherman is to be denied the traditional fishing grounds we shall have to look clearly at the question of the landings of fish in this country by the nationals of countries which seek to exclude us from those fishing grounds. I hope the Minister will exercise his authority with his Cabinet colleagues so that we can have a full-dress debate on the problems of the fishing industry, which will enable us to formulate a policy acceptable by both sides of the industry, and that he will at least attempt to introduce into the industry a policy that will be worth while not only for the ten years for which these subsidies are supposed to operate but beyond that period.
9.26 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: When the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) started his speech he was far from fair. He implied that the Government took little interest in the fishing industry. He knows as well as I do that we spent long hours debating the 1962 Act which is an extremely important Measure.
The hon. Gentleman has already, in a way, paid tribute to the Government for calling this fisheries conference, when he said that this conference will be vital to the future of this country's fishing industry. Criticisms have been levelled against the state of the industry, but the matters complained of were largely beyond the control of the industry. I am thinking of matters like fishery limits, and so on.
The hon. Member referred to the timing of the debates on these subjects. Up to about three years ago I would have agreed with him. We seemed to make a habit of debating fishing at midnight. But I think it is true to say that due to pressure from the Minister, and through the usual channels, we now normally debate fishing at a reasonable hour. I cannot see a queue of Members waiting to speak, and I should be very surprised if this debate were to continue until a very late hour.
Mr. Loughlin: I should like the hon. Member to be absolutely fair. I said that we were by coincidence debating this matter early tonight because somebody on the Front Bench, either on the Government side or on our side of the House, failed to rise to his feet when the previous Question was put.
Mr. Wall: I apologise. I remember the hon. Gentleman made that point. But it is my understanding that it has always been assumed that this debate would start at some time between 7 o'clock and 8 o'clock, so I do not think the hon. Member was quite fair in his criticism.
The hon. Gentleman said that the industry was too compartmentalised—in other words, that the catching section was too divorced from the merchants and so on. I entirely agree. The burden of the hon. Member's speech was, however, devoted to criticising the catching section of the industry. I think he was a little unfair. We heard along account of his experiences, and I wondered what he was getting at. I understood him to say that trawlers of other nations seemed to be able to find fish, communicate with other vessels in the fleet, and follow the run of the fish better than we can. I should have thought that the trawler on which he was sailing was unlucky, for I understand that our fleets do communicate by R/T. I may be rather unkind, but it seemed to me that the real burden of the hon. Gentleman's complaint was that his suggestions had not received a reply from the company concerned and that he was cross about it.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Iceland. I would refer to the danger not of the existing 12-mile limit but of the possibility that the Icelandic Government might try to push it up to 100 fathoms. That would be very dangerous indeed. However, our agreement with Iceland which ended our last dispute includes the safeguard that any further dispute arising from any further extension of limits could be taken to the International Court.
The burden of the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), who opened for the Opposition, was that the industry had suffered pretty severe losses this year, as it did last year, with particular reference to Scotland. All English Members accept that Scotland
454
has had severe losses. I do not think that one can say that these subsidies affect the Scottish industry unfairly. If my arithmetic is correct, the Scottish fleet represents something like 30 per cent. of the total, and I believe that it is receiving about 40 per cent. of the subsidies, so I think that the balance is in Scotland's favour, as it should be, and is about right—
Mr. William Ross: We have more losses.
Mr. Wall: —and 40 per cent. of the subsidies which should compensate in some way for the losses. I suggest, therefore, that the subsidy is going where it is mainly needed.
I take it that it will not be argued that, because the industry has had a bad year, the whole design of the 1962 Act to cut the subsidies by 7½per cent. each year and tail them off in 10 years is wrong and that we should pay more subsidy to compensate for the greater losses this year. If that were the argument, it would not be based on reason. The truth is that we actually caught more fish last year, but the fish fetched less money. In other words, an answer to the problem lies in quality. If we caught better quality fish, the industry would not have such severe losses as it has today.
Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman should take his argument a little further. He, together with other hon. Members, met the retail merchants recently. They, perhaps, have benefited, but the catching industry, which is what we are talking about now, says that it has had to bear increased losses but there has been no corresponding reflection in reduced prices to the consumer. The price to the consumer has remained the same.
Mr. Wall: I accept that, but I think that the point I was making is clear to the hon. Gentleman. The industry has had two bad years, and I suggest that we must examine the background of the problem as it affects the two principal sections of it, the catching section and the merchanting section.
As the hon. Member for Leith reminded us, the returns to the producers fell by£2½million last year while, at the same time, the purchaser in the fish shop and the fish and chip shop gained no benefit because their prices did not fall.

455
Why was this? There are certain basic reasons. One is that we have too large a fleet. The merging of the distant and middle water sections has meant that too many vessels are fishing off Iceland, and to a large extent off Bear Island and other areas. Also, of course, the extension of limits off Iceland and, next year, off the Faroes makes fishing more difficult, particularly fishing for quality fish. I understand that 60 per cent. of the vessels which were constructed with grants and loans are, in fact, in arrears on their annual repayments, showing that this section of the industry is not in a very happy position.
When we met the merchants, I was impressed that their theme song was "Better quality". They say that, if they had better quality fish, a lot of the trouble would disappear. Not only better quality is required but better public relations or better advertising. Obviously, schools and institutions try to buy fairly cheaply and sometimes receive poor quality fish. If a child is given cheap fish which is rather unpleasant, he does not buy fish when he grows older. It is most important that good quality fish should be sold, and that it should be bought particularly by the schools.
One wonders, also, whether the merchants could do something to help themselves. It has already been said that there are 400 merchants in Grimsby. This is a very large number, and there seems to be a good case for rationalisation.
Against this background it has been suggested that supplies should be limited to 15 million cwts. a year and that 3 million cwts. of this should be imported. This, of course, would require a licensing system and statutory minimum prices, and the whole scheme would have to be controlled by a special organisation or Fish Supplies Board. The suggestion has merits; under it, the producer would get a fair return for his fish, and it could mean better quality for the consumer. But it also has great defects because, as hon. Members on both sides have pointed out, this is a restrictive scheme and it is going against the whole trend of world trade. We are trying to increase trade. Therefore, it did not, and I think rightly, receive a very good Press. Again, it must depend on foreign agreement. If
456
we restrict our own markets, we must restrict imports, but will other countries agree to that?
The industry is facing difficulties which sometimes are not within its own control, such as reductions of its traditional fishing grounds and demands for better quality fish, which create a need for a different type of ship. The industry in Hull has almost completely re-equipped itself since the war with modern deep water vessels. Now it probably needs ships like the stern-fishing "Junella" which can freeze fish on board. This means further sums in re-equipment when the majority of the fleet are already modern ships. In other words, it looks as if further money will have to be spent, which means that some will have been wasted.
It is of supreme importance to have a conference to try to get agreement between the various fishing nations not only on markets but on limits. The Minister pointed out that this necessitates agreement between members of the European Economic Community and members of the European Free Trade Association. They must come together. I think that the industry would indeed render a service to the world if it could come to such an agreement. Agreements between the Six and the Seven have not been very frequent or notable!
Obviously British limits must be discussed at this conference. There is a very strong case for extending the British limits. Surely what we really want is a standard limit throughout Western Europe. It may be six miles or it may be 12 miles, but let us at least have a standard limit, and at the same time have similar rights of landings and common agreement on the setting up of processing plant among the countries which sign whatever agreements come out of the conference.
It is clear that this conference is vital to the future of the industry, and we cannot get much further in discussing the type of fleet that we want until this conference has met and until, as we all hope, it reaches agreement, because, whatever is to be done in the future, must be done in conjunction with other fishing nations of Western Europe.
Finally, may I say a word or two about the White Fish Authority, which,

457
after all, administers all the loans and subsidies that we are discussing. The Authority has been in existence for 12 years. One wonders how much it has done for the industry. Obviously, I should be out of order if I went too deeply into this question, but I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would make it clear to the new chairman, who has an excellent record, that the great fishing ports of this country where the Authority is not very popular would be prepared to pay the new levy and to support it provided it did something positive for the industry and does not duplicate research and advertising which the industry is carrying out itself.
I believe that this is the last chance for the Authority, which is an expensive organisation. It must show the industry that it is working for the industry and is doing a special service for it. If it cannot prove this, I commend to the Minister's attention an editorial in the Fishing News of 12th July, which suggested that it might be replaced by four fisheries boards for England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, I will not develop that point because I should be ruled out of order if I did. I commend this view to the Minister and hope that he will make it clear to the new chairman that the industry expects the Authority to do the research that is needed but not to duplicate work which is already being done by the various sections of the fishing industry.
9.39 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Crosland: I shall be very brief because most of what I feel at the moment concerns either the question of grants and loans or the rôle of the White Fish Authority. Unlike the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), I shall leave that to a more suitable occasion next week when we shall be discussing the doubling of the levy.
I want to make three brief points, but before doing so I must deal with the references which the hon. Member for Haltemprice made to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). The hon. Gentleman totally missed the point of what my hon. Friend was trying to say. My hon. Friend was making the well-known point—it is well-known at any rate to anyone who has been trawling—that whereas foreign trawlers tend to fish in fleets British trawlers tend to fish in highly
458
competitive individual units. Unlike the foreign trawlers fishing in fleets, British skippers typically do not exchange information about where the fish is. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that this was not a very efficient way of fishing and I could not see that he merited the rebuke which the hon. Member gave him.
Mr. Wall: The point I was making was that British ships in the same company do exchange this information. This is how they find their fish.
Mr. Crosland: The hon. Member's knowledge is slightly out of date in this respect.
The three points which I want to make are all brief. First, looking back to 1962, the trouble with the industry was quite simply that production went up and consumption went down. Those are the two main figures which stand out in the calculations, and they led to lower average values for production. There are two possible alternative ways of dealing with this. One is the way which the British Trawlers Federation wants, which is to reduce production, and the other is to do something about increasing consumption. I very much agree with those hon. Members who have stressed that there cannot be any question of accepting some B.T.F. inspired restriction plan until far more has been done by the industry itself to improve the distribution and marketing side and to increase consumption by increasing quality and the efficiency of distribution.
The second point concerns the Minister's remark about subsidies coming to 10 per cent. of gross income. When I pressed him on this, he went on to say that profits in the industry were virtually zero so that the subsidy amounted to the whole of the industry's profit, as it were. This gives a correct impression provided that one is not thinking in terms of actual financial units in the industry. If one is thinking in terms of trawlers, it gives an accurate impression, but if the trawlers are owned by particular firms and one then thinks in terms of those firms, it gives a rather false impression.
For the two largest firms in the industry, Ross and Associated, trawling amounts to less than 50 per cent. of group turnover. Ross Group trawling is only about 8½per cent. of total group turnover and for Associated the figure is

459
about 38 per cent. Most of the rest of the turnover is perfectly profitable and although these two companies had a bad year in 1962, with a decline in profits, over the last five years—and I am happy to say this because the prosperity of Grimsby is founded upon them to a considerable extent—there has been a substantial rise in trading profit, net profit, and the amounts earned on ordinary capital and paid on ordinary capital.
This has always been one of the difficulties about subsidies. We all want to pay subsidies to the industry, but this involves paying money to companies making very healthy levels of profits. I do not know a way out of this. It would be very hard to discriminate between one company and another and it may be that there is no solution, but it remains an anxiety about the whole subsidy scheme that while all the money goes to individual vessels which need it some goes to companies which do not.
The third point is that we have heard a lot from the British Trawlers Federation and others about the threats which imports pose to the prosperity of the industry. But imports cannot be used as the scapegoat for 1962, because in that year they showed a rather surprising and sharp decline. One of the few encouraging things about 1962 was that it was a year in which the balance of imports and exports for the fishing industry changed substantially in our favour. There was a marked decline in imports and a marked increase in exports.
I very much welcome this increase because a Grimsby firm, Britfish, is largely responsible for it. It has been extremely go-ahead in opening up markets in frozen fish, in Soviet Russia and Australia particularly, but all over the world. It is an encouraging sign that these efforts are now beginning to reflect themselves in steadily rising export figures.
9.45 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I agree that herring fishermen have had a better year this year, and naturally I am very pleased that the grounds off the Scottish coasts have proved more lucrative than they have in the past few years, but the subsidy for these fishermen has been cut, and although it is true that they have made more
460
money this year than in previous years, the fact remains that they are as subject to the cost of living index as anybody else. As prices rise, the cost of their materials increases. They have to pay more for their nets and other equipment, and although they may make more of a profit, they find themselves having to pay more on outlay to make their profit. This cut in subsidy is a serious matter to them.
In particular, I draw attention to the change in the direct grant of 25s. per cran on all herring sent for fish meal and oil. Fishermen are angry about this. My right hon. Friend can say that only 1 per cent. of the fish caught last year was used in this way by the industry, but last year fewer herring were caught than in any year of which I know. In a good year when many herring are caught this market is of prime importance to the fishermen. It is used for absorbing the vast majority of their catch if they catch anything like the number that they used to do in the old days. They are now told that they will get 25s. a cran for their catch this year, and they do not know what will happen in the future.
What, they ask, is the purpose of the Herring Industry Board? The indications are that they are going to be responsible for marketing and selling their catch themselves. The whole business is being put back into their hands. A field in which the Herring Industry Board had a virtual monopoly for several years is suddenly handed back to them, and they are told to get on with the job. Not unnaturally this make them angry.
I often wonder what position in the administrative life of this country is comparable to the position of the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority. The National Coal Board runs the coal industry. The Railways Board runs the railways. The Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority are there, and have a big influence on the industry, but they do not run it. I often wonder what the farmers of this country would think if the allocation of their subsidies was considered not to be a normal function of civil servants. Speaking as a Scotsman, I regret very much the apparent lack of faith in the Scottish Office which appoints two large boards to administer an industry, which could do it itself if it was given the chance and the necessary co-operation with the Scottish Office.

461
This has one other serious consequence. It means that the fishermen take less and less interest in the administration and running of their industry because they feel that there is so little they can do about what is happening in it. I heard on the telephone tonight that representatives from my part of the world were asked to discuss these Orders in Edinburgh today with a view to their point of view being put forward during the debate in the House tomorrow. If this is so, they were completely misinformed, even about the date, but at any rate it is significant of the feeling that they have, that their interest in the progression and development of their industry is increasingly being disregarded. Personally as a general rule I would prefer to trust the wisdom of men who have to go down to the sea in ships and make them pay rather than those who simply sit in comfort in Whitehall or Edinburgh.
There are two other matters to which I wish to refer. One was raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) who referred to the use of trawls to catch herring. This is an experiment which is being conducted by the Herring Industry Board.
It is a very destructive way of catching herring. Many people in the industry wonder whether it is wise to continue with this kind of research and create a catching process which could sweep the seas in exactly the same way as we accuse the foreigners of sweeping the seas at the moment. If, as I hope, the extension of our limits comes before too long, conservation will be as important for our inshore industry as the catching of fish, especially herring. I am certain that we shall be able to catch all the herring we need for our own market by the traditional methods, without having to use the trawl at all.
I want to make one final point about the conference which we have discussed so much this evening. It is of great importance to Scotland. There seems to be some disparity of view in the industry about this conference, and about many other matters growing up between the British Trawlers Federation and the inshore fishermen. The inshore fishermen of Scotland are a tremendously important
462
part of the country's economy, and I hope that in the course of these discussions their voice will be given due weight.
9.51 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): The discussion this evening has covered three Statutory Instruments affecting all the main sections of our fishing fleet. Attention has naturally focussed very much on the problem of the major trawling ports. I in no way underestimate the difficulties to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) and others have referred, and which affect this section of the industry, but it would be right to view the fortunes of this section in their true proportion, and in relation to the fortunes of the other sections—the inshore and the herring fleets—and the contribution that they make to our fishing industry as a whole.
The trawling fleet provides the main balance of the catch in the United Kingdom, but it employs only about 12,000 fishermen, whereas it is estimated that 15,000 are employed, either full-time or part-time, in the inshore and herring fleets. The inshore fleet plays a much larger rôle in the life of Scotland. About 60 per cent. of the white fish, herring and shellfish landed at the Scottish ports is landed by small boat fishermen.
In the course of the debate hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), said that it was extremely difficult to generalise. Their speeches have reflected wide regional variations. This industry, probably more than any other, has fluctuating fortunes, not only from year to year, month to month and even day to day, but between the various sections of the fleet and the various ports.
As my right hon. Friend explained, the English distant water fleet has not done at all well during the early months of this year. The earnings of the English near and middle water fleet, on the other hand, have been substantially better this year, while the Scottish trawling results have been slightly worse. With inshore fishermen, and especially herring fishermen, there has been a marked improvement in results during the past year, and this improvement has been maintained during the early months of this year. That is the overall picture.

463
I now come to the difficulties, within this broad picture, of the trawling industry. I do not want to minimise it or to argue detailed figures with the hon. Member for Leith, owing to the variation which all hon. Members have stressed. One could draw a wide variety of conclusions by a selected choice of figures, but the broad basis on which we all agree is that the majority of vessels in the Scottish near and middle water fleets—and they are in the most difficult position—are making operating profits.
I accept the hon. Member's contention that they are making overall losses. But when we are considering policy in general, so long as they are paying their way on the immediate operating profits, the problems relating to meeting their obligations to the White Fish Authority and laying aside reserves for replacement purposes are longer term. I suggest that it cannot be argued that there is an immediate pressure for any sort of fundamental change in the subsidy policy such as was suggested by the hon. Member for Leith. He said that we should look beyond the subsidy when considering those problems and that has been the general opinion during the debate. It was referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Lowestoft and St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) and by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). They all drew attention to the broad problems of marketing, access to fishing grounds and conservation. There has been general agreement when considering this underlying problem, which must be solved to achieve the general objective of securing a sound and viable industry, that in the long term attention must centre on international arrangements and the outcome of the conference to which my right hon. Friend referred.
To turn now to specific issues which have been raised I wish to mention the detailed point raised by the hon. Member for Leith and the hon. Member for St. Ives cm paragraph 12(3) of the White Fish Scheme which states:
"No grant shall be payable in respect of a voyage if the appropriate Minister is not satisfied that in the course of such voyage fishing has been diligently and vigorously prosecuted."
This is a new provision introduced to deal with a limited number of cases and
464
to give a reserve power to the Minister in cases where a vessel has made a number of unsuccessful voyages and the subsidy represents a high proportion of the total proceeds. This has happened in a limited number of cases but it was felt right to include such a provision so that the Minister should have reserve power to withhold the subsidy.
Mr. Hoy: One would have thought that the Minister would have mentioned this sanction when he introduced the Scheme. Who is to say whether the fishermen have been fishing diligently? In view of the considerable losses which have been made, I will not argue that. It is possible for the crew of a vessel to have a run of bad luck. The hon. Gentleman says that there are a small number of cases. How many cases have occurred? If he cannot produce better proof than that, I suggest that this provision be scrapped altogether.
Mr. Brooman-White: There are cases where the subsidy represents a considerable proportion. When the inspectors consider the claims, they will be in a position to make a pretty reasonable judgment about whether a vessel has been persistently making unsuccessful voyages and whether the subsidy represents a high proportion of the total proceeds.
Mr. Loughlin: This is a serious problem. A crew may have a series of bad trips and, therefore, the subsidy will be needed more. Often fishermen are fishing more diligently and harder when they do not get a good catch. The Minister must not smile and brush this matter aside. There may be a series of bad voyages although the crew may be fishing diligently. How is the Minister to determine whether or not that is happening?
Mr. Brooman-White: The obvious yardstick is the direct relationship between that vessel and other vessels of a similar type fishing in similar waters in the same area and unless the discrepancy was very glaring, and inexplicable by the ordinary standards of the industry, no action would be taken.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft, the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and others have referred to the marketing problems of the industry which are

465
obviously of great importance, and I think it has been agreed that a major improvement in marketing conditions is inextricably associated with import policy, which again turns on the developments in the international field, Hon. Members will have noticed that my right hon. Friend in his opening remarks stressed the importance he attaches—I am sure that the White Fish Authority will also—to carrying out any improvements that can be made while these long-term and wider discussions are taking place.
The hon. Member for Leith referred to the special subsidy arrangements for Scotland, and the six months' condition. My right hon. Friend intervened to say that the Scottish industry has initially asked for a subsidy covering the entire period, and I think that he will appreciate, from the remarks that have been made, that there is a substantial advantage in the changed circumstances between the last six months of last year and the first six months of this year, to withhold half the subsidy until one sees whether these are ephemeral changes or whether they will continue throughout the whole year, before the subsidies, which are aimed at assisting special cases of difficulty, are committed to the latter part of the year.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) referred to specific questions of interest to his constituency and to herring, to which I shall come in a moment. Perhaps I might mention first the question of the lower rate of subsidy for white fish in the smaller categories. He will appreciate that the 1s. 3d. rate can be obtained for gutted fish irrespective of the use to which they are put. We entirely appreciate the special difficulties of his area and of a certain number of boats in finding a market for fish for human consumption, rather than using them for industrial purposes. Discussions are continuing with those concerned in the industry and in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, and this is a specific local marketing problem to which we should very much like to find an answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives mentioned again a local difficulty on pilchards. He appreciates that the existing subsidy is high in relation to the
466
value of the fish. But the investigations, of which he has been patiently awaiting the outcome, have been completed and a report is being prepared and should shortly be available. My hon. Friend also raised the question, which he persistently pursues, of shellfish. Shellfish have been unsubsidised and remain unsubsidised, but total landings have been increasing. They get a degree of assistance in rebates for fuel, eligibility of grants for new vessels and a degree of tariff assistance.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, dealing with herring problems, referred to the specific question of hearing trawling. He asked if we were carrying out investigations. We are, and Appendix B of the Board's Annual Report gives an account of the trials in 1962. He asked about the dangers of foreign herring fishing and its possible impact on stocks. The scientists have been reassuring on this point. They do not think on the evidence they have that fishing in the Orkney and Shetland area is having any damaging effect on supplies.
A wider point which he raised was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) and the hon. Member for Leith. That was about the 25s. arrangement for oil and meal. This is a payment irrespective of season of 25s. per cran for herring landed at certain ports. I understand that the manufacturers of oil and meal are prepared to offer fishermen in the region of£7 10s. a ton, 25s. a cran, and the total return would be about50s. gross. Although there is a wide variation in transport costs, the fishermen, after meeting the industry's levy and harbour dues and the transport costs, will overall be in a slightly more favourable position.
At the same time, the new arrangements will represent a substantial economy to the Board. Difficulties have arisen in maintaining a large administrative and processing structure to deal with this very small proportion of total landings. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East expressed apprehension about this, but I do not think it is shared generally throughout the industry. This is a practical arrangement which was thoroughly discussed with the industry. He said that in the herring fishing industry there was despondency and a

467
feeling that the fishermen were not fully in the picture and did not have a voice in these affairs, but he went on to say that a conference was held yesterday. That was a discussion of certain detailed points which had no relation to the briefing for this debate, but it is a good instance of the degree in which the industry is kept in consultation and of the general wish that the men should share in the planning and development of their future.
Those are the main points raised by hon. Members. I can assure the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) that his experience with sea fishing vessels has been different from mine, as perhaps I am not quite so good a sailor as he is. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been agreed on the approach to the fundamental problem. They have welcomed the efforts made to get at the long-term root of the difficulties of the industry. I hope that in that context the House will accept these Schemes.
Mr. Hoy: With the leave of the House, I must tell the hon. Member that his reply about Scottish fishing is not very satisfactory, nor do we accept the argument that we must accept that the cost of the repayment for the vessel, depreciation, and interest to the White Fish Authority is not part of the operating costs. That
468
is a complete nonsense which is trundled out from St. Andrew's House year by year.
The trawler owner must meet this cost. He has entered into a commitment with the White Fish Authority, and the money must be repaid over a period of years. The interest on it must be met. It can be met only out of the operations of the vessel. The hon. Member should not use that argument again, even if it comes from a well-written brief by civil servants. I ask him to look into the matter himself and to consider whether any business could possibly operate without taking into account expenditure on capital equipment, depreciation and the interest charges which have to be met. No other industry is expected to do that, and it should not be expected of the fishing industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
Herring Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme 1963, [copy laid before the House, 4th July], approved.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]
White Fish and Herring Subsidies (Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order 1963, [copy laid before the House, 4th July], approved.—[Mr. Soames.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COMPENSATION) REGULATIONS
10.12 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Matthews: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government (Compensation) Regulations 1963 (S.I., 1963, No. 999), dated 27th May 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th May, be annulled.
As the House is aware, many local government officers will soon have their career prospects seriously upset by the impending reorganisation of local government into larger units. The financial commitment in terms of compensation payable is likely to be only quite small. Such a reorganisation occurs only once in a lifetime, and there will be only one series of claims from the current programme of reform. We are not faced with a continuing process of compensation claims from year to year.
In those circumstances, I hope that we can afford to be generous in the compensation which we pay to local government officers who are displaced by the reorganisation. In any case, I submit that it is wrong in equity that victims of reform should be penalised. I must admit that some hardship is inevitable in a major reorganisation of this kind. It is perhaps impossible to devise a completely just system of compensation, but many hon. Members who represent constituencies which are affected by the Boundary Commission's proposals are not entirely satisfied with the present regulations.
We feel that the Regulations follow too closely upon the post-war code which has been designed to compensate employees affected by the nationalisation of our basic industries and the introduction of the National Health Service. This post-war code has very little application to the position of local government officers. For example, railway employees were not public servants. They did not enjoy the same security of tenure as is enjoyed by the employees of local authorities. They did not enjoy the expectation of a secure job and a pension at the end of it. This has often been used as an excuse why these officers
470
should be paid a lower salary than their opposite numbers in commerce and industry, and therefore it seems to me that it is only fair, when we talk about resettlement, long-term and retirement compensation, that we should treat them generously.
I must admit that the present Regulations are a considerable improvement on the Local Government Act, 1948. Why should there not be a further improvement?' For instance, when the Inland Revenue took over rating valuations very few employees lost their jobs. They were transferred. I believe that the same will apply in this case. When this happens and the boundaries are changed, very few officers will be affected by it.
I will now deal with one or two specific criticisms. First and most important is the question of net emoluments, the fact that the compensation is to be based on the net figure of emoluments and not on the gross. The long-term and resettlement compensation appears to me to be based upon the "take-it-home" figure. This could be understood if compensation were to be at 100 per cent. As it can never exceed two-thirds of the previous earnings and in most cases will be much less than two-thirds, the adherence to this formula can only be described as mean.
We must not overlook the fact that loss of office and diminution in emoluments both obstruct an employee's chances of earning a pension which he could have expected to have earned had there been no reorganisation. The added years provision given to certain officers under Regulation No. 23 for the purpose of retirement compensation goes some way to making good the loss of pension prospects, but it does not compensate for the very much greater pension which the younger officer could have expected to earn had his career progressed in the normal way. The younger officer does not get the added years benefit. I believe that there is more resentment in local government circles over the application of this rule of net emoluments than over any other aspect of the Regulations.
I want to refer to the restriction of resettlement compensation to 13 weeks in certain cases. Under the present conditions, 13 weeks is all too short a

