Sitting of 25 July 1963

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  KILLINGHOLME JETTY BILL
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (BEMBRIDGE HARBOUR) BILL
    Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Blaydon
    Mr. Woofasked the President of the Board of Trade how many new jobs have been created in the Blaydon Employment Exchange area as a direct result of the operation of the Local Employment Act; and to what extent redundancies have been notified to Her Majesty's Government since June, 1958.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): Some 400 new jobs are expected to be provided by projects in the Blaydon Employment Exchange area for which assistance has been offered under the Local Employment Acts. I cannot say how many of these have already arisen. In addition, the Board of Trade has decided to build an advance factory in the area which should provide another 100 jobs.
    The Ministry of Labour has been notified of some 800 redundancies in the area since mid-1959. Records for the earlier period have not been retained.
    Mr. Woof: Does not the Minister recognise that we are faced with a serious problem of depopulation as a result of redundancies and that the situation to be faced by school leavers is much worse than at any time since the end of the
    1748
    war? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman use his powers to see that the provisions of the Local Employment Act are brought fully into effect in order to assist more industries into the area especially when in that area so many jobs have disappeared completely?
    Mr. Erroll: I fully recognise the seriousness of the situation and that is why the locality was scheduled as a development district in July last year. That means that the area can have the full benefits of the Local Employment legislation.

    Barnard Castle
    Mr. Boydenasked the President of the Board of Trade if, owing to the lack of new industrial development in sight in the Barnard Castle area and the high level of unemployment, he will schedule as development districts the areas of the Barnard Castle Urban and Rural District Councils.
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. I am glad to say that the rate of unemployment in the Barnard Castle group of employment exchange areas was only 2·2 per cent. at the June count. But since I am not aware of any new industrial projects in prospect in the area I shall continue to keep a close watch on the position.
    Mr. Boyden: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this? Is he aware that at the height of the winter 25 per cent. of the males in Middleton-in-Teesdale were unemployed? How can he justify the artificial division between one part of my constituency and another when the economic facts of life of the constituency are precisely the same all over?
    Mr. Erroll: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will notice that during the Question Time period I shall be pressed by a number of hon. Members to increase facilities in their own localities where the position Is much worse. Obviously, if I were to increase the number of development districts I should not be able to help those in most need.

    Greenhill Industrial Estate, Coatbridge
    Mr. Dempseyasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will build a new factory at Greenhill Industrial

    1749
    Estate, on the remainder of the site available, in view of the failure to induce other enterprises to build.
    Mr. Erroll: I do not accept the imputation of failure on the part of the Board of Trade to secure development of the Coatbridge estate. Three firms already have factories there and we shall be glad to consider building further factories for any suitable applicants.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that there is a remaining part of the site undeveloped and that both the town council and others interested, including his own Scottish controller, have done their very utmost to induce firms to erect a factory or factories on this part of the site? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in this day, the fact that we have failed to build a factory proves conclusively that there is need for direct Government action to provide that factory in order to relieve the high unemployment rate in the district?
    Mr. Erroll: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are building two Board of Trade advance factories not far from Coatbridge. As regards the Coatbridge estate itself, we are building a new road which will open up sites for three more factories.
    Mr. Dempsey: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that travelling to work is all very well when it cannot be avoided, but where it is avoidable then, surely, it is the duty of the Minister to provide factories on the people's doorstep?

    North Lanarkshire
    Mr. Dempseyasked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for establishing a new industrial estate in North Lanarkshire; what sites are under construction; and what estimate he has made of the number of jobs involved.
    Mr. Erroll: I have nothing to add to the replies given to the hon. Member's Questions on 18th July and 10th May.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that a Sunday newspaper has already written a full story about a site selected by the Board of Trade for new industries which it is estimated will employ 12,000 people? Is is not unfair to Members
    1750
    of Parliament that this information should be available to the newspapers and not to hon. Members concerned? Will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at this matter and state where it is intended to build an industrial estate, and take into consideration the fact that it is well known in mid-Lanarkshire that different land proprietors are in the process of selling land for new development in North Lanarkshire?
    Mr. Erroll: I have not seen that newspaper report and I should be grateful if the hon. Member would let me know in what paper it appeared so that I may study it. I am anxious to inform hon. Members as soon as possible of details of proposals.

    Migration
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the President of the Board of Trade, why he will not accept a given rate of migration from any one area of the country as an indication of unemployment in that area, with a view to directing Government assistance towards it.
    Mr. Erroll: First, because I have no powers; and secondly, because first priority must go to the areas of high and persistent unemployment.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that migration is an indication of unemployment? Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to establish how many areas would need to be included if a given rate of migration became a criterion for assistance under the Local Employment Act?
    Mr. Erroll: Naturally I shall try to help my hon. Friend with the provision of information. But as migration is not one of the factors which I am required to take into consideration, I do not feel that we should get very far by embarking on what would be a difficult and complicated exercise.

    Wishaw and Carluke
    Miss Herbisonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many jobs have been provided in the areas covered by the Wish wand Carluke Employment Exchanges since the passing of the Local Employment Act, 1960; and what proposals he has for the siting of an industrial estate in this area to provide work.
    Mr. Erroll: No jobs have yet been provided. I have no proposals for any new industrial estate in this area: our Larkhall estate is only a few miles away and developments there and at Shotts should provide a substantial increase in employment.
    Miss Herbison: Surely the President of the Board of Trade must be perfectly well aware that in the Wishaw and Carluke areas there is a very high rate of unemployment? Surely he must also be aware that the jobs provided at the two small factories at Shotts and Larkhall will do no more than take up a small proportion of the unemployment in the areas? Does not he realise that his Answer proved how clear it is that the new industrial estate for Lanarkshire ought to go to this area or to the area about which my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) is concerned and not to where we understand it is to go?
    Mr. Erroll: I recognise the seriousness of the position outlined by the hon. Lady, but we must look at North Lanarkshire as a whole. We have done a great deal. Assistance totalling over £4 million has been offered to date for new projects estimated to provide 7,500 new jobs, but I fully accept that there is more to be done.
    Miss Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the number of jobs provided merely replaces the number of jobs lost in the area. Does he realise that the Carluke area will be hard hit by the closure of another pit and that there is scarcely one mining job in the area today, and the Government have done nothing?
    Mr. Erroll: I am aware of that.

    Colvilles, Gartcosh (Strip Mill)
    Miss Herbisonasked the President of the Board of Trade what machinery is at his disposal to attract industries to Scotland to use the strip steel produced at Colvilles, Gartcosh.
    Mr. Erroll: The facilities of the Local Employment Act are available to firms, including those using steel from the strip mill at Gartcosh, with suitable projects which will provide additional employment in the development districts. I have no special powers to give particular assistance to individual steel-using industries.
    Miss Herbison: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the area which is of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) and myself there is the cold-rolling part of a steel strip mill? Is not he aware that that would be an ideal place in which to site a new industrial estate, where the steel strip would be on the factory doorstep? Will he give further consideration to the siting of this industrial estate which I understand that we are to have?
    Mr. Erroll: I can assure the hon. Lady that I gave serious consideration to this matter. I do not think that it would necessarily follow that the industries most likely to come soonest to North Lanarkshire would be those which have exceptional uses for steel strip. At present there is sufficient steel strip capacity for the main using industries in their present locations.
    Mr. Jay: Will the President take a rather more positive action than saying that the facilities are available? Did he not say some months ago that he was interviewing the heads of 600 firms? Has he invited some of them to take advantage of these facilities and come to this needy area?
    Mr. Erroll: Where appropriate I drew the attention of company chairmen to the facilities available here and elsewhere.

    The Hartlepools
    Commander Kerensasked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications he has received to establish industries in The Hartlepools; how many have been approved; and how many have been rejected.
    Mr. Erroll: Fourteen applications have been received for assistance towards the establishment of new projects or the expansion of existing firms in The Hartlepools. Seven have been approved, two rejected, one is in abeyance at the applicant's request, and four are under consideration.
    Commander Kerans: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what assistance he has been able to give. Will he bear in mind that the loss of the Wylfa contract will leave an interregnum of unemployment in the next few months and

    1753
    will he do all that he can to hasten applications?
    Mr. Erroll: I am glad to give an assurance to my hon. and gallant Friend that I shall continue to do all I can for this hard-hit area.
    Commander Keransasked the President of the Board of Trade what further measures he will take to reduce unemployment in The Hartlepools.
    Mr. Erroll: I shall continue to use my powers under the Local Employment Acts to encourage industrial development in The Hartlepools.

    Oldham
    Mr. Mappasked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to arrest the projected decline of 5,000 workers in the Oldham area during the next 10 years.
    Mr. Erroll: I am not aware of any projected decline of 5,000 workers in the Oldham area during the next 10 years.
    Mr. Mapp: Surely the President is aware that there has been a decline of 61 per cent., 30,000 textile jobs, in Oldham since 1951—during the era of affluence? Is he aware that a mill is closing in two or three weeks and that 160 people are involved? Is he aware that the population of the town of Oldham has shrunk by about 30,000 people in the last 20 years and that another 10,000 drop in the population is expected over the next few years? Will he take seriously the argument which was put to the Prime Minister about the grey areas in Lancashire, of which this is one, and the fact that migration figures are not included in the unemployment figures before him?
    Mr. Erroll: I know that there is a severe decline in employment in the cotton industry in Oldham. But the fact is that most of the workers have been able to get jobs in other industries, so that now the unemployment figure is at 1·7 per cent. Oldham is favourably situated, particularly as there are about 1,300 new industrial jobs in prospect in non-textile industries in the Oldham group of employment exchanges.

    Blyth and Seaton Delaval
    Mr. Milneasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of applications to the Board of Trade Advisory Committee since Blyth and Seaton Delaval were scheduled as development districts; how many have been granted; how many have been refused; and how many are still awaiting decisions.
    Mr. Erroll: Four applications have been received. Assistance has been recommended in one, one has been rejected and two are under consideration.
    Mr. Milne: We welcome those figures to some extent. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that B.O.T.A.C. applications are a barometer of job availability in a given area? Will he look more closely at the position? Is he aware that we have been scheduled as a development district for close on two years and, while there are welcome signs of improvement regarding new jobs, these fail to keep pace with the decline in industry and that the unemployment figure is actually greater than at this time last year? Will the right hon. Gentleman look closely at this matter with a view to providing assistance?
    Mr. Erroll: Yes. I am looking very closely at all employment questions in the North-East and other development districts. However, I must allow firms to choose between one development district and another and help them to make the right selection in view of their particular labour requirements. Subject to those conditions I encourage industrialists to look at these localities in addition to some of the bigger cities.

    Mexborough and Wombwell
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the heavy unemployment which exists amongst the boys and girls registered at the Mexborough and Wombwell youth employment centres; and what his plans are to bring new industries into this area.
    Mr. Erroll: I am aware of the unemployment figures for boys and girls in Mexborough and Wombwell given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on 15th July. Subject to my overriding

    1755
    obligation to development districts, I am prepared to encourage suitable developments in the area.
    Mr. Wainwright: Will the right hon. Gentleman take account of the summer school leavers—the hundreds of boys and girls who will be coming on to the labour market? Does not he realise that this district is in a coal mining area and that boys who are not physically fit to go into the mines have difficulty in getting jobs and may be unemployed? Is he aware that girls are having to travel to Bradford, Huddersfield, Doncaster and Sheffield from the Dearne Valley if they desire a job, and that something ought to be done for South Yorkshire as a whole?
    Mr. Erroll: We must accept that in modern conditions an increasing degree of travel to work may be necessary.
    Mr. Darling: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the long-term problem which is involved, that with growing automation in the coal mining industry the number of youngsters who go into the pits may be reduced, and that something ought to be done to keep pace with the growing automation which may exacerbate the problem?
    Mr. Erroll: Automation is only in its very early stages, and automation underground may lead to additional employment on the ground, because of the need to look after the automated equipment and deal with problems which may arise.

    B.O.T.A.C. Claims (Refusal)
    Mr. Milneasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he intends to take to inform unsuccessful applicants to the Board of Trade Advisory Committee of the reasons for refusal of their claims.
    Mr. Erroll: I fully support the practice of the Committee not to disclose the specific reasons which lead it to reject particular applications.
    Mr. Milne: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that it would be of considerable assistance to firms making applications to B.O.T.A.C. if there were more discussions with them as to the reasons why they are likely to be faced with refusal? I think that this piece of industrial assistance could be very well
    1756
    carried out by the President of the Board of Trade's Department. In many cases applicants are beginning to regard B.O.T.A.C. as a secret society from which they can get no information why applications are being turned down. This is a matter that requires the closest scrutiny and examination.
    Mr. Erroll: This is a matter which was referred to by the Select Committee on Estimates, and I should prefer to avoid giving a detailed explanation in answer to a Question in advance of the observations which I shall be sending to the Committee in due course.
    Mr. W. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon he will be making those observations?
    Mr. Erroll: I am not yet in a position to give an exact date.

    Barley (Imports)
    Mr. Bullardasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is proposing any special measures to persuade or compel exporters of barley to this country not to ship excessive quantities in the months immediately following the home harvest.
    Mr. Erroll: We have drawn the attention of our principal overseas suppliers to the need to exercise restraint in the sale of cereals to the United Kingdom in the coming year to avoid depressing prices unduly. The Government will continue to watch the situation and keep in touch with our suppliers.
    Mr. Bullard: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there are reports that barley, particularly French barley, is due to come here shortly at a very low price? While we are glad to have it, from some points of view, may I ask my right hon. Friend to balance the advantages against the fact that there is a grave danger of running up the deficiency payments to a high figure?
    Mr. Erroll: I have seen reports of French barley being offered at lower prices. We have made strong representations to the French Embassy and we are now awaiting its reply. In this matter we must remember that we have an important and useful export trade in

    1757
    barley, so we do not want to do anything which might have the effect of damaging that.
    Mr. Kimball: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very considerable switch that there has been from growing malting barleys to growing feeding barleys because of the increased yield, and will he do nothing that will make it impossible for the maltsters to import the barleys they need, even if it means going above the gentleman's agreement of 10 per cent.?
    Mr. Erroll: I shall certainly keep that point in mind, although without commitment today.

    Scotland
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the number of firm commitments which have now been made by industrialists to expand in Scotland as a direct result of the Budget proposals.
    Mr. Erroll: Since the Budget the Board of Trade has received 136 applications for assistance under Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Local Employment Act, 1960, and 54 preliminary applications for the new 10 per cent. grant on plant and machinery in respect of projects in Scotland. Over 90 per cent. of these are expansions by Scottish firms. I cannot say how many of these applications are firm commitments by the industrialists concerned.
    Mr. Hamilton: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be more specific? Is he aware that the situation is extremely serious in Scotland, which has still more than 90,000 unemployed of whom two-thirds have been unemployed for more than eight weeks? In other words, it is long-term unemployment, and the right hon. Gentleman should take this matter much more seriously and urgently than apparently he is doing.
    Mr. Erroll: I am taking it seriously and I am dealing with it urgently. If it had not been for the seriousness of the situation we should not have introduced the Local Employment Act, 1963, which represents an opportunity for helping all development districts, including Scotland,
    1758
    in a way not previously possible. While I am in no way complacent, I am pleased to be able to announce these figures today.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to state in what particular areas these expansions have taken place, or will take place, with particular regard to north-east Scotland and more particular regard to the City of Aberdeen, where there is considerable unemployment?
    Mr. Erroll: I cannot give details about 136 applications without notice.
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the extent to which the new measures announced in the Budget will provide more new jobs in Scotland than will be lost over the next three years.
    Mr. Erroll: None, Sir. The success of the Budget measures will depend on the momentum in the economy generally, on the amount of steerable industry, and on industrialists' choice of location as between development districts over the country as a whole.
    Mr. Hamilton: Should not the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have some estimate of the kind of target they set and the number of new jobs that they are likely to expect, and have a right to expect, from the Measures which they have recently introduced, and set this against the number of jobs that are likely to be lost? Is he aware that 750 to 1,000 jobs were recently lost in the linoleum industry in Kirkcaldy and that according to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) jobs are being lost in the shipyards? Can the right hon. Gentleman give a specific undertaking that more jobs will be created as a result of the Government's policy than will be lost through the decline of industries?
    Mr. Erroll: The undertaking which I am prepared to give is that I shall do my utmost to steer steerable projects to the development districts, including Scotland.
    Mr. Jay: How does the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that after three years of the Government's Local Employment Act and all these new Measures

    1759
    there are now nearly twice as many people unemployed in Scotland as there were at this time of the year two years ago?
    Mr. Erroll: Because the run-down in some of the older industries has been more rapid than the development of new industries. The achievements over the last three years are very substantial, as the right hon. Gentleman knows from his visit to the new motor works in Scotland.
    Mr. Steele: Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to have some assessment of what has happened. How accurate can his assessment be in view of the fact that Denny of Dumbarton has just indicated that it is going into liquidation? Surely after all the deputations and letters received from Dumbarton he will bear Dunbartonshire in mind?
    Mr. Erroll: I am bearing Dumbarton in mind and I hope to visit Dumbarton before very long. [Interruption] If the hon. Gentleman who interrupted does, not want me to go to Dumbarton perhaps he will tell me so.

    L. S. Starrett & Co. (Machine Tools)
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the request of L. S. Starrett and Company for a temporary remission of import duty on certain machine tools in order to enable them to develop a new plant at Jedburgh; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Erroll: I am not aware of any current application from this company relating to machine tools. But it has from time to time requested duty remission on measuring instruments and on parts imported for incorporation in its products. Under the Import Duties Act, 1958, remission can be given only if similar articles are not currently procurable in Britain. On the information so far supplied by the company, this condition has not been met but the company has been invited to discuss its problems further with my Department.
    Mr. Jay: Is it not the case that a large American machine tool firm is anxious to develop on quite a big scale in Scotland? Surely the Board of Trade will be willing to show a little discretion and flexibility in trying to enable it to do so?
    Mr. Erroll: My duty is to administer the law fairly and impartially and not favour one type of firm at the expense of another. Incidentally, the parent company is located at Jedburgh which is not in a development district.
    Mr. Jay: Within the law the President should do his best to encourage a scheme giving employment to an area of this kind.
    Mr. Erroll: I am very glad to explain to firms how the law is administered. Although we have hard cases occasionally, I think that industry recognises that the law is fairly administered and that most people are satisfied with it.

    Patents (European Convention)
    Mr. Cleaverasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received the advice of the Tookey Committee on patents.
    Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir. Following the receipt of the Committee's advice, we have now responded to the invitation to comment on the draft European Patent Convention. We have told the Brussels Commission and the Governments of the Six that if, as seems likely, the final form of the Convention is one to which we can subscribe, we shall wish to become a contracting country. I have placed a copy of the draft Convention and of our observations in the library.
    Mr. Cleaver: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of British industry will welcome this? Can he say whether this applies to E.F.T.A. as well as Common Market countries?
    Mr. Erroll: The Convention has so far been drafted exclusively by officials of the Six, but it is not in terms confined to Common Market countries.

    Iron Ore (Imports from India)
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage the import of iron ore from India into this country.
    Mr. Erroll: Imports of iron ore from India are free of duty and all other restrictions. The quantity imported is determined by commercial considerations and I should be happy to see it increased.
    Mr. Jay: But as the Iron and Steel Federation largely has a monopoly of these iron ore imports and as India suffers from a great famine of foreign exchange and we presumably want to encourage Commonwealth trade, will not the President of the Board of Trade actively encourage the Federation and those responsible to buy from India more iron ore, which is of a high quality, than apparently it is now doing?
    Mr. Erroll: Having made the trade free, quite properly, in the interests of the British steel industry, I think that the industry should be left free to buy ore from the sources it thinks most suitable.
    Mr. Jay: But as it is a monopoly buyer acting under the Iron and Steel Board, for which the Government are responsible, surely the right hon. Gentleman will not disclaim all responsibility for what happens?
    Mr. Erroll: What I am saying is that we have given it responsibility freely to choose from where it will get its ore. That is a sound policy, and the industry should be allowed to exercise its commercial judgment in a very important matter.

    Trade with Formosa
    Sir W. Teelingasked the President of the Board of Trade what are the reasons for the steady decrease of United Kingdom exports to Taiwan over the last three years, in view of the fact that Taiwan is becoming annually richer and increasing its trade with other European countries; what steps he is taking to remedy the situation; and what trade specialists are attached to the British Consulate in Taiwan.
    Mr. Erroll: While our exports to Formosa fell in 1961 and in 1962, they have increased this year to date by more than 30 per cent. over the corresponding period last year. Commercial work in Formosa is undertaken by H.M. Consul and his staff and the facilities they offer, together with the export services provided by my Department, are available to British firms engaged in trade with this market.
    Sir W. Teeling: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, but does not the fact remain that we are not pushing our
    1762
    trade with Taiwan where there are more than 12 million people, now extremely well off? Is this because the United States of America is trying to stop us from trading with Taiwan?
    Mr. Erroll: No. I am not aware of any approach by the United States Government to me about our trade with Formosa.
    Mr. Snow: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain what are the political considerations given by the Government to trade with Formosa, bearing in mind the long-term need to encourage and develop trade with the People's Republic of China.
    Mr. Erroll: We wish to encourage trade with every country which is prepared to pay for the goods which we sell, and that goes for China and Formosa and India, too.

    North-East (Advance Factories)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the President of the Board of Trade how many advance factories are now under construction in the North-East when they will be completed; what inquiries are being made by industrial firms to occupy them; and what is the estimated number of workpeople they will employ.
    Mr. Erroll: During the past 12 months, 12 Board of Trade advance factories have been approved for the North-East. Seven of these are under construction and work is about to start on a further three. I expect that these 10 factories will be completed by the end of this year, and the remaining two in 1964. Tenants have already been found for two factories and a number of firms from outside the area have been shown the remaining factories or their sites. These 12 factories should provide more than 1,100 jobs.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I accept his frequent assurance that he is doing his best to deal with the unemployment problem? But how does it come about that, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman doing his best, he fails to solve the unemployment problem? Will he explain that to me?
    Mr. Erroll: Perhaps my best is not good enough, but I will go on trying.
    Mr. R. W. Elliott: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)

    1763
    might be encouraged if he read today's double page article on the North-East in the Daily Express and also if he took note of the public opinion poll in the Daily Mail and connected the two?
    Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to me why his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott), who has just addressed a question to me in reply to what I said, should be so worried when he asks a question?
    Mr. Speaker: It is no part of the duty of the President of the Board of Trade to give explanations about the joy or gloom of his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Bottomley: In view of the closing down of the Acklam steel works in Middlesbrough, will the right hon. Gentleman consider sending an advance factory to that town?
    Mr. Erroll: Not at the moment, because we want to see how tenants come along for the programme of advance factories under construction or about to be built, but we are watching very closely to see how rapidly they are taken up in order to decide if we should build further factories and, if so, where.
    Sir C. Osborne: Further to the supplementary question of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), would my right hon. Friend inform the House that in a free society no Government of any kind can guarantee full employment all the time when 5 million jobs depend on exports?

    School Uniforms
    Mrs. Butlerasked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals the Consumer Council has for considering consumer difficulties in the standard and supply of school uniforms.
    Mr. Erroll: The Consumer Council is an independent grant-aided body. I suggest that the hon. Member might approach the Council direct.
    Mrs. Butler: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that at least reputable manufacturers and traders and practical educationists are all agreed on the need for a national campaign on this continually irritating problem of highly priced poor quality school uniforms which is aggravated by the
    1764
    practice of many schools giving a monopoly of supplies to one particular shop? Since the Minister of Education has washed his hands of this subject, would the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to persuade the Consumer Council to put this subject on its priority list?
    Mr. Erroll: The Consumer Council is an independent body and it would be wrong for me to influence it in any direction. However, I am sure that the chairman will take note of the hon. Lady's supplementary question and the hon. Lady herself might care to supplement it direct in a letter to the chairman of the Council.
    Mr. Darling: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he hopes to complete appointments to the Consumer Council? Is he aware—and I hope that he will correct me on this if I am wrong—that at the moment the Consumer Council does not have adequate offices in which to work?
    Mr. Erroll: Appointments to the Consumer Council have been completed and the last was announced a few days ago. The Council has office accommodation at present.
    Mr. Lipton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, without giving any directions to the Consumer Council itself, whether it is within its competence to examine to what extent, if at all, arrangements exist between certain schools and certain traders as a result of which the parents of children who need new school uniforms have to pay through the nose?
    Mr. Erroll: A study of the standard and supply of school uniforms is certainly within the competence of the Council.

    Development Districts
    Mr. Barnettasked the President of the Board of Trade what considerations determine the scheduling of an area as a development district.
    Mr. Erroll: The considerations, laid down in the Local Employment Act, 1960, are that the Board of Trade should be satisfied that a high rate of unemployment exists, or is to be expected within

    1765
    such a period that it is expedient to exercise the powers of the Act, and that it is likely to persist.
    Mr. Barnett: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the average wage level in the South-West, which is 25s. 6d. below the average level for England and Wales, is a consideration which should be taken into account, since new industry in the area would tend to force up wages? Does he not further admit the fact that the situation exists and that, as long as it exists, London will act as a magnet, particularly to young people, when there are so few opportunities of employment in the South-West?
    Mr. Erroll: Comparable wage levels are not one of the factors which I take into account in considering what localities should be designated as development districts.

    Exports to South Africa
    Mr. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that United Kingdom exports to South Africa have increased substantially this year so far compared with the corresponding part of 1962; and which industries, and which parts of the country, have chiefly benefited from this increase.
    Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir. Exports have increased by £27 million or 46 per cent. in the first five months of 1963 compared with the corresponding period of 1962. With permission I will circulate a table in the Official Report which shows the industrial products chiefly contributing to this increase. It is not possible to estimate how this increase in exports has contributed to industrial production in different parts of the country.
    Mr. Russell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer. Is it not clear that it pays this country to continue to maintain our trade with South Africa, as with any other country with whose internal policies we may disagree?
    Mr. Erroll: It is most important that we should continue our commercial trade with South Africa, which benefits not only us but the whole population of South Africa.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Can the President of the Board of Trade say how much
    1766
    of the increase was due to the sale of arms?
    Mr. Erroll: No. The information in the table makes no reference to arms exports.
    Mr. Marsh: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's reply show—despite the imminence of the election of a Labour Government, as shown in this morning's Daily Express and Daily Mail—that the pledges that have been repeated by leading hon. Members on this side of the House that the next Government would not supply arms to South Africa has had no bad effect on our economic relationship with that country?
    Mr. Erroll: The hon. Member was not in the House in 1958 when his older hon. Friends were making exactly the same sort of remarks as he is making now. I do not accept the proposition in the second part of his supplementary question.
    Following is the information:

    U.K. EXPORTS TO THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

    £ million

    —

    1962

    1963

    January-May

    January-May

    Manufactured goods

    55·6

    81·4

    of which chemicals

    4·7

    5·0

    Machinery, other than electric

    13·0

    17·8

    Electrical machinery

    8·1

    10·6

    Transport equipment

    9·9

    22·1

    manufactures of metal

    4·8

    6·6

    All other exports

    3·1

    4·4

    Total U.K. Exports

    58·7

    85·8

    Industrial Development Certificate, Corby
    Mr. Mitchisonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in deciding an application for industrial development certificate in the new town of Corby, he will now apply the same considerations as led him to authorise the trebling in size at an estimated cost of £750,000 of Stewart & Lloyds' plastic pipes works at Huntingdon; and what those considerations were.
    Mr. Erroll: Each application for an industrial development certificate is considered on its individual merits. The factors which led to the approval of the development by a subsidiary of Stewarts & Lloyds Ltd. at Huntingdon may not be present in an application from this or any other company for a certificate to develop in Corby.
    Mr. Mitchison: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that he will now apply the same considerations in Corby as he has apparently applied in Huntingdon, bearing in mind that he recently refused to do so?
    Mr. Erroll: Huntingdon is an overspill reception area for surplus population from London, which makes it somewhat different from Corby.
    Mr. Renton: May I assure my right hon. Friend that the decision he made in regard to Huntingdon has enured to the great benefit of the place and is much appreciated?
    Mr. Erroll: I am grateful to find that one of my decisions has met with approval.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the considerations applying to an overspill town apply with even more force to new towns, where fresh populations are continually being brought in and where there is a crying demand for more employment to be established, especially for women and young people?

    National Industrial Exhibition Centre
    Mr. Goodhartasked the President of the Board of Trade when he now expects to be able to reach a decision about the support that his Department will give to the erection of a national industrial exhibition centre on the Crystal Palace site.
    Mr. Erroll: When I have had an opportunity to consider whatever conclusions may be reached by the industrial interests concerned on how to make their capital contribution to the cost of the project.
    Mr. Goodhart: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is probable that a decision on this most important scheme
    1768
    will be reached before the end of the year?
    Mr. Erroll: It is not possible for me to give an answer to that question because discussions are continuing between the Federation of British Industries and the London County Council. I cannot, therefore, say how long those discussions will take.

    Engineering Design (Feilden Committee's Recommendation)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to implement the recommendation of the Feilden Committee on Engineering Design to collect and publish information on the income and expenditure incurred under licence agreements between British and foreign firms, so that the value of this trade can be assessed.
    Mr. Erroll: I am at present considering this recommendation.
    Mr. Dalyell: In view of what the Feilden Committee had to say about this in relation to exports and research, will the matter be urgently considered?
    Mr. Erroll: Most certainly.

    Knitting Machine Sales, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take against a firm, whose name has been given to him, which has been selling knitting machines in the Newcastle-upon-Tyne area, and which has misrepresented its terms in order to sell its knitting machines.
    Mr. Erroll: I am having a careful investigation made of the facts relating to these sales. I understand that the Company Fraud Department of Scotland Yard is also investigating the activities of the company. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as these investigations are complete.
    Mr. Montgomery: Would it help my right hon. Friend if I sent him details from Newcastle about this firm, Sure Distributors Ltd., which has closed its Newcastle offices and has "scarpered" to Manchester? Would this help to prevent this firm causing damage there?
    Mr. Erroll: My hon. Friend has been kind enough to send me an advertisement. I will be glad to receive any additional information he may make available to me.
    Mr. Darling: Does not this case show that the Consumer Council should have power to take action in cases like this, in view of the natural reluctance of Government Departments to seek prosecutions in such matters?
    Mr. Erroll: I think that a case of this sort is quite properly being investigated by the Company Fraud Department of Scotland Yard, which is the proper body to do it.
    Mr. Popplewell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have already submitted to him the names of two individuals who are being subjected to the fraud of this firm of Sure Distributors Ltd.? Will he investigate this matter to ensure that Scotland Yard's fraud squad gives close consideration to whether there can be prosecution in respect of unsavoury practices of the sort adopted by this firm?
    Mr. Erroll: I will be glad to receive any further details in addition to those the hon. Member has sent to me. I hope that I will be allowed full discretion as to the use I may make of the information.

    Ford Factory, Doncaster
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the President of the Board of Trade what assistance he will give to any firm in this country or from overseas to take advantage of the offer of the displaced Ford workers at Doncaster to put their redundancy pay into promoting a new industry in the factory building which is to be closed down.
    Mr. Jegerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the plan by the displaced Ford workers at Doncaster to invest their redundancy pay in a new industry there; and what assistance he is giving in finding a tenant for the factory.
    Mr. Erroll: I am aware of this proposal put forward by Ford workers in Doncaster. I understand, however, that no decision has yet been reached as to the future of this privately-owned factory.
    Mr. Wainwright: Will the President of the Board of Trade take more seriously the offer made by the Ford workers? It is a unique offer, and further proves that the men employed at this factory are of such quality that we should make certain that there is work for them in this plant. They have not had a strike there for 22 years. Is he further aware that relations between management and men are of the best? Will not he, therefore, do more than he has said he will do to ensure a continuation of work at this plant in Doncaster and in future not take work from Doncaster to other parts of the country, so robbing Peter to pay Paul?
    Mr. Erroll: Unemployment in Doncaster is about at the level of the national average. I must continue to give first priority to the development districts, as the hon. Gentleman must have noticed from the Questions tabled by his hon. Friends earlier in the afternoon. I have every sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the quality of the men and the management. I admire the action of the men in handling their severance payments in the way that has been announced, but this is a privately-owned factory and it is for the owners of the factory to make the necessary arrangements.

    NATIONAL HEALTH EXECUTIVE COUNCILS (PREMISES)
    Mr. Steeleasked the Prime Minister if he will issue an instruction that in future the provision of premises for the National Health Executive Councils should be the responsibility of the Minister of Public Building and Works.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I see no present reason to alter the existing arrangements.
    Mr. Steele: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again? Is he aware that a new Crown building is planned for Dumbarton? Would it not be sensible for the National Health Executive Council, which also requires new premises, to be accommodated in the new Crown building, and so avoid the duplication of conference rooms and other common services, since the capital and running costs must all come from the same public purse?
    The Prime Minister: I think that there are already in existence arrangements whereby the Minister of Public Building and Works uses his good offices to help the Executive Councils to get suitable accommodation, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said and I will go into the matter further.

    CHURCH ASSEMBLY MEASURES (ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE'S REPORTS)
    Mr. John Pageasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to enable the House in future to discuss the reports of the Ecclesiastical Committee on Measures presented by the Church Assembly for its consideration, so that hon. Members may have the opportunity of expressing their opinions before being presented with a completed Measure which they have the option of approving or rejecting but not of amending.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think it would be right for the Government to take an initiative of this kind.
    Mr. Page: While realising the difficulties of my right hon. Friend in this connection, because of the tradition of leaving the discussion of these matters to the Church Assembly, may I ask whether he realises how many hon. Members on both sides of the House do not wish to come to a real disagreement with the Church Assembly merely by being presented with a fait accompli which they cannot do anything but either accept or refuse?
    The Prime Minister: This is inherent in the system under which we operate, and I do not think it would be wise for the Government to intervene.
    Mr. G. Thomas: In view of the possibility of ill feeling growing between the Church of England and this House if major proposals are made that we are unable in any way to amend, could not the Prime Minister make representations to the effect that when major reforms are initiated which are likely to be controversial, some informal consultation between this House and the Church could be established?
    The Prime Minister: That is a rather different matter. Informal consultation
    1772
    is one thing but I am asked for a Government alteration of a system which has been operating for some years, on the whole I think successfully.

    MOSCOW (DISCUSSIONS)
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prune Minister whether he will make a statement on the recent negotiations in Moscow on a nuclear test ban treaty.
    The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. Henderson: Can the Prime Minister give any indication when he expects to be in a position to do so?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am not quite sure. These negotiations are proceeding. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise, they are to some extent made rather difficult by the great spread of time between the countries concerned—two hours and five hours, resulting in a seven or eight hour spread; with summer time, it is only two hours—and with the movement of telegrams backwards and forwards. That, I think, is the chief reason for the delay.
    Sir C. Osborne: If agreement is reached in Moscow today would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to make a statement in the House before we rise tonight?
    The Prime Minister: I will consider that.
    Mr. Wigg: When the Prime Minister comes to make his statement, would he give the House and the country a categorical assurance that in his anxiety, which we all share, to further the cause of peace, he is taking fully into account the long-term defence needs of this country and the Western Alliance?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Stone house: Will the Prime Minister assure hon. Members that he will make no statement elsewhere before he reports to the House?
    The Prime Minister: I think that these things are not yet absolutely settled. There will have to be a communiqué issued in Moscow. The timing of that has to be fixed to meet the needs of all three countries. It is a matter for some

    1773
    care, but I hope that it will be such as to suit our convenience as well as that of the other countries.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware that the whole House—hon. Members of all parties—are hoping for a quick and successful outcome. May I raise one procedural point with him which may be helpful at this stage? Is he aware that under the Ponsonby Rules there might be certain difficulties about the signature and ratification owing to the fact that the House will not be sitting much longer? Would the right hon. Gentleman take it, at any rate from my hon. Friends—and I am sure that this applies to hon. Members of all parties—that we would not want any procedural difficulty to stand in the way of a quick signature and ratification?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said.

    CONTINENTAL SHELF (MINERAL EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to co-ordinate the activities of the Minister of Power and the Lord Privy Seal in the necessary preliminaries to the preparation and introduction of legislation to enable the 1958 Geneva Convention of the Seaconcerning mineral exploration and exploitation on Continental Shelf areas to be ratified.
    The Prime Minister: I am satisfied that the Ministers concerned are in close consultation and agreement.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it accepted that both oil and methane scientists are worried lest their activities in the North Sea may be hampered by want of non-controversial legislation?
    The Prime Minister: If there were an agreement, there would, of course, have to be legislation to deal with some of the things to do with prohibitions and obligations contained in the Convention in order to make them part of the law of this country. In addition, there would have to be an administra-
    1774
    tive framework for exploration and exploitation, which would have to be given a statutory basis.

    JUTE INDUSTRY
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Prime Minister what recent representations he has received concerning Government policy for the jute industry; and what reply he has made.
    The Prime Minister: I was informed of the views held by the industry at an early stage of its discussions with the Board of Trade. I was able to reply that the progress of the negotiations would remove any grounds for the industry to fear that those would, for the next year at least, be any decline in the measure of protection for the vast bulk of the goods it produces.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the proposals put forward threaten thousands of jobs in this industry; and that he himself has caused grave confusion and uncertainty by making a statement on this matter to his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) which was quite different from what the Minister of State, Board of Trade was at the same time saying confidentially to the industry in Dundee? Will he therefore give an assurance that the Government will not take any action to make any changes in the present structure of protection in the industry until there has been a full-scale inquiry into the industry?
    The Prime Minister: There are two points there. I do not think that there was anything inconsistent between what I said and the plan being discussed. As to a full inquiry, consultations are going on on this very point.
    Mr. Jay: As this gratuitous intervention by the Board of Trade may, in the opinion of those best informed in Dundee, threaten the city with the worst unemployment crisis for 20 years, will not the Prime Minister, if he wants the Government's policy on Scotland to be taken seriously, now invite the Board of Trade to abandon these proposals, and reconsider the whole matter?
    The Prime Minister: I think that by far the best thing is for the consultations and discussions that are now going on to proceed.
    Mr. Ross: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give more thought to this subject, as it is so serious as to merit reconsideration and withdrawal of the existing proposals? Will he look at the report in Hansard of the debate that took place at about three o'clock this morning, and pay some attention to the speech delivered by the vice-chairman of the Unionist and Conservative Party in Scotland, which expressed very considerable concern and distress at the wayward policies of the Government in respect of Dundee and jute?
    The Prime Minister: I have looked at that and, in fact, these consultations are going on, and I think it better to leave it there for the moment.

    ECONOMIC POLICY
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Prime Minister if he will set up an inter-Departmental inquiry into means of improving co-ordination on matters of Government economic policy between the Scottish Office, the Board of Trade and his own office.
    The Prime Minister: No. Sir.
    Mr. Thomson: Does not the Prime Minister think that it is thoroughly undesirable that the practice should grow up of garbled statements on Government policies coming from his office which are different from what has been said at the same time by his own Departmental Ministers in confidential negotiations? In view of the muddle there is here, will the right hon. Gentleman set up an inquiry to make sure that his office is in line with his own Departments?
    The Prime Minister: There is no inconsistency between my statement and what was going on.

    REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister whether he will consult President Kennedy with a view to co-ordinating Anglo-American policy on the export of arms to South Africa.
    The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government are naturally in close touch
    1776
    with the United States Government on all the issues raised by the forthcoming discussion in the Security Council on apartheid.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the United States Government believe that the time has now come to impose, through the United Nations, an embargo on the export of arms to South Africa? Since the United Kingdom is the head and centre of a multi-racial Commonwealth, and since certain members of the Commonwealth, such as Mr. Nyerere, the President of Tanganyika, are pressing our Government to support such an embargo, will the Prime Minister give a guarantee that our delegate in the Security Council will, in the next few days, vote for an embargo on the export of arms to South Africa?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. What we have first to do is to see the resolution, and we have not seen the draft of it yet.
    Mr. More: Will my right hon. Friend also consult Mr. Khrushchev with a view to co-ordinating Anglo-Russian policy on the export of arms to Cuba?
    The Prime Minister: The more all these things are co-ordinated the better.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The Question relates to South Africa—[Interruption.]—we could always have a Question on Cuba. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the matter of the present controls on exports to South Africa, Her Majesty's Government are working entirely on the same basis of control as the United States? Secondly, will he tell us what representations he has had from heads of Commonwealth Governments on this question?
    The Prime Minister: Neither of those supplementary questions arises from the Question on the Order Paper, which asks whether we will consult President Kennedy on co-ordinating Anglo-American policy. That is what we are doing.
    Mr. Wilson: Since the Question asks whether the Prime Minister will consult President Kennedy with a view to co-ordinating Anglo-American policy, does not the Prime Minister think it relevant to ask him whether our policy is the same

    1777
    as that of America on the control of the export of arms to South Africa; and will he now answer the Question?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We are asked to co-ordinate our future policy.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CHIEF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS)
    Mr. Albuasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for the chief scientist or chief engineer in civil Departments to be put on the same level as the chief scientist in the Ministry of Defence in the machinery for tendering advice to Ministers.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The levels of these posts reflect the relationship between their responsibilities and those of the Permanent Secretaries at the head of the Departments.
    Mr. Albu: Does not the Prime Minister think that the time has now come when, in matters involving scientific and technological considerations, no policy decision should be taken by Ministers without the direct consideration and advice of the chief scientists and engineers, in exactly the same way as is to be arranged by the Ministry of Defence?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the rôle of the chief scientists in the civil Departments is well understood, and I do not think that there is any difficulty in operating it.

    NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION AND WARSAW PACT POWERS
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to take the initiative in Europe to establish a non-aggression pact between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Warsaw Pact Powers.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to what I told the House on 9th July.
    Mr. Davies: While both sides of the House appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said on 9th July, may I ask him whether he is aware that all hon. Members may soon be able to congratu-
    1778
    late him and those in the other nations who have co-operated in getting what we hope will be a nuclear test ban? Is the right hon. Gentleman therefore aware that we believe that some initiative should be taken by Britain, because we are sure that he wants peace as much as anyone else in the world? Would he therefore ask for a nuclear-free zone, and try to call the Warsaw Pact Powers and the N.A.T.O. Powers together in an initial talk?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the thing is to try to get one step successfully taken. If we can succeed in that, I agree that all kinds of things become possible.

    NORTH-EAST
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister when the Government recommendations on the requirements of the North-East will be made available to the House.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. Member to the Answer I gave on Tuesday to the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne).
    Mr. Shinwell: As I have not had the advantage of seeing that Answer, will the Prime Minister tell me whether an announcement will be made before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Pentland: Can the Prime Minister go further, and tell us on what day next week he expects this announcement to be made, and which Minister he expects will deliver the announcement? Can he also give an assurance that the noble Lord's plan will be given to this House before it is given in another place?
    The Prime Minister: I shall, of course, take into account what suits the convenience of the House, and will, if necessary, work through the usual channels to arrange a suitable date. I cannot give it today.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Before announcing to the House the business for next week, may I say that in addition to the business already announced the Government propose tomorrow to facilitate consideration of Lords Amendments to the following Private Members' Bills: Limitation, Matrimonial Causes, and Dog Racing (Appointed Days).
There will also be the Second Reading of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.
The business for next week will be:
MONDAY, 29TH JULY—Debate on Welsh Affairs.
Remaining stages of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Bill [Lords], which, as I have said, is a consolidation Measure.
Consideration of the remaining stages of the following Private Members' Bills:
Local Government (Financial Provisions) and Wills.
TUESDAY, 30TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Public Order Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Television Bill and to the Peerage Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 31ST JULY—Debate on a Motion to take note of the White Paper on Central Organisation for Defence (Command No. 2097).
THURSDAY, 1ST AUGUST—Debate on Northern Ireland, until seven o'clock, and then on Accommodation.
These debates will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
It is hoped that the House will rise for the Summer Adjournment on Friday, 2nd August.
Mr. G. Thomas: In view of Monday's important debate, will the Leader of the House tell us what steps he is taking to see that the attendance of hon. Members reflects the concern of the House about Welsh interests?
Mr. Macleod: I am sure there will be a crowded House to hear that debate.
Mr. Brockway: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Motion on the Order Paper, signed by more than 70 Members
1780
of the House, asking for an inquiry into matters relating to the death sentence on James Hanratty for what is known as the A.6 murder?
[That this House requests the Secretary of State for the Home Department to institute a full and open inquiry into matters related to the conviction of James Hanratty for the murder of Michael Gregston.]
In view of the very grave issue which is here involved, can the right hon. Gentleman find time during next week for a discussion of this matter?
Mr. Macleod: I have read the Motion. It is directed in part at my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as a request to him. Clearly, in the business that I have announced for next week there will be no time available, but I imagine that the hon. Member has made a request to Mr. Speaker, who will, in due course, be announcing the subjects for debate on the Motion for the Summer Adjournment.
Miss Herbison: Will the Leader of the House give some consideration to postponing the Adjournment beyond 2nd August in order to give the Government time to produce for debate in the House an overall and, I hope, dynamic plan for relieving unemployment in Scotland, since over 90,000 of our people are suffering very great hardship at the hands of the Government and are awaiting a plan which will give them hope for the future?
Mr. Macleod: I do not want to enter into polemics in these statements. It is hardly appropriate for me to do so. I do not accept what the hon. Lady has said. Clearly, by custom for many years the date of the Adjournment is always fixed, on this occasion at least, by the calendar.
Mr. M. Stewart: Could the right hon. Gentleman find time next week for his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to make a statement about his apparent reluctance to publish the very interesting report on housing prepared for his Department by the Central Office of Information?
Mr. Macleod: I do not think that there is any reluctance in this matter. [Laughter.] Not at all; anybody can have a copy if he wants it. This is an experimental research exercise. Its existence was known to the Central

1781
Housing Advisory Committee. It has been studied by many people. There can be no question of this having been kept a secret. Its existence has been known for a considerable period. AH Ministries carry out these sorts of surveys over and over again.
Mr. Harold Davies: Will it be put in the Library?
Mr. H. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what date he received it, on what date it was placed in the Library of the House and on what date the House was told about it?
Mr. Macleod: So far as this matter is in order on business, it was, I think, put in the Library of the House yesterday. [Laughter.] With respect, I have had considerable experience in two of the great home Ministries—the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour. These sort of research exercises are carried out the whole time, any number of them. There is no particular secrecy about it.
Sir T. Moore: Could my right hon. Friend say when we are likely to reassemble after Adjournment, or have I missed something?
Mr. Macleod: No, we would propose to take the usual Motion for the Adjournment for the Recess on Tuesday, and perhaps on Monday announce the date on which it is proposed to return. Provided the business of the House goes reasonably smoothly during the next few days, there would be no overspill necessary, and so we would, unless something unexpected were to happen, meet to prorogue, and then, after a day or two, open the new Session.
Sir T. Moore: On what date?
Mr. M. Stewart: Could the right hon. Gentleman find time next week to debate the report on housing, to which I have referred? After all, it has been all ready for publication since May, and it is only now that anyone is allowed to see it.
Mr. Macleod: I have considerable admiration for the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity. I would be prepared to wager that if he wants to make any points about it he could find a suitable opportunity today to do so.
Mr. Lipton: Before we rise for the Summer Recess, can we be given any information about the final composition of the Milner Holland Committee which is to investigate housing rackets in London? In particular, could we be given the name and address of the secretary to this Committee to whom representations can be made? I am particularly anxious to report to this Committee on Various Tenancies Ltd. of 113, Clapham Park Road, S.W.4.
Mr. Macleod: If any hon. Members wish to forward information, the obvious thing would be to send it direct to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who, of course, would make; it available at once.
If the composition of the Milner Holland Committee is completed before we rise it will, of course, be announced to the House. In any case, we will make the announcement as soon as we can.
Mr. Grimond: In view of what the Leader of the House said about returning in the autumn, may we be assured that there will be no General Election before next year?
Mr. Speaker: That matter does not appear to arise on next week's business.
Mr. M. Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is in the Vote Office this afternoon a Report of a Select Committee, which by an oversight has not been properly presented to the House of Commons? Is he aware that this refers to a question which was fully debated in the House, about Service men who wish to stand for Parliament? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to find time for a discussion of this important matter next week, particularly as the Select Committee appears to have accepted holus bolus the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), whose views are not shared by all hon. Members, or are the Government working in future on the principle that "anything that Wigg says goes"?
Mr. Macleod: Obviously, I cannot find time within next week's business to debate that matter.
Mr. Bellenger: I suppose that it is too late now to ask the right hon. Gentleman to extend the time for debate on the important White Paper on the Central

1783
Organisation for Defence. If, however, as I imagine, there will be substantial major legislation in the new Session arising out of that White Paper, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that adequate time will be given to debating that legislation, particularly as many hon. Members, both expert and others, will have to restrain themselves in getting into the debate on Wednesday?
Mr. Macleod: I hope so, but that, obviously, is getting us into the business not of next week but of next Session.
Mr. Wigg: Leaving aside the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), is it not a fact that the Select Committee's Report to which he has referred must in due course be debated by the House?
Mr. Macleod: I should like to take advice on that. I do not think that it must be debated, although such Reports usually are.
Mr. Parkin: Will the Leader of the House arrange for his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, after consideration of documents which I handed to him yesterday, to make a statement in the House next week about the composition and powers of the Milner Holland Committee, or of some other inquiry working in parallel, so that we can be certain that there is ample opportunity to deal with the wide variety of aspects of the situation that need to be inquired into?
Mr. Macleod: My right hon. Friend tells me that he has already taken appropriate action on the documents which have been handed to him. I have already replied to that point about the Milner Holland Committee.
Mr. Warbey: Has the Leader of the House drawn the attention of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to a Motion on the Order Paper in the names of several hon. Members calling for a White Paper on the reasons for the decision to hand over a pipeline concession to the oil companies?
[That this House calls attention to the undertaking given by the Minister of Power, during the passage of the Pipelines Act 1962, to protect the public interest in the operation of this Act, and therefore
1784
requests Her Majesty's Government to lay on the Table of the House a White Paper setting out, in detail, the circumstances and considerations which led the Minister of Power to award the valuable transport concession of a cross-country pipeline from the Thames to Merseyside to United Kingdom Oil Pipelines Ltd., a consortium of the major international oil companies.]
May we have an assurance that we shall get the White Paper in time for a possible debate on the subject?
Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I drew the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to the exchange which we had last week about the question of a White Paper and he agreed with the answer I gave.
Mr. Ross: Since the business announced in the right hon. Gentleman's statement for next week is likely to be the last week's business in this Session of Parliament, will he tell us the Government's intentions concerning the Law Reform (Succession etc.) (Scotland) Bill, which was discussed in principle in the Scottish Grand Committee this morning, a Bill that follows a Report of a Committee which reported thirteen years ago and one which was promised in the Speech from the Throne in, I think, 1959? Is it the Government's intention that there shall be a Committee stage? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House that that is not their intention and also inform the Secretary of State for Scotland of this and that his right hon. Friend should not indulge in a rather callous piece of political window-dressing?
Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that, on the contrary, we have published the Bill and announced our intention to legislate. I made it clear from the beginning that the Bill was published first for discussion in the way which it has now been discussed. Of course, we will legislate on this matter in the new Session.
Mr. Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Power has not yet published the annual report of the Iron and Steel Board to the House? Does he recall that this time last year we had a debate on the steel industry on the basis of the Report that

1785
had been published earlier, in June? Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made by the Minister of Power on the steel industry and, in particular, concerning 4,000 men who are on short time in my constituency?
Mr. Macleod: I will, of course, draw that point to my right hon. Friend's attention, but we have, I think, had the full ration of days for debate on the nationalised industries and their Reports generally. In the next Session this, presumably, becomes a candidate again.
Mr. M. Foot: Turning again to the question of the Select Committee on members of the Armed Forces, will the Leader of the House undertake to look up the debate which we had in the House on this subject, in which he participated and stated that, because of the views which had been expressed on the matter, the Committee would be asked to report as early as possible? The suggestion was made that we could not go on with the existing system because doubts had been expressed. Is it not flouting that opinion when the Leader of the House is prepared to carry on the present arrangements without allowing the House a further opportunity of debating the matter? Will he undertake to read what he said in that debate and make a further statement to the House on this matter before the House rises for the Recess?
Mr. Macleod: I remember that debate very well. Both the hon. Member and I took part in it. It is about the only occasion when we have expressed slightly similar points of view.
Mr. Foot: For once.
Mr. Macleod: Yes, for once. I remember that debate very well. For the moment, however, we are dealing with the business for next week, within which there is no opportunity for what the hon. Member asks.

HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY
Mr. Speaker: I have a matter concerning the Library about which to speak to the House.
The Library Committee has lately reported, and I am most grateful to it, after reviewing certain suggestions which have been made for extending the services which our Library provides and their implications. The Report is in form a report to me from an advisory committee, but it is the Committee's wish, and mine also, that in this instance the Report should be made available to hon. Members generally.
Accordingly, I have caused a number of copies of the Report to be placed in the Library for the information of hon. Members.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
3.47 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That the Order [29th January] be supplemented as follows:

1. The Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting.

2.—(1) The said Proceedings shall be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for one hour after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period for which the said Proceedings are exempted under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) shall be in addition to the said period of one hour.

3. On the order being read for the consideration of Lords Amendments, the Question, That the Lords Amendments be now considered, shall be put forthwith.

4. If at the expiration of the period for which the said Proceedings are exempted under paragraph 2 of this order, those Proceedings have not been completed, then for the purposes of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) in the case of any Lords Amendment which has been read a second time, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question which may be necessary to dispose of any Amendment which has been proposed thereto and also the Question on any Motion, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Amendment as amended;

(b) all the remaining Lords Amendments shall be deemed to have been read a second time, and Mr. Speaker shall designate such, if any, of those Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall then forthwith—

(i) put the Question on any Motion, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Amendments except those designated by Mr. Speaker or, if no Amendments have been so designated, in all the remaining Amendments;

(ii) put separately with respect to each Amendment so designated the Question on any Motion, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

A week ago, during discussion of the business of the House, the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) asked me how it was proposed that the debate on the London Government Bill should be handled and when he received the answer which, I think, he expected, he expressed
1788
shock and surprise. I do not believe, however, that anyone feels that there is an alternative course other than to follow paragraph 13 of the original Order.
We need not argue the party attitudes towards the Bill; they are well known and I dealt with them in January, when the original Motion was moved. One quotation from later in that debate is from the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who with this quotation will have taken his place among the "literature" of Guillotine debates which we quote to each other. The hon. Member said:
"I feel strongly about the Bill. I admit that to stop the Bill I would do almost anything short of pulling out a revolver and shooting the Minister of Housing and Local Government."—[Official Report, 29th January, 1963; Vol. 670, c. 820.]
On Third Reading, the hon. Member for Bermondsey, speaking from the Front Bench in, perhaps, rather more classical language, reiterated his eternal and undying opposition to the Bill. That is fair enough. It often happens that one side of the House brings in a Measure which the other side opposes.
The position which now confronts the House is that we have 280 Lords Amendments before us. The alternative to the Measure, on which I propose briefly to speak, would be to try to do what we attempted in 1953 on the Transport Bill, which was the only occasion when a Guillotine has been applied to Lords Amendments. On that occasion, the debate on the Lords Amendments on 21stApril, 1953, went on for 15 hours 55 minutes, which I calculate to have meant an even later rising than the hour of 6.15 in the morning at which the House, or some of us, rose earlier today. Following that 16 hours' debate, the next day there were 9 hours 20 minutes and on the following day 10 hours 20 minutes, make a total of 35½ hours. After that the supplementary Guillotine had to be introduced and the real business started. That was for a Bill with 70 Amendments, roughly a quarter of the number before us today.
If we tried to operate such a system—and the hon. Member for Bermondsey and his colleagues made it clear, and I emphasise again perfectly properly, that they would do anything they could to oppose this Bill—we would be inviting

1789
the House of Commons to indulge in an exercise which was doomed to end in the tumbrils which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said the Bill would do from the first time that he saw it; and he was quite right.
I have a link with the right hon. Member because we are both members of the Surrey Cricket Club. I think that we should be inviting the House to indulge in a procedure similar to the cricket matches which Yorkshire and Surrey have been playing against each other, when the object has been not to achieve a result but to infuriate players and spectators alike. Therefore, I am sure that the right course was to bring this supplementary Motion before the House, and I am sure that hon. Members understood this when we put forward the original Motion.
The essential argument on an allocation of time Motion is whether the allocation of time is sufficient and whether the justification for it is made out. No one has to argue any more the general case for a Guillotine, which has been an established part of our custom for fifty years or more. The particular case for a Guillotine always needs arguing. But it is worth pointing out that 20 per cent. of the lime which we have taken in legislation on the Floor of this House has been spent on this Bill, and that is not to mention the 21 Committee sittings upstairs.
Debate has been very long in another place, and on two occasions their Lordships broke the record for the length of sitting in their House. The House of Lords has no Guillotine and no procedure for the selection of Amendments. They have practically no rules of order. I sometimes wonder what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, would make of it if he were sitting, not where he is at the moment, but on the other side of the House and had a more direct interest in securing the passage of this Bill. I am sure that he would put forward exactly the same Motion that I am putting forward today.
It is an old trick, in discussing guillotine Motions, to read a quotation and then, when one is jeered, to point out that it was made by someone on the other side of the House in some previous incarnation. Therefore—because I feel in an amiable mood today—I warn the House
1790
that this quotation is from Mr. Morrison, as he then was, when he moved an allocation of time Motion before the Committee stage of the Iron and Steel Bill had even started. He was addressing his remarks to Mr. Eden, as he then was, who was leading for the Conservatives, and said, after giving his justification for the Motion:
"I should have thought that after a few observations from…Mr. Eden, and, no doubt, perfectly proper criticism and protests, the House would unanimously agree to the Motion."—[Official Report, 25th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1438.]
I think that he was a little optimistic and probably I am, too, in recalling that precedent of some time ago.
I feel that, as they study the work which is before us, the attitude of the two parties to the Bill, the length of time which has been spent on it in this House and in another place, and the sad record of what happened in 1953 when, with a much smaller number of Amendments, an attempt was made to talk them through to an end, this Motion is right, and I hope that the House will agree to it.
3.55 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: I shall say only a few words on this Motion because, presumably, since the Government are determined to have their own way, any time that we spend on it will come out of the time that we have to discuss the Amendments. I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that we should not prolong the argument on this Motion, but it would be wrong not to voice our entire disapproval of it and our disagreement with the arguments advanced by the Leader of the House.
As usual, the right hon. Gentleman produced precedents of previous Guillotines, and said that because we were speedy in passing the Iron and Steel Bill we should be speedy in passing this Bill and the Lords Amendments to it. I commend his attention to the remark made by Matthew Arnold about Carlyle. When somebody said to Matthew Arnold, "Sir, you criticise Carlyle for being dogmatic, but are you not equally dogmatic yourself?", Matthew Arnold replied, "You overlook an important difference. I am dogmatic and right; Carlyle is dogmatic and wrong". That is the difference between

1791
the two sides of the House when guillotine Motions are proposed.
I could not feel that the Leader of the Houses's membership of the Surrey Cricket Club had any persuasive power, because, if he lets the Bill go through, he will find himself a member of the South-West Greater London Cricket Club. For every three potential cricketers in Surrey at the moment, there will be only one when this Bill has been passed. That should have made the right hon. Gentleman pause.
Mr. Iain Macleod: If the hon. Member looks up Wisden, he will find that his argument is wrong and that county cricket does not take any notice of any alterations which Parliament may make in these matters—and very wisely, too.
Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is very wise of county cricket not to pay attention. I wish that it were in the power of other people not to pay attention.
I could not follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument that, because 35 hours were not sufficient to deal with 70 Amendments to the Transport Bill, we should, therefore, allocate only about seven hours to deal with 280 Amendments to this Bill. That seems to me arithmetic of a peculiarly inverted order.
Let me remind the House of the Government's procedure of haste and brutality over this Bill. The Committee stage here was hastily and unnecessarily guillotined from the start. The result was that we never had the opportunity to discuss properly a great many important subjects, and that cannot be disputed. I mention only one, the question as to whether the new London boroughs should have the right, which any provincial authority of comparable size has, to decide their own method of audit. After bundling the Bill through this House, the Government took it to another place where, in the absence of the guillotine procedure, they
had to proceed by the brutal method of trying to wear out their Lordships through sheer exhaustion.
I cannot let this occasion pass without paying tribute to the valour and skill of the members of the Opposition in another place. Testimony is given to that when one looks at these Amendments. Over and over again the Government had to accept Amendments pushed on them by the Opposition in another place, some of them Amendments which they had happily demonstrated to their own satisfaction in this House were totally unworkable, unwise and intolerable. The air in another place seemed to produce a change of heart on the Government's part. An Amendment affecting the County of Surrey, about which we shall, no doubt, hear more later in the day, came in that category.
That is why the Government need not have been so suspicious of any attempt by the Opposition to waste time over these Amendments. These Amendments do things to the Bill which we told the Government, when the Bill was here, they would have to do with it sooner or later. On a good many of the Amendments, the only thing we say can is something which memories of childhood upbringing would forbid us to say, the four words, "I told you so".
There is no ground whatever for apprehension that we would improperly waste time in discussing these Amendments. The guillotine Motion is infected by the general impropriety and un-desirability attaching to the Bill as a whole. It has been propped up bysingularly unimpressive arguments from the Leader of the House and merely completes the record of sordid brutality which has characterised the Government's handling of the whole Bill. I invite the House to reject it.
Question put: —
The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 158.

Division No. 175.]

AYES

[4.1 p.m.

Allason, James

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Bossom, Hon. Clive

Arbuthnot, John

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Bourne-Arton, A.

Balniel, Lord

Berkeley, Humphry

Box, Donald

Barlow, Sir John

Bidgood, John C.

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Barter, John

Biffen, John

Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Bataford, Brian

Biggs-Davison, John

Brewis, John

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Bingham, R. M.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Bell, Ronald

Bishop, F. P.

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Buck, Antony

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Pitman, Sir James

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pitt, Dame Edith

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Iremonger, T. L.

Pott, Percivall

Cary, Sir Robert

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Channon, H. P. G.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Jennings, J. C.

Prior, J. M. L.

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Cleaver, Richard

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Pym, Francis

Cole, Norman

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Cooke, Robert

Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Cooper, A. E.

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Renton, Rt. Hon. David

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Corfield, F. V.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Ridsdale, Julian

Costain, A. P.

Kimball, Marcus

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

Coulson, Michael

Kirk, Peter

Robson Brown, Sir William

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Lambton, Viscount

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Crawley, Aidan

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Roots, William

Critchley, Julian

Lilley, F. J. P.

Scott-Hopkins, James

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Seymour, Leslie

Cunningham, Knox

Litchfield, Capt. John

Sharples, Richard

Dance, James

Longbottom, Charles

Shaw, M.

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Longden, Gilbert

Shepherd, William

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Loveys, Walter H.

Skeet, T. H. H.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

Smithers, Peter

Duncan, Sir James

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

Eden, Sir John

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

MacArthur, Ian

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Emmett, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

McLaren, Martin

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Stevens, Geoffrey

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Fell, Anthony

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

Stodart, J. A.

Finlay, Graeme

McMaster, Stanley R.

Storey, Sir Samuel

Fisher, Nigel

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Foster, John

Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Maddan, Martin

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

Freeth, Denzil

Maitland, Sir John

Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)

Gammans, Lady

Marshall, Sir Douglas

Teeling, Sir William

Gardner, Edward

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Glover, Sir Douglas

Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)

Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

Glyn, Dr, Alan (Clapham)

Mawby, Ray

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

Maxwell Hyslop, R. J.

Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

Green, Alan

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

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Gresham Cooke, R.

Mills, Stratton

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Grosvenor, Lord Robert

Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Gurden, Harold

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Morrison, John

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Neave, Alrey

Walder, David

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Wall, Patrick

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

Ward, Dame Irene

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Whitelaw, William

Hendry, Forbes

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

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

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Wise, A. R.

Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Holland, Philip

Partridge, E.

Woodhouse, C. M.

Hollingworth, John

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Woollam, John

Hornby, R. P.

Peel, John

Worsley, Marcus

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

Percival, Ian

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Mr. Gordon Campbell and

Hughes-Young, Michael

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Mr. Hugh Rees.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

Albu, Austen

Carmichael, Neil

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Allen, Scholefield (Crowe)

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Barnett, Guy

Chapman, Donald

Evans, Albert

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Collick, Percy

Finch, Harold

Benson, Sir George

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Fitch, Alan

Blackburn, F.

Cronin, John

Fletcher, Eric

Boardman, H.

Crosland, Anthony

Foley, Maurice

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Dalyell, Tam

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

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

Darling, George

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Bowles, Frank

Deer, George

George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn)

Boyden, James

Dempsey, James

Ginsburg, David

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Diamond, John

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Brockway, A. Fenner

Dodds, Norman

Gourlay, Harry

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Donnelly, Desmond

Grey, Charles

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Doughty, Charles

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

1794

1795

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

McBride, N.

Skeffington, Arthur

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

MacColl, James

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Gunter, Ray

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Small, William

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

McLeavy, Frank

Sorensen, R. W.

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Hannan, William

Manuel, Archie

Spriggs, Leslie

Harper, Joseph

Mayhew, Christopher

Steele, Thomas

Hayman, F. H.

Mellish, R. J.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Healey, Denis

Mendelson, J. J.

Stonehouse, John

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

Milne, Edward

Stones, William

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Mitchison, G. R.

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

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Monslow, Walter

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

Hilton, A. V.

Morris, John

Swingler, Stephen

Holman, Percy

Moyle, Arthur

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Hooson, H. E.

Mulley, Frederick

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

Houghton, Douglas

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Thornton, Ernest

Howoll, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

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

Thorpe, Jeremy

Hoy, James H.

O'Malley, B. K.

Tomney, Frank

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Oram, A. E.

Wade, Donald

Hunter, A. E.

Parker, John

Wainwright, Edwin

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Parkin, B. T.

Warbey, William

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Paton, John

Weitzman, David

Janner, Sir Barnett

Pavitt, Laurence

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Pentland, Norman

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Popplewell, Ernest

White, Mrs, Eirene

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Prentice, R. E.

Whitlock, William

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

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Wigg, George

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Probert, Arthur

Wilkins, W. A.

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Redhead, E. C.

Willey, Frederick

Kelley, Richard

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Reynolds, G. W.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Woof, Robert

King, Dr. Horace

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Ross, William

Zilliacus, K.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Russell, Ronald

Lipton, Marcus

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Lubbock, Eric

Short, Edward

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and

Mr. Lawson.

Resolved,
That the Order [29th January] be supplemented as follows: —
1. The Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting.
2.—(1) The said Proceedings shall be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for one hour after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period for which the said Proceedings are exempted under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) shall be in addition to the said period of one hour.
3. On the order being read for the consideration of Lords Amendments, the Question, That the Lords Amendments be now considered, shall be put forthwith.
4. If, at the expiration of the period for which the said Proceedings are exempted under paragraph 2 of this order, those Proceedings have not been completed, then for the purposes of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) in the case of any Lords Amendment which has been read a second time, Mr.
1796
Speaker shall put forward any Question which may be necessary to dispose of any Amendment which has been proposed thereto and also the Question on any Motion, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Amendment as amended;
(b) all the remaining Lords Amendments shall be deemed to have been read a second time, and Mr. Speaker shall designate such, if any, of those Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall then forthwith—
(i) put the Question on any Motion, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Amendments except those designated by Mr. Speaker or, if no Amendments have been so designated, in all the remaining Amendments;
(ii) put separately with respect to each Amendment so designated the Question on any Motion, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
  Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order this day, put forthwith the Question, That the Lords Amendments be now considered.
  Question agreed to.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL

    Clause 1.—(London boroughs.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 1, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 15 and insert:

    5

    "(2) If in the case of any London borough, on representations in that behalf made to the Privy Council by the Minister, Her Majesty by the advice of Her Privy Council thinks fit to grant a charter of incorporation of the inhabitants of that borough, Her Majesty may by that charter—

    (a) make provision with respect to the name of the borough; and

    10

    (b) subject to the provisions of this Act, make any provision such as may be made by virtue of section 131 of the Local Government Act 1933 by a charter granted under Part VI of that Act;

    15

    and any charter which purports to be grantee, in pursuance of the Royal prerogative and this subsection shall be deemed to be valid and within the powers of this Act and Her Majesty's prerogative and the validity thereof shall not be questioned in any legal proceeding whatever.

    20

    (2A) In the case of any London borough whose inhabitants are not incorporated by such a charter as is referred to in the last foregoing subsection, provision for their incorporation shall be made by the Minister by order (hereafter in this Act referred to as an "incorporation order") which may include any such provision as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection."

    Read a Second time.
    4.12 p.m.
    Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 3, to leave out "in that behalf".
    There is another Amendment in my name to the Lords Amendment, in the same line, to leave out "by the Minister".
    My Amendment deals with the subsection which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has said, has been inserted by another place arising out of discussions that we had and points which the Opposition raised, supported, I think, by hon. Members opposite, when the Bill was going through its earlier stages.
    I maintained at that time that if the Minister was telling us, as he was, that the new Greater London boroughs were county boroughs—he kept referring to the county borough as the nearest analogy to their nature that he could give—they should, wherever possible, have exactly the same rights as county boroughs in the rest of the country—that they should not be given rights more akin to metropolitan boroughs, but should, wherever
    1798
    possible, have rights akin to county boroughs.
    As the Bill was originally drafted, these Greater London boroughs had not the right to obtain a Royal Charter. We now have in this Lords Amendment a provision whereby, if the Minister decided to make application to the Privy Council on behalf of one of the local authorities, such a charter within the provisions of the Act itself, it shall be deemed, as suggested at the time, rather as an extension of, than remaining under, the Royal prerogative. If the Minister makes an application, a local authority may be granted a charter. I am criticising this very different procedure from that which operates for any other borough in the county. The Minister must justify, if he can, why a different procedure should operate.
    To go back to what I was saying earlier, we were suddenly told in the early stages of the Bill that the new London boroughs were akin to county boroughs. Any county borough or, indeed, any borough or urban district council can itself, with the support of the inhabitants, petition the Privy

    1799
    Council for a Royal charter. I understand that at that stage the Minister makes his submissions and views on the application known to the Privy Council. It would be a rather stupid urban district council, non-county borough or county borough which applied for such a petition without first sounding out the Minister on the matter. Nevertheless, in the rest of the country the smallest urban district council, if it feels it should have county borough status, can take the initiative for an application for a charter.
    But here these boroughs with populations of from 250,000 to 300,000, or more, will not be allowed to do this. They have first of all to try to persuade the Minister, and then the Minister will make application to the Privy Council. This is a comparatively small point, but why are we going out of our way with these large authorities to put them in an inferior position to any urban district council, non-county borough or borough in the country?
    There is a matter of status in this. If these London boroughs are to have the status of county boroughs, they should not be vexed with pettifogging little differences of status like this compared with smaller authorities in other parts of the country. If the Minister is prepared to admit, as apparently he is, because we have this Lords Amendment, that charters can be obtained in appropriate cases, there is no reason why the London boroughs should not be allowed to make application for them in the normal way instead of our instituting a special method of application in their case which is completely different from that of other boroughs in the country.
    4.15 p.m.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) has been an ardent campaigner throughout the Bill for equal rights and equal dignity for the new bodies being created from what are now the outer and inner London boroughs.
    The origin of the difference, so far as incorporation of the new boroughs being built out of the inner and outer London boroughs is concerned, really reflects the background of their original
    1800
    incorporation. The outer London boroughs happen to be so grouped in Schedule I that each group contains a borough which originally had a charter, and, consequently, it is possible that the new boroughs to be created out of those outer London boroughs can each expect to have a charter. The inner London boroughs, on the other hand, all have their origin by way of Statute, and as a charter is really appropriate only to incorporating a body which has never been incorporated before, the fact that they have been incorporated by Statute precluded them, as it seemed to the House at the time, from hoping to receive a charter. That is the origin of the difference from which the Amendment stems.
    It is true that in another place an Amendment was moved to meet this criticism. I hope that the House will welcome its terms. The terms of the Amendment—I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's speech in a moment—are that if the Minister—that is, for the moment, me—represents accordingly to the Privy Council, the Privy Council may, if it thinks fit, advise Her Majesty to grant a charter to incorporate all the inhabitants of that borough. If the Privy Council does so advise and if Her Majesty accepts that advice, then the rest of the Amendment lays out what may be included.
    It only remains for me now to assure the House that I intend to make such representations to the Privy Council for the House to be satisfied, I hope, that the Amendment, if accepted, will achieve what I think the House intended—that all the boroughs, whether built from the inner London or the outer London components, will qualify for consideration for the same treatment; namely, for charter treatment. It is, of course, not for me or the House to say what the Privy Council may see fit to advise or Her Majesty sees fit to do, but I undertake that, so far as I am concerned, the process shall be initiated by my representation, and equal representation for all the boroughs.
    To come to the point in the hon. Gentleman's speech, it is true that this is a different procedure from that available all over the country to other unincorporated, unchartered bodies. It is true that all

    1801
    over the country it is open to an authority to petition on behalf of its people that a charter be granted. In such a case the Privy Council normally requires an investigation to occur, and an investigation is carried out normally by the Department closely concerned, which is my Department. Upon the result of that investigation, the Privy Council decides its advice and Her Majesty considers that advice.
    That procedure is inappropriate here for two reasons. First, there is no existing authority to represent the London boroughs. They do not yet exist. They will exist, and at the moment that they exist the job of incorporation will be done, and that having been done will preclude a charter being given later.
    Mr. Reynolds: Will there not be statutory committees, part of whose job will be to deal with matters in connection with incorporation or Royal charters?
    Sir K. Joseph: This is not a matter of commonsense committee procedure. We are dealing with something which must be considered quite pedantically. There are different procedures in the rest of the country from those in London. The procedure all over the rest of the country provides for a petition being considered by the Privy Council which would then have an investigation to see whether that petition should be granted. That stage is quite unnecessary in this case. There is no need to consider whether a petition should or should not be successful.
    Incorporation has been decided by this House. That is not the same question as whether or not there should be a charter. If there is no charter, then another form of incorporation by Ministerial order is provided as a stop-gap by this Amendment. I hope that the House will agree with the Lords Amendment, because it meets the point desired by the House at an earlier stage. There should be this difference in this case from normal practice in the country.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman has not seriously attempted to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds). He admitted that what he was doing was pedantic. Indeed, I have never heard such a pedantic argument. We are arguing that the London boroughs should be put into precisely
    1802
    the same position with regard to getting a charter as any other borough in the country. When we discussed this matter in committee, he raised all kinds of difficulties and objections as to why it could not be done. He said that it would be impossible and incongruous for any London borough to hope to get a charter and that it would not be realistic for it to do so.
    We argued that it was absurd that metropolitan boroughs should not be entitled to get a charter. The gist of our case was that it would produce and perpetuate an absurd difference between the inner London boroughs and the outer London boroughs if the outer boroughs were able to obtain charters while the inner boroughs were deprived of the right. The right hon. Gentleman replied that it could not be done and he resisted our Amendment to that effect.
    In the event, the right hon. Gentleman has been proved entirely wrong. His arguments have been shown to be completely fallacious. If he rereads the speech he made on that occasion, he will see that it is riddled with complete nonsense. Now another place has conceded the basis of our argument, namely, that the metropolitan boroughs should be placed on precisely the same status and equality as regards charters as any of the outer London boroughs.
    We thought that this move was essential because otherwise there would be an invidious difference between the two. The right hon. Gentleman says today that in the case of outer boroughs the Bill has been so drafted that it happens that all of them will have charters already within their boroughs and, therefore, that no question arises. But, in view of that, it is all the more important that the metropolitan boroughs should be on precisely the same footing. There should be no question of any invidious distinctions between the two.
    Sir K. Joseph: There is not.
    Mr. Fletcher: There is, and there will be unless the right hon. Gentleman accepts my hon. Friend's Amendment. The difficulty is that the right hon. Gentleman has not understood the position. He admitted that his arguments for resisting my hon. Friend's Amendment were purely pedantic. They were not only pedantic, but absurd to the point of being nonsensical.
    Sir K. Joseph: Perhaps, by leave of the House, I may intervene at some length. I think that somehow we have got on to ground which is not soundly based. I will try to get us on to the right ground. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) has achieved the substance of what he wants by my undertaking to make the representations that initiative procedure which will lead to all boroughs, both inner and outer, getting charters if the Privy Council and Her Majesty so decide.
    The hon. Member then asked why his Amendment should not be accepted, for it would bring the London boroughs into line with procedure in the rest of the country. He was not making the point which is being put by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher)—that there is still a difference between the outer and inner London boroughs. The point that the hon. Member for Islington, North was on was that, where an urban or rural district seeks incorporation as a borough, the procedure is that the local authority may petition. If it does petition, the Privy Council conducts an investigation—normally by my Department—and as a result the Privy Council and, ultimately, Her Majesty, make a decision.
    I have explained that that procedure would be inappropriate to the inner and outer London boroughs because very few were urban or rural districts and because, where a borough has been an urban or rural district, it is not a new authority which will not exist until a charter is granted. It is commonly agreed that these boroughs are to be incorporated. The ground is, therefore, not a difference of treatment between inner and outer boroughs, but whether there is justification for a difference between all the London boroughs and urban and rural districts throughout the country.
    Mr. Fletcher: I do not know whether, in that long intervention, the right hon. Gentleman has tried to explain his pedantic argument to the satisfaction of other hon. Members, but he has not explained it satisfactorily to me, so I shall have to pursue the subject. The right hon. Gentleman seems to confuse incorporation with the granting of a charter. The two things are quite different. What my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) is saying—and I
    1804
    agree—was that any metropolitan borough should be allowed to move of its own volition towards a charter. It is only by giving it that statutory right that we will give it equality with any other borough. That is the point of our argumnt, which we put on Second Reading and in Committee.
    We want the metropolitan boroughs to be in the same position to have, as of right, power to apply to the Privy Council for a charter. The right hon. Gentleman has told us the procedure, how one may or may not get a charter. It may depend on the good will of the Minister of the day. Every metropolitan borough should have the right to decide whether it is to be incorporated under this Measure or any other.
    Is the right hon. Gentleman giving an assurance that, when the Bill becomes law, he will make an application, on behalf of all the metropolitan boroughs which will become incorporated under this Bill, for a royal charter? Is that what he is saying?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am going wider than that. I am undertaking to make representations involved in the Amendment for all the boroughs, both inner and outer. There will be exactly the same representations for all of them.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am very glad to have that assurance. That is something that is on the record. I assume that it binds successive Ministers.
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman need not be too glad about this. The assurance was given on behalf of the Government in another place and I am repeating it.
    Mr. Fletcher: It is all very well having an assurance in this House, and by a noble Lord in another place, but we have had so much experience in the last few years of Ministerial assurances being completely disregarded over and over again. That is one of the great complaints about the Government.
    There have been so many assurances by Ministers subsequently repudiated that it is time Parliament and the country learnt that it is not the duty of hon. Members to rely on the assurances of Conservative Ministers, but that they must seek to ensure, when dealing with

    1805
    matters affecting their constituents—both in the metropolitan boroughs and elsewhere—that the rights they are entitled to are included in Acts of Parliament and do not rely on the unsatisfactory basis of Conservative Ministers' statements.
    My hon. Friends the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who have had great experience in this matter, know that over and over again they have had to rely upon Ministerial assurances of various kinds which have later been repudiated. It would be out of order for me to call such instances to mind. It has happened in connection with a number of Measures. The Attorney-General is familiar with an assurance which was given, but later disregarded.
    4.30 p.m.
    I assert as a matter of principle that it is the duty of the House, when something is conceded as a matter of substance, to ensure that it is written into the Act. Amendments should not be resisted on the ground that the House need not bother about putting words into an Act of Parliament because the Minister says that he will do this or a noble Lard in another place says that he will do that. That is not a ground for resisting the Amendment. If there is any sincerity in what the Minister has said, he should accept the Amendment, because then the matter would be crystal clear. We should then know where we were. Then these metropolitan boroughs would have their rights written into an Act of Parliament.
    Mr. Reynolds: The Minister said that he will make an application for such charters for all the Greater London boroughs. My Amendment would leave it to the boroughs to make the application themselves for such a charter. The Ministers action will mean that he will be asking for charters when it is possible that some members of the boroughs will not wish to have such a charter. In the past a charter has been granted only at the request of the inhabitants of the area. Some of these new boroughs may not wish to have such a charter. As I understand the Minister's assurance, he will apply for charters for all of them. I would rather take that than nothing at all, but it will create the anomaly of a charter perhaps being imposed on people
    1806
    who have never asked for it and may not want it.
    Mr. Fletcher: I agree. The more I think about this the more I am dissatisfied with the pedantic nonsense that the Minister talks. Are we to understand that, as soon as the Measure is passed, the Minister will apply for charters simultaneously on behalf of all these boroughs?
    Sir K. Joseph Sir K. Joseph indicated assent.
    Mr. Reynolds: Mass-produced charters.
    Mr. Fletcher: This is contrary to the basis on which applications are made for a Royal charter. We want Parliament to legislate. We must assert as often as we can that Parliament must lay down the law. We must stop this continued invasion and these continued inroads by the Executive into the proper functions of Parliament. We have had instances over and ever again of the Executive trying to arrogate to itself by means of Ministerial assurances and promises matter which should be properly expressed in an Act of Parliament.
    I am getting tired of this, because it is our duty, when legislating on important matters of this kind, to ensure that we legislate properly. When it is conceded that something should be done, and when there is no possible objection to what we are asking for, except a purely pedantic objection, it is not good enough for a Minister to say, "We will do exactly what you want, but we do not want to put it in proper form in an Act of Parliament. We want you to accept my personal assurance as a Minister of the Crown, or an assurance given by a noble Lord in another place, that we will do something".
    This is not good enough. It carries no weight. There is no sanction open to the House if the Minister repudiates his promise. During the tenure of the Conservative Government we have had many illustrations of repudiated promises. It is time that we dug in our heels. Now that the substance of our case has been accepted, after a great deal of reluctance and opposition at earlier stages, we should maintain our position. It should be put into the proper statutory form. We should insist on the Government accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. Ede: It has now been amply proved that discussion on the

    1807
    Amendment is pedantic. As a pedagogue, I object to anybody else being pedantic. I cannot understand what all the fury is about. Where the inhabitants of a district ask for a charter of incorporation, the demand goes to the Privy Council, which appoints an inspector. He goes along, hears the remarks of the various Government Departments about the way in which the place has been administered hitherto, hears any objections to the proposal, and then recommends either that the charter should be granted or that it should not be granted. The Privy Council usually follows the advice of the inspector, but it is not obliged to do so.
    Each charter is an individual document. I do not understand this mass application for charters to deal with districts that present very difficult problems. A charter granted in the ordinary way appoints a person to act as mayor of the borough until the first meeting of the town council, the election of the mayor, and the appointment of the town clerk and the treasurer. After that he ceases to function and the ordinary procedures of the borough follow. Once the charter has been granted, there is a series of negotiations between the Privy Council and the promoters of the application concerning what shall go into the charter. That varies with the requirements of each district.
    Will the Minister give us an assurance that, as from the time when the decision has been made by the Privy Council, there will be local consultation between the Privy Council and the persons interested in the new borough to ensure that they get a charter that meets their requirements? This is the only point that interests me. I was named in the charter which incorporated Epsom and Ewell to act as mayor until the borough treasurer was appointed. I never handled the borough finances myself. That was a transaction between the treasurer of the former district council and the treasurer who was appointed prior to my leaving the chair at the first meeting of the town council.
    Can we have an assurance that the arrangements will be such that consultation between the authorities of the new area and the Privy Council will take place so that the charter can deal with the
    1808
    requirements of the new borough and not be merely a mass-produced document that might have very little relevance to some of the requirements of the new borough when it comes into being?
    This is one of the things that we inherited from the old metropolitan vestries which were abolished by the Act which created the metropolitan borough councils. As Lord Morrison of Lambeth once said, they were glorified parish councils. We must ensure that from the beginning these boroughs will have an individual life of their own with a charter that is adapted to their individual needs.
    Mr. David Weitzman: The Minister sits and laughs, as if to say "You are a lot of stupid fellows. I have given you an assurance. What more do you want?" My hon. Friends the Members for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) have raised an important point of principle. We are asked not to proceed with the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend because the Minister has given an anssurance, and because a noble Lord in another place has given a similar assurance on this matter. This Bill will shortly become an Act and become part of the law. There is nothing in the Bill to show that the Minister has given this assurance, and I therefore do not see how it can be said that we need not worry about making this Amendment.
    This is a simple matter. It is the right of the inhabitants of a locality, through their elected representatives, to apply for a charter. They may or may not apply for one, but the decision should be left to them. If they apply, the application will be considered, a report will be issued, and following that a charter will be granted. Why should the Minister have the right to prevent people making this decision for themselves, and be entitled to say to us, "Do not worry about it. Never mind what they want. I undertake to make a mass application on behalf of these people"? This, on the face of it, appears to be constitutionally wrong, and I think that we should assert the importance of this constitutional principle.
    Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I share the surprise expressed by other speakers from this side of the House that

    1809
    the Minister cannot accept this modest Amendment. Having accepted the principle of the Lords Amendment—which I consider to be an important one and I am pleased the Minister has accepted it—not to accept this small Amendment is like straining at the gnat after having swallowed the camel.
    When this matter was discussed on a previous occasion, we had a long debate about the Royal prerogative and how it was possible to apply for the charters. We have opened the door to the extent of accepting the Lords Amendment. If the purpose of the Bill is to bring local government closer to the people, which the Government claim it is, so that the citizens of the various boroughs can feel that they are joining in in taking decisions, this Amendment seems a logical step to take. If people in the locality feel that they are not only enjoying the privilege of having a charter, but that they participated in getting it and in helping to decide its provisions, they will feel that they have achieved something.
    I do not distrust the Minister on this issue, though I distrust him on many others. The assurance that he has given appear to mean that he genuinely wants to achieve the same result as we do. If this is so, why not accept the Amendment to the Lords Amendment?
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Albert Evans: I am sure that the Minister must realise that there are all sorts of dangers in monkeying about with London's local government. Lord Morrison of Lambeth has often warned both the Government and his own party to be careful when they start monkeying about with local government.
    A lot of confusion appears to have been caused by this modest Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) referred to the whole thing as pedantic.
    Mr. Fletcher: It was the Minister who said that what he was saying was pedantic, and I agreed with him.
    Mr. Evans: The Minister declares that the whole matter is pedantic, whereas, in fact, it is an attempt by the Government to get out of a practical difficulty. We pressed this on an earlier occasion, as a result of which the Government were obliged to try to find a solution to the
    1810
    problem when the Bill was considered in another place, and the Lords Amendment is the result of that consideration.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked the Minister whether he would give an assurance that when this matter went to the Privy Council, the Privy Council would take a certain course. Is it within the competence of a Minister to give that assurance? Is it possible for the Minister to assure my right hon. Friend that the Privy Council will act in a certain way in respect of a certain matter? I should hardly have thought so.
    The Minister has brought this danger on himself by the wholesale way in which he is attempting to recast local government in this country. He is in danger of bringing the idea of a Royal charter into disrepute. The essence of a Royal charter is that it gives prestige and dignity to the area which receives it. It enhances the behaviour and the performance of the people in the locality.
    The Minister says that he will make 32 Royal charters as soon as the Bill becomes an Act. He is going to roll out 32 charters at once without considering the circumstances of each locality, without considering the dignity and opinions of the local burgesses, and without taking into consideration the wishes of the local inhabitants. To get himself out of a practical difficulty the Minister is to make 32 Royal charters at one fell swoop. I might almost say that he is cocking a snook at the Royal prerogative.
    The Minister should not do this kind of thing. He should not take on himself the assumption to instruct the Privy Council, which is what he is doing. He should not take on himself the assumption to turn out 32 Royal charters without some regard to the Head of State.
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not want to let the hon. Gentleman continue. All that I am undertaking to do is to make representations. I cannot make charters. How could I dream of assuming to do anything like that?
    Mr. Evans: The Minister knows that he is in a difficulty. He knows that he has to treat these 32 boroughs on the same footing. He cannot complete the new arrangement with some boroughs being incorporated by a Royal charter,

    1811
    and others being incorporated by Statute. Therefore, to get himself out of his difficulty he proposes to grant Royal charters to them all, and he proposes to make representations to the Privy Council.
    What he is saying to the House is, "It is all right; I shall fix it with the Privy Council, and with the Head of State". By using this method to get round his difficulty the Minister is lowering the dignity which we have always considered attached to the granting of a Royal charter, and which we have always considered should be applied for by the citizens of the locality in question.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: If the debate continues in this way I shall find myself in the surprising position of being rather in sympathy with the Minister. He seems to be in the position of somebody who has endeavoured to give a large, friendly-looking dog a pat on the head and been savagely bitten. The reason that this has happened is that within the framework of the Bill nothing which the Minister can do can be right. Londoners do not want these boroughs. It would not be in order, in this discussion, to raise the general issue of the Bill, but nothing that my hon. Friends say today must be taken as in any way prejudicing or mitigating our total opposition to the Bill.
    We are carrying on the discussion on the assumption that the Bill will become law, and asking ourselves, "What, on that unhappy assumption, is the best way of handling the matters that arise?". I think that I shall carry my hon. Friends with me when I say, first, that, ideally, all we want in this matter is that every London borough should have the right to apply, on its own behalf and not through the Minister, for a charter, as a provincial body can do. Secondly, we want, also, to be sure that if it applies for a charter it shall get one.
    Thirdly, we want to be certain that the charter shall not be one of a series of mass-produced documents, but shall have regard to the particular needs and dignity of each borough. Fourthly, I suppose, we want to be assured that if a borough does not want a charter it will not have one thrust upon it against its will.
    Let us see what way there is of obtaining those four requirements.
    Mr. John Barter: As I understood the earlier argument of hon. Members opposite, it was that all these boroughs must be treated alike. Assuming that some of the new London boroughs desire a charter and some do not, how can they all be treated alike?
    Mr. Stewart: They can be treated alike in the sense that they can all have an equal opportunity of applying and an equal certainty of getting a charter if they want one. They can be equal in being able to get what they want.
    The Minister has told us—and we must accept his advice—that the first requirement is something which, quite genuinely, with the best will in the world, cannot be met. These boroughs cannot, like provincial urban or rural district councils, by their own motion and not through the Minister, apply for a charter, the difficulty being partly that some of them are already corporate bodies, and that being given a charter is a way of becoming incorporated.
    It is not the only way, but it is a way. If one is incorporated in one way already, it is difficult, if not impossible, to apply for a charter. Therefore, the possibility of obtaining a charter in the same way as a provincial body obtains it seems to be ruled out. We must reluctantly accept that.
    But of the four demands, that is the least important. We should be willing to accept a proposition that if a borough cannot obtain a charter in a way that is absolutely an outward sign of the dignity and independence which a provincial body has, we should arrange for it to obtain the charter by some other legal means.
    The next proposition was that a borough can be sure that it will obtain a charter if the Minister applies on its behalf. What the Minister has given us is his assurance that he will make the necessary representations. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) will agree that if the Amendment were carried the boroughs would have no greater certainty of obtaining charters than they have under the Lords Amendment. They would have offered to them a different way of applying for a charter, but no greater certainty of getting it.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is that entirely right? All that the Minister can do is to give

    1813
    us an assurance that he will apply for a charter. He cannot possibly give us an assurance that the Crown will grant a charter. While he may attempt to abstract the rights of Parliament he cannot attempt to derogate the powers of Her Majesty.
    That would be more than even the Minister would attempt. Therefore, we must envisage circumstances in which, although the Minister applies for a charter, the charter is refused by the Privy Council. In those circumstances, unless the Amendment to the Lords Amendment is accepted, the borough concerned will not be able to make further representations to Her Majesty—which I think that it should be allowed to do.
    Mr. Stewart: If the Amendment to the Lords Amendment were carried a borough could make representation—unless it proves to be the case that there is a completely legal bar in the case of a body which is already incorporated. There is that risk. Secondly, a borough would run the risk that even if it made representations it would not be granted a charter. It could fairly be argued that although the Minister cannot bind the Privy Council or the Crown there is a much better chance of a borough getting a charter under the Lords Amendment as it stands, for the reason that we generally accept the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility as being part of our Constitution—although it is nowhere written down in a Statute.
    We would probably all agree that when a Minister, as a Member of the Government, says that he will make representations for a charter, he does not say that without having the consent of his Cabinet colleagues. It seems to me to be extremely likely—to put it no lower—that if representations were made to the Privy Council the Council would see fit to advise Her Majesty to accede to those representations. It would, therefore, seem to me that on the question of the prospect of obtaining a charter, the boroughs are better off under the Lords Amendment, unamended. I agree that the Minister cannot do more than make representations.
    The next point—and this is one that the Minister has not quite cleared up; it has arisen out of the debate, and is of importance—is that the charters should not be mass-produced documents,
    1814
    but should pay regard to the dignity, history and circumstances of each borough. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance about that.
    Fourthly, there is the rather paradoxical point—and we are indebted to my hon. Friends for bringing it out during the debate—that there may be a borough which says, "We do not want a charter". I assume that the Minister's undertaking was made on the assumption that they would not all want charters, and that he would not insist on making representations on behalf of a borough that firmly said that it did not want one.
    Although the first point is not secured, and cannot be, if we can have assurances that boroughs will have as good a chance of getting a charter as we can hope to give them—and, speaking unpedantically, I have not the smallest doubt that they will get them—and also assurances on my other points, namely, that charters will not be imposed upon boroughs that do not want them, and that there will not be a mass production of charters without regard to the circumstances of individual boroughs, I think that myhon. Friends could allow the Lords Amendment to pass.
    Sir K. Joseph: With the permission of the House, I shall try to answer the points which have been raised. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) for—on this occasion—his friendly protection from his hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) was determined to be angry with me, but all I was trying to do was to carry out the undertaking that I gave when his side of the House demonstrated, in our earliest debate on the Bill, that it wanted both inner and outer London boroughs to be treated in the same way.
    I then explained—and this is where I referred to my pedantry—a number of legal obstacles, or apparent legal obstacles. I explained these fully, the House demonstrated that it wanted me to try to overcome them, and I gave an undertaking that I would try to do so. For the record, it is right that I should pay tribute to the efforts of the officials of the Privy Council and the Palace, and to the service and co-operation of my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council, in enabling me to ask, at an earlier stage, that my

    1815
    noble Friend should put this Amendment on the Notice Paper. There was a good deal of discussion to enable this to be brought about.
    5.0 p.m.
    There are, however, a number of questions which I still need to answer. The most important is perhaps that raised by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Certainly, this proposal is not meant to be a wholesale transaction. The Bill as originally brought before the House provided that the Minister should make incorporation orders for each borough and then provided that some of these incorporation orders should be by way of charter. It was the distinction between the two which upset hon. Members opposite, understandably. But the Ministerial initiative has been in the Bill all the time.
    The hon. Member for Fulham said that ideally he would like a combination of four things, which he precisely set out: each borough would have discretion to apply; there would be an assurance that it would get what it wanted; what it wanted would be carefully tailored to its needs; and in no case would incorporation be thrust upon it against its wishes. If that is what he wanted, he should have put down an Amendment. He did not do so.
    I come back to the point of substance. It is essential to either operation—that originally in the Bill or that which would result if we accepted the Amendment—that the Minister, as soon as the Bill becomes law, should consult the London boroughs to know what they want. There are a number of things which I shall need to know, among which will be their names. I certainly undertake to consult them with a view to seeing which special provisions they would like ideally to see in any charter granted to them, and to consult them about any provision at present in their document of incorporation, be it a charter or not, which they would ideally wish to retain. I would pass on the results of such consultation. If I discovered that one London borough desperately did not want a charter, I would pass on that information, too, and I cannot imagine that a charter would be thrust upon it.
    1816
    I think that those are the main points except, as the hon. Member for Fulham stressed, that a Minister cannot guarantee what the Privy Council will recommend or what Her Majesty will decide. All we are discussing are the preliminaries to that consideration.
    Mr. Reynolds: In view of the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 2.—(GREATER LONDON AND THE GREATER LONDON COUNCIL.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 11, at end insert:
    "(2A) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) or (2) of this section, the Greater London Council may with the consent of the Minister change the name of the Council or the name by which the area referred to in the said subsection (1) is to be known or both those names or make provision as to the titles by which the chairman, vice-chairman and any deputy chairman of the Council are to be known, and any change of name made in pursuance of this subsection shall take effect as from such date as the Minister may by order appoint; and any such order—

    (a) shall not affect any rights or obligations of any council, authority or person, and

    (b) shall not be taken as invalidating any instrument (whether made before or after the date appointed by the order) which refers to the Council or the said area by the previous name,

    but the new name shall be substituted for the previous name in all enactments relating to the Council or, as the case may be, that area and in all instruments and legal proceedings made or commenced before the said date which refer to that previous name, so, however, that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as affecting the title of any Act or instrument."
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The Amendment was introduced in another place to meet the wishes of Opposition peers and in order to give flexibility in case later there was a desire to change the name of the Greater London Council or to change the name by which the chairman of the Council will be known. It is fair to say that no

    1817
    absolute winner of a better name has so far been produced, but in case one is produced and is commonly agreed upon, the Amendment will enable a change to be introduced with the agreement of the Minister.
    Mr. M. Stewart: The best name would be to call it the City of London and the chairman the Lord Mayor, and a more suitable name could then be found for the small place in the East End.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 6.—(ALTERATION OF BOUNDARIES OF OR WITHIN GREATER LONDON.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 18, at end insert:
    "or
    (d) under subsection (3A) of this section".
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    It meets a point which was made in Standing Committee by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and supported strongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead). The idea was that on the periphery of Greater London it should be open to a certain number of electors to initiate the process by which a change of an area might be considered in order to move that area from a London borough and Greater London to a non-London authority or vice versa. The Amendment allows this to happen under certain conditions—namely, that an application should be made by 300 or 10 per cent. of the local government electors residing in the area, whichever should be the greater.
    I see that the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) is in her place, and I remember that she was keen enough to watch during the whole proceedings and to agree with me at the stage at which I advised the Committee against accepting the Amendment. But on further reflection I think that it is sensible to allow this procedure for the consideration of a possible transfer of a small area during the first five years of the new arrangement set in hand by the
    1818
    Bill. I hope that the House agrees that it is acceptable.
    Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for the concession which he has made. It was introduced in another place, but it was a matter of great concern to those of us with areas on the perimeter. Much of our areas are suburban but some are almost wholly agricultural, and I am sure that it will bring great satisfaction to these small peninsulas, which cannot claim a large population to voice their views but which were not properly placed in London with the London boroughs. This will cause great satisfaction particularly in Knockholt, which was the purpose of the Amendment by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). I am sure that he is extremely sorry that for obviously good reasons he is not able to be here to thank the Minister in person. But I know the area well; it was once in my constituency. I thank the Minister for the concession which he has made, which will greatly help these areas.
    Mr. Pavitt: I rise briefly to say that I rejoice that the hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) has received satisfaction, and to point out that, although sometimes in the laborious discussions in Committee one felt one was hammering against a brick wall, this shows that it was possible by continuous argument there and in debates in another place to achieve something which we wanted.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I too should like to welcome the Knockholt Amendment, as this might be called. I remember receiving representations from Knockholt early in the Bill's proceedings and feeling disappointed when in the early days in Standing Committee it did not seem possible to get this arrangement made.
    Something unavoidable must have prevented the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) from being present at this debate because he has taken a very keen and constructive interest in this Bill throughout. We must all congratulate their Lordships on having succeeded in getting this quite necessary and useful Amendment into the Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In line 43, leave out from "148" to "to" in line 45 and insert "and 149 of the said Act of 1933".
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a small Amendment, but an important one and there are a number of consequential Amendments to it. Unless we make this Amendment some of the staff, who under the provisions of the Bill might later be transferred from one authority to another, might have to look to the Local Government Act, 1933, for the safeguards covering their transfer arrangements. By making this and the consequential Amendments we shall ensure that they will be given the benefit of the safeguards provided in Clause 82.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 9.—(GENERAL DUTY OF GREATER LONDON COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ROAD TRAFFIC AND ABOLITION OF LONDON TRAFFIC AREA AND TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 48, leave out from first "as" to end of line and insert
    "so far as practicable having due regard to—

    (i) the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises;

    (ii) the effect on the amenities of any Locality affected; and

    (iii) any other matters appearing to the Council to be relevant,

    to secure".
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I beg to move, That this House both agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The purpose of this Amendment is to set out explicitly some of the matters to which the G.L.C. must have regard in carrying out the traffic duty laid on it by Clause 9(2) and to remind the Council, if that should be necessary, to have regard to other relevant matters. At an earlier stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) referred to doubts about the original phraseology. He thought that it might prevent the G.L.C. from taking into consideration anything except traffic matters. He was afraid that this might override all other considerations. My hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary ex-
    1820
    plained that these fears were groundless and that if one set of considerations were specified there was no reason why all sorts of considerations which the G.L.C. ought to have in mind should not also be specified. I think this explanation partially satisfied the Committee.
    The matter was not pressed to a Division, but the point was raised again in another place. Although, as my predecessor explained, there was no logical reason to amend the subsection, the Government recognised that there was something to be said for making quite clear that the G.L.C. will be required to consider amenity and other non-traffic matters in every case. Probably in many cases amenity is the most important, but it would be wrong to specify amenity and exclude all the others. The G.L.C. must have regard to the maintenance of reasonable access, the effect on amenities and the general reference to any other matters appearing to be relevant.
    In requiring the Council to have "due" regard what is meant is that the Council must have neither too much nor too little regard to each. There must be no priority. The Council must take into account all aspects of the case and try to strike a fair balance. It is this striking of a balance between conflicting interests, traffic, amenity, whatever they may be, and weighing one against another, which amounts to having "due" regard to the matters concerned. I hope that with this explanation the House may feel disposed to accept the Amendment.
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I wish to thank my hon. Friend and the Government for this change. I think it is a very great improvement and it shows precisely what is intended.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. R. J. Mellish: I support the Amendment. It goes to show what can happen in the course of discussion of a Bill. We were told that it would be quite impossible to change the wording and that it would be futile to do so. We were told that our fears were groundless, but now we have all these words in. We have had a change of Parliamentary Secretary and all sorts of things have happened since then.
    The important part of this Amendment is the reference to amenity. Those concerned with traffic matters felt that there

    1821
    is often an attitude of mind that in order to get traffic moving faster and more smoothly amenity can be ignored. It appeared that sometimes the public point of view was almost disregarded. Although it may sometimes be difficult for the Ministry of Transport to execute some of its plans, nevertheless this provision is necessary from a public point of view and I welcome the suggested words.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In line 10, leave out from "satisfied" to end of line 13 and insert:
    "having regard to any matters appearing to him to be relevant, that the Council's duty aforesaid is not being satisfactorily discharged by the Council and that it is necessary for him so to do in order to secure compliance with that duty."
    Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment to Clause 9(2) restricts the Minister in the use of his reserve powers. He will be able to exercise those powers only when it seems to him that the Council is not satisfactorily carrying out its duty laid upon it by Clause 9(2) and that it is necessary for him to intervene to ensure that the Council complies with that duty.
    This matter was discussed very fully in the earlier stages of the Bill. In Committee my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary introduced an Amendment to try to meet the difficulty of hon. Members opposite. That Amendment was couched in strict legal terms and was in consequence found to be rather difficult to understand. The Government gave the matter further thought and introduced this additional Amendment in another place. I hope that it will remove the doubts of hon. Members opposite expressed at earlier stages and make it absolutely clear that the Minister's reserve powers really are reserve and are strictly for use in the last resort only.
    Mr. Mellish: I think that the only people who can have objection to this Amendment are the lawyers. The previous Amendment to which reference has been made was undertood by no one. We were seriously worried that the Minister of Transport would be taking
    1822
    reserve powers of enormous magnitude. A large regional body was being created and we quarrelled about this with the Government. It would be out of order to go into all that now, but, even with the regional body as large as it is to be, the Minister was to have powers which could hamper Greater London Council from doing a first-class job. The proposed arrangement meets the point we had in mind. It adds up to the fact that the reserve powers given to the Minister can be used only in extreme circumstances. For that reason, we welcome the Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In line 14, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
    "(3) The Greater London Council shall before 1st April 1965 consult with the Minister of Transport with regard to the administrative arrangements to be made by the Council for the discharge of the Council's functions by virtue of sections 10 to 15 of this Act."
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    As the House will realise, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and his predecessors have had since 1924 responsibility for London traffic. I do not think, therefore, it was surprising that in the Bill as originally drafted we wanted to make absolutely certain that the Greater London Council would take the mounting and intensifying traffic problems of the Greater London Area with due seriousness. For that reason the Government introduced into the Bill the requirement for Greater London Council to have, as a chief officer, a director of traffic.
    More and more as we discussed the Bill it became apparent that by this special requirement of an individual chief officer, the freedom and the responsibility of the Greater London Council was being invaded and that, possibly, its chief officer arrangements might be distorted and frozen. The purpose of the Government in stressing the importance of somebody very responsible taking charge of London's traffic was acknowledged on both sides of the House. But the Government later decided that the right thing to do was to leave the job of deciding exactly how to tackle this responsibility to the Greater

    1823
    London Council, and the House will see now that the Amendment which was accepted in another place and which we are now considering simply requires that the Greater London Council shall, before 1st April, 1965, consult with my right hon. Friend about the arrangements it proposes to make for the discharge of its traffic functions.
    I think, therefore, that we are accepting the substance of what we all agree to be important while freeing the Greater London Council to take any action it thinks necessary to meet the need. But there is another reason also, I feel, for rejoicing that we have now changed the arrangement and removed our previous requirement of a nominated chief officer, namely, the director of traffic, because the nomination of that officer led to a whole lot of other professions requesting that their representative also should be nominated either on the Council or the London borough.
    Here I should, perhaps, take the opportunity to explain that while wishing to leave full responsibility to the new London authorities as to chief officers, town clerks and treasurers, and, indeed, one or two others, and as to how they should make their arrangements, I recommended to the Committee, and the Committee accepted, that in the case of the London boroughs there should be a chief architect as a chief officer. I explained that this was not only because I saw that development was going to be such a major job of the boroughs but, unlike other functions, the design and layout of architecture was not a political matter which could be brought forcefully to the attention of the boroughs which would not give it enough status. Therefore, I thought that an exception should be made and that the London boroughs should be urged to recognise the importance of quality in all the developments they did by having a chief architect. But this, of course, led to further troubles and several other professions felt that their claims had been overlooked. Indeed, many other professions will have an important, an extremely important, part to play in the work of the London boroughs.
    Many London borough councils will be faced with pressing problems of urban redevelopment. Some will acquire large responsibilities for estate management. It
    1824
    goes almost without saying that where boroughs have these problems their councils should, from the outset, give careful thought to the form of organisation which they will need in order to cope satisfactorily with them. But I am confident that the borough councils, in devising their organisations for these purposes, will recognise that a number of professional specialisms need to be brought to bear.
    Fears have been expressed to me on behalf of estate surveyors that they might not be given an appropriate place in the boroughs' organisations. I feel there is no ground for uneasiness on this account. One obvious method of securing that the estate surveyor's distinctive professional contribution is brought to bear effectively in cases where there are large-scale activities of a kind requiring his advice is by establishing a separate professional department, as many county boroughs of a size comparable with the new London boroughs have done. But the form of the organisation must depend on each borough's judgment of the needs of its own area, and that will vary considerably from one borough to another.
    I hope that the House will accept that the arrangement produced is the substance of what we all want.
    Mr. Mellish: It is getting monotonous to have to say "We support this.". Let me put this on record. I think that the Government's original intentions were very honourable and understandable. It would be right to envisage, when the traffic problem is looming so large, that there should be the appointment of an individual with knowledge of the subject. But we do not feel it right to put it into the Bill. In fact, the new G.L.C. would be compelled to appoint such a person. It would be right, therefore, that it should consult with the Minister of Transport and discuss with him how best traffic can be controlled. Indeed, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will know that there is an enormous survey going on now of London's traffic, costing a vast amount of money. I do not know when it will be completed, but certainly when it is completed there will have to be another look at the matter to see how the whole of these traffic arrangements are to be dealt with.
    To take the point of the Minister about the arrangement of London boroughs, I do not think that we should write into

    1825
    the Bill anything about what sort of officers they ought to have. Certainly in London a different status is given to different departments. For example, in some London boroughs the borough engineer is written down whereas the housing manager or director is considered to be a much more important person. They give them differenttitles. There is going to be a lot of argument when the new boroughs merge concerning which of their departments are the most important. I can think of some boroughs where they already have very large labour forces and where the housing director comes into the picture in a much greater and more important way than the engineer's side in another borough.
    I am sure, therefore, that the Minister is right here and that we must give the London boroughs freedom to decide for themselves the sort of officers they want. It would be madness for any new Greater London boroughs not to have first-class surveyors and architects. They will be given these greater powers and will need experts. The only doubt we have is from where they will get the staff. I very much hope that the people in the present L.C.C. surveyors and architects department, which, I understand, is running down, will be given the opportunity to carry on the work they are doing for the L.C.C. and will get the chance of jobs with the Greater London boroughs. We need these experts, and if we lose them to local government it will be a great pity. So we support the Minister and think it right that we should not write into the Bill instructions of this kind which are quite unnecessary.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 10.—(TRAFFIC REGULATION IN GREATER LONDON.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 45, at end insert:
    "and with any other council, being a London borough council or the Common Council, within whose area any road affected by the proposed order lies or whose area appears to the Greater London Council likely to be affected by that order."
    Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment will oblige the G.L.C., before making a traffic order under Clause 10, to consult with the council of the borough in whose area is
    1826
    the road affected by the order, and the council of any other borough likely to be affected by the order. This matter has been discussed at considerable length both in this House and in another place.
    As the House will be aware, the Government originally saw serious objections to placing the G.L.C. under an inflexible statutory obligation to consult borough councils. In essence, these objections were that such a procedure would be unnecessarily low, undesirably rigid and possibly dangerous, because it would prevent the G.L.C. quickly changing schemes which went wrong and caused traffic difficulties.
    On reflection, however, the Government have concluded that these objections apply to experimental orders made, by virtue of Clause 11, under Section 28 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, but not to, or not seriously to, "permanent" orders made under Clause 10. It seems to us to be reasonable that before the G.L.C. introduces a scheme "permanently", in so far as any order is permanent, it should, as the Minister does now, ascertain the formal views of the boroughs directly concerned. A "permanent" traffic scheme could affect, over a long period, local amenities, or cause hardship to, say, some shopkeepers or seriously inconvenience residents. We have thought it right, therefore, that the local authorities' formal view about these things should be taken fully into account by the G.L.C. in deciding whether to make a traffic scheme permanent or not. For this reason this Amendment was introduced in another place, and I commend it to the House.
    5.30 p.m.
    Captain Walter Elliot: I wish to say how pleased I am that the Government have decided to accept this Amendment. I referred to this in Committee and I objected then because it seemed to me that these great and powerful authorities which we were forming were liable to have traffic regulations forced upon them without consultation. That seemed to me wrong and I am pleased that the Government have accepted the Amendment.
    Mr. Mellish: May I come to the defence of the Ministry of Transport, although that is a rare thing for me to do? On looking back over the

    1827
    years we can recognise why the Ministry took the line which it did in this matter. Frustration of genuine and sincere planning by the Ministry of Transport for purely local and parochial reasons makes it easy to understand why the Ministry took this line. One could quote instance after instance where local authorities did their damnedest to stop a bollard in the centre of the street from being moved because of some sentimental reason, and the Ministry had to be dictatorial.
    In a democracy it is difficult to know where the power of a Minister should start and stop. But it is right that there should be consultation and I hope that the message will go out from this House that we expect the new Greater London boroughs genuinely to co-operate, and to understand that traffic does not travel only in one particular borough but flows into the areas of other boroughs. If we are to get the traffic moving, the borough authorities must understand and appreciate the point of view of other people. It is right that there should be consultation. I wish well for the Greater London Council and hope that we shall get such consultation.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 14.—(OTHER ROAD TRAFFIC FUNCTIONS IN GREATER LONDON.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 13, leave out "and section 136(6)" and insert:
    "(3A) The consent of the Greater London Council for the purposes of section 138(2) of the said Act of 1959 shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any question whether the withholding of such consent is unreasonable shall be determined in like manner as any question arising under section 136(4) of that Act; and section 136(6) and (7)".
    Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The purpose of this Amendment is to provide two things. First, is gives undertakers the right of appeal jointly to the Minister of Transport and the Minister in charge of the Department concerned with the purpose of the work against a decision of the G.L.C. not to allow them to break open a highway. Secondly, it
    1828
    provides that a person who has no interest in the performance of the obligation on an undertaker not to break open a highway within 12 months of the work having been done on it, must have the consent of the Attorney-General before he can take proceedings against an undertaker. The Amendments make the law in these respects consistent for all highways in Greater London and the same as for the rest of England and Wales.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 16.—(HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 10, at end insert:
    "(3A) Where a new highway to be constructed by virtue of the said section 26(2) by a London borough council or the Common Council will communicate with a metropolitan road, the communication shall not be made unless the manner in which it is to be made has been approved by the Greater London Council."
    Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The effect of this Amendment is to require a London borough to obtain the consent of the G.L.C. as to the way in which any new road is made to communicate or link with a metropolitan road. This is achieved by applying to the London authorities in respect of metropolitan roads, a requirement similar to that in Section 26 of the Highways Act, 1959, where the consent of the Minister has to be obtained as to the way in which a new road is to communicate with a trunk road.
    In respect of metropolitan roads the Amendment puts the G.L.C. in the same position as the Minister in respect of metropolitan roads. This is right since the construction of an entirely new road linking with a metropolitan road might be expected to affect the traffic pattern on the metropolitan road, so that the G.L.C. should have some say in the matter. Although the desire was expressed in another place to go rather further, the Amendment was welcomed and I trust that it will also be welcomed in this House.
    Mr. Mellish: I make a prediction that when the Bill becomes law it will not

    1829
    be long before an Amendment is necessary to avoid the ridiculous position which will be created because of the division of road responsibilities. Some are in the control of the Greater London boroughs and some in the control of the Greater London Council and the Ministry, and all will be consulting each other to work out a scheme. I think that a great chance has been missed because the G.L.C. has not been given an overall responsibility as it should have been, except in respect of minor roads. I would give the Council all the powers necessary to control all roads and take away from the Minister a lot of his present powers.
    Mr. Barter: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that the purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that a road going through a borough would come from somewhere and would go somewhere and that that is wholly desirable.
    Mr. Mellish: I do not think that we need an Amendment to prove that a road comes from somewhere and ends somewhere else.
    There are arguments about what consultation should take place and how it should be done. In the end this situation will have to be amended. I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary, because I am sure that had he been in office at the time it would not have happened. But we shall have to do something about the division of responsibility for roads.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 21.—(HOUSING POWERS IN GREATER LONDON.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 13, leave out "subsection (7)" and insert "subsections (7) and (10A)".
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a paving Amendment for the Amendment introducing a new Clause 10A.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 26, at end insert:
    "and different days may be appointed under this subsection for different purposes or for different areas".
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment follows an undertaking which I gave during the Committee proceedings when we were discussing an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) which was designed to insert a date for the termination of the transitional period, while the Opposition were pressing for an extension of the powers. This Amendment will enable the exercise of some powers by the Greater London Council to be terminated before others.
    The second part of the Amendment is on the same lines, and allows a differentiation in the areas.
    Mr. Reynolds: The Amendment is quite plain. But perhaps the Minister will give us a little more information about what he has in mind. This covers the whole range of services of the London County Council in the housing sphere. Does he think that he would not need some powers, for example, to lend money, for very long, but he might need general housing powers, provisional housing estates or slum clearance powers for longer?
    The Clause covers all the powers which the L.C.C. possesses and enables the G.L.C. to carry on operating them for a time. We tried to extend the use of those powers to other parts of the Greater London area and also to enable the Greater London Council to keep them for all time. But we understood that there would be a time when the G.L.C. would be divested of them. Now the Minister asks us to accept the divesting of the powers one at a time.
    I see difficulties and I think that there should be a little more explanation of why the Minister wants this power. Has he any idea which powers he is likely to get rid of first and why does he want power to do so area by area?
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the housing powers comprise those under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, the Housing Act,

    1831
    1957, except Part II, the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958, the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959, and the Housing Act, 1961. Some of the powers overlap and some could well be dispensed with before others. One has to look at these together with the areas, particularly with regard to some of the housing powers. There are areas where it is obviously foreseeable that slum clearance will be completed long before other areas, unfortunate as that may be. I think that it is sensible that these powers should exist so that once jobs of this sort are completed the final transfer can be made.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: Does the Minister mean that if a borough wants to take over one particular function in relation to housing at an earlier date my right hon. Friend can allow it to do so on a date mutually agreed?
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 3, after first "and" insert:
    "without prejudice to subsection (10A) of this section".
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a similar Amendment to a previous Amendment, namely, a paving Amendment to the new Clause 10A.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In line 10, leave out from "submitted" to "but" in line 13 and insert:
    "before 1st April 1965 under the Housing Repairs and Rents Act 1954 or section 2 of the Housing Act 1957 by any existing council to whom section 3(1)(b) of this Act applies or jointly by the London county council and a metropolitan borough council".
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment fills a gap in the Bill as originally drafted. The House will recall that the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, and Section 2 of the Housing Act, 1957, require housing authorities to submit their proposals for clearing unfit houses to the Minister for approval. Clause 21(8) as it stands requires the London boroughs, made up of the metropolitan boroughs, to have regard to the
    1832
    proposals submitted to those authorities, jointly with the L.C.C., to the Minister, but left the outer London boroughs with no such obligation.
    This obligation is now laid on them by the Amendment, so that there is uniform treatment throughout.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In line 25, at end insert:
    "(10A) The Greater London Council and any of the following other councils, that is to say, the Common Council and any borough or urban or rural district council whose area lies outside but adjacent to or in the vicinity of Greater London, may enter into agreements for the provision by the Greater London Council of houses outside the London boroughs to meet the special needs of that other council, or for the provision by that other council of houses within their area to meet the needs of the Greater London Council, and for the payment in either case of such contributions as may be agreed by the council needing the houses to the council providing them."
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Corfield: beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment accepts the substance of an Opposition Amendment moved in another place, or, at any rate, a large part of it. The main difference between this Amendment and the Opposition Amendment is a matter of presentation and drafting rather than of substance. Paragraph 10 of the Opposition Amendment would have substituted the Greater London Council for the L.C.C. in Section 185 of the Housing Act, 1957. This Section enables the L.C.C. or any other council, including the City of London, which is the local authority of the area adjacent to or in the vicinity of, the County of London to enter into agreements for the provision by the L.C.C. of houses outside the county to meet the special needs of the other council or of houses within this area to meet the needs of the L.C.C.
    For the purpose of this Section, the City of London is outside the County of London and the City and County can make agreement with each other for the provision of houses. The Greater London Council will be the authority for the purpose of town development under this Act and will have power to make agreement on town developments which are almost certain to be beyond the green belt.