471
period to enable an employee to find another job. It is not just a question of finding a job but of finding the right job. A case could be made for the full 100 per cent. compensation during the first 13 weeks, reducing to two-thirds for the second 13 weeks. The resettlement period is bound to be more expensive for the displaced employee. What with travelling expenses to interviews and keeping up appearances, it is bound to cost him more than when he is in a settled job. The award of 100 per cent. for the first 13 weeks and reducing thereafter would encourage claimants to get finally settled in the earlier period without making it a sheer necessity to take the first job offered, however suitable or unsuitable it might be.
My third criticism is the complexity of the Regulations. Very few employees will be able to judge their position under the Regulations without the advice of a specialist. Even with a specialist's advice, they will not know their entitlement until four things have happened. First, the compensating authority must have given its decision. Secondly, the result of any appeal must be known. Thirdly, the review must have been conducted within a two-year period. Fourthly, the result of any appeal under the review must be known. All that employees will know for certain is that any compensation cannot exceed two-thirds of the net emoluments.
I suggest That the only just solution would be to make the compensation ascertainable by a fixed mathematical formula, the only bars to it being the acceptance of equivalent employment in the public service or unreasonable refusal to accept such employment. Under such a solution I am sure that justice would follow with jobs in local government going to some and those who were unlucky being compensated by a readily ascertained amount.
My fourth criticism is that there appears to be no safeguard against inflation. The danger here can best be appreciated by this example. An employee whose net emoluments are, say,£1,000 suffers a£200 loss in those emoluments and the compensation in these circumstances will be less than£200. Without promotion, but simply as a result of the national increases in salary
472
scales, his salary creeps back to£1,000. From that point on he loses his compensation under Regulation No. 35(5), and before that time his compensation will have been reduced to ensure that salary plus compensation never exceed£1,000. He is, in fact, just as badly off as before. The£1,000 is probably worth only£800 by the standards obtaining when compensation was first awarded.
It may be argued that the Pensions (Increase) Acts will deal with this question of inflation, that retirement compensation will be covered and that, if necessary, long-term compensation could be considered by the House. The answer is that local government officers would feel happier if the safety of their long-term compensation was written into the Regulations. No Pensions (Increase) Act will help the man who has suffered a diminution in emoluments and is caught by Regulation No. 35(5).
My final criticism is that an employee cannot refuse what is called "reasonably comparable employment", even if the job offered him is of a lower status or seniority. I agree that an employee who is offered an equivalent job under another authority should not qualify for compensation, but the expression used in the Regulations is dangerously wide. It is expressly stated that he cannot refuse employment in another service or in another part of the country. In this way, an employee may be forced to take a job which he feels unable to do satisfactorily.
For example, an engineer to a rural district council may be forced to accept an appointment in an architect's department of the compensating authority, although he may have no housing experience. A clerk of a rural district council may be forced to accept an appointment under the treasurer of another authority, although he may have little knowledge of accountancy. If he has to move to another part of the country he will be involved in considerable removal expenses, for which no provision is made in the Regulations.
The Regulations enable the compensating authority to relent in cases of undue hardship, ill-health or circumstances beyond the claimant's control, but this is vague. The question might be asked whether his wife's refusal to move more than 50 miles is a circumstance beyond

473
his control? Many local and government employees in my constituency are likely to be affected by the boundary changes. They fear that considerable injustices will result from these Regulations.
Local authorities which are threatened by the Boundary Commission's proposals—as is one of the local authorities in my constituency—are losing their staff rapidly and are finding it difficult to replace them. They are being obliged to pay increased salaries to attract the necessary staff as replacements and more money than necessary is probably spent out of public funds to keep the local government administration going in districts of this kind. This is partly due to the unsettled state of mind of thousands of employees who feel themselves threatened by these Regulations. They are trying to be loyal to the authorities they serve, but they are possessed of unnecessary fears. I hope that tonight my right hon. Friend will be able to give an assurance that will lay those fears at rest.
10.25 p.m.
Mr. John E. Talbot: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Matthews), I am interested in this subject from a constituency angle because, of my four constituency local authorities, three are doomed to disappear if the empire-building propensities of the Ministry are allowed to continue unchecked. While I express reservations about this Instrument, I think that a word of congratulation is due to the Ministry on its very comprehensive and well-thought-out nature.
If I thought that any considerable number of local government servants would require the use of these Regulations I would be far more critical of them than I intend to be, because it is quite clear to me that nine out of ten local government employees who are due to change their masters as a result of reorganisation will almost certainly get employment at once, and often on terms as good as, or better than, those they now enjoy. The sum total of manpower requirements of local authorities will not be diminished by amalgamation—if anything, they will increase.
I believe that this Instrument will mainly be applicable to senior men
474
whose posts have become redundant because of amalgamation. In the case of my three authorities I can see that particularly applying to senior officers in the three authorities I have mentioned, who will quite conceivably be asked to take relatively junior posts in the amalgamating authority which, I think I can say without fear of contradiction, will give a measure of priority to its own servants. I do not think that these Regulations adequately cover that feature.
I particularly instance the case of the senior official who is at, near or past his sixtieth birthday. It is quite clear that under these Regulations he will be expected to take a junior post at a drop of salary on amalgamation. That is wrong. If we, for our own convenience, and for the purpose of the efficiency—very questionable—of local government, decide to create redundancy on this scale we should accept the liability of maintaining those men's salaries until they reach the normal retiring age of 65.
Yet throughout the Regulations there is a regular insistence on a two-thirds limit of compensation, so that if am officer is not fortunate enough or able enough to get a post comparable in salary with the one that is coming to an end, he will most certainly suffer in position. Very few people may be affected in that way, but none should be. We should see that the senior man whose job is being taken from him has the option of retiring at age 60 on the pension he would have received had he continued in office till the age of 65.
Like my hon. Friend, I have to confess my inadequacy in attempting to formulate on paper quite what all the consequences of this carefully prepared document will be. But, as I am concentrating on Section 15(2) which seems in all circumstances to make an upper limit of two-thirds compensation, I think that I am right in saying that the case I have instanced is one that should receive further consideration by the Minister. He should not compel a senior man who has, perhaps, given long service as clerk, surveyor or treasurer with a smaller authority to retire on bad terms or in a junior post under a man whom he may have seen coming up the ladder long behind him, in a larger authority because it is the acquiring authority for the purposes of the Minister's amalgamations.

475
The other point to which I want to draw attention in the Regulations is the arrangements made for appeal, which, as stated in the last page of the Explanatory Note, lie to a tribunal appointed by the Minister of Labour. When I refer to the paragraph of interpretation I see that "tribunal" means
"a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour after consultation with the Lord Chancellor".
If there is to be an appeal under an Act—and there must be—the appeal should be to a body which is obviously and plainly independent of the Government and of the local authority in any shape or form and the president of the tribunal should be a barrister or solicitor of 15 years' standing appointed by the Lord Chancellor. He should have as two assessors one local authority representative nominated by the particular organisation which is appropriate, the County Councils' Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, or any other; and the other should be a representative of the society or trade union to which the officer in question belongs. Such a tribunal would be completely independent and appear to be so.
I have an indifferent faith in Ministerial justice, and I like to think that we could increase the number of instances where it is not left to some Ministerial nominee to make the final decisions; but they should be made by a judicial body with complete judicial impartiality without the slightest taint of miasma of administrative convenience.
So with these major exceptions to which I hope the Minister will give further thought, I would end by saying that these Regulations, which are not easy to understand, have been the subject of a good deal of thought and consideration, and are not brought to Parliament with that degree of perceptive consideration for the persons who are going to be affected by them which one has the right to expect. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will agree to take them back and think something out to deal with the points my hon. Friend and I have attempted to make.
10.33 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: Let me congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Matthews) on raising this
476
matter. I listened with great interest to what he said. The only point where I would disagree with him was where he criticised the Regulations for their complexity. They are complex, but I do not see how it would be possible to do justice to the people concerned with them if the Regulations were to be altered in the sense in which both he and I would like them altered, and I doubt whether they would be less complex at the end. I do not think there is a remedy for this in the complicated society in which we live. This does emphasise the importance of people belonging to a trade union or professional association which can, in circumstances like these, advise them on what their rights are. This is by no means the only case where we have this problem, but, as I say frankly, the only remedy for it would be to live in a far less sophisticated society.
I hope the Minister will give a good deal of attention to what his hon. Friend has said. The very fact that only a few people are likely to be affected by these Regulations should make it all the more easy to be generous. This is not a usual transaction. We shall not, I imagine, be conducting overhauls of local government, on the scale envisaged as a result of the 1958 Act, with all that degree of frequency, and the Government need not be unduly apprehensive about creating too many precedents. We are dealing here with a problem which is not strictly analogous to any other.
To comment briefly on some of the points made by hon. Members, on the question of the two-thirds limit I would draw attention to how rigorously that is imposed under Regulation 15. It is put in in addition to all the things that are in Regulation 15(3) about circumstances in which an employee claimant above a certain age can get an extra one-sixtieth here and am extra one-sixtieth there. It is all carefully provided for in 15(3), and if at the end somebody finished with a bit more than two-thirds it would not ruin the Government or the ratepayers or anybody if he were allowed to get away with it. We have also put in 15(2), which is a further limitation.
I should also like to reinforce what has been said about the passage in

477
Regulation 7 concerning comparable employment which may require a man to move from one place to another. It might be said that that is partly qualified by what follows in 7(3), where the authority is not to take into account an offer of employment if acceptance would involve undue hardship. If hon. Members read that and the preceding bit together, what is the position if the claimant has been offered comparable employment which requires him to move to another part of England and Wales, which is quite a wide area, and he argues that that very fact in his circumstances constitutes undue hardship?
On which leg does the authority then stand? Can it say, "It would involve undue hardship and, therefore, we will not consider this in your case as an offer of comparable employment", or does it stand on the other leg and say, "We cannot regard this as undue hardship because the Regulation expressly says that the fact that it requires you to move to another part of England and Wales should not be a bar to its being regarded as comparable employment"?
I draw attention to Regulation 14, which seems to be worded very widely and vaguely indeed. It says that:
"For the purpose of determining whether long-term or retirement compensation…should be paid to a claimant, and if so the amount of compensation…"
certain following things should be taken into account. Some of the following things could be properly relevant in determining the amount of compensation, but it is giving a very wide discretion to the authority if it is also to determine whether compensation is to be paid at all. I know that there is the final safeguard of the tribunal for the claimant. In that respect the Parliamentary Secretary may like to consider the points advanced by the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot).
Finally, there is the possible shrinkage in the real value of compensation as a result of changes in the value of money. We are here faced with what is part of a larger problem. The position of a considerable number of people is constantly being threatened by the fact that the value of money tends to decline over the years and nothing can be done except by special action by Parliament by way of a Pensions (Increase) Act, or something of that kind, whereas most other
478
persons can take action through their trade unions or professional association to try to step up their incomes when the value of money falls.
This is an important general problem for the reason that, as far as I can see, the general verdict of history is that it is very difficult for any community to have a growing and expanding economy without the value of money falling over the years. It need not fall catastrophically, but it is universally considered that a moderately rising price level seems an almost inescapable condton of growth in the actual wealth of a community. It would take a college of economists to argue out why that should be so, but it appears to happen over and over again. What that means is that, even on the best assumption, the economy as a whole is growing and expanding so that there is more wealth about. As I say, those of us who are working and have organisations through which we can press claims to increase our money incomes can manage, but it means that those for whom action by Parliament is necessary to step up their money incomes are always at the end of the queue. They see other people getting a larger share of the total amount of real wealth produced, and generally nothing is done for them until the public conscience begins to be uneasy.
Therefore, we ought to have somewhere in our Governmental machinery provision for the permanent, regular and periodic consideration of all the groups of people in this position so that they shall feel that just as the wage earner or salary earner has a weapon at his hand in hit; professional organisation to see that he is not left behind in the race, they also have provided for them in the mechanism of Government a weapon that works automatically to ensure that they are not left too far behind.
This is taking the matter a bit wider than the scope of these Regulations, but the fact that some of the people here might be hit in this fashion draws our attention yet again to the problem of those whose incomes are fixed in money terms and where action by Parliament is required to do anything to help them.
One of the drawbacks of procedure by Prayer is that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meriden, his hon. Friends and I were to take resolute action—and I doubt whether the Government could at this hour mobilise sufficient support to

479
defeat us—and carry the Prayer against the Regulations, for the moment the people concerned would have no certainty that they would get anything at all. It would depend on what time and in what form the Government produced new Regulations. That is always our difficulty in the procedure of praying. It is a difficulty that the Minister could help us to surmount if he would recommend the House to accept the Prayer, but make it quite clear and categoric at the same time that he proposed within a definite time limit to introduce new Regulations embodying, at any rate, some of the points that have been raised this evening.
10.43 p.m.
Mr. John Biffen: My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Matthews) developed a comprehensive and temperately argued case in favour of this Prayer, and I do not wish to add very much to what has been said, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot), I have got some constituency interest in this problem, for Shropshire will certainly be affected by local government reorganisation.
I should like to refer to one aspect of these Regulations which certainly disquiets me, and that is the dogmatic insistence on dealing with net emoluments. One of the arguments which will be advanced in favour of the system of net emoluments in these Regulations is that this system of compensation has been applied to the considerable number of compensation Regulations that have been introduced since the end of the war, and in some cases they have affected local government officers. This, to my mind, is a very defensive and, on the whole, thoroughly unimaginative reaction to this problem. I should have thought that local government reorganisation is one aspect of a problem—the problem of change—which is certainly going to be with us to an increasing extent over the next decade or so.
In these circumstances, particularly where the numbers involved are comparatively small, I would have thought that there was a very good case for the Government to err on the side of generosity, and certainly not shelter behind the argument "We have not done any better than
480
this in the past, and we have no intention of being any more generous now." I would imagine that in the circumstances of today one would be looking to the Government to give a lead in the matter of redundancy and that they would set an example which one would hope would be extended to other fields of employment, both private and public.
Therefore, I regret that the Government have shown themselves still anxious to stick to the principle of net emoluments, because I believe that of all the reprehensible features in the Regulations which have caused concern among local government officers, perhaps the issue of net emoluments has caused most grievance. I hope that even at this late stage the Government may have second thoughts.
10.46 p.m.
Mr. G. B. Drayson: As at some future date these Regulations may well affect local government officers in my constituency, I have been asked to protest against certain provisions in them. I would add that I know of no definite proposals at the moment affecting any of my local government areas, but as it is a very large and scattered district in the West Riding of Yorkshire it may well be that at some future date it will become involved in some form of reorganisation.
Hon. Members having dealt with the main points of the Regulations about which there is criticism, my attention is particularly drawn to the fact that there is no provision for reviewing the long-term compensation when its real value drops due to inflation. It is pointed out to me that:
"It is true that, in the past, periodical pensions increases Acts have applied to compensation."
I wonder whether the Minister can give some assurance that these Regulations will be covered by any future pensions or compensation increase Act which might be brought forward.
My constituents concerned go on to say that they consider that
"Regulation 14(l)(c) is particularly regrettable as an officer may lose compensation through failure to accept alternative non-local government employment which may be offered to him."
They say:
"Surely this will cause officers to leave, or avoid applying for, posts which may become

481
redundant. Although each officer and employing authority retain their independence, yet we have for years been taught to look on local government employment as a service apart from the individuality of councils."
These officers say that it seems to them:
"that, if an officer loyally sees his authority through amalgamation or alteration, he is then in grave danger of either being forced to take a post repugnant to him or lose compensation to which he would otherwise be entitled,"
I do not want to go over the points raised on Regulation 15(2)(a) and Regulation 15(3)(a), but it seems to me that the terms are by no means generous. The point having been well made to the Minister by other speakers, I hope that he will find it possible to look at these parts of the Regulations again and see whether he cannot bring in some amendment at a later stage.
10.49 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I think it would be helpful if I reminded the House of the background against which these regulations have been made. It is that of the post-war code which was introduced in 1948 to meet the nationalisation and other reorganisations which were going on at the time. That code differs from the 1933 code in two basic principles; and these two differences have been preserved throughout every code of compensation since the war.
The first difference is that, under the old code, there was no qualifying period, whereas under the post-war code there is a three-year qualifying period for resettlement compensation and an eight-year qualifying period for long-term compensation. Also, under the old code, no account was taken of alternative employment outside the public service. This second matter has been the subject of one of the criticisms which have been made against these Regulations.
Several of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) have said that this is not something which is likely to arise very often, and, therefore, we ought to be generous. But I must remind the House that the basic code is applied over a much wider area than the local government service in the content which we have been discussing tonight. The post-war code has already been applied in 19 sets of
482
regulations, and the various improvements which have been negotiated in it have already been incorporated in the British Transport Commission reorganisation code which the House recently passed. So it must be appreciated that the repercussions of being generous are not confined to the relatively few people with whom we are concerned today. I think that most of my hon. Friends have an even smaller class of person in mind, namely, the clerks to rural district councils, who, as a body, have, I think, been responsible for most of the protests against the terms of the Regulations.
The hon. Member for Fulham and my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) raised the question of insurance against inflation. The House needs no reminder that this is a matter which goes far wider even than the 19 sets of regulations to which I have already referred; it covers every single form of public service pensioner and, indeed, National Insurance pensioner. Rightly or wrongly, it has never been accepted by any Government that it is right to build into a pension scheme or compensation scheme an automatic adjustment to meet the fall in the value of money. I do not recall the figures at the moment, but I remember putting a Question to the Treasury some years ago about this, and the amount of money that would be involved in such an operation was astronomical. I do not think that there is a case for selecting this particular group of public servants and saying that they, and they alone, shall be protected for all time against the fall in the value of money as against all the vast number of other public servants, many of them every bit as deserving and in circumstances every bit as needy in the event of serious inflation. I hope that the House will not press for special provision in this particular case.
The other main argument has been directed at the fact that the compensation arrangements, as distinct from the pension arrangements, are based on net emoluments. The logic of this is simply that these compensation arrangements are themselves based on take-home pay, so to speak, that is, on pay less the superannuation contribution, whereas the basis of the pension arrangements is gross pay, because at that stage the claimant ceases

483
to make any contribution and draws the full pension.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Matthews), who covered, I think, most of the points which other hon. Members raised, first made the point that we should be generous. I have already explained that to be more generous than we are being would have greater repercussions than appear at first sight. I would remind the House that within the two basic differences between this code and the pre-war one very substantial improvements have been made. I could read them out, but I shall not. They run to two foolscap pages, and there are substantial improvements in nearly all the sections with which this set of Regulations deals.
These Regulations have been the result of very prolonged consultation with the various local government officers' associations. They started in 1960, when formal consultations took place, but it was made clear that any particular local government officers' association that wished to come and discuss the matter with my Department could do so. Many of them did so, both in the initial discussions and in further discussions after the first draft, as a result of which a number of further improvements were negotiated, and again in discussions after the second draft. I would point out that the Society of Clerks of Rural District Councils took advantage of that invitation on two occasions.
I do not attempt to maintain that all the points that everybody raised were met. Indeed, this would be a very unlikely result of any negotiations, because there is always somebody who will seek further improvements, and it is not uncommon for people to ask for a little more than they expect to get. Genuine improvements have been made, and, as the hon. Member for Fulham pointed out, I do not think that it would be a service to these people to postpone the making of these Regulations, acknowledging that we have a number of reorganisations pending and people want to know where they stand.
I admit that the Regulations are complex, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we live in too complex a society to make it possible always to make these things very simple. I have no doubt
484
that the vast majority of officers concerned will belong to some professional organisation which will be very competent to advise them.
The other matter which appears to be troubling my hon. Friends is the question of taking into account the prospects of other employment, and here again I wonder whether it really would be sense to say that money should be paid out of public funds, sometimes to relatively young officers, irrespective of their ability to find work elsewhere, and irrespective indeed of the prospects in that new employment. This is one of the basic differences between these two codes. It is based on the much better prospect of finding employment today, and I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot), in particular, that an officer retired at sixty gets five years' notional service added to his service from the point of view of calculating his retirement compensation, and he can in fact opt to take his retirement compensation at sixty instead of sixty-five. The only thing he loses is the effect which any increase that he might have got between sixty and sixty-five might have had on his pension, but these are all somewhat problematical sums to work out.
It is not true to say that the older officer has been badly treated. On the contrary, the adding of notional years both under the compensation terms and under the pension terms is much more generous than it has been in the past and considerable improvements were made during the course of the negotiations to which I have referred.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill attacked, I think a little unfairly, the tribunal which deals with appeals on these occasions. It is a tribunal set up by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and this is the first criticism that I have heard of it. I am not aware of any criticisms of the way in which it works, or the decisions to which it comes, having been levelled by local government officers or the staff organisations with whom we have been negotiating. If myhon. Friend has any grounds for believing that this is an unsatisfactory tribunal I will certainly examine them, but I have no grounds for that belief; indeed the evidence that I have is very much to the contrary.

485
Although I am a lawyer, and am perhaps speaking against my profession in this, I believe that there are occasions when one wants to interpret regulations of this sort a little more widely than in the strictly legalistic manner which precedent so often imposes upon a strictly legal tribunal. I do not agree that of necessity, in a matter of this sort, one need have the very legal tribunal in the sense outlined by my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Fulham raised the question whether or not a demand to move, or a situation where the only prospect of getting a job involved moving to another part of the country, would constitute hardship. I can only think that this would depend on individual circumstances. I can imagine a case where a man might be an invalid, or have an invalid wife, where there might be hardship, but it would not be wise to say that this would be so in general.
I would remind the House, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, that in talking in terms of expectations the senior officers—the people who expect to get to the top of the tree in this field—do not expect to stay in the same local authority for the whole of their lives. The way to the top, particularly in the clerk's line of country, is very much by moving from smaller to larger local authorities as opportunity permits. Indeed, few of them have a security of tenure, in the strictly legal sense, of more than a month. That is the usual contractual term under which dismissal can be given on either side.
With that background I recommend to the House these Regulations, as providing terms which are by no means ungenerous. They are a very substantial improvement, within the broad framework of the post-war period, on the previous terms and the codes which have been available to other public servants in similar conditions, and they will no doubt, as has already happened in the case of the railways, set a precedent in other farms of public service. I hope that the House will accept them, bearing in mind that this is a matter which, as the hon. Member for Fulham has said, really needs to be made clear in the interests of these officers, and bearing in mind, too, that these are both much improved, and generous. Indeed, perhaps I can
486
finish on a personal note. When I first saw this Prayer put down I looked up the file and found my own note sitting on the top, saying, "These seem to me to be very generous Regulations". I still believe that, and I commend them to the House.
Mr. Matthews: In view of the explanation which my hon. Friend has given us in regard to the repercussions of these compensation Regulations on regulations in respect of other professions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SPORT (COACHING FACILITIES)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
11.4 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The proposition which I wish to state is this: that Sir Patrick Renison, Co-ordinator of Sport, be asked to draw up a report on the possibility of a vastly extended hierarchy of regional and national coaches to be paid out of the Vote of the Minister responsible for sport and organised either by the Central Council of Physical Recreation or by a sports council. What I am asking for is the creation of a recognised coaching profession with that security and promotion opportunity which provides that elusive thing which we call "status". A coaching profession would help my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to attain his object of which he told the Sports Writers Association yesterday:
"I believe in giving every lad and girl a chance to reach the top."
I shall define the functions of the ordinary area coach as I see them.
First, he should have responsibility for a sport or group of sports in a manageable geographical area. For example, one man could be responsible for cricket and rugby in East Sussex, another specialist in tennis, badminton and squash in Luton, a woman might be responsible for swimming in Flint, and a man could be concerned wholly with athletics in an area such as the Lothians.
The second function of an area coach should be to seek out others who should be honorary amateur coaches,

487
encourage them, help to train them and keep them up-to-date. This point was emphasised to me by Dennis Fallowes, the secretary of the Football Association.
The third function should be that in school holiday time the coach should organise courses of a week or a fortnight, perhaps, at a camping centre or a centre such as that of Lillieshall at Largs, for intensive coaching of pupils in their chosen sport, with the reservation that if he had to do this coaching the chores of secretarial work should be done for him, perhaps in some existing educational establishment.
His fourth function is that in term time he should have arrangements with schools in his area, particularly primary schools where boys in particular are thirsting for knowledge of sport, have an appetite for first-class instruction, and are amenable to coaching. In many primary schools there is no games master, or indeed, any male member of staff. If a 12-year-old cannot play football, this often leads to personality restrictions and disadvantages when he goes to secondary school and manifests itself in certain traits centred on lack of confidence.
The fifth function of the coach is to do everything possible to tide pupils over the critical gap if they leave school at 15 until such time as they are acceptable to adult clubs. In this context floodlight facilities multiply the value of equipment for those who finish work at half-past 5 or 6 o'clock.
The sixth function of the coach is to keep in close personal touch with all potential international athletes in his area.
May I make the best use of my limited time by deploying the objections to these sorts of arguments.
The first objection is that perhaps this would be a certain un-British professionalisation. Is it not legitimate to formulate the equation "that playing a game better equals enjoying it more?" Merely on the grounds of a calculus of happiness it follows that coaching should be as widely available as possible because sports well done are infinitely more worth while than the efforts of untrained, uncoached all-rounders. Yet the techniques of sports cannot be learned by individual intuition any more than
488
French grammar or chemistry can be learned by individual intuition.
The second objection to this sort of theme centres round expenditure. If the scheme could be gradually built up to 2,500 coaches their salaries would come eventually to something of the order of£5 million a year. I emphasise that it would have to be built up gradually. This in no sense contradicts what the Leader of the Opposition said about the promise of the Labour Party, if elected, to give£5 million to sport. I remind the Minister that last year the Chancellor took from the football pools some£29,724,000, and surely some of this money could be returned to where it came from. Enough money is taken out of sport, and some, at least, should be put back.
This brings me to the question of taxation. I quote from the honorary secretary of the A.A.A., Mr. E. H. L. Clynes, who writes to me:
"This is a question that we have been pursuing through official quarters for many years but without any success apart from the fact that income tax inspectors have always dealt with our Association with every consideration within their powers of discretion within the existing law. The income tax authorities have refused our plea that our organisation and the work it does is charitable and therefore entitled to exemption, although a major part of the Association's work is in teaching teachers and other persons how to become honorary coaches as well as teaching athletes for which work we are grant-aided by the Ministry of Education authorities."
The third objection to a coaching scheme of the size which I have indicated is that perhaps it may be argued that physical education teachers are already doing the job. I yield to none in paying tribute to many physical education teachers, who give up hours of their time in the evenings and on Saturdays for no extra remuneration at all. Yet there is ample scope for visiting specialist coaches. In secondary schools, in football alone, a start has been made; through the good work of the English F.A.—not the Scottish F.A.—six visits a year are given by expert coaches to many secondary schools. This is good as far as it goes. But in almost all primary schools and in helping school leavers hopefully at multi-sports centres, which should be erected up and down the country during the next two decades on the lines of that being put up at Crystal Palace, there is ample scope for coaching.

489
I am the last person to want to Iron-Curtainise British sport. But the fact is that a school has been formed in Budapest for 200 outstanding 10-year-olds—outstanding at football; and these lads are boarded together in hostels and apprenticed to the six top clubs, Honved, M.T.K., Vasas, Ferencvaros, Upjest and Tatabanya, Hungary's leading coaches, including a former international goalkeeper, Grosics, Sandor and Bosik, who was captain at Wembley in 1953, and incidentally a Hungarian Member of Parliament, improve their soccer education between their normal schooling.
I am not asking for a soccer school. I am asking that attention should be paid to the F.A.'s chief coach, Alan Wade, when he says that boys of seven years old should get specialised coaching. If this sort of argument seems objectionable in a football context, why is it that we all approved of Dame Ninette de Valois' efforts in ballet coaching of children younger than seven?
The fourth objection is in the question, where are the coaches to come from? The fact is that the Lawn Tennis Association has 4,000 to 5,000 honorary coaches, and it is doubtful whether 10per cent. are usefully employed in coaching lawn tennis. There is an adequate pool for schools to draw from.
Finally, the fifth objection is that all this is too far biased towards producing stars. I can only say that I wish that coaches should be particularly asked to do their best for the enthusiastic "rabbit" to bring out such abilities as he has, even, if those abilities are rather sparse. Here I should stress the importance of individual games, because in individual games the "rabbit" can find his level without embarrassment. If this seems almost grotesque I would remind the Minister that in the public schools it is taken for granted. The coach in tennis, racquets or squash is usually of a high standard, a champion, and, similarly, they have a county cricketer to look after the cricket. What the public schools in this way seem to deem important should be extended as far as possible.
The sixth objection—and this is the one that I think the Minister may well raise—is that it should all be left to
490
the governing bodies. But this simply will not do. One concrete example, which could be repeated, over all areas is better than a generalisation. The Scottish Amateur Athletic Association had one distinguished over-worked, under-paid national coach. He resigned in December, 1961, and for him there was no replacement. I quote from the recent debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on Thursday, 11th July. The Minister, the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), said:
"The hon. Member for West Lothian asked about the amount of salary given by the Department to the national coach. In 1961 it was 80 per cent. of the salary and superannuation. He also asked about the replacement of the national athletics coach. The S.C.P.R. decided in 1961 to cense running the athletics coaching scheme, and the coach was transferred to other work where, I understand, his experience has been of great help. The responsibility fell back upon die Scottish Athletics Association. The Scottish Education Department met this Association and urged that, possibly, they could, together, with the Scottish Women's Athletics Association, set up their own scheme and employ a full-time coach. Apparently, they decided to rely instead on part-time coaches, and both of these organisations receive grants for their schemes. If either organisation or both wanted again to come to the Department to put further proposals regarding the employment of a coach, they would be considered as sympathetically as before."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 11th July 1961; c. 221.]
That is what the Minister had to say on this occasion; we may ask why no one has been appointed.
The question arises as to whether the sport can be left in the hands often of rather haphazard organisations. I believe that in this instance it is not the fault of the Ministry which would like a coach appointed and which pays 80 per cent. of the salary. It is fairly and squarely the fault of the amateur body. I think that one has to ask, who are the losers in this situation? Not the hierarchy of the Scottish Amateur Athletics Association. Its officials can still go to the championships with the British party regardless of the percentage of Scottish representatives.
The young people of Britain are really the losers. Sport is for most people an essential part of the whole business of growing up, and it is far too important to be left entirely to amateur organisations, which may be alive, like, for instance, the Scottish Lawn Tennis

491
Association, or asleep like the Scottish Amateur Athletics Association. I use this just as an example. It can be repeated many times over.
I have not set up a series of Aunt Sallies. These are the objections of substance to the proposals that I have made. I find these objections not overwhelming. At least they are worthy of a full investigation.
11.19 p.m.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I only want to trouble you, Mr. Speaker, for a moment or two in order to express my warm agreement with the general argument which has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I should like to give a personal illustration, if you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, of what I believe to be the potential importance of a really comprehensive and efficient coaching scheme. If I had been in charge of such a coaching scheme in 1956, I believe that I could have persuaded the Parliamentary Secretary to spend one more year of his life competing on the track, and I have always been convinced that, if he had done so, he would have proved that he was of Olympic Gold Medal class, that he was defeated by Kutz in Melbourne only because he was struck by a virus infection, and that he would have made a world record which certainly would not have damaged his subsequent political career.
I am glad to have these words on the record in Hansard and I only add, as I do not want to cut the Parliamentary Secretary's time, that for fifty years—I speak very feelingly of what was said and done fifty years ago, because I was then competing on the track—we in this country have had far too much sanctimonious humbug about professionalising British sport. Thank God, it is dying away, but it is not yet quite gone. We need a comprehensive coaching scheme with a lot more Government money of the kind which my hon. Friend has sketched which reaches right down to the enthusiastic rabbit by whose support sport really lives.
11.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway): At this hour, which is con-
492
siderably earlier than I had originally expected, I find it all the easier to welcome the initiative of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in raising this subject. I am obviously particularly glad to have the opportunity of speaking on this subject about these services, of which I have been a satisfied consumer in the past.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) had some extremely kindly things to say about me which only add to the warm regard in which I have always held his views about athletics since the time when as a busy Minister he used to find time to write to me, an undergraduate at Oxford, about the training that I ought to follow. If I had thought that I could by staying in athletics for a year or two more have secured a higher place in an Olympic race than the right hon. Gentleman, I would have done so.
The proposition that the hon. Member for West Lothian puts to the House tonight is that there should be one unified coaching system. I think that this is an element of the suggestion that he was making. He urges that there should be a great expansion of coaching and that we should look to the professional coach for more assistance. I am not personally one of those who defend the amateur principle with the upmost vigour, and I am certainly not one to argue that professional coaching would in any way be damaging to British sport.
The hon. Gentleman might wish me to outline the very varied coaching arrangements that exist at the moment so that we may better judge at the end whether it would be right to have one coaching system. There are, broadly speaking, four ways in which training facilities are provided. The first is by the C.C.P.R.—in Scotland, by the S.C.P.R.—at the national recreation centres, three in England and Wales, one in Scotland, through courses for coaches and leaders and through coaching holidays, in a wide variety of sports and activities. I have a good deal of first-hand knowledge of the Central Council for Physical Recreation, and I believe that the expansion of its activities in recent years is a most valuable contribution to coaching and to sport. The second is by the specialist sports organisations—at national recreation centres, often in conjunction with the

493
C.C.P.R. and at other centres: courses for coaches and leaders are run by national coaches, honorary coaches and professionals. Run by the specialist sports organisations, there are courses conducted more locally by coaches and professionals. Thirdly, some local education authorities provide coaching in the form of training courses, mainly for school leavers. Fourthly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are the training colleges which offer courses in physical education for specialist teachers.
Those are the means by which coaching is provided to thousands of young people, and the Government have been anxious to expand the provision of coaching in all these forms. The grants to the C.C.P.R. and the S.C.P.R. have been substantially raised over the past three years. The C.C.P.R., which was running on a grant of£140,000 in 1960–61, has this year£245,000 in grant from the Ministry of Education. The S.C.P.R., which had a grant of£19,500 in 1960–61, now has£40,000 from the Scottish Education Department. That is a measure of the increase in activity in these two bodies.
Such specialist sports organisations as the Amateur Athletic Association, the Amateur Swimming Association, and so on, have equally been provided with larger grants in recent years, and grants to a total of over£42,000 have already been offered in this current year to 19 specialist sports organisations in England and Wales and to eight in Scotland. Applications from a number of other bodies are still under consideration. Just three years ago, the corresponding total of grants was about a quarter of the present sum.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, many of these specialist bodies have national coaches. The hon. Gentleman referred again to the question of a national athletics coach in Scotland. I cannot add a great deal to what was said by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, but it is clear that the Scottish Amateur Athletic Association and the Scottish Women's A.A.A. decided against employing a national coach and in favour of running separate coaching schemes relying on part-time coaches. I am not in a position to say whether or not that was a sensible decision—it does
494
not seem to me to be self-evident that it was an unwise one.
The hon. Gentleman may be in a better position to judge, but I must confess that a slight shiver went down my spine—he may think it a very reactionary shiver down a reactionary spine—when he speculated on whether sport can be left in the hands of rather haphazard organisations. I have never objected to fierce criticism of the administrators of sport as long as, at the same time, tribute is paid to the hard work they do simply for love of the sport, but it seems to me to be a very different thing to say that coaching must be taken out of the hands of these bodies, which have an undoubted enthusiasm for their sport and have built up considerable experience over the years.
I do not believe that this would be the right way to proceed. We want to build upon the coaching schemes that have already been successfully launched.
Perhaps I may quickly say a word or two about facilities, too, because we cannot coach if we have not somewhere to do the coaching, and it is of importance, therefore, that we are seeing a very substantial expansion in the provision of sporting facilities of all kinds. It is of interest that the local authorities have increased their expenditure very greatly in recent years. The value of work done by local authorities on facilities exclusively for sport totalled only£2·6 million in 1960–61, and rose to£8½million in 1962–63 and is estimated at£11 million for the current year. The hon. Member quoted the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition as saying that a Labour Government would give another£5 million to sport. Well, I do not know what exactly this means, over what period or to what type of sport, but the hon. Member will see that in, that sphere alone there has been a rise of considerably more than that sum in the last three years.
I could give him other figures, had I the time, for the increase in expenditure by local education authorities. This is mainly, of course, on sports facilities at schools, colleges, and so on, but we are paying a good deal of attention at the moment to the possibilities of providing facilities which can be useful to the community as a whole. Under the measures announced by my noble Friend

495
the Lord President a few weeks ago we can look forward to progress from voluntary bodies. At present, starts are being made by voluntary sports bodies at a level of about£500,000 a year, and it is our intention to increase those starts to something like£1½million by 1965–66, and the terms upon which grants can be given have been relaxed. Important, too, in the provision of sports facilities, and in coaching, is the youth service building programme, because increasingly we are seeing sports projects attached to youth clubs. I believe this is a very useful development. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that a sports hall, which can be a multi-purpose sports centre of which he was talking the other day, is an increasingly popular idea, I think, in youth service circles. We have not got the time to discuss what he means by a multi-sports centre, but a sports
496
hall can accommodate a great variety of sports.
In short, then, there is an expansion both of coaching and of the facilities which are necessary to any coaching system, and I believe that we should do better to expand the many coaching systems which we have rather than concentrate upon one unified scheme, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. But I am entirely with him in believing that an expansion of coaching is desirable, be cause the problem in this country is not simply to provide the sports facilities which young people want—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Twelve o'clock

PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Admiralty Works Department (Transferred Staff)
  Admiralty Works Department (Transferred Staff)
  Crown Offices, Buckhaven
  Crown Offices, Buckhaven
  Expenditure (London and Scotland)
  Expenditure (London and Scotland)
  State House, Holborn (Staff)
  State House, Holborn (Staff)
  D.S.I.R. (Headquarters Staff)
  D.S.I.R. (Headquarters Staff)
  Weeks Report
  Weeks Report
  Military Works Services (Reorganisation)
  Military Works Services (Reorganisation)
  Industrialised Building
  Industrialised Building
  Shipyards (Building Components)
  Shipyards (Building Components)
  Furniture Beetle and Death-watch Beetle (Leaflet)
  Furniture Beetle and Death-watch Beetle (Leaflet)
  Treasury and Nos. 10 and 12 Downing Street
  Treasury and Nos. 10 and 12 Downing Street
  Knightsbridge Barracks
  Knightsbridge Barracks
  Research Facilities, Scotland
  Research Facilities, Scotland
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Oxford and Reading
  Oxford and Reading
  Technical Officers
  Technical Officers
  Aberdeen
  Aberdeen
POST OFFICE
  Special Stamps (Freedom From Hunger)
  Special Stamps (Freedom From Hunger)
  Telegrams
  Telegrams
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Hull
  Hull
  North-East Norfolk
  North-East Norfolk
  Television Sets (Design)
  Television Sets (Design)
  Television Aerials
  Television Aerials
  New Stations (Cost)
  New Stations (Cost)
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Commonwealth University
  Commonwealth University
  Commonwealth Bursaries and Scholarships Scheme
  Commonwealth Bursaries and Scholarships Scheme
  Financial Assistance
  Financial Assistance
  University Staff (Special Awards)
  University Staff (Special Awards)
  Bechuanaland (Registrars of Co-operative Societies)
  Bechuanaland (Registrars of Co-operative Societies)
  Commonwealth Teachers Act, 1960
  Commonwealth Teachers Act, 1960
SCIENCE
  British Scientists, United States
  British Scientists, United States
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Civil Research (Expenditure)
  Civil Research (Expenditure)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Hillheads Allotments, Whitley Bay
  Hillheads Allotments, Whitley Bay
  Historic Buildings
  Historic Buildings
  Tree Preservation Orders
  Tree Preservation Orders
  Rating Inquiry
  Rating Inquiry
HOUSING
  Elderly People
  Elderly People
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Middle East (Supply of Arms)
  Middle East (Supply of Arms)
  Cotton Industry (Re-equipment Scheme)
  Cotton Industry (Re-equipment Scheme)
  Holiday Seasons
  Holiday Seasons
  Consumer Council
  Consumer Council
HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES
  Self-Government
  Self-Government
MALTA
  Messrs. Baileys (Malta) Limited
  Messrs. Baileys (Malta) Limited
SWAZILAND
  Elections
  Elections
  Police Force
  Police Force
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Royal Commission on the Press
  Royal Commission on the Press
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Blyth
  Blyth
EMPLOYMENT
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  MR. PHILBY
  MR. PHILBY
  VOTE OFFICE (NON-PARLIAMENTARY PUBLICATIONS)
  VOTE OFFICE (NON-PARLIAMENTARY PUBLICATIONS)
ROYAL NAVY
  Network Progressing and Evaluation Techniques
  Network Progressing and Evaluation Techniques
EDUCATION
  Church Schools (Member's Letter)
  Church Schools (Member's Letter)
  UNITED NATIONS (PEACE-KEEPING OPERATIONS)
  UNITED NATIONS (PEACE-KEEPING OPERATIONS)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
ROADS
  Pedestrian Crossings, London
  Pedestrian Crossings, London
TRANSPORT
  Licensing of Road Haulage (Committee)
  Licensing of Road Haulage (Committee)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Patent Office
  Patent Office
  Overseas Trading Corporations
  Overseas Trading Corporations
  Defence Expenditure (Foreign Exchange)
  Defence Expenditure (Foreign Exchange)
  Oil Companies (Foreign Exchange Earnings)
  Oil Companies (Foreign Exchange Earnings)
BRITISH ARMY
  Northern Dartmoor (Byelaws)
  Northern Dartmoor (Byelaws)
  Military Training Areas
  Military Training Areas

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

CIGARETTE SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER
2.35 p.m.
LORD SALTER: 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 what has been the approximate rate of increase in the last forty years of cigarette smoking and of lung cancer respectively, and what steps are being taken to help the public to realise the danger involved in this form of smoking.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, between 1920 and 1962 sales of cigarettes in the United Kingdom rose from about 36,000 million to about 110,000 million. Deaths assigned to lung cancer in Great Britain rose from 592 to 26,383. Some part of this increase may be due to more accurate diagnosis. Noble Lords will realise that lung cancer deaths in a particular year are related to the rate of consumption of cigarettes during a period of many years preceding it. Deaths from lung cancer are now running at the rate of about 500 a week, or one every 20 minutes.
In order to keep the public constantly aware of the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, chronic bronchitis and other diseases, and to discourage children and young people from starting to smoke, campaigns of health education are being conducted by local authorities, with the encouragement and help of Her Majesty's Government, who are supplying a large range of publicity material.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the interesting information he has given us. May I ask whether
110
among the information being given to the local authorities for the purpose he has mentioned there is included a pamphlet recently published by the Chelsea Borough Council, which probably he will agree with me in thinking is an excellent one?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that the pamphlet recently produced by the Chelsea Borough Council is a most excellent one. I understand they have distributed it to every household in their borough. So far as I am aware, we have not distributed it ourselves; it is not our publication. But I am grateful to my noble friend for giving this booklet the publicity he has, and I have no doubt that if other local authorities want copies that can be arranged.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as this campaign seems to have had little effect on middle-aged tobacco addicts, can the noble Lord say precisely what is done in schools?—because in my opinion the most effective thing would be to bring this matter home to school children. Could we be told in detail how the sixth forms of the country are handled in this matter?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the important thing is that this form of health education, which it is, should be directed mainly at the young to prevent them from starting to smoke cigarettes. I cannot tell her exactly what is done by schools to interest sixth forms particularly, but I can say that over one million posters have been distributed by us free of charge to local authorities, Government Departments and others, for display in schools, clinics, youth clubs and such places. Our film, Smoking and You, which was released in the second half of April, has already had hundreds of showings to audiences totalling about 30,000, mostly in schools. The three mobile vans presented by Her Majesty's Government to the Central Council for Health Education are booked up, in two cases until June, 1964, and in the third case until the end of this year. Approximately 200 local authorities have requested visits.
As regards what the noble Baroness said earlier about the effect of the campaign on what she called the middle-aged

111
addict, I am not in a position at the moment to say what effect the campaign has had, but we are in the process of collecting reports from local education and local health authorities on their campaigns, and the Central Office of Information has started a series of social surveys to assess the effects of the campaign.
LORD MABANE: My Lords, could the noble Lord give similar figures for the decline in the incidence of tuberculosis for the same period?
LORD NEWTON: No, my Lords, not without notice.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, does the noble Lord know that a great many other things have increased in exactly the same proportion, or in some cases in a greater proportion, during those years—betting, crime and all sorts of other things—and does he understand that statistics really cannot be used in this way?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend about that at all. I would say that the other things he listed as having increased in recent years do not cause lung cancer.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, ought not the appeal to the middle-aged take the form of urging them to refrain from setting a bad example to their children? Whilst smoking is forbidden in schools but continues at home, there is always the tendency to want to break the rule as soon as school is left. Would it not be a good thing to bring into the propaganda this aspect of setting an example?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think my noble friend has set a good example by asking that question. I might tell him the example I set to my children is the one that he would consider good.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether there has been any change in the attitude of the advertising industry, which it will be within your Lordships' recollection refused to publish posters issued by the Ministry of Health on this matter, and which was the subject of a statement by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House some time ago?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I should not like to answer that question without
112
notice, but I suspect the answer would be in the negative.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, is the noble Lord quite sure that the three Government vans he is sending round are not emitting diesel fumes to add to the harmful effects?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I deprecate all these veiled attempts by noble Lords to try to throw doubt on this causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer. I am not for a moment saying that there are not other causes of lung cancer, but I stand by the opinion of the Royal College of Physicians, that smoking, and particuarly cigarette smoking, is the most likely cause of all of the very sharp increase in lung cancer deaths we have seen in this country in recent years.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, why does the Royal College of Physicians try to give the impression that every statistical record of death by lung cancer is effected by cigarette smoking where those concerned are known to have smoked cigarettes? Where is the medical proof that a particular person died from lung cancer because he was a cigarette smoker?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am not here to answer for the medical profession. All I am doing is retailing to your Lordships, as has been done many times before, what is the considered opinion of the Royal College of Physicians, and I am not concerned to dispute it. All I would say in reply to the noble Earl is that the nature of the relationship between the drug thalidomide and its effects is also unknown, but I do not think anyone would doubt that this relationship does exist.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, would it be contrary to Government policy to allow the public some freedom of choice?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Earl must know perfectly well that the public have complete freedom of choice to smoke or not as they think fit. All I am hoping is that they will not think fit to use their freedom of choice in this way.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, could the noble Lord give the House his assurance that Her Majesty's

113
Government are as interested in the emission of obnoxious smoke from diesel engines and the automobile as they are in this popularity-catching campaign against cigarette smoking? I do not uphold cigarette smoking, but we in this House have for years been speaking against the obnoxious fumes from diesel engines and other exhaust gases, and nothing of any substance has been done.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, that may be so; but I do not think that question arises from the original Question on the Order Paper. Even if it did, it would not fall to be answered by me.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that, while heavy spirit drinking does not necessarily always cause cirrhosis of the liver, nevertheless heavy spirit drinking does not promote good health?
LORD NEWTON: That also is another matter.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, would not the noble Lord say that it is the case, after a slight fall in the sale of cigarettes, that the number of them now being sold is even larger and that this is the result of this advertising and discussion about cigarette smoking and the desire for freedom in the matter?
LORD NEWTON: I do not know about that. I think that no doubt it is a possible explanation.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that his publicity material is being uses in the right places? Surely, it is imperative that the dangers of cigarette smoking should be given prominence equal to its attractions; and surely the Government might consider applying sufficient of their revenue from the tobacco tax to put themselves in the position to advertise the dangers of cigarette smoking alongside the advertisements for cigarettes in newspapers, magazines, on hoardings and on television programmes.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I doubt whether it would be appropriate at the moment to go quite so far as that. We are aiming our campaign at the young, in places such as schools and in the local health authority clinics where mothers take their children, and where local authorities can exhibit our posters whereas commercial interests cannot
114
advertise theirs. I think we have to see how this goes. That is why the Central Office of Information is embarking upon a series of social surveys. But I can tell your Lordships that, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, this campaign will go on and on, however long the process may be.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may we take it that if we confine ourselves to smoking pipes and, when we can manage them, cigars, which are the nicest of the lot, we are all right: that we should keep clear of cigarettes?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Lord can smoke what he likes, but I am not going to be drawn into expressing a professional opinion. The noble Lord had better read again, if he has not already done so, the report of the Royal College of Physicians. So far as I am concerned, the advice I ought to give to your Lordships is that it is better not to smoke anything.

PAPUANS IN WEST NEW GUINEA
2.47 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: 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 what progress has been made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in regard to the arrangements for the self-determination of the Papuan inhabitants of West New Guinea under the agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are confident that the Secretary-General has this matter in mind, but they are not aware of any progress since the decision mentioned in the reply that I gave to the noble Lord on May 7.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. May I take it that this disposes of rumours, and, I think, even reports in the Press, to the effect that the Indonesian Government had torn up the whole agreement?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I have not heard any such rumours, and certainly there is no official report to that effect.