    1833
    Building by authorities in the green belt for the benefit of the Greater London Council will be acceptable only in certain conditions, but the L.C.C. has found it useful to make arrangements of this sort for authorities outside its areas, as, for example, Staines. It will make negotiations easier for the Greater London Council to have this power, and the Amendment is designed for that purpose.
    Mr. Reynolds: This adds slightly to the powers under the Town Development Act, but would it not have been possible for the Greater London Council to use the Town Development Act for this type of development in adjacent district councils? The phrase
    "rural district council whose area lies outside but adjacent to…Greater London"
    is perfectly clear, but the phrase "or in the vicinity of" does not seem clear. This is used in defining which of the councils may or may not be able to enter into agreement with the other councils mentioned.
    The phrase, "in the vicinity of" might mean any local authority within 10 or 15 miles of the Greater London boundary or anything within four or five miles of the Greater London authority and it seems exceedingly vague.
    The Amendment gives a similar power to the Common Council of the City of London, and I understand that the powers given would enable the Greater London Council to enter into agreements of this kind for building just outside its area either by itself or on behalf of other authorities, or by other authorities on its behalf, and would also enable the Common Council of the City to do so. But that power would not extend to the 32 Greater London boroughs.
    I believe that there was no such power for the 32 Greater London boroughs in the Bill as it left the House to build outside the Greater London area, and I cannot see why it should be necessary for that power to be given to the Common Council of the City of London with a relatively small population. Do we have to give a power of this kind to the smallest of the authorities inside the Greater London area, while we do not give it to the larger authorities which might be able to make greater use of it? In my own view, out-county building should be done by the Greater London Council itself and
    1834
    not by the boroughs, but I cannot see why the power should be given only to the Common Council.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: Can my hon. Friend say in what sort of areas this would operate, and the sort of distances from London he envisages being included in the Amendment?
    Mr. Corfield: The purpose of the Amendment is simply to retain existing arrangements by which ordinary housing Act functions can be carried out. However, I do not think that I can improve on the expression "in the vicinity of". This is not a town development type of housing operation for which further provision is made later. It follows an undertaking which I gave in Committee to the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler). This enables existing arrangements to be carried on in the environs of London, and it is not a departure from what happens at the moment.
    I will communicate with the hon. Member if I am wrong, but I think that this only enables the Common Council of the City of London to make arrangements with the Greater London Council, as it did with the L.C.C., when it is unable to find land within its own boundaries and wishes to have a housing estate outside its own area.
    Mr. Reynolds: By leave of the House. That is not the answer to my main question. I believe that a power is being given to the Common Council of the City of London which will not be available to the other 32 Greater London boroughs, and I cannot see why the City Corporation and not the others should be given this power. If the City is short of land for the comparatively small population for which it has to provide houses, how much more short is my own Borough of Islington, which has to provide accommodation for the 16,000 people on its housing list? I do not want any of the Greater London boroughs to have this out-county building power, because I believe that it should be concentrated in the hands of the large authority, but why should it be given to the city and apparently not to the Greater London councils?
    Mr. Corfield: By leave of the House. I am afraid that I cannot add to the explanation that this continues the

    1835
    status quo with the substitution of the G.L.C. for the L.C.C. I do not know what the historical origin is, but it was thought that it was right in an Amendment of this sort to preserve the position. If I am wrong, I will certainly write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but the phrase "in the vicinity" ought to be qualified, because it does not mean anything as the Amendment now stands. Why should it not be deleted if it does not mean anything? The Greater London Council may combine with any council outside its area to do these things, but it is obvious that it would not wish to combine with a rural district council in Caithness and Sutherland. However, according to the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation, it is not necessary to place any particular restriction upon the use of these powers. It would be useful if we could get some further clarification.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what parallels there are for the use of the words "in the vicinity of" in other Statutes? Presumably, there must be some view of what words like this mean. The Parliamentary Secretary's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), that this power is being included because it continues the status quo, is very odd in this connection. If the Government are to use that argument, they might as well take the Bill away.
    Mr. Marcus Lipton: I am profoundly dissatisfied with the Parliamentary Secretary's rather half-hearted attempt to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds). It seems that the Common Council of the City of London is to be given privileges which no other authority inside the Greater London area is to have. That strikes me as a most peculiar state of affairs, because any one who knows the geography of the Greater London area will know that the Common Council area is the smallest although not the poorest, local government area within the large conurbation. I cannot see why the City of London, whose housing needs are inevitably smaller than those of other London boroughs surrounding it, should be provided with these special powers
    1836
    over and above those given to other local authorities in the area.
    The Clause would read much more easily if the words
    "but adjacent to or in the vicinity of"
    were omitted. As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) pointed out, the Greater London Council will not enter into complicated arrangements with some local authority in the north of Scotland. It would be to the advantage of all the authorities which might be concerned and we might avoid arguments and misunderstandings if these words were omitted. They seem to be unnecessary.
    Having given the Parliamentary Secretary sufficient time to collect his thoughts on the subject—perhaps the Minister himself will come to the rescue of his colleague—I hope that the situation can now be clarified. I believe that the necessary technical advice has now been received and that it will enable the Minister to deal more dearly with our questions.
    Sir K. Joseph: To refer to something so unparliamentary as a cup of tea, I have returned refreshed to the fray. The procedure is that the Minister keeps himself closely in touch with Amendments of substance as the Bill goes through another place, but this Amendment was introduced to meet an Opposition point and its effect is so relatively trivial that I cannot give examples of what it might achieve. The point was made in another place that the preservation of this existing power, a power limited to the L.C.C. and the City of London, would be a good thing. The Government saw no harm in preserving a power which the Opposition requested, and they therefore agreed to it. This is purely a survival of an existing power which can do no harm and which might conceivably do good. It is far from any overspill powers. I cannot give any more information about what the G.L.C. might do with it when it has it. The words "in the vicinity" come from the 1957 Act, which was a consolidation Act, and are therefore precedented.
    Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order. I wonder whether something could be done about the sunlight from the other side of the House, because there are spots in front of my eyes when I look at hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): There will be no difficulty about meeting the hon. Member's request.
    Mrs. Joyce Butler: If I understood the Minister rightly, this is merely a carry-over of the present position with the L.C.C. into the new set-up. However, the boroughs on the outskirts of the London area, those in Middlesex, and so on, will also be involved, and it seems very wrong that boroughs like mine, when they are reconstituted to form the new Greater London boroughs, should not know the effect on them of this provision. The Minister does not seem to know what the effect will be and they will not know and I am not clear about how this power will work out.
    Mr. Reynolds: I think that my hon. Friend would be right to say that the Middlesex boroughs possessed this power, as did the L.C.C. and the Common Council, but that there is no ground for continuing it for them.
    Mrs. Butler: We must be absolutely clear about how this will work out in the boroughs. This is a change as far as we are concerned and we want to know how it will affect them.
    Mr. Weitzman: I am very concerned about the Minister's answer. It is absurd for him to say that he does not know what the words "in the vicinity of" mean. It is all very well to refer to another Statute, but we have to look at the words in the Bill. Is Brighton included in the vicinity of the Greater London area? Litigation is founded upon words used in a Statute. The words are there to be argued and I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to leave an untidy expression of this kind in the Bill. I hope that he will clear up the mystery and put in something much more definite.
    Mr. John Harvey: Is not the point of this much more simple than it seems? The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) suggested that some sort of special privileges were being given to the City Corporation, but as I read the provision that is not so. The Clause would appear to enable the Greater London Council to make arrangements with areas which could accept an inflow of residents, and erect
    1838
    houses, and so on, for the benefit of the other boroughs which will comprise the Greater London area. It would seem that the City, as well as areas outside Greater London, will be in a position to receive such people and build houses. That would appear to be the object of the Clause.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the object of the Clause is to enable the Common Council of the City of London to add to its existing population and thereby come to the rescue of other local authorities in the provision of housing accommodation, and so on?
    Sir K. Joseph: The presence of the Common Council here results from the fact that it was retained because we were particularly asked to continue this discretion, which was in Section 185 of the 1957 Act. That was put to us in another place. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) is correct. This power will enable the G.L.C. to enter into a bargain with an authority just outside London. The phrase
    "…but adjacent to or in the vicinity of…"
    refers to authorities close to the London boundary, if not actually on it. This takes account of the G.L.C. using some of the land in an area belonging to another authority and where, in partial or whole repayment, provides some housing for the needs of that authority, subject to such time arrangements as may be made.
    I cannot reveal the exact effect of this. It is not part of our major strategic activities in this direction. It is a continuation of a power to the G.L.C. This is a small technical power compared with the great strategic powers which are the basis of the Bill.
    Mr. Weitzman: Will the Minister not deal more particularly with the expression
    "…but adjacent to or in the vicinity of"…"
    because it is not enough for him merely to say, "There it is and I cannot say any more about it"?
    Mr. Lubbock: Could we not clear this point up in respect of the words
    "…but adjacent' to or in the vicinity of"…"

    1839
    once and for all by replacing them with words like, "adjacent to an authority which is adjacent to" and in that way the authorities concerned would be limited to those which are contiguous with the boundary of Greater London or those in the next ring outwards from that point?
    Mr. Lipton: Has the right hon. Gentleman not realised the possibility of the G.L.C. having to ask for a compulsory purchase order in respect of land in the vicinity of the Greater London area? There may be some complicated and difficult legal arguments surrounding the present wording, particularly if it is contested that the compulsory purchase order concerns land which, it is argued, is not in the vicinity of Greater London. The present words may be good for the legal profession, but for no one else.
    Sir K. Joseph: The phrase
    "…in the vicinity of"…"
    was in the 1936 and the 1957 Acts and is precedented in that way. I do not think that the alternative suggested by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) would make the position any clearer. An authority must be actually touching or continguous to the Greater London boundary or close to it and I hope that the House will now agree to part with the Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 22.—(APPLICATIONS FOR, AND FACILITIES FOR EXCHANGE OF, HOUSING ACCOMMODATION.)
    Lords Amendment: In line 32, leave out from "maintain" to end of line 15 on page 30 and insert:
    "in such form and manner as they think appropriate records showing the need for the time being of Greater London with respect to housing accommodation.
    (2) Any application for housing accommodation maintained by a housing authority in Greater London—

    (a) if the applicant is resident in a London borough, whether or not the accommodation is sought in that borough, shall be made to the council of that borough; or

    (b) in any other case, shall be made to the Greater London Council who may, if they think fit, transmit the application to such of the London borough councils as they think appropriate,

    and shall include information on such matters as the Greater London Council may require for the purposes of their functions under subsection (1) of this section.
    1840
    (3) Each London borough council shall establish and maintain a register of all applications duly made to them under subsection (2,a) or transmitted to them under subsection (2,b) of this section which are for the time being outstanding, and shall furnish to the Greater London Council such particulars in such form as the Greater London Council may require for the purposes of their functions under subsection (1) of this section—

    (a) of any such application as aforesaid; and

    (b) of the steps taken by the borough council to satisfy the needs of persons requir ing housing accommodation maintained by that borough council.

    (4) Subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall apply to the City as if it were a London borough and the Common Council were the council of that London borough."
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    It was a strong recommendation of the Royal Commission that the G.L.C. and the London boroughs should co-ordinate their arrangements for housing information for Londoners. There are several major defects in the knowledge that the authorities of London, both outer and inner, have about housing need. First, housing applications may be duplicated. Secondly, some boroughs only register applications after residents have lived in the borough for a certain number of years.
    On the first point, that of the duplication effect, this causes the housing lists to be overstated and the housing need to be understated. There are numerous other defects in assessing accurately the housing need and in the Clause as origin ally drafted there were complicated provisions. The boroughs and the G.L.C. should be able to know the necessary information on which to judge what their housing programmes should be.
    In Committee, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary undertook to take the Clause back and simplify it after having expert consultation. That consultation has taken place, with representatives of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Urban District Councils Association and the L.C.C. The Amendment has been accepted by all of those representatives, but not formally by their associations. It is designed to simplify the arrangements for the collection and use of housing information for the G.L.C. and the boroughs.
    Mr. Arthur Skeffington: The Amendment represents a considerable improvement on the Clause as originally drafted. Hon. Members who were unfortunate enough to have been members of the Committee will recall the discussion we had on this aspect on 9th February, when it was pointed out that the Clause as drafted was extremely rigid and that it would involve on the Greater London Council, and on the new London boroughs, a heavy administrative task in relation to the effect necessary to get the requisite information in the form precisely described.
    I recall the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary. Shortly after that a working party was set up to investigate the matter. The result of its efforts, and the Amendment, will enable the picture of housing need for the whole London area to be assessed and it will mean that, as a result of the various parties getting together—the G.L.C. and the boroughs—there will be a suitable transfer of information over stated periods rather than thousands of individual applications having to be forwarded. The revised formula is a great improvement on the original.
    The new arrangement will be more practical and less complicated to operate and I imagine that it goes some way to meet the recommendation of the Royal Commission in paragraph 797 with regard not only to obtaining accurate information, but to the necessity to see that there is some degree of assessing housing need on a common basis. This has for long been the desire of the Minister's Central Housing Advisory Committee and it seems anomalous that in certain cases one's chance of getting a council house may depend on the prevailing conditions in the borough in which one is living.
    If one is an ex-Service man, or has lived in the borough for a certain length of time, one may be given a number of points on the waiting list denied in another. I hope that not only will common standards be observed but that the practice of closing lists, which has a dispiriting effect on those who are in need of houses, will be discontinued.
    Since the Amendment represents a considerable improvement on the original drafting, and having expressed my gratitude to the Parliamentary Secretary for
    1842
    discharging his undertaking, I give my support to the Amendment.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I welcome this Amendment because it provides a practical improvement in dealing with duplication of the housing lists. I hope, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has said, that it will lead to a common system of allocation of points and so obviate such wide differences in various areas and that we shall be able to know the exact housing requirements in London. As things are at present, with one list from the borough and another from the central authority, it is quite impossible to know those requirements. This Amendment will enable us to make a proper assessment of our Metropolitan housing needs.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 23.—(TRANSFER OF LAND HELD FOR HOUSING PURPOSES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 35, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 37.
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in in the said Amendment.
    From my own point of view, the less I say about this Amendment, and the Amendments consequential upon it, the better. We can count on the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to improve on the occasion. The fact is that the Government still believe that the three northern wards of Epsom are part of a continuous town. Their Lordships took a different decision. As the decision was taken at a late stage in the Bill and was the only breach of the peripheral boundary of London, the Government had to decide whether or not to advise the House to agree with the Lords.In coming to their decision, the Government were pressed very hard, as they had been pressed, I must say, for months past by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. After weighing the view that he has always expressed that there was a special factor in the case of Epsom that did not apply to other parts of the boundary, the Government still remain of the opinion that the three northern wards are part of the continuous town, but in view of the strong feelings that have been made known,

    1843
    and the late stage of the Bill, the Government decided, and announced in another place, that they would not seek to reverse that decision. I do not think that it is necessary for me to say more. It would be quite hypocritical for me to seek any credit for what has happened, though I understand that it has given great pleasure in the area.
    Mr. Ede: The Minister has moved this Amendment in so disarming a way that I intend to say nothing at this stage on the main object, as I think that reference to the main issue will be more appropriate when we come to the Schedule, and when effect is given to his announcement.
    I am, however, a little disappointed. I heard over the wireless, and I think that I subsequently saw in the Press, that line 37 on this page had been deleted, because it was thought, I understood, improper that Chigwell should be left in what was called "solitary isolation". I have had no communication with Chigwell at any time during the Bill's passage through the House, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can assure me that the Lords Amendment has been correctly recorded? Or should Chigwell also be deleted from this Clause?
    Sir K. Joseph: I think that there was a misreporting at some stage of an earlier Amendment that was not passed. The right hon. Gentleman heard correctly, but what he heard was incorrect. I am verifying that, but I believe it to be true. I will tell him if I am wrong.
    Mr. Ede: I find it credible that what I heard was not intended by the speaker.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 24.—(LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 42, at end insert:
    "together with a copy of the application and such other information relating thereto and to the decision as the Greater London Council may reasonably require".
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment requires the London boroughs to send to the G.L.C., not only their planning decisions but copies of planning applications they may receive,
    1844
    in order that the G.L.C. can be kept in close touch with the trend of development proposals.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Skeffington: Obviously everyone will agree with this Amendment, because it makes common sense. It is extraordinary to think that the Bill in its original form laid it down that the boroughs could consider these matters but only send their decision to the Greater London Council. How would the Greater London Council make an intelligent judgment without knowing more about the original application? I hope that we shall not be criticised for not putting down an Amendment. We on this side of the House put down a large number of Amendments during the earlier stages. I cannot refrain from drawing attention to the slipshod and hurried way in which the Bill was framed in the first place.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 7, leave out from "whom" to "to" in line 8 and insert:
    "there is received—

    (a) any application for planning permission for such development; or

    (b) any application under section 43 of the Planning Act in the case of which it appeals to that council that the proposed action to which the application relates would constitute or involve such development if it constituted or involved development at all,

    shall forward the application".
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Where an application is made under Section 43 of the planning Act, and the decision is whether any particular development is such development as requires planning permission, the planning application might be such as to fall to be decided by the London borough or might be such as to fall to be decided by the Greater London Council. All the Amendment does is to make sure that where the application is of the latter type, and so falls in the category where the decision is with the Greater London Council, the decision under Section 43 must also be taken by the Greater London Council.
    Mr. Skeffington: I should have checked this before, but it is so difficult to keep up with these changes. Do I understand this to be the old Section 17 of the Act?
    Sir K. Joseph: I think that the hon. Gentleman has me there. In the consolidation Act it is Section 43. If I correctly describe what was in Section 17, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 42, after "(b)" insert "(i)".
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. Skeffington: The significance and importance of these Amendments and this part of the Bill can only be gauged when we know what the Minister will put in his regulations. We are now passing a very considerable portion of this Measure dealing with important planning provisions, the effect of which we cannot possibly judge until we know what is what in the Minister's regulations. This is another instance of where, in planning, far from giving more power and authority to local authorities, we are giving them to the Minister, who will decide what classes and cases will be dealt with by the Clause. They may include practically everything—any type of development—or very little. Until we have that information, it is quite impossible for the House or the country to decide on this part of the Bill. I put on record my own personal objection to the Minister taking so much power to prescribe very important matters purely by regulations. If ever there was a case of the man in Whitehall knowing best, this Amendment is a good example of it
    Mrs. Joyce Butler: In Standing Committee I pressed the Minister to give us some idea of what he had in mind. I should have thought that at this stage we could have had some explanation of what it was intended to include and exclude. It would have been helpful if we could have discussed these regulations in the House. I am sorry that the Minister has not got so far as that. I support what my hon. Friend has just said. We are very much in the dark, and we shall have to reserve our judg-
    1846
    ment on this matter until we know what the Minister intends to do.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 17, leave out "and compensation".
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This and the next Amendment in line 18 go together. Their purpose is to ensure that where any agreement is made under Clause 24(7) which involves the transfer of staffs, then officers affected shall be entitled to exactly the same safeguards as are ensured by Clause 82 in respect of officers affected by orders made under the Bill.
    Mr. Skeffington: I have read the relevant parts of the debate in another place and I must say that I am little wiser than I was. I still do not understand why this matter has to be dealt with in this Clause. I can well understand the provision as to regulations in Clause 82. I know there was a provision in connection with some transferred officers who might be affected by the new arrangements, but I do not understand why the matter has to be dealt with here, or what the effect is. Neither do I understand why "and compensation" is to be left out.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I presume that all this Amendment does is to put all categories of employees in the same position as they are under Clause 82, about which some of us will have something to say later. Is that the case?
    Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) is quite right. In answer to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), the words "and compensation" are left out frim their present position in line 17 because suitable words are added by the next Amendment at the end of line 18 referring to the compensation provisions brought in under Clause 82.
    We need to put in such a reference to compensation in Clause 24 because in previous subsections arrangements were made for the transfer of functions between various authorities which might lead to the transfer of staff. In other words, this is part of a linked series of Amendments,

    1847
    ensuring that where any staff is transferred between London authorities they will get the benefit of Clause 82.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 18, at end insert:
    "and any such agreement shall include provisions in accordance with section 82(3) of this Act for the protection of the interests of such officers."
    After Amendment last inserted, insert—
    "(8) In relation to land in a London borough or the City—

    (a) references to local planning authorities in any of the following enactments, that is to say—

    (i) sections 33 and 34 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Electricity Act 1957;

    (ii) section 108 of, and Schedule 12 to, the Highways Act 1959;

    (iii) Schedule 1 to the Pipe-lines Act 1962,

    shall be construed as including references to the Greater London Council but not to the borough council or the Common Council;

    (b) the reference in section 86(4) of the Transport Act 1962 to the local planning authority to whom application is made for permission for the development in question shall be construed as a reference to the local planning authority by whom that application falls to be dealt with;

    (c) references in section 3(2) of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 to the local planning authority shall be construed as including references both to the Greater London Council and to the borough council or, as the case may be, the Common Council;

    (d) any reference in section 17 or 20 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 to the local planning authority shall be construed as a reference to the borough council or, as the case may be, the Common Council;

    (e) any reference in Part III of the Land Compensation Act 1961 to the local planning authority shall be construed as a reference to the borough council or, as the case may be, the Common Council; but that council shall consult with the Greater London Council before issuing a certificate under section 17 of that Act in any case where an application for planning permission for any development to which the certificate would relate would fall to be dealt with by the Greater London Council."

    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This part of the Bill makes provision for the planning responsibilities within London, but there are a number of other
    1848
    statutes which refer to planning authorities and it is necessary at some point in this Bill to define exactly what, for the purposes of the other Statutes, the "planning authority" mentioned in those statutes really means, whether it means the London borough or the Greater London Council. This Amendment picks out those other Statutes in which such references are made and defines the planning authority to which reference must be taken to be made when the Bill becomes law.
    Mr. Skeffington: It will be noticed that subsection (8,a) refers to
    "Schedule 1 to the Pipe-lines Act, 1962."
    There are considerable provisions affecting the powers of local authorities whereby those laying pipelines can, in certain circumstances, take up and repair roads. We had no discussion on the provisions relating to pipelines.
    It ought to be on record that this House cannot find time to debate matters which may be of the utmost importance to local authorities and ratepayers. Nobody knows what powers can be exercised under the Pipe-lines Act, and I can see the prospect of considerable litigation. A protest should be made at the way in which the local authorities are being treated in this respect.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 27.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO Development Plans.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 41, at end insert:
    "(3A) A London borough council or the Common Council—

    (a) when preparing their local development plan under section 25(4) or any proposal under section 26(3) of this Act shall give to the Greater London Council any information which that Council may require with respect to the matters to be included in that plan or proposal; and

    (b) before submitting that plan or proposal to the Greater London Council shall give that Council an opportunity to make representations in the light of that information and shall consider any representations so made."

    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment meets the point made in another place that there is at the moment in the Bill no provision by which

    1849
    the Greater London Council may be kept in touch with proposals considered by the London boroughs in making their local development plans. The Amendment enables the Greater London Council to be kept in touch with such information as it requires the London boroughs to produce, so that the G.L.C. may know the whole while what the London boroughs are thinking in connection with their development plan work.
    Mr. Skeffington: We are considerably overjoyed that the Government have at long last seen that there is some force in the point which was repeatedly made in Committee that the planning proposals as envisaged when the Bill was originally introduced would be absolutely chaotic. We said it was farcical that there should be in this London conurbation boroughs making their separate development plans and the Greater London Council making its development plans with practically no means of reconciling or harmonising them except when the Minister intervened. This addition to the Clause will, at any rate, ensure that the essential information is given at an early stage. Furthermore, it ensures that the type of information is given to the Greater London Council which it must have in considering its own plan.
    The only thing that astonishes me is that it has taken all the discussions in Committee and in both Houses before we have been able to get this modest piece of additional power for one of the overall planning authorities in the London area. I am glad to note that the second part of the Amendment enables discussions to go on between the Greater London Council and the boroughs, presumably in order to get agreement so that the matter does not have to be referred to the Minister, which was the position until the Amendment was introduced.
    During our long discussions, the points that we made were not recognised by the Government—indeed, they were disputed—and we were told that we were raising quite unnecessary complications. We now find in a few casual sentences that the Minister gives us all the points that we were making. I would have respected the Minister more if he had conceded that there was considerable force in our arguments in Committee, and I am sorry that he has not done so.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I express emphatically my agreement with what has just been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). It is some comfort to us to realise that it was worth while hammering away at certain points in Standing Committee, even though there was no immediate result. It is always admirable in planning and housing matters when there is a full exchange of information. It is difficult to get judgments on planning and housing right if everyone concerned is not fully informed. If, to give an example, a Ministry has in its possession a document describing housing needs in 1960, it is deplorable and stupid that it should sit on it for a couple of months when it might have been made available to the general public. I am reminded of that by the Clause. Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to assure us that such information will be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office or, perhaps, in an agreed form at the earliest opportunity.
    6.30 p.m.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: It seems to me that at last there will be co-operation between the boroughs and the Greater London Council. Am I right in assuming that whichever way it works, if the G.L.C. has to do something it must consult the boroughs, and vice versa? It seems to me that before anything is done, both sides must come to some agreement. Am I correct in this?
    Sir K. Joseph: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), the Amendment does not touch the powers of the Greater London Council and the Minister to approve or disapprove what is contained in a local development plan. It equips the G.L.C. to discover the thinking which goes towards the making of the development plan.
    I detected in the remarks of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) one of his rare factual mistakes—he makes plenty of policy mistakes. He said that we had held up a document for two months. To give the hon. Member the full force of what he said, I think that he meant two years.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I was giving the most charitable view possible. The document

    1851
    is dated May, 1962. I should have said one year and two months.
    Sir K. Joseph: The document, dated 1962, referred to housing information of 1960 and was, therefore, somewhat out of date when put into the Minister's hands. Certainly, anybody who is interested may make application and I will be glad to see that a copy is sent. A copy has been put in the Library.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 29.—(MISCELLANEOUS MODIFICATIONS OF PLANNING ACT.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 5, at end insert:
    "or
    (e) in relation to land in any of the areas aforesaid, without any such consent as aforesaid, if the land is used for the purposes of an industrial or commercial undertaking and is to be acquired incidentally to the removal of that undertaking from Greater London."
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    At the risk of causing one or other hon. Members opposite to sound his own trumpet again, may I explain that the Amendment gives to the G.L.C. power to buy by agreement land when, as a remit of its purchase, it might be able to procure a transfer of industry from London to outside. This aspect was pressed upon us in Committee.
    If we are to be teased every time we have met a constructive Opposition criticism, it will make us the less willing over the next few years to do it in the inevitable further legislation which we shall put through the House. I do not, however, grudge the hon. Member the chance to crow a little when he has persuaded us, because I should like to pay tribute to the diligent and conscientious way in which some hon. Members opposite, as well as some of my hon. Friends, have followed every part of the Bill.
    Mrs. Butler: Before the trumpet sounds, may I ask the Minister whether he is sure that he is right in making this provision without the consent of the London borough which may be affected?
    1852
    I say this knowing well that my hon. Friends have pressed for a provision of this kind, but I am concerned that all the Amendments which we have made, including these from another place, are whittling away a little the rights and powers of the new London boroughs, and particularly those in the present county area of Middlesex. They are losing a lot of their powers and I am not happy about this power being given to the G.L.C. without its having to secure the consent of the London borough from which it may be removing the industry.
    Mr. Skeffington: We do not want particularly to tease the Minister. We only feel that occasionally he might say that the Government were wrong in Committee to resist our arguments. If he were to make that confession he would disarm us and give us the satisfaction of knowing that we were right, as we always knew we were. I felt this particularly strongly concerning the planning Amendments, because unless the Greater London Council knew details of the borough plans at an early stage, the ultimate result was bound to be chaotic. That is why I thought that the Minister might concede the point now he has accepted it in Amendments previously moved.
    The Amendment is limited in operation because it refers only to land of industrial or commercial undertakings. It is an important concession and I am grateful for its insertion in the Bill, even at this stage. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) will not feel too alarmed about it. It is the sort of case that arises when dealing with the removal of industry from a congested area and when opportunity arises for quick negotiation and purchase of the land vacated. The sole reason why we pressed this matter in Committee, and why this concession is worth while and will not harm the interests of the borough concerned, is that if the Greater London Council wishes to obtain the land, it must act quickly. If it had first to go to the borough and get consent arrangements there, or to the Minister, months might pass, in which event the land would not be acquired by the G.L.C for the essential purpose of developing an area and also in connection with overspill.
    I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not feel that the interests of the

    1853
    borough will be undervalued or in any way prejudiced. This will be a valuable power for the Greater London Council. I only wish that in the other categories of land which we pressed upon the Minister he had been able to give way, too.
    Sir K. Joseph: In reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) I adopt the answer given for me by her hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harrington (Mr. Skeffington). I accept that there is a slight disadvantage to the boroughs, but in the overwhelming common purpose of assisting overspill and industrial redevelopment for non-conforming industry it is necessary to accept that.
    In answer to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, who persists in crowing, I must remind the House that for every one time when the Opposition have been right and we have adopted their ideas, there were nine times when they were wrong and we have not adopted them.
    Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 30.—(LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 35, leave out "subsection (6)" and insert "subsections (6) and (7)".
    The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    I can explain the Amendment simply. Clause 30(1,b) of the Bill makes the Inner London Education Authority the local education authority for the purposes of any reference to a local authority in the Education Acts or other Acts which are subject to subsection (6). That subsection provides for the review, which has been discussed fully, and also empowers the Minister of Education to lay regulations before Parliament. Subsection (6) must be read with subsection (7), because subsection (7) provides for what may be put into any consequent regulations and therefore clearly, in strict drafting, subsection (7) ought to be mentioned or, as the popular Press may say nowadays, named in Clause 30(1,b). That is the reason for the Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 42, leave out "officers and liabilities" and insert:
    "liabilities (but, without prejudice to sections 81(1) and 82 of this Act, excluding provisions with respect to the transfer of officers)".
    Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment was, I think, dealt with in principle by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on the Amendment to Clause 6, in page 7, line 43. It is one of a series of linked Amendments dealing with the transfer of staff. I will not deal with this point separately again unless the Houses wishes me to do so.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 46, line 11, at end insert:
    "(2A) Before preparing a revised development plan for their borough under subsection (2) of this section, the council of each outer London borough shall consult with any other local education authority whose area is contiguous with that borough with a view to ensuring that the revised plan has regard both to the use made of schools outside that borough by children resident therein and to the use of schools within that borough by children resident outside it".
    Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a Government Amendment which gives effect to a useful Amendment put down by the noble Lords Lord Crook and Lord Shepherd in another place. It makes it a statutory requirement that each of the new outer London boroughs should consult its neighbours when drawing up the development plan required by Clause 31(2) with a view to ensuring that the revised development plan has regard to the use made of their schools by children from outside, and vice versa. This is a useful Amendment which was accepted by my noble Friend Lord Newton in another place, and I commend it to hon. Members.
    Mr. Ede: I support the Amendment. To some extent, it lessens the evils of the fragmentation of the education service effected by the Bill. It will enable, I am glad to say, a large number of children to be taught in accordance with the wishes of their parents, particularly when the religious issue is involved. I

    1855
    hope that it will be widely, wisely and firmly used by the authorities.
    Sir E. Boyle: With permission, I should like to say how much I agree with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The Amendment requires that the outer London boroughs should do by Statute what I hoped they would do in any event, but I am sure that it is a good thing to have this provision written into the Bill. I am personally pleased with this Amendment.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I join my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields in welcoming this Amendment. The Minister will remember that many of us were worried about the fragmentation of the education service, and, having been defeated on the general principle, we endeavoured in Committee to find various ways of mitigating the mischief being done. At one stage, for example, we suggested that the Minister could require groups of boroughs to submit a joint development plan to him. That was rejected by the Committee, some hon. Members opposite saying that it showed a contempt for the independence of boroughs on our part. Now we have a more modified version of basically the same idea.
    I take it that the phrase
    "any other local education authority whose area is contiguous with that borough"
    means the outer London boroughs which are their neighbours and those authorities across the border of Greater London. If I understand it aright, an outer London borough would be required, in preparing a revised development plan, to consult such other outer London boroughs as border on it and, say, the County Council of Surrey or Kent, its neighbour over the Greater London border. Perhaps the Minister could clear up that point. It would appear that that is what the words mean.
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member is quite correct. In this case the words have their natural meaning and do not refer only to the borough groupings within the scheme.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 31.—(PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND FURTHER EDUCATION IN GREATER LONDON.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 48, line 1, leave out "in" and insert:
    "if that area is within, or is contiguous with any part of,".
    6.45 p.m.
    Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    It might be convenient to take with this Amendment the two following Amendments, in line 4, leave out from "London" to end of line 5 and insert:
    ", or in some other local education authority's area which is contiguous with any part of Greater London, but belongs to the area of a local education authority other than the providing authority",
    and in line 11, leave out from first "the" to end of line and insert:
    "authority to whose area the pupil belongs) shall apply notwithstanding that the last-mentioned".
    All the Amendments deal with the same point. They are Government Amendments tabled to give effect to an Amendment again moved by the noble Lords Lord Crook and Lord Shepherd in another place.
    These are by far the most important Amendments on educational matters moved in another place, because their effect is to extend the scope of Clause 31(7) to traffic, if I may so put it, into Greater London from the areas of adjoining local authorities. People living in those areas will have the same access to schools in Greater London as people living inside Greater London in one borough grouping or another. The Amendments in lines 4 and 11 alter that part of Clause 31(7) which deals with the recoupment to the education authority of the cost of further education provided for students from outside its area so as to fit in with the widening of the scope of Clause 31(7) by the Amendment in line 1. One could say that the Amendments in lines 4 and 11 were simply consequential on that in line 1.
    As I said on Second Reading, I should not wish the House to be under any misunderstanding about this. The offer of a place will depend on schools not being full and upon such other reasonable conditions as would normally be applied—for example, that the school offered a

    1857
    course suitable for the child in question. The Bill ensures that the local government boundaries do not in themselves constitute an obstacle.
    Although this Amendment is of limited application, I believe that it is an improvement on the Bill as originally drafted. The general principle of excluding residence in a borough area from the reasons which must be taken into account in considering admissions to a school or technical college—the fact that we have free trade within the borough grouping—was, I think, warmly welcomed in this House and in another place even by some who were against the whole principle of the Bill. I am glad that that principle of free trade and borough boundaries not themselves constituting an obstacle met with no opposition from the local authorities.
    I hope that this aspect of the Bill will be a precedent which will come gradually to apply more and more widely throughout the country, because I believe that the decision about admitting children to maintained schools or colleges made purely on the basis of administrative boundaries can be the most objectionable decision to parents of all the disputed decisions that authorities can make. I say that not as one who has children, let alone children in maintained schools, but as one who over recent years must have answered thousands of letters from hon. Members of all parties, including a great many letters on this subject.
    A slight extension of the area in which this will not be legal is all to the good. I hope that the general principle of free trade which is applicable under the Bill within Greater London will tend to be applied by the Greater London authorities to pupils and students from outside. It is a very good thing that we should have laid this down quite clearly in the Bill.
    I hope that all hon. Members will welcome these Amendments. It may seem ludicrous to say that in present circumstances, but I believe that they enshrine a principle which is not only valuable in the context of this Bill, but which will, I hope, point the way to a number of reforms in our education service in the years ahead.
    Mr. Ede: I want to welcome the Amendment very warmly. Indeed, I
    1858
    believe that its wider application to the country as a whole would be a great blessing. A good deal of clerical work is performed in county and borough education offices merely to check up on the number of children who cross boundaries to attend school in neighbouring areas.
    I recall the ludicrous position I encountered once when I was engaged in administration. The southern boundary fence of a school in Lingfield, Surrey, was actually the southern boundary of the county and nearly all the children at the school lived in East Sussex. A very careful check was kept on their attendance. A few miles away there was another school situated in East Sussex but mainly attended by Surrey children. At the end of each year we would find that one county or the other had been educating a few more children from its neighbour than vice versa.
    It seems entirely ludicrous that we should virtually employ clerks to check up on that kind of thing when public convenience is being met by allowing children to attend schools nearest their homes. I hope that this administrative excrescence on educational expenditure may be increasingly removed if the principle now embedded in the Bill can be made more general.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I welcome this Amendment strongly. This subject has given a great deal of anxiety to parents in London, and I hope that a good deal of publicity will be given to this Amendment. Hon. Members on both sides have been worried about free trade between the boroughs. I hope my right hon. Friend will see that this new provision is widely known throughout London and so allay the worry and suspicion in the minds of the parents.
    Mr. Mellish: As the right hon. Gentle man knows, I have a vested interest in this matter, since I have children attending voluntary schools. All parents in my position are probably more concerned than most over this problem. We support the Amendment, of course, but in the County of London this sort of provision has not been necessary in the past. Free trade has always been part and parcel of the education system there and our relations with Surrey and Kent have been very cordial. It is ironical that in this Bill we have to introduce safeguards

    1859
    to ensure that free trade shall be carried on.
    I have attended a number of meetings at voluntary schools. Putting party politics aside, there has been great concern about diocesan plans for new schools because of the rearrangement of the areas. That has been the biggest worry of all. Many supporters not only of the Labour Party but also of the Conservative Party have described how they dreaded the future as it was proposed under the Bill. Now the right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated in doing what he can to allay those fears. If education means anything then it means the right of the parent to choose his child's school where practicable and that boundaries should not exist either in the parent's mind or in any other way.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 32.—(CO-ORDINATION OF SCHOOL AND OTHER HEALTH SERVICES IN INNER LONDON.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 48, line 41, after "experience" insert "conditions of service".
    Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment again was an Opposition Amendment. It was moved by the noble Lady the Baroness Summerskill and accepted by the Government. It adds conditions of service in this matter over which the Inner London Education Authority and the boroughs are required now to consult each other under Clause 32(1,b). The other matters on which they must consult each other are qualifications, experience and appointment of professional staff concerned with both those health services.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 48, line 29, at end insert:
    "(5A) In this section the expression 'professional staff' in relation to any scheme there-under means medical officers, dental officers, nurses, health visitors and such other specialist staff as may be specified in that scheme".
    Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This was a Government Amendment to meet a point again put by the noble Lady the Baroness Summerskill in order to define the term "professional staff".
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 34.—(YOUTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 51, line 32, leave out "the said section 3(6)" and insert:
    "section 30(6) and (7) of this Act".
    Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a drafting Amendment designed to clarify the intention of subsection (4). If, as a result of the review provided for in this subsection it is found desirable to make any change in the administrative arrangements for the Youth Employment Service in the area of the I.L.E.A., changes will then be made by regulation made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, subject to Affirmative resolution.
    To make this possible, this subsection gives him power to make regulations relating to education under Clause 30. At the moment subsection (4) refers only to subsection (6) and this could be construed as meaning that the Minister of Labour was to be given only powers specifically referred to in subsection (6) and was not to be empowered to include in the regulations any necessary, "incidential consequential, transitional or supplementary provisions", those being matters referred to in subsection (7).
    If regulations are to be made there must be power to include only transitional or similar provisions. This has always been the intention of the Clause and the purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear beyond doubt that the Minister of Labour is to have the power to make regulations after a review of the powers conferred on the Minister of Education by subsection (7) of Clause 30 as well as those conferred by subsection (6).
    I have dwelt for a minute or two on this Amendment, although it is practically a drafting Amendment, because in

    1861
    another place the noble Earl who was in charge of the Opposition's case implied that he had not studied the Amendment as closely as he should but that it seemed to be all right. It was then rather late at night and so I thought I should take this chance to explain it.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 35.—(SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL WORKS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 53, line 20, leave out "(2)".
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Now we come back from education and go down to sewerage and trade effluents. This deals with one of the facets of the Greater London Council's responsibility to carry out a survey of the sewers and sewage disposal works. Our main concern is that a council may apply to the Greater London Council to take over a particular sewer or sewage disposed works and there is a procedure for deciding whether the application shall be granted. In view of the G.L.C's responsibility to survey the whole of the sewers and sewage disposal works so as to decide which are the main ones which shall vest in the Council, it seems that the particular survival of the current dispensation is no longer appropriate. Therefore, the Amendment eliminates it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Two with Special Entry.]

    Clause 39.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO SEWERAGE.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 57, line 10 at end insert:
    "an area defined by an order made by the Minister as being".
    7.0 p.m.
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment and the next Amendment are drafting Amendments, but they alter the drafting considerably and perhaps I should explain them. As the Bill is at present drawn, the procedure by which the Greater London Council gradually vests in itself the whole of the
    1862
    main sewerage and sewage disposal works in its area was seen to be in three stages, starting with an original sewerage area which is defined in Clause 37(8) and growing gradually as the Council decides to vest different parts of the main sewerage and sewage disposal works until it covers the whole of its sewerage area. As it grew, so the Minister was making Regulations to keep pace with it. What the Amendment does is to provide that, instead of going by three stages, the definition of the sewerage area of the Greater London Council will be made throughout by Ministerial order. The work of the Council will depend upon the survey it is making and on its assessment of what is main sewerage.
    Mr. Skeffington: This seems, on the face of it, to be a sensible Amendment. I know part of the background to this. It is clear that the area ought to be defined by the Minister, because, as we said in our discussions elsewhere, this is an extraordinarily complicated system. It has grown up over many years. That is why I attach considerable importance to subsection (3), which means that those who are developing or buying property will have access to maps and documents showing where the sewers are. This is not much of a problem in some towns, but in the London area it is a very important one. I assume that the expression that the
    "map or other document shall be open to inspection by members of the public"
    means during normal office hours. I did not table an Amendment, because I assumed that that is what it means. We have known cases where the public go on Saturday mornings because some part of the council's offices are open but find that they cannot have access to the information. No doubt this could be dealt with by an announcement, or indeed by the Minister's favourite device—regulations.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: in page 57, line 30, after "sewer" insert:
    "primarily serving the sewerage area of the Greater London Council".
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

    1863
    The Bill as at present drawn requires the Minister to settle disputes between neighbouring sewerage authorities. The Bill is so drawn that the Minister might be required to settle such disputes all over the country. This Amendment and the following Amendment provide that the Minister's settlement of disputes for this purpose shall be in the Greater London area.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 43.—(MODIFICATIONS OF LONDON BUILDING ACTS.)
    Lords Amendment: in page 60, line 17, leave out from first "and" to second "and" in line 21 and insert:
    "Part II of the Act of 1939 and any regulations there under and any other relevant provisions of the London Building Acts which relate to the said Part II shall, notwithstanding anything in section 4 of the Act of 1930, extend to the outer London boroughs;and—

    (a) the Greater London Council shall have the functions of the London County Council under all the aforementioned provisions; and

    (b) the councils of the inner London boroughs and, in the case of provisions which extend to the outer London boroughs, the councils of the outer London boroughs shall have the functions of metropolitan boroughs under the said provisions.

    (2) In accordance with the foregoing subsection, in the relevant provisions of the London Building Acts."
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment, together with five Amendments shortly to follow it, covers a rather shattering decision made in Committee that the Greater London Council should retain the power and the duty of settling the names of streets all over the Greater London area. This was thought to be a sensible provision to minimise confusion. It was welcomed by those concerned, particularly by the fire service and the postal service.
    Mr. Skeffington: I welcome the Government's acceptance of this Amendment. I had something to do with this suggestion at an earlier stage. I am delighted that for once the Greater London Council should have the functions of the London County Council. We have never had it
    1864
    before put in such concrete terms, but I am glad that at last it is to be in the Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 44.—(CEMETERIES AND CREMATORIA.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 62, line 24, at end insert:
    "and
    (b) section 51 of the Burial Act 1852 shall apply to cemeteries in which burials are discontinued by virtue of this subsection as it applies to burial grounds in which interments are discontinued under that Act."
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment maintains the present position in Greater London. I understand that a parish may have its burial ground in another parish. If such a burial ground is compulsorily closed, the Section quoted in the Amendment enables a chapel belonging to that burial ground to be handed over to nominees of the church authorities in the parish where it is situated.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 47.—(CHILDREN AUTHORITIES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 67, line 16, at end insert:
    "(4) The Greater London Council may make contributions to any voluntary organisation—

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

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

    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Clause 50 when it left the House provided that the local authorities to undertake this licensing function should be the councils of the London boroughs. The effect of the Amendment is to place this responsibility, for the whole of Greater

    1865
    London, on the Greater London Council, and I think this will be acceptable to the House as a whole.
    Mr. A. Evans: I think that we should welcome this Amendment. It is more economical for the Greater London Council to decide what contributions should be made to the voluntary organisations for children's welfare. From my reading of the But I understand that borough authorities will retain the right to make contributions in certain cases, but perhaps the hon. Lady will make this clear. Will borough authorities retain the right to make contributions to voluntary organisations, side by side with the Greater London Council also having that power?
    Mr. Pavitt: I welcome the Amendment, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans). It brings this Clause into line with similar provisions made in previous Clauses for welfare and mental health activities. I am concerned about how far this Clause goes in the amount of support that it gives for voluntary organisations, in view of the discussions that took place both in another place and in Committee upstairs on the preceding parts of this Clause.
    There was considerable disquiet about the question of responsibility, which would be divided, and the actual methods to be used to provide services for children. I hope the hon. Lady will assure us that there will be an opportunity for both the new boroughs and the Greater London Council to make contributions for voluntary organisations, and that this will not preclude them from undertaking any of the other responsibilities that fall on them in other parts of the Bill. I hope that there will be some attempt to ensure that there is greater co-operation in dealing with the difficult problems which are being hammered out between the various bodies responsible for the provision of these services.
    Miss Pike: I give that assurance.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I am a little puzzled by the hon. Lady's speech when she moved the Amendment. I think she referred to Clause 50. My hon. Friends were speaking—and admirably, too—
    1866
    about voluntary contributions to bodies concerned with child welfare, but I think the hon. Lady was talking about petroleum, a fact which escaped my hon. Friend's notice because they are further away from the hon. Lady than I am. She made a rather rapid speech, and I think that I was the only Member on this side of the House who grasped what she was talking about.
    We are in a little confusion. Mr. Speaker, I think you put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," that is to say, the Amendment in page 67, line 16, which proposes to add certain words to Clause 47 of the Bill which is concerned with the making of contributions by the Greater London Council to voluntary organisations concerned with child welfare, and a very necessary and desirable Amendment it is. I hope the fact that the hon. Lady has made a speech appropriate to a later Amendment does not mean that we are switching on to a discussion of a later Amendment, because we want to make sure that we make this Amendment dealing with children, before we go on to deal with petrol.
    7.15 p.m.
    Miss Pike: Perhaps I can help. I apologise to the House. I spoke to the Amendment in page 67, line 16. As this Amendment was acceptable to the House, I thought that it had been accepted, and that we had moved to the next Amendment while I was looking at my papers. Like the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), I was a bit puzzled at first about how voluntary contributions came into petroleum, but I thought I had made an error in not hearing that we have moved to the next Amendment.
    Mr. M. Stewart: If we are talking about voluntary contributions for child welfare, in a sense this is an anomalous Amendment, as were the provisions we made earlier in Standing Committee upstairs to give the Greater London Council power to make contributions to certain voluntary bodies, because the general aim of the Bill has been to ensure that the Greater London Council shall not be a welfare authority. I think I am right in saying that the only power it now has in connection with social services—apart from education in

    1867
    inner London—is this power to make contributions to voluntary bodies.
    It is not, for instance a children's authority itself at all. If one were niggly, one might ask whether a body which is not a children's authority, and will not naturally attract people interested in social service into its membership, is really a good body to make the voluntary contribution? But I do not propose to niggle like that because, although this is anomalous in the sense that it is unlike the rest of the Bill, I think the rest of the Bill is bad. I am glad that this bit of the Bill is different from the rest, because we know that the L.C.C. had a very good record for contributions to voluntary bodies.
    When the Bill was published, the voluntary bodies were worried about what might happen with the disappearance of the L.C.C. because there were no provisions in the Bill to enable the Greater London Council to have power to make contributions similar to those made by the L.C.C. I am glad that, partly in this House, and partly in another place, power has been given to the Greater London Council to make these contributions.
    I think the passage of time will show that it would be better if the children's services were in the hands of the Greater London Council, and nearly everybody who has experience of those services thinks so, but since we cannot have that this Amendment is better than nothing.
    Mr. A. Evans: If I might, with the leave of the House, revert to the point I put to the hon. Lady when she was thinking about petroleum and I was thinking about voluntary contributions, may I ask whether she can confirm that, although the Greater London Council has this power to make contributions to voluntary organisations, that power will also reside with the borough authorities, the children's authorities?
    Miss Pike: Yes, I can confirm that.
    Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 50.—(EXPLOSIVES AND PETROLEUM SPIRIT.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 69, line 21, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (3) of this section".
    Miss Pike: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    We are back on petrol again. As I explained in error before, Clause 50 left local authorities to undertake this licensing function, but it has been decided that this should be the responsibility of the Greater London Council, and I think that this decision will commend itself to the House.
    Mr. M. Stewart: It is a matter of distress to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) that she is not able to be here while we are discussing the final stages of the Bill. I know that she will regret not being here at this juncture, because I think that she raised this point in Committee upstairs.
    My hon. Friend is an expert on the whole range of miscellaneous administrative and public control functions of the London County Council. The view we took was that although we do not like the general pattern of the Bill, if we are to have in Greater London one large authority, and then various smaller authorities inside that area, there are certain public control functions, particularly those which require uniformity of administration and the services of a limited number of expert officers, which could be done better by a large authority than by a number of small ones.
    The argument generally against that was that if we put too many functions in the hands of the Greater London Council we would leave the boroughs with too little to do. In view of what those London boroughs are to be asked to do in housing in future, I do not suppose that any of them will be grieving over the fact that they are no longer to be the licensing authorities for the purpose of petroleum. The hon. Lady is right when she says that the Amendment will commend itself to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 51.—(AMENDMENTS TO SHOPS Act 1950.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 69, line 35, at beginning insert:
    "(1) The council of a London borough shall as respects the borough, and the Common

    1869
    Council shall as respects the City, be the local authority for the purposes of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, and the Greater London Council shall have the functions of the London county council under that Act; and accordingly—

    (a) in the definition of 'local authority in section 90(1) of that Act, for the words 'or a county district, the council of a metropolitan borough' there shall be substituted the words 'a London borough or a county district'; and

    (b) for the words 'London County Council' wherever they occur in that Act there shall be substituted the words 'Greater London Council'.

    (2) The said Act of 1963 shall be further amended as follows: —

    (a) in section 41(1) for the words 'administrative county of London' there shall be substituted the words 'inner London boroughs, the City of London, the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple';

    (b) in section 41(3) for the words 'administrative county of London' there shall be substituted the words 'inner London boroughs, the City of London, the Inner Temple or the Middle Temple';

    (c) in section 52(3)(a) after the word 'county' there shall be inserted the words or the Greater London Council';

    (d) in section 52(5) for the words 'administrative county of London' there shall be substituted the words 'Greater London'".

    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The purpose of these two subsections is simply to ensure that the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill—which will shortly be an Act, if all goes well—takes into account there organisation of London government under the Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 70, line 1, leave out from beginning to "means" in line 9 and insert:
    "(2) Until finally repealed as respects all classes of premises and for all purposes by the said Act of 1963—

    (a) section 72(2) of the Shops Act 1950 shall have effect throughout Greater London as originally enacted and not as amended by section 18 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1958;

    (b) the definition of 'sanitary authority' in section 74(1) of the Shops Act 1950 shall have effect as if for the words from 'means' onwards there were substituted the words".

    Miss Pike: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    1870
    With this Amendment goes a later Amendment in Schedule 17.
    These Amendments are designed to make sure that on the appointed day there will be the proper arrangements, and that we shall have in the meantime the transitional arrangements necessary in respect of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 55.—(SMALLHOLDINGS, ALLOTMENTS, ETC.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 73, line 25, leave out from beginning to "shall" in line 28 and insert:

    "(1) Part IV of the Agriculture Act 1947 (which relates to smallholdings) shall apply to the Greater London Council as it applies to a county council, and accordingly in section 47(1) of that Act (which makes it the duty of every county council other than the London county council to provide smallholdings) for the words 'other than the London County Council' there shall be substituted the words 'and of the Greater London Council'.

    (2) The Greater London Council".

    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment goes with the subsequent Amendment in lines 31 and 32. These are little more than drafting Amendments, to put right two points in the wording of the Bill, which made it slightly too restrictive. As at present drafted the Clause makes the Greater London Council a smallholdings authority, with power to provide smallholdings, but does not confer upon it the duty to provide smallholdings. This provision is made in the case of every other county council except the London County Council under the Agriculture Act, 1947. The Amendment will rectify this omission and, by making Section 47 of that Act apply to the Greater London Council, will ensure that it has a duty to provide smallholdings similar to that now imposed on the Middlesex County Council.
    Similarly, we must ensure that the Greater London Council will be able to exercise all the functions which are now exercisable by the county councils, and especially by the Middlesex County Council, under the pre-1947 legislation.

    1871
    The second Amendment provides that all the remaining functions will be transferred to the Greater London Council. I should mention that these Amendments require a small consequential Amendment to the Schedule of Repeals. On page 216, in column 3, lines 35 to 37 become redundant.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I have a special interest in allotments, not because I have ever had one but because Fulham Palace is in my constituency and the Palace Meadows provide a considerable stretch of allotments which are very much treasured in Fulham. I wanted to get the position quite clear. I found this a difficult part of the Bill to follow in Committee, as did the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who put down an Amendment which was drafted rather more skilfully than mine at the time. I am never sure what is the exact meaning, in an Act of Parliament, of the word "smallholding", as compared with the word "allotment". I think that I am right in saying that if we agree to these Amendments the Greater London Council will have such duties and powers in respect of allotments as the county councils now have.
    Am I also right in concluding that the powers and duties of the new boroughs in Greater London will be the same as those which the Metropolitan boroughs now have in respect of allotments? I shall be grateful if the hon. Member can tell me.
    Mr. Pavitt: My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has referred to the effect that the Amendments may have on the metropolitan boroughs. Will the Minister also deal with the position of the outer London boroughs, which are in a slightly different situation in this respect from that of the metropolitan boroughs?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: These Amendments deal with smallholdings, which are not the same as allotments. Allotments are small plots which may be of any size up to four acres, but smallholdings may go up to as much as 50 acres. The Greater London Council is the responsible authority for the smallholdings, and the Amendments impose a mandatory duty upon the Greater London Council to provide these smallholdings.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 73, line 40, at end insert:
    "and in section 71(8) (c) of that Act (which relates to the discharge of the functions of County Agricultural Executive Committees in the existing county of London) for the words 'the county of London' there shall be substituted the words 'Greater London' ".
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment is of a purely formal nature. Section 71 of the Agriculture, Act, 1947, provides that the Minister of Agriculture should set up county agricultural executive committees for each administrative county except the County of London. Subsection (8,c) provides that the County of London
    "shall be treated as if any such part thereof as the Minister may direct were included in such adjoining administrative county as he may direct."
    The Amendment gives my right hon. Friend the power to apportion the area of Greater London between the agricultural executive committees of adjoining administrative counties. He has that power at present in relation to the County of London.
    I should also mention that the words
    "except the County of London"
    in Section 71 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, will become redundant, and provision is therefore made for their repeal by an appropriate Amendment in the Schedule of Repeals.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 57.—(PROVISION OF ENTERTAINMENTS, CONCERT HALLS, MUSEUMS ETC.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 74, line 44, leave out "under" and insert "by virtue of".
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a purely drafting Amendment.
    Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Why do we have to insert three words in place of one? Is there any difference in meaning, or do the Government want to lengthen the Bill, which is already too long?
    Mr. Corfield: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member, but I am told that the words which the Amendment would insert are those which are usually found in Statutes, and that it would be far better to stick to them rather than to depart from them and use a word which is used frequently in legal documents but not in Statutes. There is not much merit in the Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 58.—(PARKS AND OPEN SPACES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 75, line 24, leave out "Greater London as a whole" and insert:
    "an area of Greater London substantially larger than the London boroughs in or near which the park or open space is proposed to be provided".
    Mr. Corfield: This Amendment meets an Opposition Amendment—perhaps not entirely but for the greater part—which was designed to give the Greater London Council somewhat greater flexibility in the provision of parks. Originally, the wording of the Bill was to the effect that the G.L.C. could provide a park only where the proposal was approved by the Minister as being for the benefit of Greater London as a whole. I think that the Opposition had some cause when they said that it would be difficult to define this and that there would be few places suitable for a park which would come within this definition, even if one were certain of its interpretation. I think that the new words are an improvement.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Skeffington: I apologise for having been absent from the Chamber, but on my return I recognised the phrases being used and I know the subject matter to which the Amendment relates. I am glad that our arguments have prevailed on the Government and that they have made this change, which will be very much to the benefit of the amenities of the Greater London area.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 75, line 29, leave out from beginning to "as" and insert:
    1874
    "vested in the London or Middlesex county council and used".
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    I ought to forestall the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), because this is a similar type of Amendment, Here again, my legal advice is that the new phrase is more appropriate than the old one. But I am bound to say that the difference in meaning is not readily apparent.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 75, line 31, after "57(2)" insert:
    "or subsection (1) of section (The Green Belt)".
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree: with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is an Amendment to make it impossible for both Clause 58 and new Clause A, which deals with land held under the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act, 1938, to apply to the same piece of land.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 76, line 18, at end insert:
    "and, in relation to any land outside Greater London, as including a reference to the council of any county or county district in whose area any of the land is situated".
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Clause 58(2) provides that parks and open spaces vested in the London and Middlesex County Councils shall be initially transferred to the Greater London Council, who, before 1970, are to draw up a scheme in consultation with their local authorities showing which parks are to be retained by the Greater London Council and which are to be transferred to a local authority.
    The Bill contemplates the limited transfer of parks to one or other of the London boroughs, but this formula needs to be revised because the Middlesex County Council owns land in districts which although now part of the county are not being included in

    1875
    Greater London, such, for instance, as the urban district of Staines, Sunbury and Potters Bar.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause.—(THE GREEN BELT.)
    Lords Amendment: In line 26, at end insert new Clause A:
    "A.—(1) Where, in the case of any Green Belt land within the meaning of the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938, immediately before 1st April 1965—

    (a) that land, not being land to which section 78(1) of this Act applies, was vested in the London or Middlesex county council; or

    (b) any functions, rights or liabilities were exercisable with respect to that land by either of those councils,

    then on that date that land shall vest in, or, as the case may be, those functions, rights and liabilities shall become functions, rights and liabilities of, the Greater London Council.
    (2) In the said Act of 1938—

    (a) in section 2(1), in the definition of 'the area', for the words from 'London' onwards there shall be substituted the words 'and Surrey, and Greater London';

    (b) the expression 'local authority' shall include the Greater London Council;

    (c) the expression 'contributing local authority' in relation to any land in relation to which, if this Act had not been passed, any existing council to whom section 3(1)(b) of this Act applies would have been such an authority, shall, if that existing council is the London or Middlesex county council, include the Greater London Council or, in any other case, include the London borough council whose area includes the whole or any part of the area of that existing council;

    (d) in sections 5, 6, 12, 15 and 32, the expression 'the county council' in relation to any land in Greater London shall mean the Greater London Council;

    (e) in section 17(7) for the words 'county or borough or district or parish' there shall be substituted the word' area'."

    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is the new Clause A to which I referred, which transfers to the Greater London Council all the functions, rights and liabilities of the London and Middlesex County Councils under the Green Belt Act, 1938. It covers the same ground as some Amendments moved by hon. Members opposite, which were tabled both in this House and in another place, and it makes good an undertaking which my right
    1876
    hon. Friend gave in Committee on 19th March.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 59.—(FUNCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 77, line 13, at end insert:
    "(3) The London borough council to whom any functions of any county council other than the Middlesex county council are transferred by virtue of subsection (1) of this section may agree with the county council for the performance of any of those functions by that county council on behalf of the borough council; and where by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) of this section the said sections 27 to 34 for the time being apply to any part of any London borough or the City, the borough council or Common Council, as the case may be, may agree with the Greater London Council for the functions of the borough council or Common Council under the said sections 27 to 34 to be discharged by the Greater London Council, and while such an agreement with the Greater London Council is in force—

    (a) references in Part IV of the said Act of 1949 to the surveying authority shall be construed accordingly;

    (b) section 28(1) of the said Act of 1949 shall have effect in relation to a survey carried out by the Greater London Council as if the reference therein to the councils of county districts and parishes were a reference to the borough council or Common Council, as the case may be.

    (4) In section 23 of the said Act of 1949, the reference to the local planning authority shall be construed in relation to land in a London borough or the City as a reference to the borough council or, as the case may be, the Common Council.
    (5) The provisions of Part V of the said Act of 1949 with respect to access agreements and access orders and section 90 of that Act shall not apply to the inner London boroughs or the City, and in relation to land in an outer London borough references in sections 64 to 82 and 90 of that Act to the local planning authority shall be construed as references to the borough council.
    (6) In section 89 of the said Act of 1949 the expression 'local planning authority', and in section 99 of that Act the expression 'local authority' shall include the Greater London Council, a London borough council and the Common Council; and in section 102 of that Act—

    (a) expression 'local planning authority', shall include the council of an outer London borough; and

    (b) the expression 'local authority' shall include the Greater London Council."

    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Clause 59(1) transfers to the outer London boroughs the duty of preparing

    1877
    a survey of rights of way already begun by the counties handing over. These rights stem from the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949.
    The remainder of the Amendment is designed to ensure that the duties under that Act which are appropriate to county councils are carried forward, where they are appropriate, to the new reorganisation in London. They are somewhat varied. They apply to consultation with the Nature Conservancy. But I think that they are straightforward. If hon. Members wish any further information I will try to give it.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause.—(FUNCTIONS UNDER TOWN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1952.)
    Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "B":
    "B.—(1) As respects participation in town development within the meaning of the Town Development Act 1952, and as respects the power to contribute towards expenses of such development conferred by sections 4 and 10(3) of that Act on the council of a county borough, the Greater London Council shall be in the same position under that Act as the council of a county borough, and accordingly references in that Act to the council of a county borough as an authority participating or eligible to participate and the references to the council of a county borough in sections 4, 10(3) and 12(1) of that Act shall include references to the Greater London Council; and, for the purposes of any such development in respect of which the Greater London Council have power under the said section 4 to make a contribution to the council of any receiving district within the meaning of that Act, they shall also have power to make available to that council the services of any of their officers or servants.
    (2) In section 2(l)(b) of the said Act of 1952, for sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) there shall be substituted the fallowing—
    '(ii) Greater London; or
    (iii) a county district in an area of continuous urban development adjacent to any big centre of population other than Greater London; or'.
    (3) It shall be the duty of the Greater London Council—

    (a) to implement, or complete the implementation of, any undertaking given before 1st April 1965 with the approval of the Minister—

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

    1878

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

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

    and the Greater London Council shall have the like rights, under any agreement to which paragraph (b) of this subsection applies as the council whose liabilities there under they assume by virtue of that paragraph.
    (4) References in subsection (3) of this section to an undertaking given or action agreed to be taken by any council shall be construed as including references to any under taking or action which, having regard to the established practice of that council, should properly be deemed to have been so given or to have been so agreed to be taken; and any dispute as to the existence or extent of any duty, right or liability of the Greater London Council by virtue of the said subsection (3) or as to whether or not any particular under taking or action should properly be deemed as aforesaid shall be referred to and deter mined by the Minister.
    (5) Any action authorised by an order under section 9 of the said Act of 1952 to be taken by any council to whom section 3(1)(b) of this Act applies may be taken by the Greater London Council; and that Council shall have the like liabilities and rights in connection with any obligation with respect to that action imposed by the order as the council originally authorised by the order to take that action."
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a new Clause inserted to fulfil an undertaking which I gave in Committee to the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) about the Town Development Act and the rights, duties, etc., of the L.C.C. and their transfer.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 60.—(MISCELLANEOUS LOCAL AUTHORITY FUNCTIONS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 77, line 27, at end insert:
    "(1A) Schedule (Functions with respect to land drainage, flood prevention, etc.) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the discharge in Greater London and the adjoining areas of functions with respect to land drainage and flood prevention and other functions under the enactments therein mentioned."
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment introduces the new Schedule A which goes into the Bill at line 7 of page 194. The Schedule deals with land drainage and flood prevention in that part of the proposed Greater London Council area which does not fall within the area of a river or catchment board. The Schedule was inserted towards the end of the proceedings in another place to meet undertakings which had been given earlier in this House and in another place.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 77, line 38, at end insert:
    "(4) The confirmation and record of the rules of loan societies under the Loan Societies Act 1840 shall as respects any such society formed in Greater London be functions of the Greater London Council; and accordingly in relation to that Act sections 3 and 78 of the Local Government Act 1888 shall have effect as if Greater London were a county and the Greater London Council were the council of that county."
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is an Amendment to ensure that the obligations under the Loan Societies Act, 1840, whereby those societies are required to deposit their rules and amendments with the councils of the county or county borough in which they are situated, is suitably adapted so that the Greater London Council becomes the approving authority.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 62.—(GENERAL GRANTS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 78, line 19, at end insert:
    "and any expenditure by way of contributions by that Council—

    (a) by virtue of section 45(4) or 47(4) of this Act; or

    (b) by virtue of section 46(3) of this Act so far as it relates to section 26(6) of the National Assistance Act 1948".

    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is consequential on Amendments made to Clauses 45, 46 and 47 which have been accepted during the progress of the Bill. It gives the Greater
    1880
    London Council power to contribute to the funds of voluntary bodies in the field of health, welfare and child welfare.
    Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 66.—(FINANCIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE COMMON COUNCIL.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 80, line 41, leave out from "rate" to end of line 42.
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a rather unfortunate deletion, because it gave rise to a fascinating discourse by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), in Committee, on "Oyster Bars Jam Probe". It is now superfluous, but it served a useful purpose if only for that delightful intervention.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause.—(COMPENSATION FOR INJURY TO OR DEATH OF OFFICERS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 85, line 20, at end insert new Clause "C":
    "C.—(1) Any of the following councils, that is to say, the Greater London Council, the London borough councils and the Common Council, may pay compensation—

    (a) to any of their officers who sustains an injury in the course of his employment; or

    (b) to the widow or widower or child of any of their officers who, in the course of his employment, dies or sustains an injury resulting in death.

    (2) Any compensation payable under this section may be paid either—

    (a) by way of a lump sum; or

    (b) by way of periodical payments of such amounts and payable at such times and for such periods as the council in question may from time to time determine having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

    (3) The payment of compensation under this section shall not affect any right or claim to damages or compensation which an officer of any of the councils aforesaid or his widow or widower or child may have against any person other than that council or, except so far as may be agreed when the compensation is granted against that council."
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Clause has been included in substitution for what was paragraph 13 of

    1881
    the Second Schedule. The change is intended to extend these provisions to the London boroughs as well as the G.L.C. When we discussed this matter in Committee a case was put forward for extension throughout the country, but the Government felt—I think with the agreement of the Opposition—that that was not suitable. This applies to the Greater London Area.
    Mr. M. Stewart: This is a most welcome Amendment. Are we to understand from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the power to pay compensation for an officer who sustains injury or to his widow or dependant in the case of death, will belong when the Bill has passed to the Greater London Council, the London boroughs and the Common Council, but not to boroughs outside London?
    Mr. Corfield Mr. Corfield indicated assent.
    Mr. Stewart: If that is so, it is something that we cannot remedy in this Bill, but something of which the House should take note because here we are creating an anomaly in the right way. We are creating an anomaly which opens the way for a change elsewhere.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I thought I detected in what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said a suggestion that the Government have in mind at a later stage to extend this provision to other parts of the country, but I may be wrong.
    Mr. Corfield: I cannot commit myself to any time-table or anything of that nature, but I think it clear that, having gone this far, we would want to look at the matter in a wider context.
    Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    New Clause.—(APPLICATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION ACTS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 85, line 40, leave out Clause 74 and insert new Clause "D":
    "D.—(1) In the Local Government Superannuation Act 1937—

    (a) in section 1 (which relates to the local authorities who are required to maintain superannuation funds under Part I of that Act), in subsection (1)(a) for the words 'metropolitan borough' there shall as from 1st April 1965 be substituted the words 'London borough and the Greater London Council';

    1882

    (b) in section 40(1), in the definition of 'local authority', after the word 'district' there shall be inserted the words 'the council of a London borough, the Greater London Council';

    (c) in Part I of Schedule 1 (which relates to the local authorities whose whole-time officers are to be compulsorily superannuable), after the paragraph beginning 'The council' there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—

    'The council of a London borough.
    The Greater London Council.'
    (2) For the purpose of the making before 1st April 1965 under section 2 of the said Act of 1937 of a combination scheme to come into force on or after that date, the Greater London Council or a London borough council shall be deemed to be an administering authority notwithstanding that they are not for the time being required to maintain a superannuation fund under Part I of that Act.
    (3) Notwithstanding anything in section 4 of the said Act of 1937 (which relates to the funds to which contributions are payable) if in the case of any contributory employee or class of contributory employees of the Greater London Council or a London borough council it appears to the Minister expedient so to do, the Minister may by order, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, provide that for the purposes of that Act the appropriate superannuation fund in relation to that employee or class shall be such fund as may be specified in or determined under the order; and any such order may make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as pay appear to the Minister to be necessary or proper for the purposes or in consequence of the order and for giving full effect thereto."
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The main purpose of this Amendment is to give to the Greater London Council and each of the London borough councils the choice whether to maintain their own superannuation funds under the 1937 Act or to combine by negotiation with other authorities to create joint funds. The original proposal was that there should be a single very large fund for the Greater London area but that was not very popular with the authorities concerned and this restores the position.
    Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 76.—(REGISTRATION OF LOCAL LAND CHARGES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 87, line 16, at beginning insert:
    "Subject to any order under section 81 of this Act".
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a drafting Amendment to make sure that there is a proper officer for the registration of land charges as a result of the new set-up in the interim period.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 81.—(SUPPLEMENTARY AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISION.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 92, line 24, leave out "and" and insert "or".
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Although this looks like drafting it is rather more than that in that it widens the requirements and gives additional flexibility. If hon. Members read the Clause as it now stands with the word "and" instead of "or", they will see that the Amendment goes rather further than mere drafting.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 92, line 38, leave out from "persons" to end of line 40 and insert:
    "elected by, or appointed by or on the nomination of—

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

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

    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Paragraph (b) of Clause 81(2) provides that orders dealing with transitional provisions may make the necessary substitution where any authority affected by re organisation is represented on or appoints

    Clause 82.—(TRANSFER AND COMPENSATION OF OFFICERS.)

    Lords Amendment: In page 94, line 15, leave out from "provision" to end of line 22 and insert—

    5

    "with respect to any person who is transferred under this Act (or, as the case may be, in pursuance of any agreement under the said section 24(7)) from the employment of one authorrity to that of another as to secure that—

    10

    (a) so long as he continues in the employment of that other authority by virtue of the transfer and until he is served with a statement in writing of new terms and conditions of employment, he enjoys terms and conditions of employment not less favourable than those he enjoyed immediately before the date of transfer; and

    members to some other body. In the case of the Lea Conservancy Catchment Board the membership of which is set out in the local Act of 1950 the majority of the members are appointed by local authorities but four members are elected by groups of authorities in accordance with specified procedure. Some are within and some outside the Greater London area. The Amendment enables the necessary substitution to be made not only in respect of elected members but also of members appointed by the authorities.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 93, line 7, leave out from "in" to second "of" in line 10 and insert "section 148(l)(a) to (h) and (2)".
    7.45 p.m.
    Miss Pike: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment goes with the next, in line 20. It enables an Order under Clause 81, which relates to supplementary and transitional matters, to make provision regarding the matters mentioned in Section 148(1,d) of the Local Government Act, 1933. The paragraph deals among other things with the functions and area of jurisdiction of public bodies and all courts and officers connected with the administration of justice. In the Bill as it left this House that paragraph applied only to areas outside Greater London. It may be necessary for it to apply to the Greater London area, also.
    The second Amendment extends the power to make supplementary or transitional orders under Clause 81(2,e) as Amended by the first amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    (b) the said new terms and conditions are such that—

    (i) so long as he is engaged in duties reasonably comparable to those in which he was engaged immediately before the date of transfer, the scale of his salary or remuneration, and

    15

    (ii) the other terms and conditions of his employment,

    are not less favourable than those he enjoyed immediately before the date of transfer."

    20

    Read a Second time.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 6, to leave out from "transfer" to "he" in line 7.
    I should mention that a later Amendment, not the next but the following Amendment to the Lords Amendment, would be consequential to this one in that, if the one I am moving were accepted, the words from "transferred" in line 11 onwards would then become unnecessary. I mention that to show that these two Amendments, one in line 7 and one in line 11, are linked.
    The principle involved is that when an officer is transferred from the employment of one authority to that of another as a result of the operation of this Bill he should not suffer loss of emoluments whether or not he is transferred to what are called similar duties. As matters stand, if such an officer is transferred to what are regarded as similar duties his emoluments, conditions, and so on, remain the same, but if he is transferred to what are not considered similar duties but lesser duties he could, and in some cases will, suffer a loss of emoluments and prospects. We argued this complex matter of staff at considerable length in Committee and on Report. Opinion was divided not always on strict party lines. When faced with the difficulty on Report at one point an Amendment which the Government were inclined to regard with favour was declared to be out of order. Since then the matter has been the subject of further consideration in another place.
    I say that by way of prelude, because I think that now we should try to look at this question afresh and without prejudice, and consider what are the merits of the principle that when, as a result of the operation of this Bill, an officer is transferred from one authority to another it should be assured to him that he does not suffer in salary, in prospects or in pension as a result solely of the operation of this Bill and his transfer under it.
    1886
    There is one general argument in favour of such a proposition. It is that the servants of local government, like the servants of central Government, are given to understand that, provided they do their work well and continue to deserve to be employed, they have the security of their job and the salary that goes with the job. That is one reason why the State is able to attract to its service, in both central Government and local government, able people who could command higher salaries outside. The State is able to do that partly because of a genuine desire by some people to serve their country and enjoy the distinction that goes with it, but to quite a considerable extent it is because of the special security of tenure and prospects that is supposed to go with civil Service or local government work. That is an important principle, and if we do not provide in this Bill that an officer is properly protected when he is transferred from the employment of an old authority to a new one, or from one authority to another as a result of this Bill, we jeopardise that principle.
    If we want to justify the proposition which I am advancing we are asked to prove two things. First, whether from the point of view of the person concerned a loss may be involved, and, secondly—it may appear to conflict—if the amount of extra expenditure which may fall on the State as a result of this proposal is totalled up, that total will not be very big. As a matter of fact, both those propositions could properly be claimed in this case. It could make a serious difference to the officers concerned. Take, for example, a fairly senior officer say, in the children's department of the London County Council. I choose the London County Council, not because it is the only authority whose employees are affected—not by a long chalk—but because it is the biggest example. I choose the children's service because it is the most striking example of a service now on a county basis which is to be broken up in the smaller authorities.