THE UNITED NATIONS AND WEST NEW GUINEA
2.48 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: 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 they have received any further information from the Secretary-General of the United Nations about the regular transmission by the Government of Indonesia to the United Nations of information of an economic, social and educational nature in regard to West New Guinea as required by Article 73(e) of the Charter of the United Nations.]
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the noble Lord's Question of May 22.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I take it from my noble friend's reply that when the new session of the United Nations General Assembly takes place in September he will give instructions to our delegates to raise this issue on the Fourth Committee, with a view to ensuring that the proper transmission of information to the General Assembly should take place in accordance with Article 73(e) of the Charter, as in the case of all other colonial powers?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I will certainly ask for inquiries to be made. As I think I informed my noble friend the other day, it is not certain whether there is any legal obligation under Article 73 of the Charter to do this.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, if there were a legal obligation, would it not be the responsibility of the Secretary-General to ensure that these reports were submitted?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, that is so.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I pursue this point with my noble friend? I can remember well on the Fourth Committee that, year after year, we had to argue the case whether we were required to transmit information or not. It happened again and again. It happened in the cases of Holland and Belgium and of other Powers. Should not the same issue be raised, and should not the Indonesian Government be required to argue their case in exactly the same way as if they were a European colonial Power?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it is the case that we generally do so, and that the Netherlands Government did. I think it is right for me to make sure that I do not mislead my noble friend on the question of legal obligation.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEEDS) BILL
2.51 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order), on Report from an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House resumed; Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a,—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

LAND COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order), on Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

PEERAGE BILL
2.51 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, after Clause 6 to insert the following new clause:
Establishing succession
"For the purposes of this Act the day on which any person who is over the age of 21 succeeds to a peerage shall be—

(a) the day on which he is known to have succeeded or

(b) the day on which any competent authority establishes a fact of which one of the consequences is that such person succeed."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is not the same as, but not very different from, the Amendment which I moved at an earlier stage of the Bill. On that occasion, your Lordships will remember, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor admitted the validity of the point I had raised, but said that it would very seldom occur, and he disclaimed, with extreme modesty, his own capacity as Lord Chancellor to decide the point. I did not altogether share his own modest opinion, but, I will not counter it on this occasion.
On the question whether it is possible or frequent for a person to inherit a Peerage without knowing it, I think I can make it clear that it is not so uncommon as the noble and learned Lord Chancellor seems to imagine. If your Lordships will go into the Prince's Chamber and then go 43 yards into the
118
Royal Gallery you will there see three books which contain the names of those noble Lords and Officers of the House and their relatives who are put down as having been killed in the last two wars. Those names are put down as having been killed, but it is by no means certain that they were killed. We believe, and have good reason to believe, that the bearers of those names are all dead, but a great many of them have merely disappeared from the human canon.
I could give your Lordships many instances from the recent war, but to do so would raise feelings which I am not anxious to raise. It is almost equally true that in the First World War a great many people disappeared and were shown as killed, though nobody really knew. To give one example, my old friend the late Duke of Atholl broke his heart, I think—it certainly affected the course of his life—in his passionate efforts to find out what had become of his brother Geordie, who was the heir to the title. I do not think any mortal man has ever known for certain what became of George Stewart-Murray. We all believed him to be dead and he has never reappeared, but that is all that is known. There are other noble Lords whom I could instance from that war. I look up their names in Burke, I find against their names the date on which they died, but I am quite certain that there is no man who really knew that that was so. I therefore point out that this is not so uncommon as is believed, and it is quite possible for people to inherit peerages and to possess them for a long time without knowing they have done so.
To turn to another side of this matter, this Bill, a statesmanlike measure, has two objects, as I see it. In the first place, I do not think that any social system has a right to keep anybody in prison. It was for that reason that I voted against Lord Boothby's Amendment at the commencement of the Committee stage on this Bill, because I thought that it would operate unequally as between Members of your Lordships' House. However, I will leave that matter there.
There is an ancillary object which is equally important, and which can be attained by this Bill. It has long been considered a blot on the English Constitution that there should exist what I

119
would call the William Pitt dilemma. Your Lordships will recall the fact that in the midst of the Napoleonic Wars the position of William Pitt as Prime Minister and Leader of the House of Commons was threatened by the serious illness of his brother, Lord Chatham. For a long time it was thought that he would have to leave that position, and that he would succeed and come to your Lordships' House. We all know how inefficiently William Pitt was succeeded by the following Government, and I daresay that many of your Lordships remember the rhyme in connection with that. As a matter of fact, Lord Chatham recovered and I believe outlived his brother, but that was a very serious dilemma. At that time we were fighting for our lives and we were in danger of losing irrevocably the pilot who weathered the storm.
That is not the only time that we have been fighting for our lives. We have been fighting for our lives on two occasions since. I remind your Lordships that on the second occasion the pilot who weathered the storm was Mr. Winston Churchill. I have not calculated the number, but your Lordships will realise that, by a certain number of deftly planted bombs, Hitler might have taken away from us Mr. Winston Churchill and presented us with a perfectly good Duke of Marlborough. I do not know what would have happened if that had happened. I do not know whether his friends could have restrained him from following his ancestor, Corporal John, and leading our troops in the field. But it would have been a very awkward juncture for us in the middle of the war.
I ask your Lordships to consider the matter a little further. Let me put a suppositious case to you which will take a very short time. Let us suppose that a Peer has three sons and that each of those sons has one son. The son of the elder line succeeds to the Peerage, the son of the second line becomes a soldier, and the son of the third line goes into politics and actually becomes Prime Minister at the time of a great war. The son of the elder line dies and the Peerage lapses; the son of the second line disappears at the front and nobody can tell what has happened to him. Now it is suggested that that would not matter; that the Prime Minister could execute an anticipatory deed of disclaimer under this
120
Bill. That might have very great difficulties. He will be heartening his relatives, his cousins, trying to keep their courage up and trying to keep their hopes alive. Yet if there is no anxiety shown in public as to his position, they will know that he must have entered into a deed of disclaimer secretly and not told them. It sems to me very much better to have the position put perfectly clearly in the Bill that we have before us to-day. I do not insist on the virtue of my wording. If Her Majesty's Government will accept the point and put their own words in at a later stage, that will perfectly content me. But I think this matter ought to be cleared up.
There is one small point which I will add; it is only a small point but I think it is worth considering. I do not think that under the Bill as it stands at present, a deed of disclaimer entered into by a Peer who had not succeeded, but who anticipated that he might succeed, would be irrevocable; and it is one of the purposes of this Bill to make such deeds completely irrevocable. I think that point might be considered, too. It is a very small point, and I only just put it in like a grocer puts in a little extra when you make a purchase. With those few words, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Saltoun.)
3.4 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): The little bit that the grocer puts in extra was certainly not asked for by the customer, and certainly, so far as I can see, has little connection with the Amendment now under discussion. The noble Lord, in moving this Amendment, was quite frank about its purport: that it is really to reopen a discussion that took place in the earlier Committee proceedings. I must say that I wondered, as I listened to him really replying to what I said on that occasion, whether he was not getting into possible danger with regard to the Standing Orders, which provide that an Amendment to a Bill must not be inconsistent with a previous decision given on the same stage of the Bill. But, however, that may be, I will deal with the Amendment moved by the noble Lord and I must advise your Lordships not to accept it.

121
The noble Lord, in moving it, said very little indeed about the actual Amendment, but it is open to many criticisms and I will put them quite shortly. Your Lordships will see that it provides for two alternative dates in paragraphs (a) and (b). Of course, a Peer in fact succeeds on the day of the death of the previous holder of the Peerage. The next matter is to establish proof of succession, and the proposal in this Amendment is that
"For the purposes of this Act the day on which any person who is over the age of 21 succeeds to a Peerage shall be—
(a) the day on which he is known to have succeeded".
Known to whom? The Amendment does not provide the answer. Known publicly? Known to the heir himself, to the Lord Chancellor, to the House of Lords? There is simply no such day, unless one specifies a particular person. The only person who can in fact be specified is the heir himself, and that is what the noble Lord's earlier Amendment did.
Then this Amendment goes on to provide an alternative:
(b) the day on which any competent authority establishes a fact of which one of the consequences is that such person succeed."
What is "any competent authority" within the meaning of that paragraph? Does it, for example, include a Committee of Privileges of the House of Commons, or the Lord Chancellor, neither of whom is competent to adjudicate finally on this issue? If it does not include a Committee of Privileges, a sitting Member of Parliament who succeeded to a Peerage could, without disclaiming, defer indefinitely his disqualification as a Peer: all he would have to do would be to avoid making any claim to the succession.
Secondly, proof of succession may depend upon the establishment of a whole series of facts. Paragraph (b) of the Amendment appears to have the effect that if a "competent authority" establishes one link in the chain, time begins to run forthwith, notwithstanding that the other links may not be established until later. Then, again, one assumes it is possible for paragraph (a) to be satisfied and also for paragraph (b) to be satisfied; they are expressed to be in the alternative. And if that did occur,
122
one would not know from which date the relevant periods ran.
These defects, and defects about the drafting, are sufficiently serious to justify my asking your Lordships to reject this new clause. But they really only reflect a fundamental objection to the noble Lord's thesis, which arises from the fact that succession to a Peerage is not established by any formal or public step, unless the successor has on his own initiative set the appropriate machinery in motion. To make disqualification for the House of Commons depend on the successor's initiative would be a simple and to some an attractive solution to the whole problem, but it was not the solution adopted by the Select Committee, nor is it the solution proposed in the Bill. It is for those reasons that I invite your Lordships to reject this Amendment
LORD SALTOUN: I should have greatly preferred it if the noble and learned Lord had argued this matter on the merits, because I think the merits are outstanding. I do not particularly hold with the wording. I quite admit everything that the noble and learned Lord said against this Amendment. I say that such an Amendment as this could, and should, be drawn and put into the Bill. If your Lordships will support me and put this Amendment into the Bill, we can be quite certain that the Government will move it out at the next stage and will put in an Amendment satisfactory to themselves covering the point. I therefore feel that I should like to ask your Lordships to support me in this Amendment. I admit that it may not be right in form, but I do not think I have been answered one word on the merits.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.11 p.m.
LORD CLITHEROE LORD CLITHEROE moved, to insert the following new clause:
Degrees of life peerage
"Life peerages may be created in any degree of the Peerage."
The noble Lord said: I shall keep your Lordships only a very short time over this Amendment. It may be that the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor will tell me that the words of the proposed new clause are not appropriate to do what I want to do, but I think they are at any rate sufficiently clear for noble

123
Lords to understand my intentions. It may be that the Lord Chancellor will tell us that this clause is unnecessary, and he may say—and I think there are grounds for saying—that the Crown already has the right to create Life Peerages in a higher degree than that of Baron. There have been 27 creations of Life Peerages in degrees above that of Baron, starting with that of Huntingdon in 1377 and going down to that of Brandon in 1758; so there have already been 27 Life Peerages created as Earldoms. There is therefore nothing very new about the proposal, but I must admit that it has not been done very recently, and the Life Peerages Bill, which created Life Peerages, provided that these Life Peerages should be Baronies.
It seems to me that, particularly in the light of the rejection by the Government of the Amendment to exclude Clause 3(2) of this Bill, there is great merit in the proposal I am putting forward. In the first case, I do not see why there is the slightest difficulty in having a Life Peer in any degree of the Peerage; secondly, it might be very convenient on some occasions for that to be the case. Suppose the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, had not wished to undertake the responsibilities of an hereditary Peerage. He could, if this clause had bean law at that time, have become a Life Earl, which would have been extremely appropriate for an ex-Prime Minister. Furthermore, it may be that some noble Lord who goes from this House to the House of Commons and becomes Prime Minister there might, in the fullness of time, be retiring from his Prime Ministership and might want to enter the House of Lords. He would then be able to enter only as a Life Baron, and I do not see any reason at all why we should not make it possible for him to enter this House as a Life Earl. I cannot see any very great objection to this proposal, and it seems to have certain advantages and certain conveniences. Therefore, I have every confidence in commending it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Clitheroe.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I listened very carefully to what my noble
124
friend said about this Amendment, and my answer to it falls really into two parts. So far as the actual creation of Life Peerages is concerned—and I can elaborate on this in a moment or two—it is, I think, clearly the law as it stands that it is possible for Her Majesty to create a Life Peerage in any degree of the Peerage; but that does not mean that any of those Life Peerages would carry membership of your Lordships' House. The point that my noble friend touched upon at the end of his speech was, as I followed the argument, that he thought that a Life Peerage of a higher rank should enable the holder of that Life Peerage to sit in this House. The Amendment would not, in fact, be effective to do that, and I would remind your Lordships that Parliament deliberately decided in 1958 that Life Peerages carrying membership of the House of Lords should rank as Baronies only. I do not think it would be right to use this Bill as a vehicle for amending the Life Peerages Act in that respect.
I can deal with the law as it stands at present quite shortly, I think. In the Wensleydale Peerage case in 1856 it was established, as my noble friend will remember, that a Life Peerage under the Prerogative carries no right to a seat or a voice in the House of Lords, and Lord Campbell, who rejected Lord Wensleydale's claim to a Writ of Summons, said there was no doubt but that the Crown could create a Peer for life; and Lord Brougham expressly disclaimed any intention of denying that the Crown had such powers. In Anson's Law and Customs of the Constitution, 5th Edition, Vol. 1, at page 225, it is stated:
"The rule of law seems clear. The Croon can confer such dignities and with such limitations as it may please, but a Lord of Parliament must be an hereditary Peer, except in the special cases of the Bishops and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary."
That, of course, was written before the passage of the Life Peerages Act.
Now during the Committee stage of the Life Peerages Bill the noble Earl, Lord Kilmuir, expressed the view that this right of the Crown remained unimpaired, and that, I think, is borne out by the wording of the patent for a Life Peer under the Life Peerages Act. My noble friend referred to a number of cases in which Life Peerages were granted. He said there were some 27

125
of ranks higher than that of Baron. In fact, I think he put the figure a little low. I am told that there were some 30 cases between 1377 and 1758 of subjects being granted Life Peerages, including 10 Dukedoms, 1 Marquessate, 20 Earldoms, 3 Viscountcies and 10 Baronies, and in some cases the same grantee received several Peerages of different degrees. But no Life Peerage under the Prerogative alone has been conferred on a man since 1606, when Sir James Hay, later made Earl of Carlisle, was created a Baron for life without a seat in the House of Lords. All subsequent Life Peerages under the Prerogative were conferred on women. That, of course, was before the passage of the Life Peerages Act.
I would just say this in answer to a further point in the argument advanced by my noble friend: that if the Crown wished to ennoble a retiring Prime Minister who had previously disclaimed, he could, under the law as it stands and under this Bill, be made a Life Peer under the Act of 1958, and have conferred on him a higher rank for life under the Prerogative without offending against Clause 3, subsection (2). No doubt he would rank as a Baron in this House, but, in the same way as a Scottish or Irish Peer who sits under an inferior title, he would be addressed and referred to by his superior title. For those reasons, I do not think this Amendment is necessary or desirable, and in the light of what I have said I hope my noble friend will think fit to withdraw it.
LORD CLITHEROE: Of course, I shall, before I sit down, withdraw this Amendment, since the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor has told me the wording does not do what I want to do, but I should like to say I am very grateful to him for his careful answer to this question. I think that the answer which he has given satisfies me in that it would be possible for a Prime Minister coming to this House in the rank of Baron to be given an Earldom, although that Earldom would not carry with it the right to a seat in this House, and would not be hereditary. I am sorry if my calculation of 27 was wrong. I am prepared to discuss that with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at a later date. There may be a certain amount of dubiety
126
about one or two of the cases. I still think 27 is about right. I am very sorry that the House of Lords came to the conclusion that it did in the Wensleydale case. I do not know if it is against the Rules of your Lordships' House to comment on decisions made by the House of Lords so long ago, but I am bound to say that I think most people now think that that was an extremely bad decision and had unfortunate consequences. I now have pleasure in withdrawing this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Short title, commencement and repeals]:
3.21 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and those of my noble friends. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack having found fault with the wording of the two previous Amendments, I hope he will not rule me out on that ground; at any rate, I want to make the purpose of the Amendment quite clear. It is to raise the issue as to whether this Bill is to come into effect on the giving of the Royal Assent or whether it is to come into effect at the end of this Parliament. A similar Amendment was moved in another place in the same terms and, so far as I can gather from the records, no fault was found with it there. But I am hoping for the best.
The position, as noble Lords are well aware, is that a Bill normally comes into effect when it is given the Royal Assent. I have looked into all the Bills that were passed last Session and I can assure the Committee that the vast majority of them came into effect either wholly or partly on the giving of the Royal Assent. It is only when there are good reasons for the contrary, or where it is not practicable for the whole or part of a Bill to take effect on the giving of the Royal Assent, that some later date is given; and there are numerous Bills of which various parts come into effect at various dates. In this case I want to submit that there is no reason why this Bill should not come into operation on the giving of the Royal Assent.
So far as I know—and I have discussed this with a number of members of the

127
Joint Select Committee—none of us ever suspected that this Bill was not going to come into operation immediately. Let me say at once—and this point was made in another place—that the Government have stated that this Bill would be passed and come into operation at the end of the present Parliament. They have stated that. But certainly my interpretation of that was not that it might be passed this Session and that it would hang over until the end of Parliament. I understood it to mean that there was some doubt as to whether, in view of the congestion of Business, we could get this Bill through this Session; but in any case, whether we did or not, it would come in at the end of the present Parliament. If it were the intention to pass the Bill in this Session and hold it over until the end of Parliament, then I think there was an obligation on the Government to make it perfectly clear that that was their intention. They never did.
Let me deal with some of the effects if we were to pass this Bill and it did not operate until the end of Parliament. We may, of course, have an Election in October, and there will then be no special effect at all; but, on the other hand, we have been assured—I do not know how far we can accept these assurances—that there will be no Election this year. If we accept that assurance it means therefore that there will be an Election in either May or October of next year. Assuming the longer period, that means fifteen months from now. I submit that this may involve hardship on a number of persons which I should hope we would want to avoid.
First of all, let me be quite frank and say that it would involve hardship on Mr. Wedgwood Benn, who is virtually the father of this Bill. He will be unable to take a seat in the House of Commons; though every one of us now accepts the fact that he ought to be entitled to take a seat. If this Bill came into operation in this Session, I understand that he has an assurance from the present Member of Parliament for Bristol that he would resign and enable a by-election to take place. I think it is right that that should be so, and I think it honourable on the part of the present Member, because he knows he is not representing the constituency and is not the person they wish; he was defeated by a very large majority.
128
So this would enable the hardship to Mr. Wedgwood Benn to be removed and he would be enabled to fight a by-election and, if he won, to take his seat.
But there are other hardships: for instance, where the son of a Peer is at present in the House of Commons. If his father were to die within a very short time he may wish to renounce his Peerage and continue in his seat; but he would not be able to do so. He would have to give up his seat; somebody else would step in and fight at the by-election and obviously, assuming the other candidate won, the person who would wish to renounce the Peerage would have lost his opportunity. It may be a constituency with which he had been associated for a number of years; he may have very special reasons for desiring to represent that constituency; but his chance would have gone. I do not know whether there would be many such cases. I hope, for the health of this House, that there will be none at all: but one never knows.
There is another type of case. There are some noble Lords who may be contemplating renouncing their Peerage when this Bill comes into effect with a view to going into the House of Commons. I know that it has been stated that there is nothing to stop them from going round as Peers and announcing their intention, when this Bill comes into operation, of renouncing their Peerage; but it is a very undignified way of doing things and it is asking a lot to expect a noble Lord to say, "I am still a Peer, but will you adopt me as your candidate? When the time comes I undertake to give up the Peerage". It is putting him at a very definite disadvantage with the proposed constituency, and they would have to be very keen on having him to accept him on those terms. If there are Peers here to-day who intend to give up their Peerage then I think it is unfair to put them in that position.
What are the reasons that have been given up to now for not allowing this Bill to come into operation at once? It has been vaguely suggested that it would be more convenient (it has not been put higher than that), from a constitutional point of view, if the changes took place at the end of the present Parliament. I am no authority on the

129
Constitution. But the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is a constitutional lawyer, and this is what he said on this point [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 251 (No. 107), col. 1083]:
"The only other point, and the only point which I think raised any difficulty, is the provision about the date of operation. I myself do not pretend that there is any profound constitutional necessity to do it one way or the other."
There we have it. If the noble Viscount who leads the House does not think that there is any profound constitutional necessity for doing it one way or the other, and, as he goes on to say, that we should do what is to "the balance of public advantage", then I submit that it is to the balance of public advantage that the normal course be taken and that this Bill should take effect at once.
I do not know whether I need elaborate this point, but the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who spoke on Second Reading, referred to three important constitutional measures vitally affecting this House which were introduced and took effect in between Parliaments. The Life Peerages Act, about which we have just been talking, took effect between two Parliaments and in practice it made a more substantial change in the constitution of this House than I imagine this Bill is likely to do. And the two Parliament Acts also took effect in the same way. So I cannot think that there is a particular constitutional reason for it. Then there was something said, both here and in another place, about the difficulty in relation to Scottish Peers. But Mr. MacLeod said that these difficulties could be overcome. In any case, even if they were insurmountable, which they are not, it would be possible to have a specially appointed day for Clause 4, which deals with Scottish Peers. I imagine that if we decided that we could get over the difficulty, we should not need to have a specially appointed day, but I am directing my attention to the specific question of the disclaimer of Peers of this House.
So we are left with only one other point, that we have had notice of this proposal from various speeches of Her Majesty's Ministers. I do not think we had noticed that it was their intention, whether we pass this Bill this Session or not, that it should be held over until the end of the present Parliament. Cer
130
tainly none of us understood it that way. And we made matters easy for Her Majesty's Government from this side of the House by withholding a number of Amendments which we might have moved, and by accepting the broad principles set forth in the Report of the Joint Select Committee. By doing that, we have facilitated the passage of this Bill and therefore we understood—certainly we on this side did and I think that noble Lords on the other side of this committee who were on the Joint Select Committee understood the same—that this would not mean that of necessity the Bill would stand over. For these reasons and emphasising that I am asking the Committee to take the normal course and allow this Bill to come into operation when it is passed, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 3, leave out subsection (2).— (Lord Silkin.)
3.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: As a member of the Joint Select Committee, I must in unqualified terms support from this side of the House the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has moved. There is no Party question here, and I should have thought that the whole convenience was to do what certainly was the clear, plain understanding of the Joint Select Committee. Dealing with an Amendment I moved earlier in this debate, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that one would require very strong arguments to overrule or vary the findings of the Joint Select Committee. Therefore we did not put into our Report, in terms, that the Bill should come into force in the normal way when it received the Royal Assent because it never occurred to us that it would do anything else.
The Government were able to put their views before the Joint Select Committee. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House put in two extremely effective memoranda, expressing, no doubt, his own personal point of view, but also, I am sure, with the general support of his colleagues. But, more than that, the noble Earl whom we invited to become Chairman of the Joint Select Committee was, until he was succeeded by the present holder of the office, Lord Chancellor, a senior member of the Government, who,

131
but for a wind of change, would be piloting the Bill through the House now. I have not had an opportunity—he is not in the House now—of talking to my noble and learned friend, but I feel certain that he never contemplated anything else. My noble friend Lord Salisbury, whom I have had a full chance of consulting, and I are in complete agreement about this matter. Indeed, every member of the Joint Select Committee with whom I have had a chance of speaking takes exactly the same point of view. And we certainly expected that the normal course would be followed.
I need not elaborate or repeat the arguments which have been put by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and by my noble friend and myself on the Second Reading of this Bill. I leave out Mr. Benn, if he be a bone of contention; but if we are passing this Bill, let us see what could happen to anybody else. After all, people do die, however excellent their health is. I hope that no father of a Member of another place will die in the next whatever number of months it is—I do not know—but if one did, what a fantastic situation arises! How very unfair to the Peer himself! How very unfair to his constituents, who may have elected him by a colossal majority and who want nothing more than that he should continue to represent them! And the whole purpose of this Bill is to enable him to go on representing them.
That we meant this Bill to come into force at once is obvious from the provision that we made that this should operate very rapidly; that in the case of anybody sitting in another place he would have to make up his mind within a month. Of course, he would make it up much more quickly, and for the moment he would be suspended from his activities in the House; but assuming that he made his declaration in the proper statutory form and lodged it with the Speaker, then he would go back to his duties in the House of Commons. It was said, and I think said with some reason, that people ought not to job in and job out; that a man should not have the best of both worlds. But if we are going to say that in this period of limbo before the next Election he is not to have the chance, if he should succeed to a Peerage, of using the benefit of this Bill, and that he must lose his
132
seat, that seems to me to be giving him the worst of both worlds.
I respect the arguments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the constitutional side, though I did not think that he put them with great force. Perhaps he did not feel that there was great force in them. Certainly, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, also a distinguished lawyer, said that he did not see that it matters much one way or the other from the constitutional point of view. So far as the Scottish Peers are concerned, I cannot see that there is anything in it. You could put in an Amendment to say that that clause should come into force on an appointed day. After all, if you do not, what will happen? It will not affect any Scottish Peers who have been elected to sit here by the Peers in Scotland. They just go on sitting here. All it will do will be to add half a dozen who will be able to come here. No one will have his seat taken away. Therefore, I cannot see that there is much force in the Scottish Peers argument. There is nothing concerning the Irish Peers, because they are not here at all, and their complaint is that the Select Committee did not recommend that they should come here.
What other constitutional argument is there? Reference has been made to these great Parliamentary changes, and, of course, there are the great Bills cited by my noble friend Lord Salisbury. What has been the rule in these cases, as I understand it—and it is practical convenience that dictates it—is this. Where there is some large constitutional change, or some large electoral change—perhaps involving electoral boundaries, which affects the whole country; perhaps a new franchise Bill to enfranchise women or young persons—or where there is a redistribution Bill which (I was going to say gerrymanders, but I am sure it would not do that) varies the boundaries of a number of constituencies, then obviously there must be an appointed day, and it must be on the Dissolution because it affects all the constituencies alike and all the electors alike. It must come into force after the Dissolution and when Members are being elected for a new Parliament. But surely that does not apply here. What is being done here is to give to a few Members,

133
half a dozen or so, who are sitting in another place and may succeed to this House, and also to future Members who may succeed to this House, and to some who are sitting in this House now, an option to sit here or to disclaim their Peerage and go to another place. Surely there is no reason why that should not come into force in the normal way on the Royal Assent.
There is one other consideration. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will think twice—he said he would rather like to consider the suggestion I made, because it would be varying what we on the Joint Select Committee did. But I can see that there is an argument of convenience, and indeed an argument of equity and justice in saying that a Peer who is now sitting here should have the same time to make up his mind as the Peer who succeeds. We were all agreed that the Peer who succeeds should have twelve months. I do not see why the Peer who is now sitting should not have twelve months. He would not have to wait twelve months; he could exercise his right, if my Amendment were carried (and I now have it in the proper form), to-morrow morning, or he could wait.
If we carried the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, which I am bound to say fully gives effect to the intention of the Report by the Joint Select Committee, and if on Report the House were willing to accept my suggestion that everybody should be given twelve months to make up his mind, then it seems to me that we should be doing what is fair to people in another place, and what I believe we all want; we should be acting in a reasonable way, and should be able to go forward with that full measure of agreement which characterised all the deliberations—although we had our differences—of the Joint Select Committee. I hope the Government will reconsider their position on this.
LORD REA: As another member of the Joint Select Committee, I should like to give my unqualified support to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, speaking again from these Benches, the third Party in your Lordships' House. It seems to me that the intentions of the Joint Select Committee were quite clear. The Bill has virtually passed both Houses without much altera
134
tion; it is the will of Parliament that it should go into operation, and unless there is some peculiar tactic that I, as a member of a junior Opposition Party, do not understand, I cannot see why this delay should occur. It may be that in Party politics there is some reason why it would be more convenient for one or other of the big Parties to delay or accelerate the implementation of the Bill, but I do not think that consideration should come into account here. The Bill has virtually been passed; it has our approval, and I suggest that, like all other Bills of a similar nature, it should go into operation as soon as Parliament has approved.
3.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I reply now to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. May I say straight away that I can find no fault whatsoever with the drafting of this Amendment? The noble Lord began his speech by rather suggesting that the Government had not made their position clear with regard to this. If I may, I would remind the noble Lord of the fact that in the debate on the Motion to take note of the Report of the Select Committee on March 28, when opening the debate, I said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 248 (No. 63), col. 268]:
"I want to make it clear, on behalf of the Government, that we shall do our best to secure the passage of any legislation that may flow from the expressed resolve of Parliament. The House will not expect me to be precise on the question of timing, although it would clearly be difficult to fit such an important Bill into the timetable for this Session."
Then I went on to say:
"If, however, such legislation were desirable, we would bring it forward in this Parliament so that it might be in operation for the coming General Election."
That is what I said; and what is interesting, in view of the observations made by my noble friend Lord Swinton and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is that it was never suggested in the debate on that Motion that the Joint Select Committee had come to anything in the nature of a unanimous conclusion on this matter. That was the pledge. The only person who suggested in the course of that debate that the Bill should come into force on the date of enactment was the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. After dealing with

135
that point, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said (col. 277):
"I can promise the Government, on behalf of my noble friends, that we will put no difficulties in the way of getting an early decision on that Bill so that it could be put into operation before the House rises for the Summer Recess. While I do not expect the noble Viscount who is to reply to give me a firm decision, I hope that that suggestion will be seriously considered."
If it was in fact the case, as my noble friend Lord Swinton has asserted to-day, and asserted on Second Reading, that the Joint Select Committee were unanimous in thinking that legislation should take effect immediately, it strikes me as curious that no suggestion to that effect was put forward in the course of the debate on March 28, 1963. I then outlined the particular matters on which the Government thought we should depart from the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I did not speak on that occasion, but my noble friend Lord Salisbury did. That was a debate on whether we agreed with the Report of the Joint Select Committee. I thought that what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was on at that time was the undertaking that they would find time for the Bill, so as to make sure it came into force not later than the Dissolution of Parliament. It was never an issue in that debate whether the Bill should come into force on enactment or at some other time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry if what I said on that occasion was not said as clearly as it might have been. But the matter does not rest there, because on May 15, when the Government announced their decision in the light of that debate, my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House said—and I quote from Hansard of May 15, column 1316:
"…and I can therefore state that it is our intention to introduce legislation to give effect to them"—
that is, the proposals—
"in time to take effect at the next General Election."
He repeated that twice. Again, the only Member of your Lordships' House who raised any point with regard to that was the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who suggested that the proposals ought to become
136
law well before any General Election takes place. He did that on the ground, which he advanced again to-day, of the undignified position in which a Peer would be placed who wished to go round looking for a constituency.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that my noble and learned friend replied to him that there was nothing to stop a Peer who wished to disclaim from "prospecting"—that was the word my noble friend used. He went on to say (col. 1320):
"We wish to make it effective by the Election …"
Whatever may have been the position after March 28, certainly the Government's position was made perfectly clear beyond dispute on May 15. On May 15 the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition spoke. He did not claim that the legislation should be made effective before the next General Election. Nor did Lord Rea. I do not know whether my noble friends Lord Salisbury and Lord Swinton were present, but if they were they did not intervene.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Was there any need, in view of the statement from the Government that the legislation would be introduced in time for the General Election? On the Bill as it now stands, we are arguing that there is no reasonable time for possible candidates.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That point was put on May 15, and it was made perfectly clear that my noble friend's view on that differed. I do not think one can possibly say that it was not made perfectly clear that our intention was to introduce legislation to give effect to these proposals in time to take effect at the next General Election. This cannot be construed as meaning taking effect before the next General Election.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It cannot possibly be construed in plain English as not taking effect before the Dissolution of Parliament. There is no pledge made in those statements that this Bill would come before us in final form and not to operate until the Dissolution of Parliament. I think we are playing with words.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think we are playing with words, because

137
it was said, both in this House and in another place, that it was our intention—I repeat it again—to introduce legislation to give effect to these proposals in time to take effect at the next General Election. I do not think anyone can construe those words, reading them fairly, as meaning in time to take effect, say, next September, October or November, unless there is going to be the next General Election then. That was our pledge, and I only make this point. I think it was perfectly clearly stated by the Government, and it is a pledge which we embodied in the Bill. The point I am making is that in relation to that (and I think this is also a perfectly fair point) the noble Earl did not claim then that the legislation should be made effective before the next General Election. Nor did Lord Rea. And no point was raised to suggest that the Select Committee had considered this matter and had reached a conclusion upon it. I say that because it is past history.
I put this forward as a Bill which implemented our pledge in full: that this legislation, which we were then contemplating, would be in effect before the next General Election. I make the point that that was never suggested to be a departure from the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. I have read the Report of the Joint Committee many times. Of course I did not serve upon the Committee. My noble friend Lord Swinton did, and he has consulted some members. I have consulted some members. I can find no trace of this question having been considered by the Joint Committee. I think that is perfectly true. I do not know that they ever, as a Committee, applied their minds to it. They may have assumed one thing or another. What they were doing was working out a coherent scheme which we have done our best to embody, subject to one or two Amendments which the House in Committee has accepted, in this Bill.
I have begun by saying this in order to deal with the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that we had not made our position plain. I do not think that is founded. You may disagree with the position, but I think it was made plain what we intended to do.
LORD SILKIN: I do not wish to be offensive at all to the noble and learned
138
Lord, but there was a complete misunderstanding as to what was the intention of the Government. I myself understood what they were saying to mean that, "We may not be able to introduce a Bill this Session because of pressure of Business, but whether we do or not we undertake that it will go through in the course of this Parliament." That is all I thought they were saying. I did not think they were saying: "Even if we introduce a Bill this Session, it will not operate until the end of the Parliament." There may have been a misunderstanding.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept that it is always possible to have a misunderstanding. I myself thought that, whatever may be said about the words I uttered on March 28, there was not much room for doubt about what my noble and learned friend said on May 15. I fully appreciate that there may have been a misunderstanding. What I am responding to, and trying to deal with, is the suggestion that there has been some change of practice or some failure to disclose on the part of Her Majesty's Government. There was certainly no intention of doing that. Now the Bill comes here with, as we thought, our promise implemented in it in Clause 7(2). It has come to us from another place, and in the course of its passage through that House, as the noble Lord said, an Amendment to precisely the same effect as that now under consideration was moved and rejected by a substantial majority.
So the position as it stands to-day is that your Lordships are now being asked to reject a decision arrived at on this point in another place. Of course it is open to your Lordships to do so, but for a number of reasons I hope that you will not. One reason—it is not the only one, but I want to put the reasons as clearly as I can before your Lordships—is this. We are now approaching the end of this Session. I myself should like to see this Bill enacted as soon as possible, and I think it is true to say that any Amendment made to it by your Lordships must delay that; and if it were the case that the other place did not agree to an Amendment made by your Lordships, the delay might be considerable. That is one reason, but that is not the only reason why I ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.

139
So far as your Lordships' House is concerned, of course its membership does not alter with, or depend on, Parliamentary elections. Changes in its membership could be made at any time, though I must point out that, if the Bill took effect immediately upon Royal Assent, not only would there be a considerable addition to the membership of this House, but also the Representative Peers of Scotland would no longer be entitled to sit as Representative Peers of Scotland. I have never suggested that that was an insuperable difficulty, and I am not seeking to put any real weight upon it. But I felt it right in the earlier debates to draw your Lordships' attention to that point; and, indeed, to avoid the risk of their being temporarily excluded from this House it would, I think, be necessary to issue to them Writs of Summons. That could be done, although it would look a little odd, and I do not think there would be any need for any amendment of the Bill to provide for the position of the Scottish Peers should this Amendment be carried. Earlier speakers referred to the position of Scottish Peers as if I were founding an argument upon it. I am not basing any argument upon it and I have not put it forward as an insuperable objection, but I thought it right to draw your Lordships' attention to that position.
The real impact of this Amendment, as I hope your Lordships will agree, is not upon the membership of this House but lies in its effect upon the membership of the other House, and the argument has been advanced that if this Bill does not come into effect on Royal Assent, a Member of the other House who succeeds to a Peerage before the Dissolution, whenever that takes place, will not be able to avail himself of the provisions of this Bill. That, of course, is perfectly true. But that is more, I would suggest, a matter for the other place than it is for your Lordships, and, as I have said, this Amendment was rejected in the other place. I cannot refer, and I do not think it would be in order for me to do so, to how a particular Member of the other place voted in the Division List, but it might be not without interest if some of your Lordships cared to look to see how at least one of those who might succeed to a Peerage voted on that Division.
140
My noble friend Lord Swinton has again to-day expressed the view that the Select Committee expected the Bill to come into force and to operate when it received the Royal Assent. The last time he spoke on this matter he based his argument on two recommendations of the Royal Commission. I really do not think that much weight can be placed on the use of the present tense in their recommendations. The Select Committee, as I said, were devising a scheme, and the use of the present tense in outlining their scheme does not seem to me as consistent only with the view that the Bill should take effect on Royal Assent. I cannot see anything in the Report which shows that the Committee gave any consideration to this suggestion. If they did, and held the view that the noble Earl has expressed, then I must say that I think it is remarkable that none of the members of the Committee, if they applied their minds to this question, either on March 28 or May 15 drew attention to the fact that the Government at least were preparing to depart from the views of the Select Committee. But that was never suggested.
I want to turn to the precedents, and I hope when I do so I shall not be accused of special pleading. First, there is the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act, 1918, which made women eligible for the House of Commons. That came into force on Royal Assent. That Assent was given on November 21 and Dissolution followed on November 25. So that Act did not take effect until the Elections for the next Parliament; and that, I must say, would seem to have been the intention. The next Act was the Representation of the People Act, 1918, which, among other things, gave the vote to women. It contained a provision preventing it from affecting current Parliamentary registers, Parliamentary elections or the constitution of the House of Commons until the next Dissolution, unless in the meantime a new register should have been compiled.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Did that Bill include redistribution?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot say, on memory, whether it did or did not.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: It did.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the event, the Dissolution came first before the new register was compiled. Then there was the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act, 1918. That was intended to be effective at the earliest possible moment. Two more Acts I should like to refer to are the 1948 Representation of the People Act, which abolished the University seats; but the section doing that did not come into force during the current Parliament. The last Act is, of course, the Life Peerage Act.
Views may differ as to the weight to be placed on these precedents. Reference has been made to the view expressed by my noble and learned friend, and views were expressed in another House, but there are, I think, only two precedents among those which I have cited which really have any relevance: one was the 1918 Act, which made women eligible for election to the House of Commons, and the other was the 1948 Act dealing with the University seats. They took effect only at the following Election and they both affected the composition of the House of Commons. But I would submit to your Lordships that, as a matter of principle, while it is permissible to make changes in who may vote during the lifetime of a Parliament—and that was done by two of the Acts to which I have referred—it is wrong to make changes affecting the composition of the Elected Chamber during the currency of a Parliament. That would seem to have been the view in 1918 and in 1948 when the Representation of the People Act was passed. I can find no precedents the other way. No precedent has come to my notice which supports the view that a change in the composition of another place, the Elected Chamber, should be made during the currency of a Parliament.
I have little more to say on this question. The arguments have been fully advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and my noble friend, and it seems to me that the question for decision really turns on this: whether it is right to make people eligible for election to the other House who are not eligible now, during the currency of this Parliament. This seems to me to be primarily a matter for the other House, and it is a matter on which they have reached a decision. That decision having been reached by another House, and for the reasons I have put
142
forward, I ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: This so far has developed into a debate between members of the Select Committee on the one hand (not on the one side, because of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin) and the Lord Chancellor. I should just like to say a few words as one who was not a member of the Joint Select Committee but who has taken an interest in this Bill, which I regard as a matter of considerable constitutional importance. I am not very impressed by the precedents which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has put before us. There are, of course, reasons, and the Lord Chancellor enumerated some, why certain Bills have not come into operation as Acts of Parliament, for one reason or another, on Royal Assent but came in on an appointed day. But he knows very well, as a very conscientious and admirable Attorney General in another House when I was in office, that a great many Bills are negotiated through that place, and it is perfectly obvious to me why this point as to when this Bill should come into operation was perhaps overlooked. I, for one, at any rate, and I am sure many of your Lordships here, would say that it was due to the fact that one took it as a matter of course that, unless there were some outstanding reasons to the contrary, a Bill, on receiving the Royal Assent, became an Act and came into operation. That is the reason why this small point has been to some extent overlooked.
As I am sure the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, would agree, the original debate in this House on this proposal took place without the Bill being in print before us; therefore we could not read the clause. We could talk for as long as we liked but we did not have the Bill; and this all hinges on whether the operative word is "at" or "before" the Dissolution. That is the only difference. It seems to me there is no oustanding reason why this Bill should not become an Act and come into operation on the Royal Assent. I am sure many of your Lordships in all parts of the House will be with me when I wonder whether, time permitting, this was not an occasion when the usual channels might flow in rather an abnormal direction to get in touch with the channels in another place.
4.10 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: As the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said, this is certainly not a Party political matter; with that I entirely agree. It is a matter of judgment and of common sense, as we see it in the circumstances of the case. Indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, has just made a further speech from that side in support of the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Silkin has moved, and we are much obliged to the noble Viscount for what he has said. What I want to do is to try to simplify the argument as it was left on the side of my noble friend Lord Silkin, and as it was left on the side of the able speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He gave some precedents showing that big changes do take place at the end of a Parliament. But, if I may say so with every respect, I do not think the examples he quoted were conclusive or convincing.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was not suggesting they were conclusive. I thought it right to draw your Lordships' attention to such precedents as I could find and comment upon them. The absence of precedents the other way is perhaps more significant.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I quite understand, and the noble Lord will not mind if I, in the same spirit of enlightenment, draw the attention of the House to certain other considerations in relation to the precedents he quoted, no doubt for the purpose of influencing the Committee, as he had a perfect right to do, in the direction he wished the Committee to go. Take, for example, the Representation of the People Act, 1918. I gather it was the case that it came near to an Election. That was pretty inevitable, because the First World War did not finish until 1918, and it would have taken the Government and Parliament all its time to get legislation through. If that was the case, then it would not be unnatural.
With regard to the University seats, it really would have been unjust if the Government, which happened to be a Labour Government, or the Parliament which brought in the Representation of the People Bill which proposed to abolish University seats—there was plenty of quite understandable controversy about that—had proposed to exclude university
144
M.P.s forthwith although they had been elected to that Parliament. Therefore it was natural, it was just, that the exclusion of university M.P.s should not take place until the end of the existence of that Parliament.
As to the admission of women to the House of Commons, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, I think quite accurately, that that Bill was not passed until almost the eve of an Election. But that, I suggest, was fortuitous; it happened that the legislation passed about the eve of an Election; and, in any case, that was a change of a different order in which it could have been argued with force—I do not say I should have agreed with it—that it should not take place until the beginning of another Parliament, although changes of the electorate could take place in the middle of a Parliament. But this is not a Bill of itself which radically changes the composition of Parliament. Up to now we know for certain of only one case which would change the composition of this House in relation to what would happen in the normal course of things and modifies the composition of the House of Commons. But it is not a Bill of very great changes.
The other argument of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor boiled down to this: the Report of the Select Committee did not say that this change should operate earlier than a General Election; and in regard to the various statements that the noble and learned Lord quoted he had the same criticism—that they did not stipulate that the proposals should operate before a General Election. But the onus is surely upon the Government to show that they themselves throughout stipulated that this Bill should not operate until the Dissolution. Then they would have a reasonable case. We approached the subject, both in the proceedings of the Joint Select Committee and in the subsequent debate in the House, on the basis that what we were anxious about was that if possible a Bill should be brought in in this Session of Parliament. The Government at first were apparently rather unwilling to bring in a Bill in this Session of Parliament, no doubt owing to the Parliamentary programme, an unwillingness which I understand; but they were pressed, and in the

145
end they decided to bring in a Bill in the present Parliamentary Session, and we were glad about that decision.
The pressure was that this problem should be solved not later than the end of the life of the present Parliament. That was really the argument that was impressed upon the Government, and we are not bound to prove any more. But because we said it ought to be operative not later than the end of the Parliament does not mean that we did not also have in our minds that if the legislation was passed in the present Session of Parliament it should be operative forthwith, as is the normal case with legislation unless the Bill provides otherwise. The heavens will not fall, whatever happens, but I can see a great deal of inconvenience to people who are affected, and particularly to constituencies. A Member of another place may succeed to a Peerage and not be sitting there, as in the case of Bristol, where a Conservative M.P. sits although he was defeated on the vote (and, if I remember rightly, he gave a public undertaking that if the Government altered the law in this matter or acted in the way that has turned out to be the general will of Parliament he would resign, because he was not too happy himself in the position of a Member who had been defeated on the vote of the electorate). When this Bill is passed that question may arise for the honourable Member for Bristol. South-East: that he may feel he is in honour bound to resign. If so, what is going to happen? On the Bill as it stands Mr. Wedgwood Benn—I do not want to keep harping on his name as it might affect other people as well—would normally be the Labour candidate at the by-election. I gather he has been selected as the prospective Labour candidate. But he could not, unless this Bill was operative—unless he again ran the risk of being disqualified on appeal to the High Court.
Therefore, Bristol would have to choose another Labour candidate, if they were willing so to do. That candidate would have to accept it on the understanding, which could not be constitutionally binding, that he would not run at the General Election. That is rather undignified for the man who runs; he would have to say, "I am merely the caretaker pending the time when somebody
146
else is available to run in the General Election". I suggest that the Government will lose nothing by letting the Amendment of my noble friend pass. It has been supported by influential noble Lords on both sides. The Government will lose nothing. The Constitution will not rock to its foundations. In fact the Constitution, jolly old thing, will hardly notice what has happened at all. It shows what a strong and powerful thing this unwritten Constitution is.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: There is the difficulty of another place agreeing to our Amendment.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I agree about that. There were times when the noble Viscount and I could speak with greater authority for another place. But my impression is that if your Lordships were to pass this Amendment it would be readily accepted in the House of Commons, I should have thought on both sides, because, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, says, there is no Party view in this at all; it is a matter of good sense. Therefore it is perfectly right for the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, to raise the point, but I do not apprehend any difficulty in another place especially if the Government move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment". They have sufficient authority in another place to get it through, but I think they will get it through with general assent and general good will.
Therefore, I urge the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who has addressed us in his usual persuasive style, to think again about this matter and, on reflection, to see that there is a substantial body in this Committee—possibly a majority—who would support this Amendment. I hope, for the sake of good feeling, and moreover for the supreme sake of settling a little constitutional difficulty by good will and agreement all round (which is a great thing if it can be achieved), the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor will be able to think again about the matter in the light of the debate, and see whether he cannot accept the Amendment that my noble friend has moved.
LORD CONESFORD: May I add a few considerations in support of this

147
Amendment? On the first point, on what the Government have previously said, I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor appreciates that nobody is accusing the Government of any breach of faith. The question is simply what we all understood. I think the words quoted by my noble and learned friend this afternoon in his reply just now—I think I got them down aright—were
"in time to take effect at the next General Election."
Well, of course, they are not really conclusive either way. Speaking for myself, all I can say is that I understood the matter in the same way as did the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
As nobody is suggesting that the Government are guilty of any breach of faith in the matter, I pass at once to the merits. When we consider the merits, I think it is the business of this House to try to see that legislation goes through in such a form as not to make Parliament ridiculous. Suppose we passed this Bill in the form in which it now stands, and thereafter, in the lifetime of this Parliament, one of those events occurred to which noble Lords who have previously spoken drew attention, and it was found that a recently passed Statute was quite inadequate to deal with the problem which then arose and which anybody could have foreseen. What would be said about Parliament and what would then be the prestige of both Houses? Since the argument on the merits seems to me to be overwhelming, it seems to me to be important that Parliament should not make a fool of itself. I thought that, in giving the precedents, my noble and learned friend laid an astonishing reliance on the 1948 Statute abolishing the University seats. It would have been a bold step, even for that Government, to pass an Act which promptly expelled from the House some dozen Members, including Sir John Anderson and Walter Elliot, not to mention Kenneth Pickthorn and myself. I doubt whether it would have paid them.
Now I come to the only point on which I wholly agree with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—namely, that this matter is principally one for another place. There, I think he is quite right. There has been a Division in that other place, but it was a
148
Division with the Whips on. It may, I think, be improper for us to speculate on what may be the view of another place, but if we pass this Amendment, believing as we do in its merits, it will then be for the other place to decide whether it agrees with us or not. If it does not, late in the day though it is, we may have a chance to say whether or not we insist on our Amendment. If, on the other hand, the Commons agree with us, then cadit quœstio. For those reasons, I hope with the noble Lords, Lord Morrison of Lambeth and Lord Swinton, that even at this late stage the Government will find it possible to accept this Amendment.
4.25 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am going to be brief, because I think we have heard all the arguments adduced on both sides, and I think we are all ready to come to a decision, if a decision in the Lobby is necessary. But I would appeal most earnestly to the Lord Chancellor and to the Government to think again and to accept this Amendment. As I listened to the noble and learned Lord, I felt sorry that he had to defend such a poor case as he had. He did his best, but he was really trying to defend the indefensible. I am sure we all listened to him with great interest, in the hope that he would, at long last, divulge the really powerful reasons which had led the Government to depart in this particular case from the usual procedure by which a Bill comes into force immediately after the Royal Assent. There may be arguments which convinced them in favour of the course they have adopted, but they certainly have not divulged them to us. The noble and learned Lord quoted certain rather remote precedents where the coming into force of Bills has been delayed, but I think far more important precedents have been quoted this afternoon from the other side by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin; precedents which, to my mind, easily outweigh those which were quoted by the Government.
The noble and learned Lord also reminded us of what I can only call certain rather sibylline utterances he made on May 16, which convinced him absolutely that the Government had made it clear to your Lordships that what they meant was that the Bill should not come into force until the Dissolution of Parliament.