    1887
    We may get a fairly senior officer in the children's service of the L.C.C. now earning, say, £1,710 a year and with the prospect of his salary rising in the following year to its maximum of £1,760 for that kind of work. Such a man might very well find himself transferred to a post in the service of a borough to do work in the children's service at a salary of £1,623. That would mean a loss in the first year for him in his new employment of £87 and for every suceeding year for which he was employed of £137. That is a very considerable sum. If we do not insert in the Bill something such as I am proposing, that sort of thing could happen to certain persons.
    Further, it could make a serious difference to the individual. It may be said that although that is what could happen, it is very unlikely to happen except to a very few individuals. If that be so—I think it is—that is all the more reason for doing what I am asking should be done. I am asking for something which cannot add up to a very serious burden on the whole body of ratepayers and taxpayers, whereas not doing it may impose a serious loss on individuals concerned. Therefore, both those necessary propositions are proved.
    Next we have to notice what will be the effect on the pension prospects of some of these officers. Pensions are, of course, normally reckoned on the average salary drawn by the person concerned in the last few years of service. A person who in middle-age is moved from one authority to another, could suffer a loss of salary such as I have described and he might find himself with a permanently lower pension because during the last five years or so of his employment, which would come under the new authority, his salary would be lower than otherwise it would have been.
    When we debated this matter in this House on 1st April—it was after mid-day and so the Minister cannot plead that this was done with the jocularity customary on that day—the right hon. Gentleman said that he gave a firm undertaking that pension rights would be protected. I find it difficult to see how that undertaking can be firm unless the Amendment which I am moving, or something very like it, is introduced into the Bill.
    There is another reason which I would not press too far although I think that it
    1888
    deserves some attention. As the Bill stands now, with the Amendment offered to us by another place, a good deal will turn on the definition of what are similar duties. That will make a difference between whether a man has £100 or £120 a year more or less. In some cases this may be a very difficult question to decide and it will, indeed, be a burning question for the individual. Are we so sure that we can know with positive certainty in every case whether a person's new duties are or are not similar, for the purposes of the legislation to his old duties? Are we so sure of it that we can leave the position that it may make a difference of £100, £120 or £130 a year to a man when the decision goes one way or the other?
    The other thing which one is always expected to prove when advancing a case about pensions such as this is that if one is given what is asked it will not create an alarming precedent involving the State in a great deal of expenditure in other spheres, or that it will not create a position in which there could be an argument by analogy from this case which would oblige the State to spend far more than would at first appear to be required for the group of people for whom one is arguing. Here the position is that at present the weight of example and analogy is on my side of the argument. As was very cogently, and indeed dramatically, pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Arlington (Mr. Skeffington) when we were debating this, or a similar issue, during the Committee stage proceedings, the proposition that when an officer is transferred he should not be the loser, even if he is not transferred to similar duties, is already admitted in Orders made by Ministers under the Water legislation of 1945 and 1948.
    8.0 p.m.
    That is relevant to our present argument because a little while ago the Government announced their intention, in a subsequent Measure, to transfer the functions of the Metropolitan Water Board to the Greater London Council. A good deal has happened since that remark was made and the Government may be feeling too dispirited to proceed with that operation. If they do, they will be faced with this problem. If they

    1889
    transfer employees from the Metropolitan Water Board to the Greater London Council and do not make provision that they shall not lose, even if they are not transferred to similar duties, they will be treating the employees of the Board differently from transferees in the water industry elsewhere, and it will be difficult to defend that anomaly.
    If, on the other hand, they said that when they transferred the Water Board employees to the Greater London Council they would still treat them as other water transferees, to coin a term, were treated in the Orders made under the Acts of 1945 and 1948, they would find that the water transferee in the Greater London set-up would be treated more generously than the transferee who has been transferred from some other service, and that also would be quite indefensible. I agree that the point sounds a little comical, but it will be a very serious one. The moment we start bringing in the water people we are almost driven, without an Amendment of this kind, to treat one group or the other in a way that could quite properly cause resentment.
    I notice that it is proposed in the reshaping of British Railways that the principle embodied in my Amendment should be adopted. The original proposal for the railways was that it should be adopted for a period of five years only, but the latest information that I have is that even that limitation has gone.
    I think that the Minister will agree that we have not tried to be at all malicious or contentious in today's debate. We had a little fun with him about the charters at the beginning of the debate, but we have now come up against a serious point affecting the livelihood, income and pension prospects of distinguished public servants. It is important that we come to the right decision. I am pure that the Government will agree that we should consider this entirely on its merits. There is no question of the prestige of the Government being involved. No one would feel that the Government had lost face if they accepted these Amendments. Secondly, there is no serious difficulty of procedure. It means, of course, that if we make an Amendment to their Lordships' Amendment we shall have to trot the Bill to another place before it receives the Royal Assent, but that can be done
    1890
    in the time available. The argument that "it is only a little one" is really valid on this occasion. There is no difficulty about procedure or prestige. We can consider the matter on its merits. I believe, for the reasons I have advanced, that its merits are good and I hope that the Government will be willing to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Skeffington: I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), which he has put forward very persuasively and comprehensively.
    This is going to be a very large transfer of staff—I suppose the largest transfer in the history of local government. It would be a great pity, when it would be possible to ensure the utmost good will, if the Government did anything to prevent that happening. We are trying to ensure, in this Amendment, that those who are transferred and have to undertake new tasks, not as a result of anything that they have done or their councils have done but because of something that the Government have done, should not suffer. This is an elementary point of justice which, I am sure, will commend itself to all hon. Members. A large number of people will be moved through no fault of their own.
    If an officer who is transferred receives, in effect, a salary of a lesser amount than he is now obtaining, he is not, as my hon. Friend showed very dramatically in the case of the children's officer, losing only in actual salary which, in the case he quoted, is about £80 in the first year and £120 for each of the remaining twenty years or so in which he would be the employed, but his pension is affected because it is calculated generally speaking, on the average of the last three years' service. So we would not only hit the transferred officer at the time of transfer, but we would also see that he gets less pension than that which he has looked forward to.
    We have been served in local government, as in the Civil Service, by many of those whose qualifications both professionally and academically would enable them to secure much larger salaries in the world outside, but who, because of the security as well as the constructive nature of much of the work,

    1891
    prefer to work in either local government or in the Civil Service. It seems particularly unfortunate that men and women who have devoted themselves in this way should, through no fault of their own, be penalised because the Government have decided that they want to introduce this scheme of reorganisation with all the consequential upheaval for personnel.
    I should like to emphasise again a point made by my hon. Friend and that is the difficulty of defining in the case of transfer what are comparable duties. I speak, as the Spanish say, out of my wounds on this matter, because for some years I was a member of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal, where we had to consider these matters. One of the greatest difficulties was to find out what was a similar duty. If the Amendment were accepted this would not be a subject for arbitration or argument or negotiation. The point would be met because no officer transferred would be in a worse position than he now is. It it very important that this technical difficulty of definition should be overcome and they would be short circuited if these two Amendments were adopted.
    The debate that we had on 1st April was rather complicated and unfortunate. There were two staff interests involved and that meant that the issue became obscure for many hon. Members. There was the additional point that the Amendment which I understood that the Government were to accept was out of order. But as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the Minister said:
    "…I give a firm undertaking that pension rights are protected and will be protected by order. I will take further advice on this matter."—[Official Report, 1st April, 1963; Vol. 675 c. 67.]
    I do not know what further advice has been taken but we have had no indication of the Minister's conclusions. If an Amendment on the lines suggested is not accepted by the Government, pension rights will not be safeguarded and the Minister could not be said to have satisfied his undertaking.
    For all these reasons, I hope that even at this late stage the Government will feel able to accept the Amendment.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: Throughout the Bill's passage, hon. Members on both sides of
    1892
    the House have been concerned with the rights of those who have served us so well. We have been concerned about the preservation of their salaries, prospects and pensions and to see that, where it is not possible to give them similar jobs, they are adequately compensated. This is a problem not reserved to the London Government Bill. It will increase as jobs throughout every industry are changed. In considering the problem, possibly for the first time, we have to realise that we may well be setting the pattern for the future. Any changes that we make should be regarded in that light.
    There are still anxieties among members of the L.C.C. staff about their future. Much of that anxiety is unfounded in that there will be more jobs in the enlarged boroughs, but in any reshuffle of this nature and size there must always be some people who cannot be fitted into the exact place and salary which they have before. That is why we have to ensure that the few people who suffer hardship through no fault of their own are compensated.
    Hon. Members have received a document from the London County Council Staff Association expressing concern if this Amendment is not accepted. This is the last ditch at which we have any chance of ensuring that the staff get a fair deal, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will specifically refer to this document.
    Finally, there is a procedural difficulty, which was slightly underestimated by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). The Bill would have to be unscrambled for such an Amendment to be made at this stage and there are very few days of the Session left. It may well be that the Government think that it is not possible to incorporate Amendments of this type at this very late stage—and I am prepared to accept that—but if that is so, could my right hon. Friend give some assurance to the staff that he has powers in the Bill to give a degree of flexibility—as I see it, there is very little room for arbitration in these cases—and that he has reserved powers which he can use so that the few people who lose by this transfer are compensated by administrative action. If there is any machinery like that, I hope that my right hon. Friend will publicise it so that some of the staff's anxieties can be allayed.
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member spoke about the procedural difficulty of accepting the Amendment because of the shortage of time; but I cam say emphatically that if it were accepted, noble Lords in another place representing my party would be most anxious to co-operate to ensure that this Amendment went through without difficulty. There is time if there is good will.
    Dr. Glyn: I am grateful to the hon. Member and I am sure that that will be dealt with. I hope that my right hon. Friend will specifically refer to this point, because we are all concerned to ensure that the staff generally and particularly those few remaining people who are not fitted in are given as square a deal as is humanly possible.
    Mr. Pavitt: I welcome the fact that from the Benches opposite the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) has voiced the concern and anxiety which has been felt on both sides of the House. I hope that his right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment, but that if he does not, the hon. Gentleman will support us.
    Of all our discussions on the Bill, our discussion of this matter in Standing Committee was one of the most frustrating. It is true that we were able to discuss some of the anxieties mentioned by the hon. Member for Clapham on Second Reading and on Report, but in Standing Committee the time spent discussing this part of the Bill was one of the shortest devoted to any provision. On one occasion we reached an important issue with only four minutes to go before the Committee adjourned.
    We welcome the opportunity which their Lordships have given us to see whether we can resolve some of the acute anxieties among people whose livelihoods and future may be affected. Their family responsibilities and commitments will be affected by our decision tonight. Acceptance of the Amendment would go a long way to allay many fears.
    We still condemn this as a thoroughly bad Bill. The number of drafting Amendments made in the last two hours has shown that when the Bill is on the Statute Book, it will be essential during the vast reshuffle and changes in functions and duties for local government
    1894
    officers concerned to be able to approach matters with good will in order to be able to smooth out problems. If they have grievances and a sense of injustice about their present conditions of service and salary and prospects, the transitional period will be even more difficult than it has promised to be.
    It has already emerged in discussions between various local authorities that there will be differing scales and that transfers may result in local government officers going a couple of pegs down the incremental scale because of different conditions of service and designations and so on. We would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could assure us that that cannot happen. From discussions that have taken place it appears that under the projected arrangements a man who has received a certain number of increments will find himself perhaps two years behind, having to catch up to the position he occupied before the change. I hope that the Minister will deal with this fear when he replies.
    The remarks that have been made about the children's services apply equally to the welfare and mental health services. This matter was raised at some length in Committee upstairs, particularly with reference to finding the right niche for centralised specialist services such as the mental health, welfare and children's services. At present within the L.C.C. and the Middlesex County Council there exists a highly centralised situation with direction and facilities covering a wide number of functions. Residential hostels, for example, have in the past been administered from the centre.
    One result of putting these services into 32 different departments instead of one is the likely loss of the specialised services and those who man them. As the Minister knows, there has already been a tendency for some of these highly specialised people to apply for jobs outside the Greater London area, in places like Lancashire, Yorkshire and Scotland. We who with to see these services continue for the citizens in the new areas want to ensure that the Greater London Council will have people with specialised knowledge at its disposal. I am, of course, referring to people who have had years of training and experience in the services which must be provided.

    1895
    We have time and again referred to the technical problems involved particularly on the broader issues and principles. But when one considers the technical, day-to-day working of a number of these specialised departments one realises that the difficulties are enormous. An important problem is that of trying to refit the various activities that have been built up over many years in Middlesex and London and the question of reabsorbing those who will be needed if these services are to continue. Whenever this matter has been discussed we have returned to the solution that if these services are to continue it will be necessary for two, three or more of the new boroughs to get together to provide certain services which one borough alone could not possibly provide.
    Provision for doing this already exists. It may be possible for as many as 10 boroughs to get together for the running of certain facilities—for, say, the mentally handicapped. If the Amendment is passed it may be possible, even though we cannot at the moment designate their future jobs, for us to retain the specialists we need to run these services. Unless these skilled people are prepared to stay in their present areas we will lose the reservoir of skill which it has taken years for the L.C.C. and the M.C.C. to build up. Acceptance of the Amendment may enable us to retain them, remembering that many of them are in their late forties and early fifties, have families, and do not particularly wish to move to Lancashire, Yorkshire and elsewhere. If they can be assured that their present financial position and their superannuation arrangements will not greatly deteriorate, it may be possible, through negotiation, to show that while it is not possible to designate them for precisely the same rôle at the moment, another designation can be offered to them where their specialist knowledge can be put to use, whatever the final shape our local government arrangements may take.
    While this is almost the eleventh hour I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. If he does he will find a welcome for his decision not only on both sides of the House and in another place but among a large number of families who are at present anxious to know where their next step will take
    1896
    them. These specialist workers wish to fulfil their vocational training and knowledge, to look after their families and to earn a reasonable livelihood.
    Mr. Lubbock: If the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) in moving the Amendment did not convince the Minister that he would be wrong not to accept it, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) must have convinced him. As the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) said, support for the Amendment has come from all sides of the House. Were the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) still in his place he would be supporting it. It is significant to note that not a single hon. Member has spoken against it, and I am convinced that if we had a free vote the Amendment would be passed by an overwhelming majority. Despite the change in my position, I still believe that a free vote is a good thing on occasions, but not always.
    The apprehension at present felt by virtually every one working in local government has been emphasised. When the Minister replies he will probably tell us that these apprehensions are unfounded. I think I saw the right hon. Gentleman nod his head in agreement when one hon. Member said that there would be more jobs under the new arrangements. This may be true in some cases, so why will the Minister not accept the Amendment? If he says that the compensation provisions will not act adversely against those affected by the changes, why will he not accept it? I agree with the hon. Member for Fulham that the financial effects would be very small.
    It is very important that we should make the correct decision tonight. It is not only the employees of the London local authorities who will be involved; the pattern of change established by this Bill is likely to be repeated over the country as a whole, and local authority officers, wherever they may be, will watch our decision.
    8.30 p.m.
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not doubt for a moment the strong feeling and concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I accept that, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)

    1897
    has just said, the content and the result of this debate will be watched with considerable interest outside the House.
    Before I go into the details of my reply, I particularly want to answer what I thought was a most unfair point made by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). I did not mean to put this in the middle of a speech, but I have been teased. It is not good enough for hon. Members opposite continually to tease the Government with the number of drafting and other Amendments that have had to be made. The fact is that, for its own reasons, the London County Council refused that collaboration and consultation that is normal and customary in the drafting of great Bills, and since we had to do without the L.C.C.'s advice on the best way of dealing with the machinery and the purpose on which it is such an expert, there were bound to be occasions when, having had the London County Council's advice indirectly through hon. Members, we were able to improve things. We must all be glad that such improvements have been possible.
    I now want to deal at length, and with full gravity, with the points that have been made. I believe that the projected reorganisation will lead to more job opportunities, but I do not maintain that there will not occasionally be a situation in which a particular man or woman cannot find an exactly similar job to which to be transferred. There will, therefore, be occasions when, for such a man or woman, there will be the alternative either to accept work that is not comparable within Greater London or to seek comparable or better work outside London.
    I think that such occasions will be very rare. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) did not exaggerate here. I think that he himself accepts that this predicament will occur only infrequently. In fact, he built part of his argument on that, because he said that although the total cost of accepting the Amendment would be small, its affect on individuals might be severe. So it is common ground between us all that the problem with which the Amendment seeks to deal will not be a frequent one. I say that the more because what we are dealing with, in general, is a transfer of functions from one authority to a num-
    1898
    ber of authorities and, in general, that will mean more job opportunities.
    If, therefore, it were simply a question of cash, I do not see that there would be a strong argument against the Amendment, but there is more to it than that. It is not just cash, and it is not just the cash involved in this particular reorganisation scheme. There is here at stake a principle, and there are involved considerations of precedent.
    The principle at stake is this. The Amendment, in substance, maintains that whatever work a local government servant in the Greater London area is called upon to do he shall receive at least as much pay and at least as good conditions of employment as he had immediately before the change. The difference between the pay to which his new job would entitle him and the pay that he will actually receive would under the Amendment be made up to him indefinitely at the public expense. This has a quite considerable implication. Rates and taxes are not so popular that we can light-heartedly accept the very heavy, and continuing, commitment that this might involve.
    After all, reorganisation is not confined to London and is not confined to local government. There have been—I shall come back to this later—no fewer than 19 separate situations to which the post-war compensation code has had to be applied. The Government are at the moment in the midst of major structural reorganisations of a number of different systems of administration in this country, local government being one. There are groupings of water undertakings and various other reorganisations going on, and there will be more in future.
    I do not utter a threat. This is not a party issue. Both parties must, if they wish to maintain this country in an efficient state, from time to time undertake, unpopular though it may be, reorganisation in one field or another. What hon. Members opposite are asking us to do is to guarantee that, no matter what the reorganisation, no matter what the total cost may be, the ratepayer and the taxpayer shall permanently maintain at least the pay and conditions of service of all people who may be transferred or who may be have to accept changed employment as a result of one or other of these reorganisations.
    Mr. Richard Marsh (Greenwich): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I see his point, but surely this principle has been accepted in a large sphere of Government activity. Certainly it was the position in the National Health Service take-over in 1948, with the principle of no detriment clauses. Where there is a change in rates of pay and conditions of service this is a very old principle. What is so unusual about this one?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is throwing at me some rather broad and imprecise alleged analogies.
    Mr. Marsh: I can particularise if the right hon. Gentleman would like me to do so.
    Sir K. Joseph: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would.
    I maintain that in all this sort of reorganisation there is a compensation procedure and, as I say—I referred to it just now and I will refer to it now at more length—until the war there was a compensation procedure written into the Local Government Act, 1933. After the war, I believe that it was the Labour Government, in 1948, who thought that this pre-war compensation code was not entirely suitable for the post-war full employment era. The pre-war compensation code provided compensation in such a way—not to go into details—that there was no incentive for a person compensated to seek alternative work. That may have been right at the time because alternative work was very hard to come by.
    Mr. Pavitt: I could give a specific case, that of the medical superintendent of a hospital who lost his post when the local authority hospitals came under the National Health Service. He retained his full salary and superannuation that he had previously.
    Mr. Mellish: I could give another example. Under the National Health Service now there are regroupings and reorganisations. Groups are merged and administrative officers at a high level are in effect redundant, but they are held in the service, and at their previous rates of pay. I can give specific examples of where that is done.
    Mr. Marsh: If the right hon. Gentleman would like another example, the London Transport Executive, after the
    1900
    amalgamation, proceeded on exactly the same policy. There is nothing new in this.
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not carry in my head the exact details of every one of the reorganisations, but if all the analogies which have been given are as wrong as some that have been given to me before, I am not very frightened of them. It was partly to deal with the setting up of the National Health Service and the complicated transfers involved that the Labour Government evolved the post-war compensation code. There was, therefore, accepted by the Labour Government—that is not the end of the story, I agree—the principle that some people would have to accept a lower award and that for that situation there should be a compensation code. I am meeting the intervention of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh).
    Mr. Marsh: I am sorry to intervene again, but this is a material point. Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that what he is talking about is not, in fact, compensation for loss of office, whereas the maintenance of a no detriment clause in the National Health Service has gone through the whole time? Where an employee has been transferred to a different job at a lower rate of pay he has suffered no detriment. There is nothing unusual in this in any nationalised industry. Where an employee has lost his office, he has been compensated.
    Sir K. Joseph: That is not my understanding. My understanding is that the compensation code provides, among other things, for complete redundancy, for early retirement, for a lower-paid post and for the implications on a man's pension expectations of a lower-paid post. These and, probably, other things which I do not carry in my mind are all covered by the post-war compensation code, which has been applied to nineteen separate structural reorganisations.
    Therefore, what hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friend are asking me to do is to accept on account of London government—in which, we are all agreed, very few people will be affected—a major change in the whole attitude of Government, affec: "Oh."] That is not a provocative statement. I am stating what is a fact.
    Mr. Lubbock: The Minister keeps contradicting himself. He says, first, that very few people will be concerned with these provisions, and secondly, that it will be a great burden on the taxpayer and ratepayer. He cannot have it both ways.
    Sir K. Joseph: I can. If the hon. Gentleman would heed my argument, I am saying that we are all agreed that relatively few people with be involved, but that if we accept the principle here we must accept it for all future reorganisations. These, to the knowledge of the House, already involve local government all over the country, already involve water authorities all over the country and may, for aught I know, involve a lot of other organisations, too, in due course. Therefore, this is both small in its human impact in the Bill and large in its consequential implications for the ratepayer and the taxpayer.
    Mr. Norman Cole: My right hon. Friend will, I hope, agree with information which I have been given that although the numbers may not be large, no fewer than three different salary structures are assimilated in the new structure: those of the Metropolitan Water Board, the London County Council and other local authorities.
    Sir K. Joseph: The point made by my hon. Friend comes next in my notes.
    Having stated the general principle, I come to a number of the analogies which have been pressed upon me and I want to meet them fairly and squarely before dealing with the other questions. It was said, first, that the Amendment involves nothing very new and that it is no more than is already provided under the Water Acts for the merger and amalgamation of statutory water undertakings.
    The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) constructed what I might call a Fulham fork in connection with the Metropolitan Water Board. He said that if, in the next Session of Parliament, we transfer, as we intend to do, the functions of the Metropolitan Water Board to the Greater London Council, we will be carrying out a water merger and, therefore, we must employ the logic of the Water Acts, which, as the
    1902
    hon. Member says, support his Amendment. If we do that but refuse his Amendment, the water transferees will have been treated better than the local government transferees. If we do not—this was the other prong of the hon. Member's fork—we deny the principle of the Water Acts.
    The hon. Member's contention was based upon a misapprehension of what the Water Acts do. They provide that transferred officials shall receive the same conditions of pay when they are transferred. But what the Water Acts do not provide is any guarantee of employment.
    8.45 p.m.
    I do not wish to mislead hon. Members. Water mergers have a much smaller effect on staff than the London government reorganisation. There is very little chance of individual water officials being taken over under the Water Act and then dismissed.
    Mr. Weitzman: What about the principle?
    Sir K. Joseph: But in principle, as the hon. and learned Member rightly reminds me, there is nothing to stop a water company honouring its obligation to pay to a transferred official his own pay and conditions and then the next day either dismissing him altogether or dismissing and re-engaging him at a lower salary. I do not say that that happens, but what the hon. Member, in drawing an analogy from the Water Acts, is asking the House to accept is wrong. He is asking up to accept that, under the Water Acts, there is a guarantee of the indefinite continuation of similar pay and conditions to those which operated before transfer. I do not think that the Water Acts analogy—I did not mean to say this; it came naturally to me and I have not built up to it—holds water.
    Secondly, it was pressed on me that the railway reorganisation scheme, with its fairly large guarantee of continued pay, is an analogy which we should respect. There is all the difference in the world between the deliberate contraction, with minimum damage to staff, which is going on in the railway services and the London Government reorganisation, which is likely, if anything, to lead to an increase in staff. We are not dealing with large numbers of people whose way of life is

    1903
    in danger of being removed, as may happen to some railway workers in some areas. With a reducing or contracting number of jobs, it is necessary to be far more generous than it is right to be when there are ample opportunities and an even larger number of opportunities under the reorganisation than there are at the moment.
    Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the contraction going on in the railway industry is a special case. When the Greater London boroughs are merged there will be a tendency for fewer senior officials to be employed by the Greater London boroughs than is the case at present. Take the simple case of the town clerk. Three town clerks will be merged under one great London borough. There will be only one town clerk. I assume that the other two will be kept on at their existing salary and, perhaps, be made deputies. In the long term, by normal wastage, they will be got rid of. It is not fair to say that there will be no contraction.
    Mr. Marsh: Does the Minister accept that the London County Council scales are superior to those generally accepted in local government? If so, he is not comparing like with like.
    Sir K. Joseph: Those are two different cases with which I will deal. I will not shirk anything.
    First, to get rid of one limited and easy question to answer, may I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) that the Minister has no reserve power. We are, therefore, dealing with the whole situation. It cannot be improved by any flexible change later.
    I have been asked to comment on the example given on page 2 of the London County Council Staff Association circular. Although I do not doubt the concern felt by those who drafted it, I find it a little surprising that they should have chosen as their best example an instance from the children's service, where it is almost inevitable that there will be more job opportunities as a result of the reorganisation than there are now.
    There will be nine authorities where there are now one. It is highly likely
    1904
    that there will be very few cases, if any, where L.C.C. children's officers will find employment that is not at least comparable.
    The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) said he was particularly concerned about the prospects of what he called the centrally employed specialists, for whom there would not be similar opportunities in the absolutely large, but relatively smaller borough organisations. But he forgets that there is power under Clause 5(3) for the boroughs to join together to employ such specialists.
    Mr. Pavitt: I referred to that.
    Sir K. Joseph: But the hon. Gentleman did not give enough emphasis to the fact that those specialists will find more opportunities in the boroughs than there are in the L.C.C. at present. It is true that the example given in this document is, on its own assumption, correct. But I find that the assumption that such a children's officer will only be able to find a post with less than comparable duties highly improbable.
    Mr. A. Evans: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the position in the higher offices of the children's department of the L.C.C. Their responsibility extends over the whole county. There are no comparable offices in any of the boroughs to be created, where the units will be very much smaller.
    Mr. Cole: I am very concerned with this circular, as I was once an employee of the L.C.C. I understand that the main problem of L.C.C. officials is that their main scales are not exactly comparable with other scales in the London area.
    Sir K. Joseph: But my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) has not taken the point that provided an official is transferred to comparable work he is guaranteed by the Bill the same pay and conditions as he enjoyed with the L.C.C., even if they are better than those working with him who have come not from the L.C.C. but from other local authorities.
    Mr. Cole: But what about the maximum?
    Sir K. Joseph: They will carry with them the full scale of pay and conditions and prospects as they had when they

    1905
    worked for the L.C.C. The worry is for those for whom there may not be comparable jobs and only for them; but we are all agreed that there will be very few.
    I was asked about borough senior officers, including the town clerks. For instance, if we merge three boroughs only one town clerk will be needed out of the three town clerks. One answer may be that the job of deputy town clerk in a large borough may carry as much pay as the job of town clerk of a small borough. I do not rest on that argument, for I do not know what the rates will be, but it is one factor. There are also a number of senior officers who are approaching retiring age and who will either serve out the short time until retirement or retire earlier under the compensation arrangements which will be available.
    It has been impressed on the Government that the dependence of this arrangement on comparable postings is a very vague and difficult one on which to rely. But I remind the House that this arrangement has been running a number of years. The compensation codes have depended for their application upon the availability of comparable jobs and there has been available machinery for deciding what is and what is not comparable. At the moment, there are tribunals, set up by the Minister of Labour, to decide whether a particular post is comparable or not. The exact machinery which will be used for the London government reorganisation has yet to be discussed and decided upon, but it would not be surprising if it were to involve some such tribunal to act as arbiter when there was doubt.
    I think that I have answered all the questions that I was asked, except—
    Mr. Mellish: What about pension rights?
    Sir K. Joseph: —except that it was said that I had committed that most imprudent act of any Minister, a nod. Somebody accused me of nodding at some stage in Committee. In the case of the pension rights, I am alleged to have said that the arrangements would protect pension rights.
    Mr. Skeffington: May I help the right hon. Gentleman? On 1st April he said this:
    "…I give a firm undertaking that pension rights are protected and will be protected by
    1906
    order. I will take further advice on this matter."—[Official Report, 1st April, 1963; Vol 674, c. 67.]
    How are they protected if the average of their salary is reduced for pension purposes?
    Sir K. Joseph: I used those words, but I used them in response to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who was being at that time—I say this with all courtesy and from a ministerial point of view—an absolute pest. It is a credit to the hon. Gentleman that he was being so. He was trying to get me to define exactly what was covered by "conditions". He asked whether it included the size of the car, or whether it included petrol allowance. In desperation, because I did not know the answers to all these questions, I said, "Anyway, pension rights are fully protected". What I meant was not a reference to the pension rights of people who were transferred in connection with their further years of work, but the protection of their pension rights accrued from the years of work they have already given. I do not think that these words, which were produced not in answer to the specific question now being put to me, can be held against me in this connection.
    I think that I have covered all the points raised by hon. Members opposite. I return to where I began. This cannot be considered in isolation as simply a concession which the Government could cheaply make—cheaply, though it is ratepayers' and taxpayers'money—to ensure that the few people who may not find comparable posts in the London Government reorganisation will lose not a penny of their salary or pension. For such people there is the compensation code. I remind the House that the compensation code to be applied to London has still to be discussed with the staff and other associations concerned. We are having a new compensation code which will cover this.
    We cannot regard the Amendment as simply something that can be looked at in isolation. If we accept the principle that the Amendment enshrines, we accept that for this and for all future reorganisations the taxpayer and the ratepayer are to guarantee indefinitely the pay and conditions of all official servants of the bodies reorganised, regardless of the work they are called upon to do. That goes a very long way,

    1907
    far further than the arguments of hon. Members opposite or of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham would sustain. We should think a very long time before going that far.
    I hope that I have convinced hon. Gentlemen that the compensation code, which has yet to be discussed but which will be at least on the basis of the postwar compensation code, is the proper way to make good to the few concerned what I hope will be the temporary loss of some of their earning power. As for the example given in the circular from the L.C.C. Staff Association, I regard it as highly unlikely that cases of such a drop in earnings would occur, particularly in the children's service, where there will be so many more job opportunities as a result of reoganisation than there are now.
    9.0 p.m.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the point that there are certain machinery difficulties in incorporating it in an Act of Parliament at this late stage in the passage of the Bill?
    Sir K. Joseph: I thought there would be difficulties, but they could be overcome.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? Where there is a transfer from a county office to one of the new borough offices, and no change of designation of job is involved, there could be a lowering of the salary because of fewer increments. Could a different scale apply at borough level to that at present applying at county level, which would mean that a man who went from one job to another could find himself on a lower scale?
    Sir K. Joseph: Whatever work he is called on to do will be comparable to the work he has been doing. He will take with him all the increments to which he would have been entitled, and the pension to which he would have been entitled will remain with him in his new job, regardless of the pay and conditions of those who are working in the new authority at a lower rate of pay, increments and pension.
    Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman's speech will cause dismay throughout the
    1908
    local government services of the country, because under the 1958 Act we are reaching the stage when a number of reorganisation schemes will be brought forward. For instance, on Tyneside, part of which I have the honour to represent, there is a proposal that there should be four county boroughs, and that the work now performed in all the local government areas, which cater for a population of about 1 million, should be divided among these four boroughs.
    Where a person is employed in a county office dealing with the population of the county he is, generally speaking, on a higher rate of salary than the person holding a comparable post in a borough. I am not concerned merely with the three town clerks, one of whom will find himself a new job as a town clerk, while the other two will be employed as deputy clerks, if they are lucky. It is unlikely that these latter gentlemen will get the same salary as the third member of the trinity who is made a town clerk, and this will happen throughout the country.
    Sir K. Joseph: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that? His argument depends on the fact that they will not get at least as good a salary as they had before. Nobody expects them all to get as good a salary as the new type town clerk.
    Mr. Ede: I was assuming that the new town clerk would get the same salary as the old one.
    Mr. Mellish: I understand that in local government, whatever rate the town clerk is paid, if a deputy does the job he gets only 80 per cent. of that salary. I assume in such a case that the 80 per cent. rate would be comparable to the rate he was getting before?
    Mr. Ede: Having had to deal with the review of county districts in a county which had 33 local authorities, that was not how it worked out. That is not how the officials who came under the new arrangements were treated. I am certain that when what the right hon. Gentleman has said tonight is known, the tasks of reorganising London government in the various areas, under the schemes provided for by the 1958 Act, will be greatly impeded. There will be a considerable volume of grievance, which will continually be brought to

    1909
    the right hon. Gentleman's notice. I know that he decides everything on the basis of principle. I can only say that I believe that he will find that his view of what is principle in this matter will not be shared by the staffs of local government bodies.
    Mr. Cole: I have been listening to the debate for a short while, and it strikes me that there is a misunderstanding between those who are trying to make certain about the compensation provisions for transferred staff and what I am sure are the sincere wishes and intentions of the Minister. I believe that the two sides are not far apart from each other. I read with care the three bases that the London County Council Staff Association sent to me, in common with other Members of Parliament. As I have already told the House, I had a special reason for taking more than the ordinary interest in the future of these transferred officers.
    It seems to me that these bases are eminently reasonable. There must be some lack of clarity in the matter, because in my view their reasoning seems to be on all fours with what my right hon. Friend appears to be seeking to do. I believe that we are spending too much time in debating a minute difference. The Association asks simply that an officer should receive his existing rate of pay and scale or be compensated for any loss if, for any reason not his own fault, he has to take a lower-scale job-—
    Sir K. Joseph Sir K. Joseph indicated dissent.
    Mr. Cole: —or if he finds himself engaged on duties not comparable with those in which he was formerly engaged. Does my right hon. Friend wish to intervene?
    Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend has just put himself right. At first he referred to a transfer to a job on a lower scale. That situation is protected. The person transferring carries his own higher scale with him, provided, as my hon. Friend himself said in putting himself right, that the new job is comparable with the old in its functions.
    Mr. Cole: The Association offers the alternative compensation, which I take it is salaried compensation on the formula basis. That seems an eminently reasonable point of view.
    Mr. A. Evans: The hon. Member will appreciate that the compensation will not in all cases be equivalent to the decrease in salary.
    Mr. Cole: My right hon. Friend admitted that there will be a certain loss in one year and a greater loss in future years.
    My right hon. Friend has already con ceded the second basis in his explanation of the Government's view that no officer should suffer a diminution of pension as a result of transfer—
    Sir K. Joseph: No. My hon. Friend is trying to be helpful to the House and to the local government officials concerned, but there is a difference between our points of view. I have not said that a guaranteed pension related to the transferred officer's previous pay and conditions is involved in what is undertaken here. I have said that the compensation will make good part of any loss of pension that may result.
    Mr. Cole: This is the nub of what I said at the beginning. This is where there is a lack of clarity. My right hon. Friend said that no accrued pension conditions would be lost, and he said that in reply to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) when he quoted from the report of the debate of 1st April.
    There is a statement,
    " No officer should suffer any diminution in pension, as a result of transfer".
    That is not entirely clear. Does it mean at present, up to the date of the transfer or for the future? I cannot think that it means for the future because no one knows what the pension entitlement will be in the future since it depends so much on the job.
    I speak with some knowledge here. A man who suddenly gets a job at £2,000 a year when he has been earning £1,200, and maintains the new rate for the last five years of his employment, has enhanced pension rights. Thus, nobody can estimate the pension rights of a man in the future. They are a matter of ability, good fortune and choice of a higher job. My right hon. Friend said that no accrued pension rights would in any way be embarrassed by the transfer.
    The third point is the most reasonable of all, and I believe that there is no

    1911
    difference between the two sides of the House about it. It states that no officer is to be served with notice of new terms and conditions of employment before those terms and conditions have been the subject of consultation and agreement between the authorities and the staff organisation concerned and, in the event of failure to agree, by award or arbitration. It did not seem to me that I was very different from anything that my right hon. Friend said in this matter except for the nicer points which he made in the course of my remarks.
    With great respect, my right hon. Friend did not clarify my mind on these points and I, and I am sure many local government officers, would like to know what is to happen in the three kinds of body which are to be transferred to the new Greater London authority. What happens to a man or a woman on a scale, even though it is an A.P.T. scale, where the maximum of the scale in his present authority is higher than that in his new authority? If he is transferred to a new post in a new authority, does he keep his existing maximum although it does not conform to the new authority scale?
    In agreeing that these figures were correct, my right hon. Friend stressed that nobody in the children's service, particularly, was likely to get a worse job. With that I agree. But we are concerned not so much about his getting a worse job as about whether he gets the same maximum salary for the same job. I am not concerned at the moment with his getting a different job or a better job. Let us hope that he gets a better job. But the maximum given in one case is £1,760 and in another case £1,580—a difference of £180 a year for the same job in the two authorities. I want a simple answer to this question: does a man on the ordinary A.P.T. scale get that enhanced maximum in a new authority until new terms and conditions are negotiated?
    With respect to all concerned, I think that in considering the Amendments we are suffering mostly from a lack of complete understanding of each other's minds. I hope that this can be clarified for the benefit of all existing officers who will be transferred and of those who will consider in the intervening two years going into local government,
    1912
    where in the past they have considered that there was a high degree of security of employment. I hope that they will so consider in future. I hope that for their sake we can soon resolve the misunderstandings and reach mutual agreement.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Weitzman: I have always admired the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, but I have never listened to a more tortuous argument than the one he has made on this Amendment. The case is a very simple one and to a certain extent the right hon. Gentleman recognised the justice of it as it was put forward. Here we have a Government interfering with the security of employment and terms of employment of certain individuals. They are naturally apprehensive about the change to be brought about. They have relied upon their position and on the fact that they had that security. The Government, with this Measure, alter that state of affairs and these people are to be transferred. They may be transferred to like jobs and get the same money, the same terms and conditions, or they may not be transferred.
    The right hon. Gentleman starts by admitting that there will be more jobs, so it is very unlikely that there will be any great number of cases, but a very few cases will be affected. He admits that from the financial point of view there is not an acute problem in any shape or form. He should surely recognise the elementary justice of the proposition that, if we interfere with the security of employment and if people have for years had a job and relied upon it and then the Government interfere, whatever job we put those people into we ought to see that the terms of their employment are secure. That is elementary justice. The right hon. Gentleman to a certain extent admits that, but his answer is that it is wrong from the point of view of principle to allow that to be done.
    Sir K. Joseph: I hope the hon. and learned Member will answer in his argument the point I made about precedent. The precedent is that under the Labour Government there was a new post-war compensation code provided especially for cases where the Government interfere, as we are now doing—I do not dispute it—with the secure employment of local government or equivalent officials. That

    1913
    compensation code has applied in 19 reconstruction cases since the war. It will apply in future. The hon. and learned Member has to meet the precedent of the past and the precedent for the future.
    Mr. Mellish: Surely it is unfair to say that because the Labour Government did this it must be done for all time. If we think the code should be altered, it should be done.
    Mr. Weitzman: Is it really an answer on the part of the Minister to say. "Look what another Government have done"?
    Sir K. Joseph: I withdraw the words, "Labour Government". The point is being made that we are acting repugnantly to elementary justice. Reorganisation is something with which all Governments have to deal. It has gone on for a long time and we shall have many more reorganisations in future.
    Mr. Weitzman: I leave out the words "Labour Government" in the same way as the Minister does, but is he saying that, because a Government have done something in the past, through the ages we should recognise that as a position to be adopted and that we should perpetuate an injustice? Either the case is a just one or it is not a just one. If I am right in saying that it is elementary justice when a Government interfere with security of employment that they should put the persons concerned in the same position and on the same conditions of employment, that is either right or it is not. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to recognise the justice of it; indeed, he did so. He started by saying that he did, but he then went on to justify his refusal to accept the Amendment by saying that this is a question of principle and that we would be creating a tremendous precedent.
    I do not accept that the precedents are such as the right hon. Gentleman says they are. There were many instances
    given by my hon. Friends about the water board. There was another with reference to the Civil Aviation Act and others to which one could refer. By pointing to the principle, are we really dealing with the justice of this case? Does that provide an answer?
    The right hon. Gentleman recognises that there will be few instances where hardship will occur. Surely that is a strong argument in favour of accepting the Amendment; unless the right hon. Gentleman is saying that here is a tremendous principle which will affect Government Measures right through the years. That is the only effective answer which he has given. The Minister must recognise, when considering the question of compensation, that it can be only a partial satisfaction with regard to changing the job. Individuals will suffer an injustice. We can salve our consciences for allowing him to suffer that injustice only by saying that it is for the good of the community. That means that if we do this sort of thing the taxpayer will suffer in some way. If, as the right hon. Gentleman maintains, there will be few instances, how can the taxpayer suffer?
    The only other point is whether we are creating a precedent. The Minister heard what was said with regard to precedents. I wish that Ministers would sometimes try to deal with Bills, proposals, and so on, on first principles and not attempt to refute arguments by saying that it is all a question of principle; that a precedent is created; that it is most important. That is rubbish. I could only wish that the Minister had been sitting on this side of the House listening to his own argument. Then he would have realised what nonsense it was.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment: —
    The Home divided: Ayes 164, Noes 111.