149
If I may say so, they may have convinced him, but I do not think they convinced a single other Member of this House. I think we all came to the conclusion that what was meant was that the time which should be given for people to make up their minds should be by the General Election, and not at the General Election. He said, that at any rate none of us here protested at that time against what he said. None of us at that time had seen the Bill, and we had no idea that the interpretation which he put upon his words was one which we might even expect to understand.
In view of all these arguments, I must say that I remain convinced that the case in favour of this Amendment is really overwhelming. By postponing the coming into force of this Bill until the General Election we shall not only be doing something which is quite contrary to the usual practice of Parliament, but also, quite gratuitously, creating all sorts of difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, drew attention in the speech with which he moved his Amendment. The question of the coming into force of the Bill was never raised at the Select Committee, and the Amendment therefore does not in any way upset the delicate balance of compromise between widely differing views. There is one last thing I should like to say to the Lord Chancellor. One argument he used was this. I do not think it has been referred to by subsequent speakers, and perhaps I misheard him, but I understood him to say that, because this Amendment had been rejected in the House of Commons, we had absolutely got to do the same thing in this House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not say that at all. I said exactly the contrary: that it was perfectly open to us to do as we wished. While I am on my feet, may I correct one other observation? I am sorry if I am so frequently
misunderstood, but in fact I did not make the announcement on May 15. The statement was made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I, of course, withdraw if I have misunderstood what the noble and learned Lord has said. But the position is exactly the same whoever made the statement. It has been interpreted by the Lord Chancellor as meaning one thing and by the rest of us as meaning another. As for the argument about our not standing up against the House of Commons, I will read Hansard to-morrow, but the impression made on me was that we ought to be very careful before we disagreed with the House of Commons. That is an argument which, if it ever were made in this House, none of us would accept. We are unwilling to be regarded as a rubber stamp for the other House. We always take our own view, and I hope that we always shall. I would appeal to the noble and learned Lord, even now, to accept the overwhelming view of this Committee and accept the Amendment. If he cannot do that, then I am afraid that I, like a great many other noble Lords, shall have to go into the Lobby in its support.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am a Scots elected Representative Peer. I do not want to say more on this subject, but will confine myself to saying that, while I do not think Clause 4 of this Bill will affect my position in any way, I am ready to accept any sacrifice that it may involve in order that we may get what I think to be a perfectly proper and fair amendment of this Bill.
4.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Braye, L.

Coutanche, L.

Addison, V.

Brocket, L.

Crathorne, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Burden, L.

Crook, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Darwen, L.

Albemarle, E.

Champion, L.

De La Warr, E.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Chorley, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Ampthill, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Attlee, E.

Clwyd, L.

Eccles, L.

Auckland, L.

Cohen, L.

Effingham, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Colyton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Barnby, L.

Conesford, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Longford, E.

Salisbury, M.

Fortescue, E.

Lucan, E.

Saltoun, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandford, L.

Furness, V.

Mabane, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Gosford, E.

Mansfield, E.

Shepherd, L.

Grantchester, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Silkin, L.

Grenfell, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sinha, L.

Hailes, L.

Mersey, V.

Stonehaven, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Merthyr, L.

Stonham, L.

Hawke, L.

Meston, L.

Strang, L. [Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Milverton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hereford, V.

Morrison, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Summerskill, B.

Iddesleigh, E.

Moyne, L.

Swinton, E.

Inman, L.

Ogmore, L.

Taylor, L.

Jessel, L.

Radnor, E.

Terrington, L.

Killearn, L.

Rea, L.

Teynham, L.

Lambert, V.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Twining, L.

Latham, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Walston, L.

Lawson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lilford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Williams, L.

Lindgren, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, L. Bp.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Listowel, E.

Windlesham, L.

Lloyd, L.

St. Just, L.

Wise, L.

Long, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Atholl, D.

Dundee, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Carrington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lothian, M.

Chelmsford, V.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chesham, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mills, V.

Craigton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Newton, L.

Denham, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Derwent, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Oswald, L.

Devonshire, D.

Jellicoe, E.

Spens, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT BILL
4.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, this is a short Bill compared with some of those which have occupied your Lordships' House lately, and I hope it will command general support. The Bill has two principal clauses, the first of which is to
152
amend the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1959, so as to widen the present sphere of operation of the Colonial Development Corporation; and the second is to make a further provision for funds under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. The first clause has become necessary due to the steady process of constitutional advance, which has transformed what was in 1948 a large colonial empire, when the Colonial Development Corporation was set up, into an expanding Commonwealth of independent nations.
Under the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, by which the Colonial Development Corporation was constituted, the operation of the Corporation was concerned with the development of the resources of colonial territories. I know that it is felt that the activities of the Corporation ought to have been extended to cover independent Commonwealth countries a long time before this, indeed, as far back as 1957 when Ghana became independent. Noble Lords will remember that this matter was debated at that time, and it was thought logical that forms of assistance designed and intended only for Colonies, should cease

153
to be available to them when they became independent. In the light of the number and difference in circumstances of the territories which have become independent since then, the arguments advanced in 1957 have, I think, acquired much greater force: and that is the reason for this Bill.
In the meanwhile we have been supplying very substantial assistance to independent Commonwealth countries by other means. My right honourable friend announced, almost exactly a year ago, that is was the intention to restore to the Corporation its powers to operate in territories in which it had been able to operate when it was originally set up, but for a number of reasons the preparation of this Bill has, I am afraid, been delayed. Although I am sorry it has not been possible to introduce it earlier, I am glad to be able to commend it now to your Lordships.
In doing so I should like to pay my tribute to the successful operations of the Corporation over recent years. If it were judged only by its operating surplus, which I suppose we might call a gross profit, it would be seen from its annual report that the Corporation is going from strength to strength. Your Lordships will have seen from its recent reports that it is becoming more self-sufficient financially. Last year it was able to provide from its own resources about one half of the money which it had invested. It has brought a number of projects to fruition, and has been able successfully to dispose of a number of them to interests which will carry on what the Corporation founded. This is proof of the successful work of my noble friend Lord Howick of Glendale and of his colleagues, as well as of the staffs of the Corporation both at headquarters here and overseas. Noble Lords will have seen the recognition which the Corporation paid in its annual report to the work of Lord Reith, who did so much to establish the foundations upon which it has built its present successes.
As regards the detail of the first clause, Clause 1(1)(a) provides that any territory which was within the Corporation's field of operations in 1948 shall again come within its sphere, so that the Corporation will be able to start new projects there. At the moment, once a territory becomes independent all the Corporation can do is to carry on any projects which
154
it has begun before independence, or it may provide managerial or advisory functions if asked by the Government of the country to do so. Up to the present time, the managerial and advisory services have. I understand, not been asked for.
Clause 1(1)(b) would bring the New Hebrides into the scope of the Corporation. As your Lordships will know, the New Hebrides is an Anglo-French Condominium in the Pacific. It was formerly excluded because it did not come within the definiton of "colonial territory" in the 1948 Act, as it was not within the field of Colonial Development and Welfare assistance. Since 1955, however, the islands have been able to receive Colonial Development and Welfare help, and it is now intended to make it possible for the Corporation also to operate there. Clause 1(2) will change the name of the Corporation to the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Clause 1(3) enables my right honourable friend to give directions to the Corporation requiring it to obtain his approval when he so specifies before it performs functions in any independent country. This is so that the Secretary of State may ensure that the Government of the independent country concerned concurs in the intention of the Corporation to seek out and develop projects in its country. I think your Lordships will agree that this is a proper provision, as the countries in which it is now intended to enable the Corporation to operate are independent.
Clause 1, subsection (4), is to make a consequential change, arising out of the change of name of the Corporation, in the House of Commons Disqualification Act. Subsection (5) is simply a tidying up provision resulting from the liberty which the Corporation will now have to operate in Southern Rhodesia for the benefit of the inhabitants of that territory alone, instead of for the benefit of the Federation as a whole, which is what it can do at the present time.
Clause 2 of the Bill amends the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1959. This Act, which was a consolidating one, provides for two types of assistance to Colonial territories. The first takes the form of funds, which are usually given as grants, for schemes for promoting the development and welfare of the Colonies. This is the system which was first established in 1940. The provision

155
of these funds has been dealt with on a cumulative basis from April 1, 1946, each succeeding Act having simply extended the period in which the funds were to be spent and increased the aggregate amount. The second type of assistance is Exchequer loans, which are made available for the purposes of development programmes of colonial Governments. These loans were introduced in 1959, when the colonial Governments were experiencing difficulty in gaining access to the market. They have proved of invaluable use, and I think undoubtedly will have a continuing part to play.
Under Clause 2(2) of the Bill, the period in which funds may be spent on Colonial Development and Welfare schemes, and in which Exchequer loans may be approved, will be extended from March 31, 1964, to March 31, 1966. The effective period, therefore, is nearly three years, there being nearly a year's overlap with the existing Act, which ends on March 31, 1964. This overlap enables funds to be allocated to colonial Governments before they have spent their existing allocations. As your Lordships know, many colonial territories rely almost entirely upon assistance provided under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts for their development expenditure, and for others it is the most important single source of finance. Knowing in advance what assistance they are going to get from this source enables colonial Governments to frame realistic development plans. Previously the period of assistance of Colonial Development and Welfare Acts has been live years. We have chosen a period of only three years this time, not because we think that the need for assistance is coming to an end but because of the difficulty of assessing requirements for longer periods ahead.
Clause 2(2)(a) increases the aggregate amount of funds available for Development and Welfare schemes from £315 million to £340 million. Since about £431, million of the existing provision was unspent at March 31, 1963, a total of about £68½ million is available for expenditure in the three years up to March 31, 1966. Exchequer loans, like the Development and Welfare monies, are also to be dealt with on a cumulative basis. Thus, Clause 2(2)(c) increases the total of loans that may be approved from
156
£100 million to £105 million. At March 31, 1963, £36 million remained unissued from the orginal provision, so that the additional provision made by the Bill will raise the further issues which can be made to £41 million. The aid made available by this Bill covers, of course, a much smaller number of territories than in 1959. Since then, Cyprus, Jamaica. Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Somaliland, Tanganyika, Trinidad and Uganda have all become independent. North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore are to enter the Malaysian Federation on August 31, and Kenya is due to become independent on December 12.
When a territory becomes independent, it ceases to qualify for assistance under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. There are however, of course, other means by which we can and do give assistance to these territories. The range of activities covered by the Bill has also become narrower. Research activities benefiting the Colonies and technical assistance to them have been taken outside its scope. These are now financed, as your Lordships know, by the Department of Technical Co-operation, whose functions in these fields extend beyond the colonial territories. The change does not mean, of course, that any less importance is attached to these activities.
After taking account of all these factors, the scale of assistance provided by the Bill does, in fact, show an increase of about 28 per cent. compared with the provision made in 1959, and a large proportion of it is in the form of free grants. This Bill provides for commercial projects to be undertaken by the Commonwealth Development Corporation in both dependent and independent countries, and it gives assistance for social and economic development in the dependent territories also. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
4.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will welcome a Bill that does what many of us have been asking the Government to do for a very long time; and we are all grateful to the noble Marquess for introducing it in such a clear and skilful

157
manner. It was, as the noble Marquess pointed out, almost exactly a year ago, in July of 1962, when the Secretary of State told Parliament that he would allow the Colonial Development Corporation to operate in independent Commonwealth countries, and that he would introduce a Bill. We had been urging the Government to do this for quite a number of years—indeed, whenever the Annual Report of the Corporation was debated in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will remember that very well; and in those days, when he had not his present official post on the board of the Corporation, he played a very efficient and useful part in these annual debates.
The noble Marquess referred to a criticism which I think he correctly anticipated. It is that this decision should have been taken as far back as 1957, when Ghana became our first African Colony to reach independence. This failure to act earlier is bound up with what I believe to be one of the cardinal defects of the Government's Commonwealth and colonial policy: the withdrawal of the United Kingdom's financial support as soon as a Colony becomes independent. It is due to the fact that the Government's policy in relation to the new developing countries in Africa and elsewhere had been, until not very long ago, the same in principle as its policy in relation to the old Commonwealth countries which became independent before the war. The basic assumption was that when a Colony becomes politically independent it also becomes economically viable. We all know that this is not the case, and we only regret that the Government did not act up to the basic facts of experience a good deal earlier.
It has taken the Government five years to accept this basic British economic responsibility. I wonder how many opportunities for development in these countries have been missed by the delay in widening the field of the Corporation—opportunities for the Corporation, as well as for the countries concerned. Clearly, the Corporation would have benefited if it could have been taken up usefully and profitably in the Colonies after they had achieved independence. The decision, as we have heard, was taken in July; but we have had to wait
158
a whole year for the Bill. The noble Marquess is apologetic for the delay, but I do not blame him: no one but the Government know what caused the delay, though I believe that some of us can give a pretty accurate guess.
I believe the difficulty is that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is a Minister who has far too much to do. A Minister who has as much to do as the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is inevitably obliged to neglect the less urgent matters in both the Departments of which he is master, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office; and of course, the less urgent matters for which he is responsible include the economic side of the Colonial Office. I do not blame him at all. I do not think one can expect anything else of a Minister who is doing the work of two full-time Cabinet Ministers. Most of us believe—and we have expressed this opinion on former occasions—that when the time comes the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office should be one Department under one Minister. The time has obviously not yet come; indeed, they are still separate Departments. The great mistake of the Government, of which this very belated Bill is an example, has been to place them too soon under a single Minister.
Look at the activities of the unfortunate Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in the last couple of weeks: a date for independence for Kenya (which we were debating yesterday); the setting up of the Malaysian Federation; constitutional talks with British Honduras and Malta; and a crisis in British Guiana. The unfortunate Secretary of State is arriving home to-day from a strenuous tour of British Guiana, judging from the evening newspapers, and he goes straight into constitutional talks of the utmost importance with representatives of Malta. Of course the Government should have waited to make this change—one Minister in charge of these Departments—until more Colonies had hived-off into independence. In this way the Secretary of State for the Colonies would have been relieved of the sort of work he has done up to now. But it seems unreasonable to expect any man to undertake all this work at the same time.

159
The effect of this is that he is trying to deal with the most urgent political problems and issues as they come along at the moment. Everything of secondary importance must be shelved, including something that I regard as of great importance: the routine visits of the Secretary of State for the Commonwealth to the Commonwealth countries. I believe that the noble Earl the present Foreign Secretary, when he was at the Commonwealth Relations Office, visited all the independent Commonwealth countries. This I thought was a good thing. I met him in Africa when he visited that continent, and I know how much good he did by that visit. I am sure that no Commonwealth Secretary can do his job unless he has first-hand experience of all the Commonwealth countries and of the leading personalities in those countries. It is quite impossible for Mr. Sandys to go around and visit the Commonwealth while he has these burning political issues to deal with at home.
The result of this situation is drift and delay in the two Departments for which he is responsible; and they both suffer. I have no doubt, for example, that if the Colonial Office had had its own Secretary of State to fight for this Bill it would have been in the legislative programme for the early part of this Session. It would have been introduced last autumn. If agreement had not been reached between the Colonial Office and the Treasury about money allocation for colonial welfare, another Bill could have been introduced to deal with this matter as soon as the agreement had been reached. But I cannot see any reason why, if the Commonwealth Secretary had been able to direct his attention to the Bill (which he promised last July and which is really uncontroversial) it should not have been introduced much earlier.
My second complaint, not of the Bill itself, but of the method of dealing with it, is that the policy behind the Bill fails to implement what I regard as the most important recommendation of the Sinclair Report on the financial structure of the Corporation. Your Lordships will remember that the Sinclair Report wanted the bulk of the Corporation's capital to be an equity stock, like the bulk of the capital of any private company. The Report took the view that the Corpora
160
tion would be enormously handicapped if all its funds were tied up in fixed interest-bearing stock. But that is still the position. It has not been altered by the present Bill. I cannot see the point of the Government's asking experts to advise them about the financial structure of the Corporation if their most important piece of advice is ignored. It is like asking a doctor to take your temperature and then refusing to take the medicines to bring the temperature down.
The argument against adopting the recommendation of the Sinclair Report is that there would be a risk of subsidy if the rate of interest earned by investments of the Corporation was less than the rate of interest at which the Government borrow. But this financial loss would be more than offset, in the long run, by the rapid economic development of the countries concerned. All these countries need a good deal more risk capital if they are to become economically viable. The Corporation should be allowed to be one of the institutions to provide this risk capital. I have no doubt at all that the relatively small amount of the Corporation's new investment last year—between £4 and £5 million—was due to the fact that it cannot take the risk of putting money into marginal development projects.
My third and final criticism of the policy behind the Bill is that it limits the operation of the Corporation to part only of the Commonwealth—namely, that part which has become independent since 1948. There might have been something to be said for excluding India, which already gets the lion's share of British aid, but there is no case for excluding Pakistan and Ceylon, which are really, economically and financially, in the same position as any one of the Commonwealth African countries that will be helped under this Bill. Why do the Government not allow the Corporation to cover the whole Commonwealth, or at least all the developing countries of the Commonwealth? Not all the Commonwealth countries, of course, need this sort of help: some do not want it, and the Corporation is not the instrument for providing them with capital investment. The Bill is only permissive: it does not oblige the Corporation to go anywhere. But why not give the Corporation an opportunity of going into, say, Pakistan and

161
Ceylon, if it so wishes? I regard this matter as being of such importance that, if I receive any support from other noble Lords, I shall come back to the point during the Committee stage of the Bill.
Just a word, if I may (and this is my last argument on the Bill), about ministerial responsibility for the Corporation. The Corporation, of course, is still under the Colonial Office, although the responsible minister is the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. The Colonial Office is a political department dealing with the political relationships between this country and the Commonwealth countries and was never intended to handle economic development. Therefore, it is quite natural that these economic matters are regarded as of secondary importance, and that the economic side of the Colonial Office—which includes, of course, the Corporation and the expenditure of the Colonial Development and Welfare funds—is handed over by the Secretary of State to a ministerial subordinate in his Department. I am delighted that he hands it over to the noble Marquess in this House. These matters could not be dealt with more competently than they have been by the noble Marquess, but I still wish that we had with us a Secretary of State, preferably in the shape of the noble Marquess, rather than a Minister of State.
Surely the time has come for the Government to take a new look at overseas development. It is becoming increasingly important as a function of Government; and, as the noble Marquess himself pointed out in his concluding sentences, responsibility for economic development overseas is divided between a number of Ministers and several different Government departments. Should overseas development not be regarded by the Government, like an expanding home economy, as one of our major national interests? It is a field in which our national interests in increasing world trade and the humanitarian desire of the British people to help their fellow men exactly coincide. I have heard Ministers express some fears on this aspect. The Government wonder why they have failed to capture the loyalty of youth. I suggest that, if they really want to touch the idealism of the young, they should appeal for support for an overseas development programme.
162
No people in the world have stronger humanitarian feelings than the British. Look at the success of the Freedom from Hunger campaign, in which the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, took a leading part. I believe that the sponsors have raised far more money than they expected. Look at the success of the United Nations appeal for refugees. We raised more money in World Refugee Year than any other country in relation to our resources. There is no doubt that the Government could have public support, if they were to make overseas development one of their major policies. Nothing would underline the importance of this more effectively than the appointment of a Minister for Overseas Development. And I think that "development" is a better word than "aid", which suggests charity.
Such a Minister should have a seat in the Cabinet. He would be responsible for the whole of our overseas aid, in money and technical skill. This would not be creating a new department. I know that anyone who has had ministerial responsibility is very chary of creating new Government departments. Nor would it necessarily add to the number of Cabinet Ministers. Again, nobody would wish to do that unless there was a strong reason. The Department of Technical Co-operation, which is already responsible for technical aid, could be expanded and made responsible for capital as well as technical assistance overseas. A Cabinet Minister without a Department—for example, the Lord Privy Seal, who presumably has less to do, now that he is no longer trying to get us into Europe—could be put in charge of such an expanded department and made responsible for all non-military Government expenditure in developing countries. This, after all, is the system already adopted to-day in the principal donor countries. In the United States, capital and technical aid are under the same agency in the State Department and the Secretary of State is responsible for dealing with overseas aid and with providing both technicians and money. In France, there is a Minister for Cooperation, who deals with almost all financial and technical aid given by the French Government overseas.
A new Minister for Overseas Development would, I think, have four main jobs.

163
None of these is a job for which any one Minister is responsible at the moment. First, in the Cabinet, like the heads of other spending Departments, he would fight for his share of Government expenditure. Secondly, he would be the salesman of British aid—to Parliament, the public and the Press. Thirdly (and this is where we come to matters dealt with in this Bill), he would decide priorities in relation to the limited amount of capital and technical aid available, and would co-ordinate both money and technical skill. I need not go into the haphazard way these matters are decided at the moment, by a tug-of-war between different Departments, such as no doubt took place on this Bill, when officials of the Treasury and officials of the Colonial Office dealt with this matter during the past year. Nor need I go into the waste of technical skill, when experts are sent overseas by the British Government without the equipment they need for their work. I know very well that this happens.
Fourthly, and finally, this Minister would be the mouthpiece of the Government in receiving representatives of the recipient countries and of international aid-giving bodies. There is no single Minister now to welcome a Minister from a developing country when he arrives in London, or a representative of one of the United Nations aid-giving agencies. Someone might have to go from the Foreign Office or the Colonial Office, or someone from the Treasury or the Board of Trade. My Lords, I am certain that our reputation in the outside world would be enormously enhanced if we had a single Minister of the highest standing dedicated to aid in all its forms. That is why I should like to see the Commonwealth Development Corporation receiving the highest ministerial priority, which it would get if a Minister of that standing were responsible for it.
We hope that your Lordships will support this Bill, but we also hope that some of the matters which I have mentioned in the course of my remarks will be regarded by your Lordships as matters that might well be taken up at Committee stage.
5.18 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, although this Bill is in some aspects a formality, it is very necessary to enable a valuable
164
machine to work more efficiently in British overseas Commonwealth interests than it has been able to do hitherto. The limited resources and financial stringency under which the Commonwealth Development Corporation has been operating have obviously reduced considerably the great possibilities of which it is capable. These possibilities and potentialities, given adequate funds to implement them, are of particular importance at this juncture, when the whole image of the British Commonwealth is rapidly changing from the conception of an Imperial Colonial Empire to a new and constructive consortium of emergent and largely self-governing communities with whom we now seek to work as a partner and a brother, rather than as a manager and a master.
Our aims are joint aims towards communal advance, and it is at this stage of change that there must emerge many situations where, on the one hand, the line of advance can confidently be left to the resources of the territory concerned, but where, on the other, unforeseen opportunities arise which can be exploited only by substantial help from the Commonwealth Development Corporation. It is because these opportunities must not be allowed to slip away (with results which may not only be negative, but may even engender political as well as economic difficulties) that the Commonwealth Development Corporation must be given more power and more elbow room to exploit new schemes and new ideas.
The sum involved in this Bill is admittedly not small, and one cannot expect, as the noble Earl said, that the Treasury will treat the proposed increases in this Bill as in any way trivial. But the cause is a good one and should repay handsomely the expenditure which this Bill will make possible. By enlarging the scope of potential of the Corporation in financial terms, it is to be hoped that Her Majesty's Government will also enlarge the ambit in which the Corporation may work. It is unsatisfactory that in regard to such places as Pakistan, Ceylon, and possibly India, too, the Corporation should be confined to a mere agency status. And it is unsatisfactory that it has not been possible for the Corporation to integrate some of its valuable activities with other international organisations, such as the International Bank and many other individual

165
bodies whose activities lie parallel to those of the Corporation. In supporting the Bill, I would ask Her Majesty's Government not to lose sight of those aspects, which are not merely financial, and to back up the Corporation in every way in this very wide field of vast potentialities.
5.23 p.m.
LORD TWINING: My Lords, we have awaited this Bill for a long time, and, in fact, for so long that I have forgotten the remarks which I had intended to make had it been brought in when it should have been, some years ago. Admittedly, the questions involved have been somewhat complicated, and this has caused delay; but, even if it is belated, it is none the less welcome. There are only a few points I wish to make. In the past, the C.D.C. has experienced some bouts of growing pains, and it is good to know that it is now so firmly and successfully established. Its history can be divided into three phases. In the first phase over-enthusiasm led to projects which were not always wisely selected, and an attempt was made for the Corporation to manage these schemes itself. For these reasons, there were a number of failures, and losses amounting to about £12 million were made.
The second phase covered the period when the Chairman of the Corporation was the noble Lord, Lord Reith. Some drastic changes in policy were made: the top-heavy headquarters staff was streamlined, and emphasis was placed on the desirability of going into partnership with private enterprise, who could supply the management and "know-how". The third phase has covered the period during which my noble friend Lord Howick of Glendale has been the Chairman, and has been notably successful. The lessons of past experience have been learnt, and the rationalisation of policy and organisation has enabled the Corporation to operate profitably. The operating surplus has increased from £1,869,000 in 1959 to £4,361,000 in 1962. This is a notable achievement, and all who have contributed to it deserve to be congratulated.
The Governments of the countries in which the C.D.C. now operates have gained confidence in the Corporation and turn to it for participation in many projects they are anxious to launch. I am
166
particularly glad to note that the C.D.C. is participating as an equal partner with the Tanganyika Government and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in establishing the Tanganyika Development and Finance Company Limited. I understand that a similar arrangement is being negotiated with the Kenya Government. I should like to see this sort of arrangement entered into elsewhere.
In some areas—East Africa is a notable example—the doubts about political stability have led to a lack of interest being taken by private enterprise in investment possibilities. These countries, particularly those that have gained independence, are very anxious to attract private capital for industrial and economic development. A finance and development company sponsored by a local Government, and in which one or more other Governments are participating, can offer private enterprise partnership with a measure of security which should give confidence. I believe that this sort of activity can go a long way to speed up economic development in these newly independent countries. In previous debates in your Lordships' House on the activities of the C.D.C. I have expressed the hope that everything will be done to encourage local private investment in projects in which the Corporation has an interest. There are difficulties, especially as the number of people who are in a position to buy shares is at present small. But the advantage of local participation is great, and steps should be taken to make it possible.
Finally, my Lords, may I make a plea for increased investment by the C.D.C. in the "Little Seven" in the West Indies? These small islands are anxious to gain independence and, if possible, to federate; but the development of their economic resources is slender, and this makes the prospect of independence hazardous. If some industrial enterprise could be established in these islands, with the considerable Caribbean market in view, it would go a long way to strengthen their economy.
5.26 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I, too, should like to add a few words of welcome to this Bill. It is a change in the activities of the C.D.C. which many of us on this side of the House, also, have

167
urged for many years. I remember doing so when I was still at the Colonial Office some seven years ago. It has always seemed to me to be completely illogical that the emerging Commonwealth countries should be excluded. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that this decision should have been taken in 1957. In my view, it should have been taken in 1948, when the Bill was originally introduced, so as to cover at that time India and Pakistan. The criticism that I wish to make of this Bill—and I think it is a serious criticism—is that it excludes Commonwealth countries which were independent before 1948. It seems to me that that introduces a completely unreal distinction between the Commonwealth countries which I personally could not accept. The late Mr. John Strachey, who was an old friend of many of us from schooldays, and whose untimely death we deeply regret, made an eloquent speech on this subject in another place the other day in which he set forth the arguments in favour of including India, Pakistan and Ceylon.
I really wonder why they were excluded! India was perhaps excluded, as the noble Earl said, because it was too big. But surely that does not apply to Pakistan and Ceylon. I suppose it may be argued that India and Pakistan were never technically Colonies. But that, again, does not apply to Ceylon, which came under the Colonial Office until its independence. Another argument might be that if you include India, Pakistan and Ceylon, then you must include the older Commonwealth countries, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I do not think that this is a serious argument. This Bill is purely permissive. It need not be extended to any Commonwealth country unless it is the view of the Government and of the C.D.C. itself that this aid should be extended. I should like to see it made to apply to all Commonwealth countries so that there should be no distinction between them.
In the back of my mind, I rather wish that it could be turned into a two-way traffic, so that the C.D.C. itself should become a Commonwealth operation to which the more wealthy Commonwealth countries could contribute to help the others. This is something that I should have always liked to see, and if it could
168
be extended (not under this Bill, of course, but in some way), in that sense I think it would be a good thing. I understand that the Chairman of the Colonial Development Corporation, my noble friend Lord Howick of Glendale, is himself quite willing to take on India, Pakistan and Ceylon. I hope that the Government will reconsider this point and perhaps introduce an Amendment to cover it on the Committee stage.
5.30 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, most of your Lordships who have spoken so far in this debate have confined your remarks to the Colonial Development Corporation, and I do not wish to repeat what has been said by other speakers, other than to say that I agree, I think, with everything that they have said. In particular, I was happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, say appreciative words about our friend John Strachey, not only for his remarks about India and Pakistan, but also for the rôle he played in earlier days, some not altogether successful, but all of vision and imagination in this concept of developing the different parts of the Commonwealth. I should also like, with my personal interest in the West Indies, to support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Twining, for additional attention to be paid to the "Little Seven" in the West Indies, a group of islands which undoubtedly can make good use of any assistance which may come their way, but where the rules imposed upon the Commonwealth Development Corporation, as it will now be called, concerning risk taking make it more difficult for it to give help in those areas where help is so much needed.
The only other point I would make concerning the C.D.C.—and I am sorry we have not the opportunity to-day to go in more detail into their operations, which are so admirable—is one of minor criticism or, at least, of warning, to them. In their Annual Report they give an interesting set of figures, among many others, concerning the proportion of their money which is invested in continuing projects. It is divided into three headings: that of basic development, primary production and processing, and commerce and industry. They rightly devote more than 50 per cent. of their resources to the first of these three—that is, to basic development—but it is a little disturbing

169
to note that there has been in the past twelve months, comparing 1961 with 1962, a drop in the proportion of their funds devoted to basic development of just over 1 per cent., from 54·8 to 52·7 per cent., with a virtually similar rise in the proportion devoted to commerce and industry from 10·8 to 11·8 per cent. That is not a very big shift of emphasis, but I think that if it went any further it would be a rather disturbing one, because commerce and industry, important though it is to developing countries, is something which can rather more safely—and I put it no higher than that—be left to private industry and other forms of investment, whereas basic development and primary production and processing are something for which it is much harder to raise capital. Therefore, I hope that the C.D.C. will give increasingly sympathetic attention to those basic and primary projects, and turn their backs perhaps a little more, in spite of the attractive returns and the greater security they may get from such things, on these projects which they describe as "commerce and industry".
Now I should like to deal just a little more than has been done already with the other sections of this Bill: those concerning the Colonial Welfare and Development Fund. The noble Marquess explained to us the good and important work which had been done by this Fund, and told us of the arrangements which were being made for its future continuation. Those, I think, are good. It has done valuable work in the past, and there is a great deal needed for it to do in the future. It is interesting to see how its activities have increased since 1946, when it first started its operations. In that year it disposed of something like £3½ million—getting off to a rather small start—rising to just over £5 million in the next year. In 1949–50 it had a large jump in the amount of money that it disposed of. That rose to about £13 million, and rose steadily from there until 1959–60, when it went to over £25½ million; in 1960–61 it increased to £26 million, and in 1961–62 it was about the same. That is a good indication of the important work which it is doing, and the great need there is for it.
As the noble Marquess has said, the number of Colonies which now rank for grant from the C.D. & W. funds is contracting. Therefore, I would not, much
170
as I should like to, make a plea for an even larger amount to be given to those who remain, because if one holds the balance properly between the various applicants for money from this country, the increased amount which this Bill envisages for the small number of remaining Colonies is satisfactory. But what is not so satisfactory is the fact that there are a large number of Colonies (as we have seen with the Colonial Development Corporation) who benefited from the C.D.C. but who were, as they attained independence, and will be until this Bill becomes an Act, debarred from benefiting from these C.D.C. funds. So there will be an equal number of Colonies which have benefited, as these figures I have quoted show, from the C.D. & W. funds which will be cut off from them on attaining independence, just at the time when their need for those funds is greater than in the past.
Certainly, as the noble Marquess said, there are other means of helping these newly independent countries. It is true that there are other means. We make grants from this country for special purposes to such newly independent former Colonies. They can go to the World Bank and raise funds there. But I believe it would be of the greatest assistance to them—and we were talking only yesterday of one Colony, Kenya, shortly to become independent, to take that as an example—if, during the initial years of independence, the type of support which had been coming from the Colonial Development and Welfare fund could be made available to the newly independent countries. I should like to see exactly the same change which we have asked for for several years now, and which has now been given us—of changing the "C" of C.D.C. from "Colonial" to "Commonwealth", similarly changing the "C" in C.D. & W. from "Colonial" to "Commonwealth".
Noble Lords who have spoken have welcomed this Bill so far as it goes. The noble Lord, Lord Colyton, said how much better it would have been if this had been done in 1948. I ask the Government not to wait until an irresistible pressure for this change builds up, but to give their urgent consideration to it at the present time. I should also urge them to give very close consideration to

171
the suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lord Listowel for bringing together the whole of our aid to developing countries in whatever form it may be. I am quite sure that it is right both on the grounds of administrative convenience and on the grounds of impact upon the public here and upon the world at large. If the very considerable, though still increasing, amount of aid that we do give were all under one Department I believe that the world at large would realise that we are not so backward in this as some countries sometimes think; though I hope the noble Marquess will not take this as indicating that we, at any rate on this side of the House, feel that there is not a great deal more that we should do in this context.
After all, this form of assistance embraces a great many activities and functions. What is needed in these countries is, first of all, the purely basic requirements. Before a country can start to embark upon economic expansion it must have its roads, bridges, water supplies and power; and those are things—certainly roads and bridges—which cannot ever be regarded as in themselves bringing in a profit. They only contribute to future profits made, more usually, by private undertakings. Water and power may be profit-making but never to the extent which would encourage investment in normal circumstances in such countries. So, first of all, what is needed is capital—considerable capital, long-term capital and permanent capital—for these basic requirements.
We then need capital for the more direct economic development of the country; for clearing land, drainage, irrigation; for possible clearing of suitable sites for the erecting of factories, and even for putting up workshops for repairing the new machinery which is essential for modern cultivation; for docks and harbours, and needs of that kind. That is the second need. Third—though it does not come third in chronological order—is the need for very considerable and long-term investment in education; for investment in the lowest level of primary schools in the small villages scattered miles from anywhere throughout these developing countries and, in this case, under-developed country; for investment in buildings for the teachers
172
and for the training of teachers, without whom, however good the schools, they will be valueless; and for investment in colleges of technology of one kind or another, engineering and agricultural, in universities and research stations. All these things are needed. They are done to a certain extent by the Government at the present time, but very largely by different and disconnected Government Departments and organisations. On top of all that, personnel are needed to do all this, to help with this development.
There I would come back to another of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, made concerning the Commonwealth aspect of this whole question of aid. We are the major giver of aid, but we are not the sole givers and, as time goes on, while I hope we shall give greater aid, there will be other members of the Commonwealth who will equally be in a position to give aid from their own resources. And although to give aid of a material and a financial kind may be very hard for many of them because they are short of finance for their own development, aid in personnel is not in some cases, even at the present time, so difficult. There are technicians, scientists, university professors and research workers in many parts of the Commonwealth who, while needed at home—and we need all our own here—are needed even more in the less developed areas of the Commonwealth itself. That is where I envisage that a Department, as outlined by my noble friend, could play perhaps its largest part, not only by acting as a dispenser of help to other members of the Commonwealth but by encouraging them to help each other and, where they are asked to do so, by co-ordinating inter-Commonwealth aid: for instance, between Canada and the West Indies, where there are traditional links and where they have much in common; between Australia and Malaysia; between India and Africa; and in reverse in all these cases.
So, while welcoming this Bill and accepting it as a step in the right direction, I hope the Government will not feel that they have now done their job and can concentrate on their own other important matters to the exclusion of this great subject of help to all members of the Commonwealth, but will still very actively pursue the suggestions which

173
have been put to them, in particular the suggestion for one central Government Department with a Cabinet Minister, not only to co-ordinate but actually to initiate and encourage all forms of aid of the kind about which we have spoken.
5.46 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and the more so that they have welcomed this Bill, although of course, as one would expect, with certain qualifications. The principal one was, I think, the complaint that this Bill has been brought in too late. This is a matter of opinion, but, as I tried to make clear in my opening remarks, circumstances have, as I think we shall all agree, changed since 1947, and the arguments for extending the scope of the Corporation are far stronger now than they were at that time. None the less, I do concede that there are strong arguments in favour of having brought this measure about earlier.
I should like particularly to deal for a moment with some of the observations made by, I believe, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lords, Lord Walston and Lord Colyton, about extend-in the sphere of activity of the Corporation to countries which were independent before 1948. Here I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Colyton. Clearly, one could not exclude India and include Pakistan and Ceylon. It would have to be a question of all three of these countries being included, or none. I think probaly we all agree on that. I did point out that, within the scope of the Corporation, there is power for these countries to call upon the managerial and advisory functions of the Corporation, and this, of course, India, Pakistan and Ceylon are perfectly entitled to do, but, so far as I am aware, they have as yet not done so.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, said that this Bill is to a certain extent permissive and it might be possible to include Pakistan, India and Ceylon within its scope, at the same time one would have to reflect that this might disturb the balance of the activities of the Corporation. Certain noble Lords referred to the speech of the late Mr. John Strachey, whose death I also lament, who said that he did not himself think that India would be suitable to be
174
included. This, I think, was a view shared by the noble Earl. Mr. Strachey also went on to say that he did not advocate an increase in the ceiling of the fund of the Corporation, but I should think it is possible that if India, Pakistan and Ceylon were included it might be necessary to increase the ceiling if other countries were not to get less than perhaps we should wish them to have. I think that, in considering whether the "pre-1948" independent countries should be included, this is something perhaps we should bear in mind.
I was very interested to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said on the question of equity capital, and he referred, of course, to the very exhaustive Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve. The Report of this Committee was considered, as the noble Earl knows, very carefully, and the conclusion reached by the Government at that time was that the arrangements which the noble Earl suggested were not really suitable. I think it is possible that the information available to the Committee at that time was of a nature which was perhaps less encouraging than the information which they might have had now, so possibly they might have come to a different conclusion—I do not know—if the situation of the Corporation when the Committee was sitting had been what it is to-day. But I think it would probably be unwise at this stage to make a further alteration of the structure of the Corporation, although certainly I myself will bear in mind what the noble Lord has said, and, of course, I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to it.
Both the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, have advanced an idea which I think is not new to many of us and one about which I have myself often thought, the idea of a central department and a Minister who would be entirely responsible for dealing with overseas development. We have talked about the type of inter-departmental war which, of course, does happen; and the noble Earl, with his great experience, knows how it happens. But this is part of our democratic system. It is one of the checks and balances which prevent anybody from getting an undue share. So I think one would have to be

175
very careful before centralising all this in one person. None the less, I am with the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in thinking that this is an interesting idea which one should perhaps consider further. At the same time, I would voice this word of caution on the danger of having too much power centred in one Department. This is something that one would want to watch very carefully.
I think that basically your Lordships blessed this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, regretted it did not go further—in fact, he asked for more. He wanted what we have provided for the Colonial Development Corporation to be extended also to the Commonwealth Development Acts. As the noble Lord is well aware, I am sure, where there are Colonial Development and Welfare schemes in train, they are carried on into the period of independence so that they can be completed. This is something we should think about very carefully. I would remind your Lordships that the aid which would have been available under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, does not get cut off on the schemes already in train, when a country becomes independent. But I think perhaps one would think very hard before going the full length the noble Lord asked for.
I was interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I rather wondered, when he was speaking, whether he fully appreciated the extent to which the Corporation does, in fact, co-operate with other partners. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who is a distinguished member of the Corporation, would be perhaps better fitted than I am to explain this to the noble Lord. If he would be good enough to look at page 10, paragraph 62, of the current Report, he will see that it states clearly the terms on which the Corporation invests, and it can operate with any partner. It grows pines and make card paper pulp in Swaziland with Courtaulds, for instance. I think that ample provision is made for a very wide degree of co-operation by the Corporation with other partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Twining, may be interested to know that we are now on the point of approving the C.D.C. investment in the Kenya Development Finance Company. Mention was also made of
176
assistance badly needed by the "Little Seven". I can assure your Lordships that the Corporation already has numerous projects in that part of the world, and is always ready to look for more. I do not think it is necessary to remind the Corporation about the needs that are there.
That, I think, covers all the points that have been raised by noble Lords. There is a further point concerning the C.D.C. on which I should like to make something of a correction to what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said. I think that the percentage figures which he gave for C.D.C. investments in "basic development" might lead to a wrong conclusion, if not taken in their proper context. The noble Lord (I think I am right) referred to the drop to 53·7 per cent. If the noble Lord will look back, he will see that the figures, in fact, were as follows: 1959, 47 per cent.; 1960, 51·4 per cent.; 1961, 54·8 per cent; and then, indeed, as the noble Lord said, 1962, 53·7 per cent. The reason for this—and I expect the noble Lord may have forgotten it for the moment—is that in the year 1961 very large investment is included for the Kariba Dam; and this, of course, somewhat set the picture out of balance. I just wanted to draw the noble Lord's attention to that point in case he got a wrong impression.
I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and assure them that all the constructive observations they have made will be noted both by myself and by my right honourable friend. I should perhaps say, when referring to the activities of the Commonwealth and Colonial Secretary, that sometimes I think some of his subordinates also feel that they are overworked. I feel I should point out to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that, despite the tremendous responsibility he has, the Commonwealth and Colonial Secretary has, none the less, managed to visit a very impressive list of countries. Since he became Secretary of State he has visited Ghana, Rhodesia, India, Pakistan, Malaya, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Tanganyika and Cyprus; and within the last twelve months he has been to India and Pakistan twice; to Jamaica, Uganda, Tanganyika and Trinidad. So I do not think we could describe him as a stay-at-home Secretary of State. I thought I should

177
remind your Lordships of that. I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DEER BILL
5.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 3:
Unlawful weapons, etc.
(2) Subject to the next following subsection, if any person—

(a) discharges any firearm, or projects any missile, from any mechanically propelled vehicle at any deer; or

(b) uses any mechanically propelled vehicle for the purpose of driving deer;

he shall be guilty of an offence.
LORD DOWDING LORD DOWDING moved, after subsection (2)(b), to insert:
(d) organises or takes part in any driving of deer for the purpose of shooting such animals;".
The noble and gallant Lord said: As the noble Lord, Lord Crook, is not in the House, I beg leave to move this Amendment. I was not quite prepared to do so, but I know his views. This Amendment refers to the practice of driving deer in order for them to be shot at, and this is a practice which results in a very high proportion of animals being wounded to those that are killed. For one thing, it is quite impossible to legislate as to the range at which guns should fire at the deer. Of course, if one can get within 15 or 20 yards of a stag, almost any charge of shot will bring it down, if it is hit in a mortal place. But when it comes to long-range shooting—by which I mean up to and around 50 yards—small shot is of course not lethal; it simply serves to wound the animal. If larger shot in a shot-gun is used, the larger the shot the worse is the pattern, because they spread out widely and you cannot guarantee to put
178
shot into a vital part of the deer. Of course, scatter guns are not used at all, but shot-guns with lethal bullets or with rifled slugs require excellent marksmen to hit a deer in a vital place with a single bullet.
Lord Crook and I moved this Amendment in order to prohibit the practice of driving deer in order to shoot them. We think it is much more preferable that the general practice of the Forestry Commission should be adopted—namely, to shoot deer with a powerful rifle from a high seat, or to stalk the deer individually and shoot them while they are at a standstill. I think that covers what I have to say on the subject, and I would ask the Committee to accept the Amendment which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Dowding.)
6.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It is with considerable regret that I have to ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment. In dealing with this whole question of deer, we have to consider it not only from the point of view of cruelty to deer, but also from the points of view of agriculture and forestry. There is no doubt whatsoever that if deer drives are not permitted there are many areas where deer will increase to such an extent that they will do considerable damage to agriculture and/or forestry. It is perfectly correct, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, says, that the ideal thing is, when they are stationary to shoot them from a high platform; but that can be put into operation only on a property where deer are regarded as game and where they are objects of the chase. In many cases deer are found in areas which are not the property of anyone who worries much about them—it may be, in places where they are not usually seen. In dense young woods it is not possible to stalk them with any prospect of success. The ground in which they come out to feed is often inaccessible, and again all too often it is much too dangerous to use a rifle. For that reason I am afraid that this well-intentioned Amendment is one which is impracticable and undesirable.
6.5 p.m.
LORD CROOK: I put down this Amendment, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dowding who has been

179
with me in this matter, for moving it so excellently. I would say straight away that I have learned since I put it down that there are difficulties which people like myself, who are not possessed of lands, would not always appreciate. I had a conversation with the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, on Friday, after the passage of other Amendments, and I knew of the reasonableness of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who was with me on some of the other matters.
Like my noble friend Lord Dowding, what I want to do is to stop the cruelty. After the proceedings on Friday, when I talked to one or two noble Lords who have estates with trees on them, I understood that there are things that they must do if they are to look after their estates and if they are to see that the trees, and various other things, are safeguarded. But what I was after in this Amendment—and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dowding for supporting me—concerns the organised drives which are for the special purpose of people wanting sport, and not for the kind of protection of estates to which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has referred.
I referred on Second Reading to reports which had appeared in the Manchester Evening News, and the like, of organised deer drives in the North, where it was regarded as a new status symbol for people who had now got a better standard of life to be able to spend 8s. an hour as the cost of chasing deer during a week-end. They are the people who lead to the production of the kind of article that is written in the Field. I should like to read to your Lordships from a recent issue of the Field. After all, that is a magazine which knows the subject, whilst I do not. When I moved the two Amendments on Friday and managed to persuade your Lordships to be good enough to carry them, I knew exactly what I was concerned with; but here (this I admit) I can go only upon this kind of material.
The Field says:
"These drives result in the finding of facial shotgun bullet wounds on all of the twelve roebucks shot by a stalker in the South-East last summer; in local people becoming familiar enough with the sight of wounded deer; to like them less warmly, and to think less warmly of those who clamour for their destruction; and of the deer being harried
180
about the countryside so that the appropriately equipped stalkers have greatly reduced chances of finding them."
That is a description of the kind of drive that I am trying to speak about—drives that I referred to in the Second Reading debate, conducted like pheasant shoots, with deer being sent forward in a panic and hasty shots fired.
I had some criticism to offer on Friday on the other two Amendments of people who miscall themselves sportsmen. I am bound to say to noble Lords who go in for the sport of stalking that I am talking about, that although I should not want to do it, they are entitled to do it; and I believe—I think the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, is with me in this, whatever he may have had against me on Friday—that the stalking should be carried out in England with some of the precision and care that there is in Scotland under the Act that we put through two or three years ago.
This method of indiscriminate shooting is something which I find absolutely abominable, as I believe do the majority of your Lordships. I do not seek to interfere with the skilled stalker. He relies on his skill to close in to killing range. I am satisfied that he will not take any chancy shots. He does not want to injure the deer; he wants to kill it. He does not want to take chances that might injure members of the public. The real sportsmen have such an approach that they regard it as a matter of honour that, if a poor beast has been wounded, the first job is to follow it up quickly and put it out of its misery. For those reasons I believe that I can look for support on this Amendment from those who share that view. I am sorry that the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, is not here at the moment. I told him that I was going to say something about this, as I know he has about 2,000 deer roaming in his own forest.
I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who is the sponsor of the Bill will be speaking on this matter. It would be advantageous if, in the course of the views he has to offer on my Amendment, he will try to agree with me that he and I and others of my friends, and Lord Mansfield, Lord Fortescue, and Lord Exeter, could try to get together to see whether there is some way in which we can put down

181
words which will achieve the objective I and, I believe, other noble Lords have in mind, without cutting across other objectives which they have. All these Amendments have been drafted by me, and I am no skilled draftsman. So if someone can help me to draft a form of words which will achieve what we both want, I shall be most happy.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, will very nearly cover his point if he is able to carry his Amendment No. 14, to Schedule 2, which, as I read it, would make it illegal for anyone to shoot deer with a shot-gun. While I think that it may, on occasions, be permissible to shoot a roe deer with a shot-gun, I think that his Amendment is certainly right so far as fallow deer and red deer are concerned. I have every sympathy with him on that Amendment. I feel that nowadays people organise deer drives only if they propose to shoot them with a shot-gun at the end of it. I could not agree mare that this is an extremely cruel thing and ought to be stamped out; but if they are going to use a rifle, they take enormous care about it, for obvious reasons—because it is very dangerous, and an exceedingly skilled matter. I do not think the noble Lord can realise how skilled it is to get driven deer to go into a place in which one can shoot them with a rifle and, at the same time, not put other people in danger. They have to be driven with great care and skill. I feel that the present Amendment goes too far, because it would stop people guarding their crops and young woods. But, as I have said, I think that the noble Lord's Amendment No. 14 would very nearly have the effect he desires.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to point out that in my experience no sportsman ever shoots driven deer with a shot-gun. People who follow this practice are certainly not sportsmen. I imagine that they are the sort of people who have just bought a gun for the first time and are quite ignorant about the pursuit of sport. One has to differentiate between moving deer by experts and deer-driving. Before the war, on my estate in Argyll-shire we had about 8,000 or more deer, and in a part of the estate there was a "punch bowl" in the hills in which it
182
was impossible to stalk because the wind went round and round. All the big stags gathered in there, and we had to drive them out once or twice a season. Those stags were driven out by two or three men giving them a touch of the wind from a mile away and moving them at a walk out through the passes. One would have perhaps four men with rifles, and they might shoot three old stags, past their prime, which were very carefully selected. There cannot be any objection to that sort of driving.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, say that the Forestry Commission do not drive. I am sorry to contradict the noble Lord, but in the New Forest the Forestry Commission do drive deer. The Scott Henderson Committee, in paragraph 208 of their Report pointed out—
LORD DOWDING: I did not actually say they did not drive. I said that their normal method of killing deer was by shooting from the high seats.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: The noble Lord is quite correct there. I am sorry if I misunderstood him. The Forestry Commission have found it necessary to drive deer in the New Forest.
I tried to explain during the Second Reading of this Bill—but apparently did not explain it very well—that this Bill is a compromise. It has taken a long time, over a year, with all sorts of organisations, to come to terms. Among those involved are the Nature Conservancy, the Council for Nature, the Fauna Preservation Society, the Animal Welfare Society, the National Farmers' Union and the Forestry Commission. We cannot have everything in this Bill that we want, but it is a compromise. While I agree that if one has a farmers' deer-drive, with shot-guns and lots of beaters, one may get indiscriminate killing without selection, and wounding, this is a compromise Bill and we cannot overrule the farmers. The farmers are the greatest industry in this country and we have to run along with them. I agree also with what the noble Lord, Lord Crook, has said on the cruelty aspect of mass drives with shot-guns.
My noble friend the Duke of Atholl is quite right in saying that one should shoot deer with rifles if they are being

183
driven. But you cannot do so in England. It is too restricted. I have done so in Austria and Germany, and all over Europe. I have taken part in many boar and deer drives where one shoots with a rifle; but that has been in extremely lonely country, where there were very few people about. It would be quite impossible in England and Wales. So, while expressing every sympathy with the sentiments that have been voiced, I should like to refer to my noble friend Lord Mansfield's speech and to say that it would be quite impracticable in this Bill to accept the Amendment. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, will see fit to withdraw it.
LORD CROOK: If nobody else intends to speak to your Lordships, may I say that the only thing I regret about the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, is that he did not refer directly to my suggestion of consultation, with a view to securing some form of Amendment that could be put before your Lordships at Report stage, with the agreement of a number of noble Lords who have spoken. I cannot think that the cause here is one which ought not to be pursued. I am well aware that it does not rank, even with me, with the two Amendments that I asked your Lordships to agree to on Friday last, but it still involves enough suffering, enough belief that it can be stopped even by those who want to take part in this sport, to make me believe that some gathering together of people could help.
Since I am now at the stage of replying, I have to make up my mind whether or not to withdraw, and I am clear in the light of my own observations that I ought at this stage to withdraw, in order that your Lordships may have a well-considered Amendment to look at. I will therefore ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw this Amendment, indicating to your Lordships that, if my noble friend Lord Dowding and my other noble friends agree, I will try to get together with the noble Lords to whom I referred a few minutes ago to see whether it is possible to put down a considered Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Close seasons]:
6.25 p.m.
LORD DOWDING LORD DOWDING moved to alter the start of the close season for red deer (hinds) from 1st March to 1st February. The noble Lord said: I should like to ask whether I should be in order in speaking to Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 12 and 13 together because they are all precisely similar in intention. I should like to take this opportunity of saying how glad I am to see this Bill, almost in any form, because it is almost incredible that there has been no close season at all in England and Wales. There are just two points on which I think the Schedule could be improved, and the first one is by advancing the opening date of the close season from March 1 to February 1. In Scotland, I believe, the close season begins in the middle of February, and as the females as a rule drop their fawns somewhat earlier in England than they do in Scotland, owing to the variations in temperature, there is a good case for beginning the close season earlier than in Scotland rather than later.
I do not know why the sponsors of this Bill chose March 1. I think it may possibly be because they wished to allow the practice of hunting hinds, often pregnant, to continue as long as possible. I suppose that if it is to be hunted to death at all, it does not much matter to a hind whether it is pregnant or not. But there is in our rather muddle-headed attitude to animals a tendency to spare their lives during pregnancy. So I hope that the earlier date suggested in the Amendment may be accepted.
Amendment No. 11 refers to the roebuck, and proposes that the roebuck shall be allowed to enjoy the same period of immunity as other male members of the deer tribe. I know that the roebuck is a very destructive little animal in woodlands, but there is the point that an open season for roebuck all the year round may quite possibly destroy the effect of the close season for other deer. Anybody found in woodlands with a gun could always claim that he was after roebuck, and even if he had shot another type of deer he could always plead that he had made a genuine mistake and thought it was a roebuck. For these reasons, I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("1st March") and insert ("1st February").—(Lord Dowding.)
LORD CROOK: First of all, may I thank my noble friend Lord Dowding for moving this Amendment. When I put it down I had no idea that he would be delightful enough to associate himself with it. He has so ably moved it that I have little to a dd. So far as the females are concerned, the first effect of this Amendment would be to protect the pregnant hind, who under the Scottish Act is already protected from February 16, as the noble Lord said; so less protection is given in England where we should have thought more was needed. In addition, I understand from those associated with deer that the erratic nature of the breeding season is such that it is possible for a hind to have with her last year's fawn and the younger one, to be born in the summer; she can have a babe at the same time as she is pregnant. There are many difficult problems associated with this throughout. Every single society in any way connected with animals is in favour of this Amendment, and a number of people—in fact, most of the people connected with sport to whom I have referred—have also expressed their belief in the Amendment which I have put down.
The four Amendments relate to the females, and, as the noble Lord has said, the middle one only refers to the male. I will speak on that now, if I may, since the noble Lord did, in order to save time when we come to putting it. The page 5, line 10, Amendment refers to the one poor male who got left out. I do not think he got left out by accident. If I may say so to your Lordships, he was left out of the close season from May to July, which is given to all the other male species, because the stalking of the roe is at its best from May until August, sportsmen tell me, and it is during this time that sportsmen like to shoot the buck. Indeed, among the Press cuttings on this subject which I have accumulated over the last few years I have one by the field-sports correspondent of The Times which makes this very clear. He said.
"The does during this period have their family responsibilities. In fact, one of the greatest joys of roebuck stalking is the fact that it can be practised in the spring and early
186
summer months, when there is virtually no other form of shooting available to the sportsman."
That is not an unskilled, ignorant person like myself trying to express a view to your Lordships: it is one of the authorities, the shooting correspondent of The Times, who is trying to express a very real point of view. I hope that this is not a series of Amendments that we shall have to fight through. I hope that the sportsmanship of the noble Viscount responsible for the Bill and those associated with him is such that they will find it possible to rise and say that they will accept the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, has moved, and which I support.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I say something before the noble Viscount replies? What seems indefensible about the date in the Bill is that the date for the start of the close season in England is to be a fortnight later than the date in Scotland. Surely, that cannot be reasonable. If the forestry and agricultural interests in Scotland are satisfied with the date at which the close season starts there, in the middle of March, then surely the forestry and agricultural interests here in this country should be prepared to accept as reasonable a date the same as, or approximate to, the date in Scotland. I should like to ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill whether he would consider the possibility of a compromise which at any rate brings the two dates closer together. One possible compromise would be that there should be the same date for England as for Scotland, and that the date should be the middle of February. In any event, I hope that he will be willing to reconsider the date that stands in the Bill at the moment, because it seems unreasonable that the close season should start later in England than it does in Scotland.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Regarding the first Amendment moved by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, you have to take into consideration the difference between the type of country in the Highlands of Scotland and that in England. In the Highlands the majority of the deer are out on the bare hillsides, and you can therefore have a longer close season for the hinds because it is far easier to

187
control them. Personally, I never shoot a hind in Scotland after January 15; but, of course, in this Bill we are dealing with England and Wales. If you brought the close season back to February 1, you would then have only three months of open season to control the hinds and the does. A great many people think it is too short a time in England and Wales where, of course, the majority of the deer country is heavily-wooded country.
The hinds are, as I think your Lordships know, served until the end of October. You cannot really say that they are heavy in pregnancy in February, because they do not calve until the end of June. I do not think that there is a great case for altering the date for England and Wales, but I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said, and will have consultations with the interested parties. We will see whether something can be done in the future to alter this; but I must ask the noble Lord if he will withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that I will do everything I can to have consultations and see if the date can be made the same as that in Scotland. May I now go on to the question of the roebuck?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I just ask the noble Viscount a question? I was trying to follow him, and I am very sorry I was late. I did not realise the debate had started. He was saying, rather lightly, that he did not think there was any harm in hunting the hind in February because she would not give birth until June.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I never mentioned hunting.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: That is what we are discussing. I thought the noble Viscount felt that we should not perhaps exercise too much care with regard to her because she would not give birth until June. Is that not right?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: The end of June.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I thought I followed him. Then he said he was talking about February. How many months pregnant would she be then, in February?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: At the end of February she would be four months.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I thank the noble Viscount. I wanted him to tell me it was four months. Can he tell the Committee how he can reconcile this Bill, which ostensibly is to protect deer, with the fact that he is prepared to see the hind hunted when it is four months pregnant?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: You cannot make one law for one part of England and another law for other parts of England; you must have a law applicable to the whole of England and Wales. The only county which hunts the red deer is Devonshire, on Exmoor, and you cannot make one law for people there and another law for the farmers, the landowners and the other interested parties all over the rest of the country. That is surely obvious to the noble Baroness. The point is, as I have already explained, that the terrain in England is completely different. Owing to the heavily wooded habitat of the deer in England, the experts in all the organisations, who have conferred over the various clauses in this Bill for over a year now, have come to the conclusion that if you put back to February 1 the close season for hinds you will have only a three-months open season, which is too short for the farming and other interests to control the deer population. It is the opinion of experts. It has nothing to do with hunting, so far as I am informed. It is just the opinion of all the experts of these organisations and, as I told the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I will certainly have consultations with the interested parties to see what can be done.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Viscount has quoted in defence of his speech all the organisations who support the Bill. Those organisations which have the interests of the animal at heart do not support the hunting of pregnant animals.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I have already named all the organisations who support the Bill. Does the noble Baroness want me to name them again?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I should like the noble Viscount to tell me of one

189
organisation which has the welfare of animals at heart and which has proclaimed that they support the hunting of pregnant deer.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: The noble Lady came in late. The organisations that support this Bill in the interests of animal welfare are the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, the Fauna Preservation Society, the Council for Nature and the Nature Conservancy.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Have they specifically said that they support the hunting of pregnant animals? Would the noble Viscount tell me what pamphlet I can refer to where that is specifically stated? Can he give me the names of the officials of these organisations who have publicly said they are prepared that this shooting should take place?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: They have supported the clauses in this Bill. As I have tried to explain, this Bill is a compromise. I do not know if they support hunting of pregnant deer; but they have supported this Bill.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Viscount has admitted it.
LORD CROOK: May I add the point that I made on Second Reading and on Friday last? Of the eleven bodies that were consulted with regard to the Bill, not one was an animal protection society. The R.S.P.C.A. were not consulted, nor was the League against Cruel Sports.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The point made by the noble Viscount, that there might be too little time for killing hinds or does if only three months of the year is open, is met by Clause 10(3), which permits the occupier of land, pasture or woodland, or someone armed with his authority, to kill such deer if undue damage is being done; and I must say that I, myself, should not in any way object to the close season being lengthened. So far as the noble Baroness is concerned, it must be remembered that her point is a narrow one, dealing with one species in a small part of the country. If we were to say that there should be no killing and taking of female deer in a state of pregnancy, very few female deer would be
190
killed, because the mating season of the roe is in August and that of the red deer in September and early October. That is to say that a large number, probably most, roe does when shot are pregnant, as are almost all red deer hinds. But, of course, while I appreciate the question in regard to hunting, it is no crueller to have them shot, in a respectable fashion, when pregnant than when they are not.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I thank my noble friend for his remarks with which I agree. It is no crueller if a hind is slightly pregnant to have her shot or hunted.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But the noble Earl did not say that. He differentiated between shooting and hunting. I was putting the point of the hunting.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I thought he said it was no crueller. Of course, pregnant hinds in February are certainly far from being heavy in pregnancy. There is very little there.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Viscount has never been pregnant.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Nor am I likely to be. Regarding the Amendment for roebucks, on which the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, spoke, the object of the close season for male deer is to have a close season for them when in velvet. Of course the roebuck is not in velvet between May 1 and July 31: he is in velvet during the winter. But on the Continent, which is far ahead of us in this question of deer preservation, they have a close season for the roebuck in the winter. So the noble Lord's Amendment is rather illogical, since the object of this Bill, as regards the male deer, is to protect them when in velvet. During this time the roebuck is not in velvet. But perhaps some day we may have a close season for roebuck during the winter; but I cannot speak about it here. The Amendment says "1st May to 31st July"; and the whole object of having a close season during that time would be defeated. The object is to defend the deer when it is least able to take care of itself. To defend the roebuck during the time when he has shed velvet would be pointless.
6.48 p.m.
LORD CROOK: This is not the first time that the noble Viscount has said that something is nonsense and illogical when it is far from nonsense; it is the most utter common sense that has ever been put in front of your Lordships. The Bill for which the noble Viscount is responsible clearly says that for red deer, fallow deer and Sika deer there shall be a close season, for stags, from the 1st May to the 31st July. I put down my Amendment No. 11, to which he is now referring, to provide for the buck of the roe deer a close season from 1st May to the 31st July, inclusive; for one reason to agree with the date that the noble Viscount has already included in the Schedule. "Ah", says the noble Viscount, "three kinds go into velvet at one time and the other goes into velvet at a different time". This is the value of the observation which the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, made. What is the good of trying to put three kinds into the close season and leaving out the fourth?—because all this does is to provide a godsend to anyone who wants to go illegally shooting. He will say, if he is caught, "I am sorry, I didn't know it was that kind; I thought it was the other". Is the noble Viscount seriously suggesting that a fellow going to try to take a pot-shot looks to see which kind of deer he is shooting at before he shoots at it? The noble Viscount has to tell me something more than that if he is to convince me. Of course, these experts on hunting can tell right away.
On an earlier Amendment, the noble Viscount, if I may say so with all respect, made no attempt to deal with the valuable point which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, made about why there should be a change in the close season for the female. I would ask your Lordships to look at Clause 10(3), on which some of us pin our hopes. May I read it to the noble Viscount?—because it seems to answer him:
"A person shall not be guilty of an offence against section 1 or section 2 of this Act by reason of the taking or killing by means of shooting of any deer on any cultivated land, pasture or enclosed woodland if that person proves—

(a) that he is the occupier of that land, pasture or woodland, or that he acted with the written authority of the occupier; and

192

(b) that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property on that land, pasture or woodland."

When we first saw the Bill we thought that that was extraordinarily well drafted to give exactly the effect the noble Viscount wanted. Now it seems perfectly clear that he could agree to the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Dowding moved, which I have seconded and which my noble friend in front of me supported. Perhaps at this late hour we might be making a grave mistake if we went on unduly what I might call "flogging the issue". I accept the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Listowel that, in the period between now and Report Stage, those who have talked about getting together on earlier Amendments should get together on this question of the female deer and see whether we can secure some compromise.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: This question of the proposed close season for roebucks, which I did not deal with in my previous remarks because I was trying to keep them strictly to what was-then being discussed, I view with somewhat mixed feelings. As my noble friend said, the roebuck is a perfectly worthy object of the chase during the summer months, when his horns are completely clear of velvet. On the other hand there are a few considerations. The first is that I think there is a general feeling that it is not very nice that this extremely attractive little animal should be left to be shot at at any time without any close season.
Furthermore, we have to hear in mind, certainly so far as forestry is concerned, that the roebuck does no damage at all then with his horns to young trees, which is the principal cause of offence, because his horns have shed their velvet and are no longer itchy, and he does not rub them against the trees. If he does do damage, it is by biting off the tops of newly planted trees, but he could do that only so long as they were not more than four or five feet high at most. Or he may start to damage crops. Then he could be dealt with under Clause 10(3), as before. So I must say that, on balance, I am rather brought down in favour of this close season for roebuck, although I have some slight qualms about it.
LORD DOWDING: As regards the close season, the compromise of a consultation between now and Report stage is quite sensible to me and I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, would agree with that also. As regards roebuck, I think that it is a "this way, that way" question, as I thought all along. But with the support we have just had from the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, I should be reluctant to withdraw the Amendment as regards the roebuck.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Prohibited firearms and ammunition]:
6.57 p.m.
LORD CROOK LORD CROOK moved, in paragraph 1, to leave out "of less gauge than 12 bore". The noble Lord said: In this Amendment I am moving into a field where I have no experience, but I am very much heartened by the sympathy I have had from noble Lords on the other side who have the experience and knowledge and who have told me that I am on the right lines. I particularly refer to the support I received earlier in the evening from the noble Duke, the Duke of Athoil. The Amendment I am moving and the next one try to stop the use of shot-guns for gunning deer and to put down some definition.
On the Second Reading I listened with awe almost to the learned disquisitions on the size of bore and shot to be used, from those noble Lords who hunt. I am not going to try to set myself against their views, which are based on knowledge. My knowledge is not of the ability to fire guns, but of the cruelty inflicted upon deer by the use of shot-guns. I understand that the shot-gun is prohibited in Denmark and in Germany, and yet good hunting is done there. I rely upon the sponsor of the Bill supporting me on this, because I know that he shoots deer and wild boar in Germany, but he would not dream of going there with a shot-gun.
I should like to quote Kenneth Whitehead, who I believe is an acknowledged expert on deer. He wrote, in an article on this Bill, in the Shooting Times of March 1:
"I am very much disturbed that the Bill has not banned the shot-gun firing shot even as large as LG and SSG, for it is the use of
194
shot of any size on deer that has resulted in so much cruelty and suffering in the past."
He goes on:
"… just as the wildfowler firing BB shot on the foreshore is tempted to take long shot at duck or goose, so, I am afraid, will the same occur with the man using LG or SSG, and the consequence will be that a deer fired at, at, say, 30 or 40 yards will get away more severely wounded than if he had had at a similar range a charge of No. 6 shot in his backside."
The inexperienced person who merely wants to try to stop cruelty cannot do better than rely on experts of that kind. He makes his own recommendation, and quotes Holland and Sons, the leading gunsmiths, who do not recommend that 12 bore guns be used on deer. I am backed in my own view by the remarks of some noble Lords who do what I do not—that is, go shooting deer. I hope the noble Viscount responsible for the Bill will accept this Amendment, and, if not, that your Lordships will insist on its acceptance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, leave out ("of less gauge than 12 bore").—(Lord Crook.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I thought my noble friend was a little unfair to me when he said it was impossible to use a rifle in England. I would not go so far as that. In fact, I am convinced that, if you are properly positioned and are sufficiently skilful, you can with a rifle shoot red deer or fallow deer in any country, except in the most built-up parts. Roe deer are a different problem, and I should be much more happy about the Amendment if the noble Lord excluded roe deer from its provisions, as I think there may be occasions when you must shoot them with a shot-gun in the interests of safety, and also because they have different habits from the red deer and the fallow deer, which are much harder to get out into the open where it is safe to shoot them. But if my noble friend thinks it so unsafe to shoot with a rifle in England, why has he excluded the.22 from his list of firearms which can be used? A high velocity.22 is certainly a perfectly good weapon against a roe deer, and I have known one or two people who have used it against a red deer—though I would not do it myself. It seems to me extraordinary that he should consider a.22 weapon cruel, and yet retain the 12 bore for any form of deer, including the red deer.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: As I said earlier, I am afraid it is quite impracticable to try to do away with the use of the 12 bore. I entirely agree with my noble chief that it would be a good thing if it could be prohibited for use on red deer or fallow deer. But as the Bill is at present drafted, and the Amendments, that does not come into it. I must ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment at the present time because it would certainly mean that a great many roe deer would exist in places where they are far too numerous and they will not be able to be kept down safely.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: The real difficulty here is the granting of a firearms certificate. As your Lordships know, anyone having a rifle must have a firearms certificate. The authorities are not keen on a great number of extra people acquiring firearms certificates, for obvious reasons. My noble friend the Duke of Atholl said that rifles are not dangerous if they are used properly in a restricted area; and he is quite right. But how are you going to guarantee that they will be used properly?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: By giving firearms certificates only to people who know how to use the weapons.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Then you have to introduce a law, and have tests, the same as you have driving tests, for anyone having a rifle. But you cannot introduce it in this Bill; you would need a new Bill for that. I agree that if you had only experts shooting deer there would be no trouble at all. The other point against the Amendment is that there would be an outcry from the farmers. The average farmer owns a shot-gun, but does not want to go to the expense of buying a rifle. Perhaps your Lordships will say that he should be made to go to that expense. But here, again, farmers are a big body in this country, and we have to abide, to a great extent, by their wishes. But I understand that the real reason against the Amendment is that the police do not want to have a great increase in the granting of firearms certificates. I agree that shot-guns can be cruel, but I must ask the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I find on most occasions that farmers who want
196
the deer dealt with are encouraged to ring up the keeper of the estate concerned. Nearly everywhere where there are deer there are keepers, and in most cases I think you would find that the keeper has a rifle.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Viscount's arguments sound to me confusing, but perhaps I am a little illogical. Here, in the name of humanity, in a wider context, he still argues that, although the shot-gun is more cruel, he is prepared to allow it to be used on the ground that the farmer might not be able to afford a rifle. Does he not think that is a very cruel argument? Is he prepared to allow this continued cruelty on those grounds?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I have already explained that this is a compromise Bill between all the organisations. It is not my Bill; I am only the spokesman. In this country we are a democracy, and we have to abide by the various interested parties. The great point about having shot-guns is, as I have said, that the police do not want to have thousands of people owning rifles. That is quite understandable. My noble friend the Duke of Atholl asked why the ½22 was excluded by the Schedule. The reason is that the ½22 in the hands of somebody who is not really expert, even with such a small deer as a roedeer, can wound it very badly. You may not even know that you have wounded it, because the bullet is so small that the deer will hardly jump at all. He may go away wounded, and the person will not know he has wounded him. That is why the ½22 is excluded.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I said a high velocity ½22.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I have seen people using a high velocity ½22. I have taken people out stalking and have told them not to use it, but they have used it, and they have fired three or four times. It has had very little effect, and I have then had to shoot the stag. I cannot agree with my noble friend, and I have had experience of these matters.
LORD SANDYS: I should like to support the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and I am moved by very much the same sentiments as he

197
is. I am not an expert, but I feel there is a strong reason why 12 bore shot-guns should be excluded. After all, as I understand it, the background to the Bill is the focusing of attention upon a very malicious form of activity—namely, the chasing and driving of deer by night with searchlights and shot-guns. This seems to me thoroughly against the tradition of sportsmanship in these islands, and I would heartily support the Amendment. For that reason, I would also venture to suggest that perhaps the word "pistol" might be added. There are such things as small bore pistols. If you are driving in a Land Rover or a Jeep it is quite possible to make use of pistols to kill or maliciously wound the beast, and I would suggest that pistols should be brought into this highly important section of the Bill.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Might I point out that under Clause 2 no night-time shooting is allowed?
LORD SANDYS: I agree absolutely with the noble Viscount, and I quite understand that point. I was directing my remarks to prohibiting firearms.
LORD CROOK: In the whole progress of this Bill there has never been agreement before. The police do not want to issue thousands more licences; the noble Lord does not want them to, and I do not want them to. I am perfectly happy that the police shall not issue them. The purpose of this Amendment is merely to stop cruelty, to stop filling the face of the deer with all this little shot. The noble Viscount, whether he speaks, as he says, as the spokesman for people in another place who are merely the manipulators of the wires, or whether he speaks for himself, cannot deny the cruelty. I must admit the logic of what the noble Lord has said. If this House wants to deal with the licensing and use of firearms in general (which we could easily do if we were not careful) then we should need a separate Bill. I am not certain that one of the preoccupations of the noble Baroness and myself might not give your Lordships the chance of saying whether we want to go on with one kind of firearm or the other. As it is, I see no alternative at the moment but to withdraw this Amendment, both in the knowledge that there are further Amend
198
ments on the Order Paper—although the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, is not here to move his—and in the knowledge that having got the two Amendments I wanted last Friday, I do not want to press the other House too much. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Might I point out that small shot cannot be used, as the noble Lord will see in the Schedule?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Might I point out regarding this Amendment, that though I am moving it, I propose to withdraw it. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State has power to amend by order the weapons clause, so it is not necessary to move this Amendment. But I should like to explain the reason for it. As I pointed out to the noble Duke, the reason the ½22 has been excluded is that the weight of the bullet is too small. Under this Amendment the weight of the bullet is specified as not to be under 75 grains. I hope that this will be taken note of by the proper authorities in due course, and that the weapons clause will be amended to ensure that no deer is shot with a bullet weighing under 75 grains. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out lines 26 and 27 and insert—
("5. Any cartridge for use in a rifle other than a cartridge—

(a) loaded with a soft-nosed or hollow-nosed bullet weighing not less than 75 grains; and

(b) sufficient to cause that bullet to be discharged from that rifle with a muzzle energy of not less than 1,700 foot pounds"),—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: This Amendment is quite an important one. It is to be hoped that the Secretary of State will read these debates carefully, because there are few things more likely to cause suffering to deer—and that is what we are all, on both sides of the House, trying to avoid—than the use of unsuitable rifles.
These very small calibre rifles, even if they have very high velocity, are quite unsuitable for the purpose, because a small bullet, travelling at high velocity,

199
may go right through a deer, inflicting a wound which may or may not eventually be mortal, but in no way stopping it, so that the unfortunate animal may go on for hundreds of yards or even miles. The ideal bullet is one with a soft or hollow nose, so that when it hits the skin of the animal and penetrates it sets up; that is to say, the bullet widens until its surface area as it goes through the animal is several times its original diameter. The result is that tremendous shock is caused, and if the bullet comes to rest against the skin on the far side of the animal the greatest effect is achieved. One wants that the animal should be shot through head, neck or heart so that it collapses and never knows what has happened to it. Unfortunately, even the most expert shots err a little. One wants to have this tremendous shock effect. If it is not killed at once, it will be so much shocked that it is possible to approach it and finish it off. That is why the whole question of calibre is important, and why muzzle velocity is not important, but muzzle energy is, because on that depends the force with which the animal is struck and the probability of its being brought down immediately.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall be agreed to?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I was glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene
200
and Ferrard, was willing to meet my noble friend Lord Crook between now and the Report stage of the Bill to discuss the next stage. It is a sound practice of your Lordships' House that the sponsors of a Bill and its critics can meet together to discuss it between the different stages through the House. I hope that the noble Lord who represents the Minister may be willing to meet with us at the same time, and to give us the Government's view about the prospects of the Bill in another place. We all want the Bill to go through. That is the common interest both of noble Lords who promote and support the Bill and of the critics of the Bill, in all parts of the House. That is a matter we have to consider at the same time as any Amendment about which we may be able to agree before the Report stage of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Reported, without amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past seven o'clock.