    Division No. 176.]

    AYES

    [9.23 p.m.

    Aitken, Sir William

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Brains, Bernard

    Allason, James

    Bidgood, John C.

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Biffen, John

    Bryan, Paul

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Bingham, R. M.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Barlow, Sir John

    Bishop, F. P.

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Barter, John

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Bossom, Hon. Clive

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Cole, Norman

    Kerans Cdr. J. S.

    Pym, Francis

    Cooper, A. E.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Corfield, F. V.

    Kirk, Peter

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Speltnorne)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

    Critchley, Julian

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Renton, Rt. Hon. David

    Cunningham, Knox

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Curran, Charles

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

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

    d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Robson, Brown, Sir William

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Longbottom, Charles

    Roots, William

    Duncan, Sir James

    Longden, Gilbert

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Shaw, M.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Shepherd, William

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    MacArthur, Ian

    Sheet, T. H. H.

    Finlay, Graeme

    McLaren, Martin

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Fisher, Nigel

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Steward, Harold (Stochport, S.)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Stodart, J. A.

    Freeth, Denzil

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

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Gardner, Edward

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Green, Alan

    Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

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

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Maddan, Martin

    Teeling, Sir William

    Gurden, Harold

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Mawby, Ray

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

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

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Mills, stratton

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

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

    Morgan, William

    Turner, Colin

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Holland, Philip

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Hopkins, Alan

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Hornby, R. P.

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Walder, David

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Walker, Peter

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

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    wells, John (Maidstone)

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Partridge, E.

    Whitelaw, William

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Percival, Ian

    Wise, A. R.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Pitman, Sir James

    Worsley, Marcus

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pott, Percivall

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Mr. Peel and Mr. Batsford.

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Morris, John

    Albu, Austen

    Gunter, Ray

    Mulley, Frederick

    Allen, Scholfield (Crewe)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Barnett, Guy

    Hannan, William

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

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Harper, Joseph

    O'Malley, B. K.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Oram, A. E.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

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

    Holman, Percy

    Parker, John

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Hooson, H. E.

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pentland, Norman

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Prentice, R. E.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Probert, Arthur

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Cliffe, Michael

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Collick, Percy

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Cronin, John

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Crosland, Anthony

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    King, Dr. Horace

    Ross, William

    Dalyell, Tam

    Lawson, George

    Short, Edward

    Diamond, John

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Dodds, Norman

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Small, William

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Lubbock, Eric

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    McBride, N.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Evans, Albert

    MacDermot, Niall

    Steele, Thomas

    Foley, Maurice

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Manuel, Archie

    Stones, William

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Marsh, Richard

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

    George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Swingler, Stephen

    Ginsburg, David

    Mellish, R. J.

    Taverne, D.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Milne, Edward

    Tomney, Frank

    Crey, Charles

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Moody, A. S.

    Warbey, William

    1916

    1917

    Weitzman, David

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Woof, Robert

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Williams W. T. (Warrington)

    Whitlock, William

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Witkins, W. A.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and Mr. Charles A. Howell

    Mr. Charles A. Howell

    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 7, after "employment", to insert:
    "being terms and conditions of employment which have been settled by agreement or award".
    A similar Amendment was discussed in another place and an undertaking given on 30th May by the Government spokesman that if that Amendment were withdrawn, the matter would be considered. However, no alternative Amendment has been put forward by the Government and those who are interested, as I know many hon. Members from both sides of the House are, have put forward this reasonable and much more modest Amendment than that which we have just considered.
    The object is simply to ensure that officers transferred to the new authorities and to the Greater London Council itself do not have forced upon them, as is theoretically possible, a unilateral scale of salaries and conditions which have not been negotiated. It has been common practice in all these services, certainly local government services throughout the country, to settle terms and conditions by negotiation or, in some cases, by agreement with a staff council or some similar body. This general practice was confirmed when the matter was discussed in the other place.
    When this House discussed the matter, on 1st and 2nd April, the Minister indicated, either in an aside or by one of his many nods, that he agreed with the practice in principle. As he indicated that he would have accepted one of the Amendments, which was unfortunately out of order, it is surprising that the Government have not brought forward an Amendment to deal with this matter. The staff cannot understand, in view of the general agreement on common practices, the undertaking given to look at the matter again and what appeared to be the agreement of the Minister with his principle at an earlier stage, why nothing has appeared on the Order Paper.
    In its scope the Amendment is more modest than the earlier proposal. It is
    right that we should do everything we can, in the turmoil that may arise in the transfer of staff, to remove the anxiety that some authorities may unilaterally impose a scheme which had not been discussed through the ordinary machinery or by arbitration.
    Sir K. Joseph: I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: Shame.
    Sir K. Joseph: It is good to hear a voice from Scotland in our deliberations.
    The Amendment omits to take into account the fact that, as is well known, in practice these terms and conditions emerge as the result of negotiations. There is no conceivable reason to think that the negotiations will not be as successfully achieved in future as they have been in the past. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) in moving the Amendment did not give any reason whatever for thinking that the Greater London Council will not be a satisfactory employer. I do not see from his remarks that there is any reason why we should seek to bind the Council's hands in this way.
    As for the eloquent nod I am alleged to have given and the willingness I am alleged to have shown to advise the Committee at an earlier stage to support an Amendment, it may well be that I would have welcomed a particular Amendment on the Order Paper as putting partly right the havoc and damage that had been caused in Committee when an Amendment which went far further than the Government thought right happened to be moved successfully against us. The Government thought that it was wrong and at a later stage the damage was repaired.
    The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is seeking to urge the House to anticipate and bind the hands of the employers before they have had an opportunity to negotiate the pay and conditions of the staff. I cannot, therefore, advise the House to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Weitzman: The Alice in Wonderland attitude of the Minister grows greater as the debate progresses. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that he has adequately answered the case adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington)? The Amendment merely seeks to insert the words
    "being terms and conditions of employment which have been settled by agreement or award".
    To this the Minister merely says, "They are all very good employers and they always negotiate". If they do, what is wrong with accepting the Amendment? The words "by agreement" mean by negotiation. If a case should arise where they do not negotiate, one then has the word "award". There is no validity in the Minister's argument and I was amazed to hear his comments.
    Mr. Cole: I intervene briefly because, bearing in mind the great respect I have for his intellect and integrity, I was surprised at the reply of my right hon. Friend. I leave aside for the moment the general question of what may happen in two years' time and I wish to consider the transferees. I speak as one who, up to some years ago, was a local government officer of 20 years' standing. We all know that these things are not always arranged amicably. There is a big meeting in the Kings way Hall, the populace gets to know about it, and someone has to give way, but for those concerned it is a lot more comforting to have the procedure laid down in a Statute that is affecting their future careers.
    The Lords Amendment, which we will presumably be asked to accept, speaks of
    "…terms and conditions of his employment…not less favourable than those he enjoyed immediately before the date of transfer."
    I should have thought that those words went a long way further, yet my right hon. Friend has swallowed those but cannot accept something which, unless I am very naïve, is intended to codify existing practice.
    If my right hon. Friend puts the suggested words into the Statute then, in the event of a dispute—and especially at the beginning of the affair—we put on both sides an implicit responsibility to go to arbitration. The employers might be so minded and the employees might not be, but the employees would have to go to
    1920
    arbitration because that would be implicit here.
    Personally, if I were handling this Clause I should prefer to put into it exactly what I expect to happen, rather than rely on 32 local authorities and the Greater London Council, all of whom, having that autonomy that we want to see, will have different ways of looking at things. I should have thought that those authorities would welcome this House telling them that the terms and conditions must be agreed or taken to arbitration for an award.
    I cannot see why we cannot put into the Bill what are, to me, innocuous words. If there is something behind them that I do not understand, my right hon. Friend will no doubt improve my education—
    Captain W. Elliot: My hon. Friend has called these innocuous words. I was a member of the Committee, spoke on the Amendment and voted against the Government. I do not quite see how the words
    "being terms and conditions of employment which have been settled by agreement or award"
    would strengthen the Lords Amendment.
    Mr. Cole: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend knows what I mean. I mean that the words convey no hidden meaning and are quite simple and harmless in their application. This Amendment would merely put in certain words and, goodness knows, we have enough words in the Bill for a few more not to matter. We are putting in so many words what all of us hope will happen—indeed, must happen, if local government in Greater London and the boroughs is to continue.
    There is the psychological effect on local government officers and their families of knowing that the terms and conditions must be settled by agreement or by award. That is not the end of the story; it merely keeps the door open for them to argue things out, and stops any suspicion, however unjustified, that any arbitrary local authority can settle these things without the staff having any redress. We have made good progress so far. I appeal to my right hon. Friend not to hold up that progress and embarrass his hon. Friends and people outside who are his admirers by insisting that these words should not be inserted.

    1921
    I did not quite understand what my hon. Friend meant by referring to what happened in Committee, but I rather gather that, in certain circumstances, he would have accepted these words.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Marsh: What is puzzling a lot of us on both sides of the House is exactly what is the Minister's point of disagreement with this Amendment. We shall be very pleased to hear it. As I understand it, all that we are seeking to do is to ensure that these staff in the reorganisation are not asked to accept conditions and rates of pay which have not been negotiated or agreed. The reason for this is obvious. It is to avoid the possibility—which I must confess, until the Minister showed his objection to the Amendment, I would have thought was very faint—of imposed conditions of service and salaries upon local government staff.
    I can appreciate that there are some conditions and agreements that the staff would not want, but, on the whole, there has been in local government a long history of conditions of service which were applied by agreement and by negotiation. Within the local government service there are scales and agreed conditions of service which with adjustments could be applied to these staff. The right hon. Gentleman has got to say something other than the fact that he does not like this Amendment.
    The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) with whom I would normally hope to disagree—I have spent the last three minutes working out why I agree with him, and I still come to the conclusion that it must be because the Minister is wrong—made the point that this is a position which has existed in local government. There have been within the London County Council from time to time arguments about whether certain conditions of service were agreed, and there are arguments as to which organisations or which people had to join together to constitute an agreement. But there has never been this disagreement about conditions of service within the national local government service.
    One would have thought that the principle of negotiation for local government employees in local government service was something with which we would all
    1922
    agree on both sides of the House. I hope the light hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a wider reason than the one which he has just given, which seems to be quite contrary to the general policy.
    Sir K. Joseph: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Indeed, I am sure I cannot have done for my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) to make the speech he has made.
    This Amendment introduces a totally new concept—not a principle, but a concept—into the settlement of pay and conditions in local government service. What is involved here is some form of external arbitration. First, it does not make sense to have an Amendment which involves arbitration without also having in the Amendment some machinery for the arbitration. There is no such machinery in this Amendment or associated with it.
    Secondly, it would be a very grave step indeed for the Government to be willing to introduce this revolutionary proposal in the settlement of pay and conditions of local government servants without having proper consultations with the employing and the staff sides of local government. So far as the Government can see, there is absolutely no reason why local government should not in the future, as in the past, rely upon the existing Whitley Council machinery. Hon. Members must recognise that they are seeking to introduce a new element into the negotiations.
    Mr. Marsh: Surely the local government service joint industrial council negotiates very well the terms and conditions of service, as is the case within industry generally. The industrial courts are separate issues. What additional machinery does the Minister want?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member must realise that what exists in local government service exists by agreement and not because of statutory obligations. It would be a new element to introduce a statutory obligation upon local government to agree or to accept arbitration. If local government accepts arbitration by its own good voluntary discretion, that is fine—that is how we work at the moment; but for the Government, without any reason, to think that the present system is not working well and to say, "You people cannot agree. We will, therefore, provide for an external arbiter

    1923
    in quarrels which do not exist", would be unjustified. The hon. Member has not shown or tried to show that there is any reason to introduce this new concept or element of machinery.
    Mr. Marsh: Is the Minister honestly saying that members of a local authority could, with his agreement, refuse to go to the Industrial Court and could refuse in law to accept the decision of that court?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am seeking to avoid limiting in any way what, voluntarily, local government employers and employees may do. We have relied effectively on their voluntary co-operation in settling terms and conditions and no argument has been adduced to show that we should not go on so relying in the future. The voluntary system works well. We have no evidence why we should not rely upon it.
    The Amendment would discard the voluntary system by introducing a compulsory element. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] If it would not will the hon. Member explain what he is doing in introducing the word "award" into a Statute? What local government employer and employee sides wish to do is their own affair. They run their own negotiations. The Government would have to think many times before intervening in this process. No argument has been made to justify doing so.
    In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole), it is true that the basic Lords Amendment to which we are discussing Amendments goes a long way, but it still relies, obviously, upon the voluntary means for negotiating terms and conditions. The House would be wise to rest upon this in the future, as in the past.
    Mr. Pavitt: I am not surprised that the Minister does not want to be revolu-
    tionary, but I am disappointed that he is so adamant against any new concept. The Amendment would allay many of the fears which have been expressed, from both sides, about the future of employees who will be affected by the Bill. The anxieties are recognised by the Minister and the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) would do a great deal to allay those fears.
    On a previous Amendment, the Minister indicated that there would be a possibility of a tribunal to settle awkward cases. Would not such a tribunal then reach an award? This is not such a revolutionary concept—
    Sir K. Joseph: That is a machinery for settling difficult cases which has been voluntarily adopted by both sides. That is very different from the Statute laying down that they shall accept or shall do anything in particular. It is up to them.
    Mr. Pavitt: The point has been made more effectively by one of the Minister's hon. Friends. It is true that once this becomes part of the Statute, there is an obligation. Is not that precisely what we are seeking to do, to provide a safeguard so that when the various problems arise, when the existing employees are to be chopped and changed from the present to the new authorities, they will feel that by statute they have protection, and the matter is not simply left to a take-it-or-leave-it attitude, when the employee is entirely in the hands of the employer? The case has been well made by my hon. Friend. I am surprised that the Minister is so adamant concerning such an elementary commonsense approach to the problem.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment: —
    The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 163.

    Division No. 177.]

    AYES

    [9.55 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Cilffe, Michael

    Evans, Albert

    Albu, Austen

    Collick, Percy

    Foley, Maurice

    Barnett, Guy

    Cronin, John

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Crosland, Anthony

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Blackburn, F.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    George, LadyMegan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Dalyell, Tam

    Ginsburg, David

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

    Delargy, Hugh

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Diamond, John

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Dodde, Norman

    Grey, Charles

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Gunter, Ray

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Manuel, Archie

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Hannan, William

    Marsh, Richard

    Small, William

    Harper, Joseph

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Milne, Edward

    Steele, Thomas

    Holman, Percy

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Hooson, H. E.

    Morris, John

    Stones, William

    Houghton, Douglas

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

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

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

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

    Swingler, Stephen

    Hunter, A. E.

    O'Malley, B. K.

    Taverne, D.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Oram, A. E.

    Wade, Donald

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Parker, John

    Warbey, William

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Weitzman, David

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Pentland, Norman

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Popplewell Ernest

    Whitlock, William

    King, Dr. Horace

    Prentice, R. E.

    Wigg, George

    Lawson, George

    Probert, Arthur

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

    Lubbock, Eric

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    McBride, N.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Woof, Robert

    MacDermot, Niall

    Ross, William

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Short, Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and

    Mr. Charles A. Howell.

    NOES

    Aitken, Sir William

    Gurden, Harold

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Allason, James

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Barter, John

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Batsford, Brian

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

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

    Percival, Ian

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Holland, Philip

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Hopkins, Alan

    Pitman, Sir James

    Bidgood, John C.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Biffen, John

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Pott, Percivall

    Bingham, R. M.

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

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Bossom, Hon. Clive

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

    Braine, Bernard

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

    Bryan, Paul

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

    Roots, William

    Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Kirk, Peter

    Shaw, M,

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Shepherd, William

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Stodart, J. A.

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Longbottom, Charles

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Corfield, F. V.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Tapsell, Peter

    Critchley, Julian

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

    Cunningham, Knox

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Teeling, Sir William

    Curran, Charles

    MacArthur, Ian

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Currie, G. B. H.

    McLaren, Martin

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

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

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Duncan, Sir James

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Macphereon, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

    Touche, HI, Hon. Sir Gordon

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Maddan, Martin

    Turner, Colin

    Finlay, Graeme

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Mawby, Ray

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Freeth, Denzil

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

    Walder, David

    Gardner, Edward

    Mills, Stratton

    Walker, Peter

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Green, Alan

    Morgan, William

    Whitelaw, William

    Gresham, Cooke, R.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    1926

    1927

    Wise, A.R.

    Woodhouse, C.M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Wolrige-Gordon Patrick

    Worsley, Marcus

    Mr. Peel and Mr. Pym.

    Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Lords Amendment: In page 94, line 28, after "are" insert:
    "or who but for any such service by them as may be so prescribed would be".
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment secures that the regulations which will be made under Clause 82(4) will also provide for compensating any persons who would have been employed at the material time but for the fact that they were engaged on some other service—for example, National Service. In the relevant Acts "National Service" is fairly widely defined to cover service rather wider than the ordinary service with the Armed Forces.
    Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Lords Amendment: in page 94, line 45, leave out from "considering" to "affected" in line 47 and insert:
    "and keeping under review the arrangements for the recruitment of staff by the Greater London Council and the London borough councils and for the transfer in consequence of the provisions of this Act or any instrument made there under of staff employed by other local authorities affected by Part I of this Act;
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment and the next Amendment both indicate with rather greater precision the main task of the staff commission, though without limiting in any way the Minister's right to direct the commission on other subjects as well.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 95, line 7, after "to" insert:
    "the furnishing of any information requested and".
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    1928
    This Amendment was tabled in another place in response to representations by the Opposition to ensure that the Staff Commission will, if necessary, be able to get the direction of my right hon. Friend to local authorities to give any information that the Commission may require.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 84.—(LOCAL ACTS AND INSTRUMENTS IN AND AROUND GREATER LONDON.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 96, line 18, after "district" insert "or any part thereof".
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    I think that the House might conveniently deal at the same time with the next 11 Amendments.
    This group of Amendments takes account of the fact that for the two purposes—main drainage, on the one hand, and land drainage, on the other—the G.L.C. will be responsible for areas which are not co-terminous with Greater London and which stretch out into the adjacent county districts. In some cases, for instance in connection with sewage, there are existing local Acts affecting the administration of these services. The purpose of the Amendments is merely to ensure that these local enactments can be reviewed and, if necessary, amended under Clause 84, notwithstanding that they are applied in areas extending beyond Greater London.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION ACT 1957.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 100, line 39, at end insert new Clause "E":
    "E.—(1) The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
    (2) In Part II of Schedule 1, in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, after the

    1929
    entry relating to the South of Scotland Electricity Board there shall be inserted the words 'The Staff Commission established under section 82(5) of the London Government Act 1963'.
    (3) In Part III of Schedule 1, both in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and in its application to the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland, in the entry relating to local government officers—

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

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

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

    Provided that the repeal made by paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not take effect until 1st April 1965."
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is the first of several Amendments which affect the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957. The only new element introduced is the provision contained in subsection (2), which disqualifies members of the Staff Commission sitting in the House of Commons.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 89.—(REPEALS AND SAVINGS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 101, line 2, at end insert:
    "Provided that the repeal of any enactment specified in the said Part I shall not affect the operation of that enactment in relation to an election held on or after the date of the passing of this Act to fill a casual vacancy occurring before that date."
    Miss Pike: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    I think that it might be convenient if with this Lords Amendment I could describe the Lords Amendments in page 120, line 28, in page 121, line 45, in page 122, line 1, and in page 127, line 18.
    Two of these Amendments enable an election to be held on or after the date of the passing of the Bill in respect of a casual vacancy occurring before that date. In the Bill as passed by the Commons paragraphs 6(1) and 10 of Schedule 3 prevent an election being held after the passing of the Bill in respect of any office which is to disappear after 1st April, 1965. But Section 67(1) of the Local Government Act, 1933, and Section
    1930
    42(1) of the London Government Act, 1939, in providing for an election to be held within 30 days of the date on which the High Court or the local authority declare the office vacant or on which notice of the vacancy is given in writing by two local government electors, requires all the arrangements for holding an election to be put in hand in respect of a casual vacancy occurring before the Bill is passed.
    If the Bill receives the Royal Assent on, say, 31st July then, unless the Amendments were made, an election which was to be held on 1st August could not be held, and there would have been work and expense for nothing. The Amendments therefore provide for the elections to be held as if the London Government Bill had not been passed and for the councillors elected to fill the casual vacancies to remain in office until 1st April, 1965, which is the day on which the councillors mentioned in paragraphs 6(1) and 10 would have gone out of office.
    The effect of the other Amendments is that elections held on or after the Bill is passed to fill casual vacancies which have occurred before the Bill is passed will be conducted as if the Bill had not been passed.
    The final Amendment is a drafting one to make it clear that this reference to
    "councillor elected for any such electoral area"
    means a councillor elected for an electoral area of Hertfordshire or Chigwell which is wholly or partly in Greater London.
    Mr. Lubbock: A casual vacancy has almost been caused by the speed at which the hon. Lady rushed through these Amendments. Suppose a councillor resigns his office after the passing of this Act? Is there a prohibition on a by-election to fill that vacancy? Similarly, if an alderman or a councillor dies after the passing of this Act, is there a prohibition on an election to fill the vacancy? This will become relevant, because a considerable time will elapse between now and the setting up of the new authorities, and there may well be a considerable depletion in the membership of a local authority. All I want the hon. Lady to make clear is the question whether there is provision for by-elections to be held after the passing of the Act.
    10.15 p.m.
    Miss Pike: I am afraid that the hon. Member has had some difficulty in understanding me. I apologise for having gone fast. I felt that this was probably a technical matter, and that the House would not wish to be delayed for too long. In the case of death there is a prohibition on the election.
    Mr. Lubbock: And in the case of resignation?
    Miss Pike: And in the case of resignation.
    Mr. M. Stewart: What would happen if all, or very nearly all, the councillors of a particular council died? What would happen to the council?
    Mr. Barter: Will my hon. Friend also take into account the possible existence of aldermen on the council?
    Mr. Skeffington: While this information is being obtained perhaps I can put a point. I do not think that this can be right, so far as I have followed what the hon. Lady has said. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it could so happen that, through resignation, removal and death, there was nobody left on the council. What would happen? This is an extraordinary provision, introduced at the last moment. We should be told a little more about it.
    Mr. Reynolds: This is another example of the haste with which this legislation has been prepared, and of the fact that we have not had enough time on the Bill in Committee or here. The hon. Lady says that if a councillor dies or resigns, if two electors have given notice before the Royal Assent is given the Amendment will provide that an election can be held afterwards, whereas otherwise that would not be possible. That applies to councillors, but what about aldermen? Does the same sort of position arise with them? There should be provision for two electors to give notice if an alderman resigns four or five days before the Royal Assent is given to the Bill. Can we have an assurance that this provision will apply to aldermen as well as to councillors?
    Miss Pike: I believe that in the case of aldermen and councillors the prohibition remains in the case of resignation or death. As the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has said, there is the
    1932
    possibility of another Black Death or something of that sort, but in the case of such an emergency the Minister would have to make a transitional order to cover the situation.
    Mr. Mellish: This is very complicated. The death of a councillor or two may affect the control of the council. What is to happen then? Is the hon. Lady saying that there will be no election, and that political control can change?
    Miss Pike: It may, in an emergency, and it is within the Minister's powers to make transitional orders.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 101, after Amendment last inserted, insert:
    "(1A) Without prejudice to section 38(1) of the Interpretation Act, 1889, where this Act repeals any enactment making provision with respect to a particular matter or particular matters and either makes, or applies some other enactment making, corresponding or different provision with respect to that matter or those matters, then, unless the contrary intention appears, and, in particular, subject to any order under sections 79, 80, 81, 82 or 84 of this Act, references in any enactment other than this Act, or in any instrument made under any enactment other than this Act, to the repealed enactment shall be construed as references to the enactment contained in or applied by this Act which makes the corresponding or different provision."
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment deals with the problem of construing public and local Acts which refer to or are based on other Acts repealed by the Bill. The effect of the Amendment is that where the Bill repeals a London enactment as a consequence either of making provision on the same points or of applying the provincial code, references in other and un-repealed enactments are to be construed as references to the corresponding provision made in the Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 101, line 5, at end insert:
    "(2A) Nothing contained in, or done by virtue of, any provision of this Act other than section 81(2,b) or paragraph 35 of Schedule 4 shall affect the functions of the conservators of any common."
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

    1933
    This Amendment is the result of some concern which was expressed in Committee about the management of commons. My right hon. Friend promised to try to find words to allay the fears of the conservators of commons, and particularly the Wimbledon and Putney conservators, from whom the problem originally arose. The Amendment is designed to meet those fears. It has been shown to the conservators, who agree that it meets the problem, although it will be of general application. I hope that the House agrees that the agreement of the conservators of commons gives some guarantee that it meets the point at issue.
    Mr. Lubbock: When this point was raised in Committee it was the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) who was particularly concerned about the conservators of commons in her constituency. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether the Amendment meets the points which were raised by her on that occasion?
    Sir Hugh Linstead: I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for having met the point which was put to them in Committee. The conservators of Wimbledon and Putney Commons and I think, too, of the commons in the area mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chistlehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) are satisfied with and grateful for the Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  Schedule 1.—(THE LONDON BOROUGHS.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 104, line 9, after "Coombe" insert "and".
  Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This and the Amendment in page 105, line 33, are the substantive Amendments removing the three northern wards of Epsom and Ewell from Borough 23 of Greater London.
  Mr. Ede: On 20th February about 7.30 p.m., in Committee of the whole House, I moved these Amendments. They were rejected by the Minister. We should
  1934
  have saved a great deal of time then and tonight if they had been carried. Earlier in the day the Minister announced that although he was still convinced that these wards ought to be moved out of the borough, he had decided to leave them in, for motives which I do not understand.
  I assure him that if at any time in the future this absurd proposal is to be renewed, he can rest assured that the burgesses of Epsom and Ewell will oppose it even more heartily, and I hope successfully, than they have done on this occasion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 107, line 15, at end insert:
  "8. Any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under this Part of this Schedule in relation to any London borough, excluding (without prejudice to section 85 of this Act) the costs of any local inquiry caused to be held by him, shall, if and to such extent as the Secretary of State so requires, be repaid to him by the council of that borough."
  Miss Pike: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Clause 85(2) in applying Section 290(2) to 290(5) of the Local Government Act, 1933, gives the responsible Government Department discretion whether or not to recover the cost of holding local inquiries from the local authorities or other parties concerned. As regards the alteration of boundaries of wards of London boroughs, the Bill as passed by this House does not provide for other expenses of the Secretary of State such as the cost of causing notice given of proposals for altering wards under paragraph 1 of Part III of the First Schedule to the Bill to be met by local authorities.
  It is considered that the Secretary of State should have discretion whether or not he should require these costs to be met by local authorities in the same way as he has discretion whether the cost of local inquiries should be met by local authorities. This Amendment will give the Secretary of State such discretion. This is reasonable since it would normally be the case that proposals for the subsequent alteration of ward boundaries under Part III of the First Schedule

  1935
  would be put forward by the local authorities themselves.
  Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

  Schedule 2.—(CONSTITUTION AND GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF GREATER LONDON COUNCIL.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 108, line 43, after "order" insert: "
  "(being, except in the case of a borough or other area falling within paragraph 7(1)(b) of this Schedule, an order by virtue of paragraph 8(1) of this Schedule)".
  Miss Pike: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  It will be convenient if, with this Amendment, we could consider the following Amendments, in pages 109 and 110.
  These Amendments relate to the Orders which the Home Secretary will make after parliamentary constituencies have been reviewed defining the electoral areas each of which will return one Greater London councillor.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 111, line 42, at end insert:
  "(3) Without prejudice to their powers by virtue of paragraph 10 of this Schedule under section 85 of the said Act of 1933, the Council may delegate to the Inner London Education Authority, or to any education committee established by that Authority under Part II of Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1944, any functions which they might delegate under subsection (1) of the said section 85 to a committee appointed by the Council under that subsection."
  Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment gives a general power to the G.L.C. enabling it to delegate to the Inner London Education Authority or any education committee appointed by that authority any matter which could be delegated by the G.L.C. under Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act, 1933. The first is to enable the G.L.C. to delegate the management of the Horniman and Jeffrye Museums, if it so wishes.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 114 line 42, leave out "expenditure" and insert "expenses".
  Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is a drafting Amendment to make this paragraph of the Second Schedule consistent with the language of Section 257 of the Local Government Act, 1933.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 115, line 2, leave out from "expenditure" to end of line 3 and insert:
  "by the Council on capital account or on lending to other persons".
  Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment and the four which follow immediately after the next together exclude borrowing from the scope of the annual borrowing Bill to be promoted by the G.L.C. which, therefore, will be confined to capital expenditure and loans made by the G.L.C. to other bodies. The G.L.C. will have its borrowing powers under Clause 29(2) as amended. The procedure for the G.L.C. as a result of this Amendment will be identical with that of the L.C.C.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lords Amendment: In page 116, line 31, at end insert:
  "28A.—(1) If the whole of the amount authorised by an annual money Act to be expended for any authorised purpose in the first twelve or last six months of the relevant financial period aforesaid is not required to be so expended, the Council may with the approval of the Treasury expend for any other authorised purpose in those twelve or, as the case may be, six months (in addition to the amount authorised in relation to that other purpose) an amount not exceeding the unexpended portion of the first-mentioned amount.
  (2) If by reason of unforeseen circumstances the amount authorised by an annual money Act to be expended for any authorised purpose in the first twelve or last six months of the relevant financial period aforesaid is found to be insufficient, the Treasury may on the application of the Council authorise the Council to expend for that purpose such further sums as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Treasury to be necessary or desirable for the Council so to expend, not exceeding in the

  1937
  aggregate such amount as may be authorised in that behalf by that Act in relation to those twelve or, as the case may be, six months.
  (3) In ascertaining for the purposes of paragraph 27(2) or 28(3) of this Schedule the amount which may be expended for any authorised purpose in the last six months of the financial period aforesaid to which an annual money Act relates, there shall be taken into account the extent to which the sum authorised to be expended for that purpose in the first twelve months of that period has been expended under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph for any other authorised purpose.
  (4) The provisions of paragraph 28(6) to (8) of this Schedule shall apply to any loan under this paragraph as they apply to any loan under that paragraph.
  (5) In this paragraph references in connection with an annual money Act to expenditure for an authorised purpose are references to expenditure—

  (a) on capital account for a purpose mentioned in that Act; or

  (b) on loans to persons of a class either mentioned in paragraph 28(2,a) to (f) of this Schedule or specified in that Act."

  Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The purpose of this Amendment is to give the Greater London Council powers to reallocate expenditure on capital account and lending authorised by the annual money Bill from purposes where there is a surplus to purposes for which insufficient provision has been made. The L.C.C. already has a comparable power under the L.C.C. Loans Act, 1955. The Amendment proposes this at the L.C.C.'s request and it has been agreed in detail with its officers. I understand that it is welcomed by hon. Members opposite.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  Schedule 3.—(PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS IN AND AROUND GREATER LONDON.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 122, line 1, leave out from "the" to end of line 2, and insert:
  "date of the passing of this Act for any electoral area situated wholly or partly in Greater London, unless before that date the office has been declared to be vacant or notice of the vacancy has been given under section
  1938
  67(1) of the Local Government Act, 1933; and any such councillor elected for any such electoral area on or after that date to fill a casual vacancy occurring before that date shall (unless he resigns his office or if otherwise becomes vacant) continue to hold office until 1st April, 1965."
  Miss Pike: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is a consequential Amendment, but it may be convenient if I give some explanation of its purpose. In the Bill as passed by the Commons, paragraphs 6(1) and 10 of Schedule 3 to the Bill prevent an election from being held after the passing of the Bill in respect of any office which is to disappear after 1st April, 1965. But Section 67(1) of the Local Government Act, 1933, and Section 42(1) of the London Government Act, 1939, in providing for an election to be held within 30 days of the date on which the High Court or the local authority declare the office vacant or on which notice of the vacancy is given in writing by two local government electors, requires all the arrangements for holding an election to be put in hand in respect of a casual vacancy occurring before the Bill is passed. If the Bill receives the Royal Assent on 31st July then, unless the Amendments were made, an election which was to be held on 1st August could not, in fact, be held, and there would have been work and expense for nothing.
  The Amendments therefore provide for the elections to be held as if the London Government Bill had not been passed, and for the councillors elected to fill the casual vacancies to remain in office until 1st April, 1965, which is the day on which the councillors mentioned in paragraphs 6(1) and 10 would have gone out of office.
  The final Amendment is a drafting Amendment, to make it clear that the reference to
  "…councillor elected for any such electoral area…"
  means a councillor elected for an electoral area of Hertfordshire or Chigwell which is wholly or partly in Greater London.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 132, line 14, at end insert:
  "39. After section 287 there shall be inserted the following sections: —
  Service of notice by local authority.
  '287A.—(1) Any document to which this section applies, being a document required or authorised to be served on any person, shall be deemed to be duly served—

  (a) where the person to be served is a company, if the document is addressed to the secretary of the company at its registered office or at its principal office or place of business, and is either—

  (i) sent by post, or

  (ii) delivered at the registered office, or at the principal office or place of business of the company;

  (b) where the person to be served is a partnership, if the document is addressed to the partnership at its principal place of business, identifying it by the name or style under which its business is carried on, and is either—

  (i) sent by post, or

  (ii) delivered at the said place of business;

  (c) where the person to be served is a public body, or a corporation, society or other body, if the document is addressed to the clerk, secretary, treasurer or other head officer of that body, corporation or society at its principal office, and is either—

  (i) sent by post, or

  (ii) delivered at that office;

  (d) in any other case, if the document is addressed to the person to be served, and is either sent to him by post or delivered at his residence or place of business.

  (2) Any document to which this section applies, being a document required or authorised to be served on the owner or occupier of any premises may be addressed "the owner" or "the occupier," as the case may be, of those premises (naming them) without further name or description, and shall be deemed to be duly served—

  (a) if the document so addressed is sent or delivered in accordance with paragraph (d) of the following subsection; or

  (b) if the document so addressed, or a copy thereof so addressed, is delivered to some person on the premises or, where there is no person on the premises to whom it can be delivered, is affixed to some conspicuous part of the premises.

  (3) Where a document to which this section applies is served on a partnership in accordance with this section, the document shall be deemed to be served on each partner.
  (4) For the purpose of enabling any document to be served on the owner of any premises, the local authority may by notice in writing require the occupier of the premises to state the name and address of the owner thereof, and if the occupier refuses or wilfully neglects to do so, or wilfully misstates the
  1940
  name and address of the owner, he shall, unless in the case of a refusal he shows cause to the satisfaction of the court for his refusal, be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
  (5) This section applies to any notice, order or other document which is required or authorised by any enactment or any instrument made under an enactment to be served by or on behalf of a local authority, or by an officer of a local authority, not being a document to the service of which the provisions of some enactment other than this section or some instrument made under an enactment are applicable.
  (6) For the purposes of this section, a notice, order or other document shall be deemed to be a notice, order or other document which is required or authorised to be served on a person if it is required or authorised to be notified, given or transmitted, or (in the case of a demand) if it is required or authorised to be made, to that person, and in this section the expression 'served' and 'service' shall be construed accordingly.
  Mr. Corfield: The first paragraph inserted here applies to all local authorities in England and Wales, and derives from Section 183 of the London Government Act, 1939. The second paragraph derives from Section 184 of that Act, and allows notice of documents to be sent by the clerk or various other officers and permits the use of facsimile signatures. The first paragraph makes general provision for the service of notices, and specific matters laid down in the particular Act.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Schedule 6.—(AMENDMENTS AS FROM 1ST APRIL 1965 IN HIGHWAYS ACT 1959.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 142, line 22, after "10(1)" insert:
  "for the words '(including the County of London)'there shall be substituted the words 'with the Greater London Council' and".
  Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The effect of this Amendment is to allow my right hon. Friend to delegate work on the maintenance of trunk roads to the G.L.C. as well as to the London boroughs. I should add that we do not intend to use this power as a matter of course. The London boroughs will be much better equipped than the G.L.C. for the ordinary run of maintenance on trunk roads, but there may be some occasions when it will be convenient and

  1941
  more efficient to delegate to the G.L.C. responsibility for instance for looking after a particularly complex structure such as a flyover or underpass. The Amendment will enable us to do this.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 142, leave out lines 38 to 45.
  Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment follows from the powers given to the London borough councils, under Clause 59(1) which deals with the survey of footpaths under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 144, line 27, leave out from "road" to second "the" in line 28.
  Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment makes a slight but necessary correction to an Amendment tabled by hon. Members opposite, which was accepted in Committee. Owing to the original wording it might have been implied that the G.L.C. could carry out improvement to any highway, which is not so. As a result of this Amendment the words which might mislead are deleted and therefore it makes it clear that the G.L.C. may alter the respective widths of carriageways and footways on metropolitan roads only.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 145, leave out lines 5 to 11 and insert:
  "31. In section 112(2), at the end there shall be added—
  '(d) as respects any part thereof in a London borough or in the City of London, except with the consent of the council of that borough or, as the case may be, of the Common Council.' "
  Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment is related to the earlier one in Schedule 6. The London borough councils and the Common Council will have power to extinguish or divert public footpaths and bridleways by order under Sections 110 and
  1942
  111 of the Highways Act, 1959. Under the paragraph to be omitted they would have exercised the power subject to the consent of the Greater London Council, which was originally expected to be responsible for the general survey of footpaths under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949. But as this function has now been given to the London borough councils, with powers in Clause 59(3) to transfer it by agreement to the G.L.C., reference to the Greater London Council is no longer necessary.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 147, line 34, leave out from "173(3)" to end of line 35 and insert:
  "for the words 'boroughs and' there shall be substituted the words 'boroughs other than the inner London boroughs and in all'".
  Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment excepts the inner London borough from the operation of the advance payments code in Part IX of the Highways Act, 1959 which, where it applies, required a developer in a private street to give the street works authority a deposit or security for the cost of street works before he begins to erect a building. The extension of highways legislation relating to private street works, including the advance payments code, to inner London would require new machinery to take account of the fact that the special L.C.C. building control system continues to apply in the inner London boroughs.
  The procedure for requiring payment is linked to the procedure for depositing and passing plans in accordance with building byelaws, but in inner London building control is not by byelaws and plans do not have to be deposited. In view of the fact that there is very little undeveloped land in Central London and therefore the advance payments code will be very seldom necessary, I do not think that this provision will make any practical difference and has clearly considerable advantages from a drafting point of view.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Mr. Reynolds: As I understand it, the code which is now not going to apply normally applies to a district council. This money for private development to a private road is paid to a district council which is usually the authority for looking after roads. I understand that this legislation is legislation which is operated by the L.C.C. and is dealt with under its general planning laws. Are we going to be in the ridiculous situation whereby in a London area it will be the Greater London Council which will deal with this but that in the outer London areas it will be the outer London authorities?
  This seems a rather unsatisfactory situation to create in a new system of local government. I really do not think that we should work out legislation simply on the view of whether or not it is complicated to do something. This is so having regard to the fact that the Bill is extremely complicated and that these Lords Amendments are extremely complicated, so that it strikes me Ministers are having difficulty in understanding them and are having to read the explanations and sometimes not reading them very well either. Since we are dealing with the matter let us sort it out to do the job properly.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Corfield: The code which I referred to is the 1951 code by which a planning authority can insist upon a builder making a deposit or individual purchasers of houses making a deposit against the cost of making up the road. I think the hon. Gentleman will at least agree that this is not an operation likely to be very frequent in central London. It is an operation confined almost entirely to development of undeveloped land.
  Mr. Reynolds: And redevelopment.
  Mr. Corfield: With respect, no, because in redevelopment the roads, having already been adopted—and this is the stage up to adoption—would in any case be the responsibility of the highway authority. So far as the advance payment code is concerned throughout the rest of the country, it applies automatically to urban authorities, to borough councils and county boroughs. It does not apply automatically to county councils or rural districts, and here we are
  1944
  making an exception which is not likely to be of practical significance, and it is not even a unique exception, because in many parts of the country it does not apply for the reason that it is thought to be insignificant. I do not think there is any real difficulty about this.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 7.—(METROPOLITAN ROADS.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 154, line 9, at end insert:

  "A.305

  Junction with A.307 (Richmond)

  Junction with A.310 (Twickenham)."

  Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Would it be convenient to take the next with this, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker: If the House pleases.
  Mr. Galbraith: These Lords Amendments add two additional lengths of road to the schedule of metropolitan roads, Richmond Bridge and the approaches, and part of A.310 which continues the road from the bridge approach south to Hampton Wick. The advantage is that Richmond Bridge is made part of a metropolitan road and therefore the responsibility of the G.L.C.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 156, line 35, column 3, after "Clapham Common" insert:
  "excluding the whole of the centre island of Sloane Square".
  Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The effect of this is that the centre of Sloane Square, now the responsibility of Chelsea Borough Council, should remain the responsibility of the new London borough of Chelsea and Kensington. The carriageways around will be part of the metropolitan road and thus the responsibility of the G.L.C.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Schedule 8.—(MODIFICATIONS AS FROM 1ST APRIL, 1965, OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO HOUSING.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 159, line 30, at end insert:
  "In the proviso to section 145(1):

  (a) for the words 'the administrative county of London' there shall be substituted the words 'Greater London other than the outer London boroughs';

  (b) for the words 'the county' there shall be substituted the words 'that area'; and

  (c) for the words 'London County Council' there shall be subsituted the words 'Greater London Council'.

  In section 145(3)—

  (a) for the words 'the administrative county of London' there shall be sustituted the words 'Greater London other than the outer London boroughs';

  (b) for the words 'London County Council' there shall be substituted the words 'Greater London Council'; and

  (c) for the words 'metropolitan borough' there shall be substituted the words 'London borough'."

  Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The purpose of it is to retain, adapted to the new system of authorities, certain provisions for exemptions, subject to the consent of the Minister, of buildings from the London building code and London building law.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 160, line 38, leave out from beginning to "is" in line 43 and insert:

  "(a) in relation to a dwelling completed in the financial year 1965–66—

  (i) that year shall be the relevant financial year; and

  (ii) Part I of that Schedule shall have effect as if the words 'preceding that' wherever those words occur in paragraph 1 or 2 thereof were omitted;

  (b) the financial year 1965–66 shall be the earliest financial year which may be determined by the Minister under paragraph 5(2) of that Schedule;
  (c) where the financial year 1965–66".
  Line 50, at end insert:
  "(2) In the said Schedule—

  (a) in paragraph 1(2)—

  (i) for the words 'London County Council' there shall be substituted the words 'Greater London Council';

  (ii) for the words 'metropolitan boroughs and the City of London' there
  1946
  shall be substituted the words 'rating areas in Greater London';

  (b) in paragraph 1(5), at the end there shall be added the words 'and except that it includes any rate in the nature of a general rate levied in the Inner Temple or the Middle Temple'."

  Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Under the Housing Act, 1961, the calculation of subsidies involves comparison of the expenditure of housing authorities with their revenue, and this has to be taken into account for the year previous to the one in which the house has been built. In the case of the G.L.C.'s activities the previous year will be the one in which it will not yet have been in existence. Therefore, for calculations required under the 1961 Act the previous year shall be taken by this Amendment to be the G.L.C.'s first year of existence.
  Mr. Reynolds: This same problem applies in the case of the new boroughs. Will they be treated in the same way.
  Sir K. Joseph: That point is covered in another part of the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  Lords Amendment: In page 160, line 50, at end insert:
  "(2) In the said Schedule—

  (a) in paragraph 1(2)—

  (i) for the words 'London County Council' there shall be substituted the words 'Greater London Council';

  (ii) for the words 'metropolitan boroughs and the City of London' there shall be substituted the words 'rating areas in Greater London';

  (b) in paragraph 1(5), at the end there shall be added the words 'and except that it includes any rate in the nature of a general rate levied in the Inner Temple or the Middle Temple'."

  Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  By this, the calculation of rates for the Greater London area will be the weighted average of the rates for the rating areas inside the Greater London area.
  Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

  Schedule 9.—(MODIFICATION AND RE-ENACTMENT AS FROM 1ST APRIL 1965 OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 162, line 19, leave out from "exercisable" to end of line 20 and insert—
  "(a) by the Greater London Council as respects a sewer or sewage disposal works which is vested in the council of a London borough or county district;
  (b) by the council of a London borough or county district as respects a sewer or sewage disposal works which is vested in the Greater London Council."
  Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment affects paragraph 2 of Part One of Schedule 9, which prohibits a local authority from vesting in itself a sewer or sewage disposal works vested in any other authority. It was originally considered that the necessary transfer powers for sewers from one authority to another could be made under Clause 35, but on reflection it has been decided that there might be some difficulty in this method, and, moreover, there is no reason why London boroughs and county district councils should not have the same power as local authorities outside London to vest in themselves sewers vested in another local authority. At the request of, and with the agreement of, the authorities, the effect of the Amendment is to give them that power.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 165, line 29, leave out from "sewer" to end of line 30.
  Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The Bill without this Amendment gives the Greater London Council powers which the L.C.C. now has to construct sewers without giving notice to the owners of land under which the sewers are to pass. The reason for this is the vast number of owners who would need to be given notice in this crowded part of London. But the same arguments do not apply to the construction of sewage disposal works. The same considerations
  1948
  apply to their construction in London and elsewhere and this Amendment is designed to bring the provisions of the Bill into line with those outside London.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 165, line 36, leave out "The foregoing sub-paragraph and insert:
  "Where the Greater London Council propose in the exercise of their powers under this paragraph to construct a sewer which will cross or interfere with any watercourse or works vested in, or under the control of, a land drainage authority other than the Council or the council of a London borough or county district, they shall before adopting plans for the construction of the sewer give notice of their proposals to that authority; and if that authority within twenty-eight days of the giving of the notice to them serve on the Greater London Council notice of objection to the proposals, the Council shall not proceed with the proposals unless all objections so made are withdrawn or the Minister after a local inquiry has approved the proposals with or without modification.
  (3) Section 31(2) of the Land Drainage Act 1961 (which requires the consent of a river authority to the erection, alteration or repair of structures in, over or under watercourses) shall not apply to any work executed under this paragraph.
  (4) The foregoing provisions of this paragraph".
  Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  As the Bill is drafted the Greater London Council is exempt from some of the obligations of land drainage authorities which other sewage authorities are bound to observe. There have been certain criticisms of this and this places on it the same obligations, as land drainage authority, as other sewage authorities.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 167, line 4. leave out "Board of Trade" and insert "Minister of Transport".
  Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This puts right a straight mistake. Since the Board of Trade had this function it has been transferred to the Ministry of Transport.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Schedule 11.—(MODIFICATION AND RE-ENACTMENT AS FROM 1ST APRIL, 1965, OF PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 180, line 1, at end insert:
  "2A. Sections 160 and 171 shall not apply to Greater London".
  Mr. Corfield: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could take also the Lords Amendment in line 5.
  Mr. Speaker: Yes.
  Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The joint effect of these Amendments is, first, that Section 160 of the Public Health Act, 1875, does not apply to Greater London. The second Amendment deals with the naming of streets, and therefore follows from an earlier Amendment by which this power was transferred to the Greater London Council.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 180, line 9, at end insert:
  "4A. The paragraph in Part III of Schedule 5 relating to vaults and graves in churches and other places of public worship shall not apply to the inner London boroughs, the City or the Temples",
  Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Burials in any church inside London that was built since 1848 is forbidden by the Bill. We think that this went too far. We are repealing this part of the Act, so the position remains as it was, and some burials are, under some circumstances, permitted even in churches built since 1848.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 180, line 25, leave out paragraphs 8 and 9 and insert:
  "8. Notwithstanding anything in section 2(2) or 3, sections 14, 16 and 26 shall extend to Greater London without being adopted there and sections 17 to 19 shall not extend to, and may not be adopted in, Greater
  1950
  London, and accordingly the said sections 2(2) and 3 shall not apply to Greater London.
  9. Section 76 shall not apply to Greater London".
  Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is substantially a drafting Amendment. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Schedule provide for Parts II and V of the Public Health Act, 1925, to be extended to Greater London, but Parts III, IV and V of that Act are no longer in force, and paragraphs 8 and 9 are therefore not needed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 180, line 45, leave out from second "the" to "and" in line 3 on page 181 and insert:
  "following services throughout their district: —

  (a) the services mentioned in section 72(1),

  (b) the removal under section 73(1) of trade refuse of any kind whatsoever at the request of the occupier of premises; and

  (c) the cleansing of streets under section 77(1)".

  Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment makes it clear that trade refuse is to be collected only by the Greater London Council at the request of the occupier.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 181, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert:
  "(1) The powers exercisable by a local authority under sections 74(2) and 76(1) shall be exercisable throughout Greater London by the Greater London Council to the exclusion of any other authority, except that the powers conferred by section 76(l)(c), so far as they relate to the provision of plant or apparatus for sorting and baling waste paper collected separately from other refuse, shall be exercisable concurrently by the authority collecting the paper and the Greater London Council; and

  (a) any reference to a local authority in the said sections 74(2)and 76(1) shall be construed accordingly; and

  (b) any reference to a local authority in section 76(3) so far as that subsection relates to material deposited in a place provided for the deposit of refuse shall be construed as a reference to the Greater London Council and not to any other authority".

  Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment refers to the functions of the Greater London Council as a refuse collection authority. The change made by this Amendment is to allow borough councils and the City, who will be responsible for collection, as opposed to disposal, to install plant for sorting and baling waste paper, and so on, where it is collected separately from other refuse. The collecting authority will have the power to sell and dispose of its waste.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 183, line 1, leave out from "(1)" to "Greater" in line 2 and insert—
  "(i) the references to a land drainage authority shall include references to the"
  Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment requires London boroughs to obtain the consent of the Greater London Council before taking any action which would interfere with London watercourses.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Lords Amendment, in page 185, line 40, read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Sir K. Joseph.]
  It being one hour after Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order this day, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Question agreed to.
  Remaining Lords Amendments read a Second time, pursuant to the Order this day.
  Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to designate that Amendment which appeared to him to involve a question of Privilege.
  Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Amendments except that designated by Mr. Speaker.—[Sir K. Joseph.]
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order this day put forthwith the Question thereon.
  Question agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put separately the Question with respect to the Amendment designated by him as appearing to involve a question of Privilege.
  Lords Amendment, in page 194, line 7, the designated Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

NUCLEAR WEAPONS (TEST BAN TREATY)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ian Fraser.]
11.1 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, I wish to make a statement.
As the House knows, the text of a Treaty to ban nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and underwater was initialled in Moscow this afternoon by representatives of the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom. I will arrange for the text of the Treaty to be circulated in the Official Report.
The communiqué following the initialling has by agreement been published in Moscow at 10 p.m., in the United Kingdom at 8 p.m. and in the United States at 3 p.m. I regret that owing to the character of the business of the House today it was not possible for me to make this statement at 8 p.m. I thought, however, that it was proper courtesy to the House to make this statement at the earliest possible moment and before it appears in the newspapers tomorrow, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) for making this possible by giving up his Adjournment debate.
The following is the text of the communiqué. It is rather long, but I think the House would wish me to read it.
"The special representatives of the President of the United States of America and of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, W. A. Harriman, Under-Secretary of State

1953
for political affairs of the United States, and Lord Hailsham, Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science for the United Kingdom, visited Moscow together with their advisers on July 14. Mr. Harriman and Lord Hailsham were received by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R., N. S. Khrushchev, who presided on July 15 at the first of a series of meetings to discuss questions relating to the discontinuance of nuclear tests, and other questions of mutual interest. Discussions were continued from July 16 to July 25 with A. A. Gromyko, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R. During these discussions each principal was assisted by his advisers.
"The discussions took place in a businesslike and cordial atmosphere. Agreement was reached on the text of a Treaty banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and underwater. This text is being published separately and simultaneously with this communique. It was initialled on July 25 by A. A. Gromyko, Mr. Harriman and Lord Hailsham. Mr. Harriman and Lord Hailsham, together with their advisers, will leave Moscow shortly to report and bring back the initialled texts to their respective Governments. Signature of the Treaty is expected to take place in the near future in Moscow.
"The heads of the three delegations agreed that the Test Ban Treaty constituted an important first step towards the reduction of international tension and the strengthening of peace, and they look forward to further progress in this direction.
"The heads of the three delegations discussed the Soviet proposal relating to a pact of non-aggression between the participants in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the participants in the Warsaw Treaty. The three Governments have agreed fully to inform their respective allies in the two organisations concerning these talks and to consult with them about continuing discussions on this question with the purpose of achieving agreement satisfactory to all participants. A brief exchange of views also took place with regard to other measures, directed at a relaxation of tension."
That is the end of the communiqué.
The spirit in which the negotiations have been conducted and the intentions of the three Governments concerned are well set out in the preamble to the Treaty, from which I should like to read a passage to the House. The preamble begins with these words:
"The Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America,
"Proclaiming as their principal aim the speediest possible achievement of an agreement on general and complete disarmament under strict international control in accordance with the objectives of the United Nations which would put an end to the armaments' race and eliminate the incentive to the pro-
1954
duction and testing of all kinds of weapons, including nuclear weapons,
"Seeking to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time, determined to continue negotiations to this end and desiring to put an end to the contamination of man's environment by radio-active substances,
Have agreed as follows:…………"
Then follows the text of the Treaty.
The communiqué which I have read to the House states that signature of the Treaty is expected to take place in the near future in Moscow. This seemed to us an appropriate plan since the final negotiations took place in Moscow, The House will wish to know that the United States Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary intend to go to Moscow to sign at the earliest moment which proves to be mutually convenient to the three Governments concerned.
Throughout the final talks in Moscow we have kept in close touch with our North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies, and since France is in a special position in this matter President Kennedy and I today sent personal messages to President de Gaulle about the negotiations.
I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute both to my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and to Mr. Harriman for the skill and resourcefulness with which they have carried on these negotiations. It would also be right to acknowledge the spirit in which President Kennedy and, indeed, his predecessor, General Eisenhower, have approached this problem in discussions with us over the years. The United States, from its power, carries the heavier responsibility. This makes their contribution to the cause of peace all the more impressive.
Finally, I think that it would be right to express our thanks to the Chairman of the Soviet Council of Ministers, Mr. Khrushchev, for his readiness to accept the only practicable way in which a step forward could be made in this field.
The House will, I know, understand my own feelings at seeing at last the result of efforts made over many years and of hopes long deferred. I am deeply grateful that it has fallen to me to report this agreement to the House, not only becuase of the value which it has in itself but

1955
also because of the hope which it offers of further progress in the future.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The House, and I think people all over the world, will be thankful at the conclusion of this agreement. I hope that the House will permit me, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to offer congratulations to all the three Governments concerned.
If the Prime Minister will allow me to say this, I think the United States and ourselves showed great wisdom in dropping at the right moment insistence on a fully inspected agreement covering underground tests as well—which all of us would have liked—and concentrating on the more limited, but still important and useful, agreement covering tests in space, in the atmosphere and, of course, under water. The Prime Minister will recall that after our own talks in Moscow we reported to him and his colleagues that there was more hope in this direction, I think, than in going the whole way.
I think that the speed with which this has been reached, because it is a very important field of discussion, has shown great realism on the part of all three negotiators.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister two or three questions. Of course, we may have the answers to these when we have the text of the Agreement. I have seen newspaper reports that the Soviet negotiators have shown some willingness to consider proposals for the creation of non-nuclear zones—I think that Africa, in particular, was mentioned, and there may be others. Would the right hon. Gentleman say, first, whether there have been any discussions on this and whether the further negotiations now hoped for will enable speedy progress to be made in the creation of nuclear-free zones? If Africa could become guaranteed by all the major Powers to be completely free from nuclear experiments and the stationing of nuclear weapons, I am sure that the House would agree that that would be a big step forward.
Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman say at this stage, without having had a full oral report from the Lord President of the Council, how far there has been discussion or preliminary discussion on the possibility of a complete anti-pro-
1956
liferation agreement to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to Powers which at present are non-nuclear? Something from the right hon. Gentleman on that aspect would be of great interest tonight.
Finally, in view of suggestions in the Press this morning that there was an escape clause which could be invoked by any party if explosions, experiments, were conducted by France, China or any other Power—which, to some extent, would be a disappointment to us all—could the Prime Minister tell us, without waiting for the publication of all the details, whether such an escape clause exists?
The Prime Minister: To take the right hon. Gentleman's last question first, there is a withdrawal clause. However, I would prefer to study that in the Treaty and the text, which is carefully drawn up.
On the other two questions, the communiqué makes reference to discussions on methods of reducing tension. I think that it would be wiser for me to leave it at that tonight. We have to consult with our allies and we have to prepare very carefully the next stage. If this has been successful, it is because very careful preparations were made.
I hoped that the House would not press meto say anything further, except this: that I am very anxious that we should regard this not as something in itself but as a step. It is something very valuable in itself. There is an old saying that it is the first step that counts. This is the first step for many years, and I believe that it will count.
Mr. Donald Wade: May I join with other hon. Members in welcoming wholeheartedly the agreement which has been reached in Moscow and express the wish that this will indeed be a step towards general disarmament? I do not want to press the Prime Minister, in view of what he said, on the withdrawal clause, but may I ask him this? I am sure that we all hope that General de Gaulle will not now proceed with independent tests. May we take it that the agreement which has been reached is not dependent upon the action of other members of N.A.T.O., including France?
The Prime Minister: I think that when he reads the Treaty the hon. Member will

1957
be satisfied that it is the most comprehensive that it was possible to make in present circumstances. With regard to the future, I can only repeat what I have said: it is our hope that, in spite of the many difficulties which we foresee, we shall be able to exploit this first advance to make greater progress.
Mr. A. Henderson: As one who has frequently pressed the Prime Minister on these matters, may I be allowed to say how warmly I welcome his announcement, which may well turn out to be a turning point in East-West relations. Would he now take the view that the road has been cleared for a meeting of the three Heads of Government, and any other Heads of Government, with, a view to bringing about a settlement of some of the outstanding international problems which have been dividing East and West in recent years?
The Prime Minister: There is a road to be cleared, and no doubt there will be obstructions and difficulties. I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said—he has been most patient and sympathetic and helpful in his questions and his interest—but I think that it would be wiser for me to leave these matters tonight where they are for the further study we shall all need ourselves, and with our friends and allies.
Sir C. Osborne: As a back bencher on this side of the House, may I offer my warmest congratulations to the Prime Minister on pursuing this policy for so many years against many difficulties, and, on behalf of everyone in the House and in the country, congratulate him on this first step, and hope that it is only a first step to a complete understanding between East and West?
Mr. Wigg: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us whether this instrument is subject to the ratification of the United States Senate, or whether it will come into operation right away as an Act of the present Administration?
The Prime Minister: I understand that according to the Constitution of the United States, since it is a treaty, it requires ratification by the Senate.
Mr. John Hynd: May I ask the Prime Minister whether we are to understand from the latter part of the communiqué that the Lord President of the Council will remain in Moscow to pursue the exchanges about other aspects although these will be the subject of later contacts?
The Prime Minister: I think that it is the intention of Mr. Harriman and Lord Hailsham to return on Saturday. They will, no doubt, have some discussions tomorrow and then I think that the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Rusk intend to go out, whatever the date is—quite soon—and no doubt that will be an opportunity to have further talks then. That is the programme as I understand it.
Mr. G. W. Reynolds: In this very welcome Treaty, signed by three countries, is there provision for other countries to subscribe to it? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Governments which have already signed to see what action can be taken through the Commonwealth or other channels to try to make as many other countries as possible sign the Treaty?
The Prime Minister: Yes, it is an important part of the Treaty to make provision for what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. When he sees the Treaty he will see the arrangement proposed for adherence by other countries.
Sir Hendrie Oakshott: Following my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), may I be permitted to say that this is a moment which a great many of us on the back benches value enormously. We recognise the work not only of those who have laboured so long to bring this thing about, the labours of the officials of all ranks, besides my right hon. Friend. Here is a chink, as it were, in the wall which has barred everything for so long, and we all congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has been able to achieve.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I should like, if I may, to emphasise again that with this success, for it is a success, and is, of course, deeply moving to us all, we must not be disappointed if we do not do everything we would like to do at

1959
once. It has taken a long time, and we have got to have the same patience and persistence in the years which lie ahead as we have had in the years which lie behind us.
Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Is the Prime Minister aware that with the general welcome to the Treaty which has been achieved there will be widespread support for the references to the proposed non-aggression agreement between the N.A.T.O. pact countries and the Warsaw pact countries, and will he do everything he can to advance this proposed agreement which will ensure much more security in Central Europe and form another hopeful basis for future agreements?
The Prime Minister: I think that the communiqué I have read covers that point.
Mr. John Cronin: I should like to reiterate the gratification expressed, by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say whether any steps are being taken to associate the French Government with this Treaty?
The Prime Minister: As I have said in my statement, President Kennedy and I have sent messages to General de Gaulle on the whole situation, describing the negotiations and their outcome. We now await the result of our communications.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Would the Prime Minister also think it right that we should pay a tribute to the work done by the eight non-aligned nations in the Committee of Eighteen in Geneva, which made a very intensive study of this subject during the early months of this year?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that all that work and all the work done by all kinds of organisations over the years has had its cumulative effect, and that all share in the gratification we feel.
Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first simple and elementary fact that the world will welcome—and he is in a better position than anyone else to know of this—is that the poisoning of man's environment is to end? Is he further aware that this step forward to an agreement which will
1960
stop poisoning the earth is a first-class move? I do not want to press him about a non-aggression pact, because I know that he and his advisers will work for these things as much as any other party which might get into power.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his very generous words.
Mr. Norman Cole: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we may consider this step as the prelude to what I believe will be the first treaty of Moscow, thanks to his efforts and the efforts of others, and that we in this House are thankful for what we have and have faith in what is yet to come?
The Prime Minister The Prime Minister indicated assent.
Following is the Text of the Treaty:

DRAFT
TREATY BANNING NUCLEAR WEAPON TESTS IN THE ATMOSPHERE, IN OUTER SPACE AND UNDER WATER.
The Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, hereinafter referred to as the "original parties",
Proclaiming as their principal aim the speediest possible achievement of an agreement on general and complete disarmament under strict international control in accordance with the objectives of the United Nations which would put an end to the armaments' race and eliminate the incentive to the production and testing of all kinds of weapons, including nuclear weapons.
Seeking to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time, determined to continue negotiations to this end, and desiring to put an end to the contamination of man's environment by radio active substances,
Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE ONE
1. Each of the parties to this treaty undertakes to prohibit, to prevent, and not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion, at any place under its jurisdiction or control:

(a) In the atmosphere; beyond its limits, including outer space; or under water, including territorial waters or high seas; or

(b) In any other environment if such explosion causes radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the State under whose jurisdiction or control

1961
such explosion is conducted. It is understood in this connection that the provisions of this sub-paragraph are without prejudice to the conclusion of a treaty resulting in the permanent banning of all nuclear test explosions, including all such explosions underground, the conclusion of which, as the parties have stated in the preamble to this treaty, they seek to achieve.

2. Each of the parties to this treaty undertakes furthermore to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in, the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion, anywhere which would take place in any of the environments described, or have the effect referred to, in paragraph 1 of this Article.

ARTICLE TWO
1. Any party may propose amendments to this treaty. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Depository Governments which shall circulate it to all parties to this treaty. Thereafter, if requested to do so by one-third or more of the parties, the Depository Governments shall convene a conference, to which they shall invite all the parties, to consider such amendment.
2. Any amendment to this treaty must be approved by a majority of the votes of all the parties to this treaty, including all of the original parties. The amendment shall enter into force for all parties upon the deposit of instruments of ratification by a majority of all the parties, including the instruments of ratification of all of the original parties.

ARTICLE THREE
1. This treaty shall be open to all States for signature. Any state which does not sign this treaty before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article may accede to it at any time.
2. This treaty shall be subject to ratification by signatory States. Instruments of ratification and instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Governments of the original parties—the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States
1962
of America—which are hereby designated the Depository Governments.
3. This treaty shall enter into force after its ratification by all the original parties and the deposit of their instruments of ratification.
4. For States whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited subsequent to the entry into force of this treaty, it shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession.
5. The Depository Governments shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification of and accession to this treaty, the date of its entry into force, and the date of receipt of any requests for conferences or other notices.
6. This treaty shall be registered by the Depository Governments pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

ARTICLE FOUR
This treaty shall be of unlimited duration. Each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from the treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interest of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other parties to the treaty three months in advance.

ARTICLE FIVE
This treaty, of which the English and Russian texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Depository Governments. Duly certified copies of this treaty shall be transmitted by the Depository Governments to the governments of the signatory and acceding States.
In witness whereof the undersigned, duly authorised, have signed this treaty.
Done in triplicate at the city of Moscow, this day of, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-three.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  G.A.T.T. (Talks)
  G.A.T.T. (Talks)
  Peter Rachman Companies
  Peter Rachman Companies
  Redundent Miners, Lanarkshire
  Redundent Miners, Lanarkshire
  Advance Factory, Lesmahagow—Blackwood
  Advance Factory, Lesmahagow—Blackwood
  Goa
  Goa
  Hull
  Hull
  Cuba (Aircraft Tyres)
  Cuba (Aircraft Tyres)
  Plastics and Glass Fibre
  Plastics and Glass Fibre
  Pottery Industry
  Pottery Industry
  Gates head
  Gates head
  Jute Industry
  Jute Industry
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Athletic and Sports Organisations (Grants)
  Athletic and Sports Organisations (Grants)
  Crown Properties (Rating Valuation)
  Crown Properties (Rating Valuation)
  Economic Development
  Economic Development
  Commonwealth Countries (Economic Co-operation)
  Commonwealth Countries (Economic Co-operation)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  University Places
  University Places
  Estimated Expenditure (Excesses)
  Estimated Expenditure (Excesses)
  Peter Rachman
  Peter Rachman
  Soft Drinks (Tax)
  Soft Drinks (Tax)
  Blackcurrant Growers (Representations)
  Blackcurrant Growers (Representations)
  Dunnage
  Dunnage
  Pension Rights (Transferability)
  Pension Rights (Transferability)
  Development Contracts (North-East)
  Development Contracts (North-East)
  Tower of London, Museums and Art Galleries (Sunday Closing)
  Tower of London, Museums and Art Galleries (Sunday Closing)
  Pool Betting and Bookmakers' Licences (Receipts)
  Pool Betting and Bookmakers' Licences (Receipts)
  Maintenance Allowances (Taxation)
  Maintenance Allowances (Taxation)
NYASALAND
  Health Services
  Health Services
BAROTSELAND
  Litunga
  Litunga
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Independence
  Independence
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Copperbelt
  Copperbelt
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Sunday Observance
  Sunday Observance
  Road Traffic Acts
  Road Traffic Acts
  Prostitution
  Prostitution
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Remands on Bail
  Remands on Bail
  Stateless Persons (Travel Documents)
  Stateless Persons (Travel Documents)
  Sentenced Persons (Quashed Convictions)
  Sentenced Persons (Quashed Convictions)
  Immigrants Advisory Council on Housing (Report)
  Immigrants Advisory Council on Housing (Report)
  Mr. Lenny Bruce
  Mr. Lenny Bruce
  King and Queen of the Hellenes (Demonstrations)
  King and Queen of the Hellenes (Demonstrations)
  Peter Rachman
  Peter Rachman
EDUCATION
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Handicapped Children (Maintenance Grant)
  Handicapped Children (Maintenance Grant)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Noise (Power Saws)
  Noise (Power Saws)
  Welsh National Opera Company (Appeal)
  Welsh National Opera Company (Appeal)
  Seaside Towns (Rating)
  Seaside Towns (Rating)
  Riverside, Cardiff (Clearance Order)
  Riverside, Cardiff (Clearance Order)
HOUSING
  Cardiff
  Cardiff
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Crater, Charlton (Investigation)
  Crater, Charlton (Investigation)
  NATIONAL SERVICES
  NATIONAL SERVICES
  BRUNEI OPERATIONS (GENERAL SERVICE MEDALS)
  BRUNEI OPERATIONS (GENERAL SERVICE MEDALS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Smallholdings (Committee of Inquiry)
  Smallholdings (Committee of Inquiry)
EMPLOYMENT
  Electrical and Gas Industries, Scotland (Apprentices)
  Electrical and Gas Industries, Scotland (Apprentices)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Pay Television
  Pay Television
POST OFFICE
  New Office and Exchange, Alton
  New Office and Exchange, Alton
  Post Office Charges
  Post Office Charges
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Seabed Oil Rights
  Seabed Oil Rights
ROADS
  Disabled Drivers (Parking Bays)
  Disabled Drivers (Parking Bays)
  Parking Meters
  Parking Meters
  Parking Space, London
  Parking Space, London

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

AGREEMENTS WITH BAROTSELAND CHIEFS
3.6 p.m.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a further assurance can be given that all the agreements and Treaties with the Barotseland Chiefs will be fully respected and implemented.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, in the discussions on the future of Barotseland, which have now been initiated, Her Majesty's Government recognise the special relationship with Barotseland based on the agreement made with Paramount Chief Lewanika in 1900, as amended from time to time by later supplementary agreements.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Boyd of Merton to say that he has the liveliest recollection of the explicit pledges he gave, with full authority, when he was Secretary of State. May I ask my noble and learned friend whether this means that Barotseland will continue to be a Protectorate of the British Crown?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Litunga has been given repeated assurances that no constitutional changes affecting Barotseland will be made without prior consultation and agreement with the Litunga and Council. It is against this background that the forthcoming talks between the Northern Rhodesia Government and the Barotse Native Government are being arranged, with the object of finding an acceptable and workable solution.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that the right way to deal with this matter is in the way the Government propose—namely, to leave it to be dealt with by the Government of Northern Rhodesia and the Government of Barotseland? Does he not also agree that the position of Barotseland is comparable to that of the Princes' states in India, and that they took a wise course by negotiating their future with the Governments of India and Pakistan before those two countries became independent?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there would be, of course, very serious difficulties if Barotseland were to be entirely separated from Northern Rhodesia, with which it has been intimately connected since the early days of British protection. But we are confident that the forthcoming talks between the Northern Rhodesia Government and the Barotse Native Government will take full account of the position arising from the existing agreements.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend whether we can ask for something more? Can we ask here, in the case of Barotseland, for the same rights as we asked for in the case of Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland: that they shall be able to pursue their way to independence as a separate unit, quite apart from anything that happens in Northern Rhodesia?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is not the Question on the Order Paper, nor does it appear to me to be related to it.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, might I ask this question, which I think does directly arise out of what is on the Order Paper? First of all, are not any Treaties which exist with Barotseland not Treaties with Northern Rhodesia or with anybody else but the British Government or the British Crown? Secondly, if that is so, will it not be necessary to deal with this by an Order in Council dealing with the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia? Also, will this Parliament have the opportunity of approving or dissenting from or amending

827
any provision with regard to Barotseland that there may be in that Order in Council?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Earl. The position is that there can be no change in the constitutional position of Barotseland without consideration by Parliament, because this Parliament of the United Kingdom alone is competent to effect legislation affecting its constitutional status.

COMPENSATION FOR EGYPTIANISED AND SEQUESTRATED PROPERTY
3.10 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government:—

(1) Whether they can give this House a progress report on the working of the Foreign Compensation (Egypt) (Final Distribution) Order 1963, of March 4, 1963, and the total of payments made to date in respect of

(a) Egyptianised property

(b) Sequestrated property;

(2) What steps have been taken to obtain the release of the property of British nationals which, whilst subject to the terms of the Anglo-Egyptian Financial Agreement of February, 1959, was re-sequestrated under Egyptian Proclamation 138 of October, 1961.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, information obtained from the Foreign Compensation Commission shows that up to June 30, 1963, the amounts paid out were as follows:—
(a) Egyptianised property: £17,693,978.
Less: deductions in respect of ex-gratia loans: £772,720.
Value of cheques sent to claimants: £16,921,257.
(b) Sequestrated property: £4,109,309.
Less: deductions made in respect of ex-gratia loans: £911,517.
Value of cheques sent to claimants: £3,197,791.
One hundred and twenty-four claims registered under Article 8 of the Foreign Compensation (Egypt) (Determination and Registration of Claims) Order, 1962, were also paid up to June 30, 1963, the gross amount being £110,382.
less: deductions in respect of ex-gratia loans: £21,085.
Value of cheques sent to claimants: £89,296.
I do not think it would be right to disturb the work of the Foreign Compensation Commission by calling for a detailed progress report, as the work involved would seriously delay progress in determining and paying outstanding claims.
In answer to the second part of my noble friend's Question, about the re-sequestrated property, Her Majesty's Embassy in Cairo formally asked the United Arab Republic authorities in November, 1961, whether property sequestrated under Proclamation No. 138 was to be released; if so, when; and, if not, what form compensation would take. The Embassy have since been in frequent touch with the United Arab Republic authorities and understand that they accept the principle of compensation for property not eventually released. We have also been told that a decision on the future of the property under sequestration may now be expected comparatively soon. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the United Arab Republic Ambassador about this question on June 19.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his full and informative reply. I naturally cannot claim to have mastered all the figures, not having heard them before, but they will be very interesting and useful to a great many people who are vitally affected by this question. I was going to ask a supplementary question, which I really ought not to do: I was going to ask (I do not know whether the noble Earl has the figure there) what was the total amount in the kitty (if I may put it in the vernacular) for distribution by the Foreign Claims Commission. I shall not be surprised if he cannot give me the answer, but it would be useful to have it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think, yes. A sum of approximately £6·8 million, received from the United Arab Republic Government, is still in the Fund; and on top of that, of course, there is the "topping up", which my noble friend will remember was explained by the Foreign Secretary in his statement of December last year.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I remember, of course, only too well. I thank the noble Earl for his answer. I did not expect he would have it at his fingertips. May I now turn to the second part of his reply, on re-sequestration? If I understood him aright the noble Earl said that we had first made representations to the Egyptian Government in October, 1961. It is now July, 1963. I understand that the representations of October, 1961, were followed up by a full memorandum from the Embassy. Is it correct—I must put this in the form of a question, I know—that no formal reply has ever been received from the Egyptian Government to either of those representations? That is my first point.
My second point is this. The noble Earl referred to discussions that were going on as regards compensation and such like. Would he not agree that it is the fact, by and large, that the basis of settlement of compensation hinted at, or at any rate so far disclosed, is totally inadequate? It is a compulsory 5 per cent. on the rental value spread over fourteen years in what I should imagine were totally worthless Egyptian Government bonds. That being so (if my facts are correct), would he not agree that the claimants might feel aggrieved, and indeed surprised, that Her Majesty's Government should agree to any such inequitable settlement?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, on the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question, the United Arab Republic authorities do accept that British subjects whose property was re-sequestrated under Proclamation No. 138—that was in 1961— shall continue to enjoy their transfer rights under Article V of the 1959 Agreement, and a number of transfers of cash have already been effected. In reply to the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, this subject has been debated very often. I do not think
830
we can debate it at Question Time; but if my noble friend will look at the Foreign Secretary's statement of December 11, he will, I think, find full information about it.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl once more for his reply. Perhaps I might just ask one further point, then I shall have finished. Since this sign of interest, shall we say, on the part of the British Government was formally displayed to the Egyptian Government against the treatment of this property, is it not a fact that certain items of that re-sequestrated property have in fact been sold by the Egyptian Sequestrator General? I am informed that five large parcels of land have been sold.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, our Embassy in Cairo have reported that some property owned or partly owned by British subjects has recently been sold by the Sequestrator General to Egyptian insurance companies, and twenty British subjects are known to be affected. Payment for the property is being made to the Sequestrator General by the purchaser, but no details are yet available of the form of compensation to be paid to the owners. The rights of Her Majesty's Government and of all British property owners affected have been formally reserved by Her Majesty's Embassy.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. I cannot press him any further.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, referring to the first part of the noble Earl's reply, I should like to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, has said. There will be great appreciation among the many people concerned about these large amounts of claims. It is difficult to make a calculation, as has been said. Would the noble Earl feel able to give an indication of what is the total amount distributed to date against the total amount available—that is, the £27½ million plus the "topping up" amount, which would give the total amount available—and what they know of what remains, to use the term, "in the kitty" yet to be distributed? If the noble Earl could make something of a progress report it would be helpful to indicate this total amount.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Perhaps, my Lords. But if my noble friend would add

831
up the figures of the "topping-up" which were described by the Foreign Secretary on December 11; add to those the £27 million, plus the interest on the £27 million to date; then subtract from them the figures just given in this Answer, then I think he will arrive at the comet result.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the danger is that my rapid calculations would perhaps not be accurate. But could the noble Earl perhaps give those figures in answer to a Written Question? I am sure that this would be helpful to all concerned.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords.

TRAIN SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS
3.22 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that British Railways have discontinued the issue of free timetable booklets and broadsheets for many branch line services, and, in some areas, are running excursions without announcing the fact; and if they will state whether this departure from the normal commercial practice of informing the public of the services available is part of the promised 20th century railway service or if it applies only to branch lines which the Railways Board wishes to close.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the way in which railway services are advertised or otherwise made known to the public is a matter of management in which my right honourable friend does not intervene. I would add that my information does not bear out either the allegations contained in the first part of the noble Lord's Question, or the implications of the latter part.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, so far as the first part of my Question is concerned,
832
I have a letter from a Western Region passenger superintendent saying that the practice of issuing timetables, booklets and broadsheets has been discontinued and, because of that, in many parts of the country a voluntary organisation has had to issue timetables free?
Is this not a violation of the essential commercial practice that, if you want to sell something you must tell people what you are selling? With regard to the second point of my Question, I have another letter, from the passenger superintendent at Newcastle, saying that excursions were not advertised in posters on the station? Therefore, is not the noble Lord's ignorance on these two subjects as great as that of the general public?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, while I would certainly agree that the sale of services, so to speak, should be properly advertised, I was certainly not aware of what the noble Lord has just said, because my information was to the contrary. I was aware that broadsheets—which have never been issued free to the public but are pasted on boards at the stations—were no longer pasted up in the Western and North-Eastern Regions. I am informed that that was a matter of policy because it was found that there was constant difficulty in reprinting them so often and this made them economically unjustifiable in view of the functions they were fulfilling. I am told that timetables and local timetable booklets have always been on sale, and that what are given away are leaflets and cards which regular travellers can keep in their diaries. I am informed that there has been no change of practice in this matter, apart from the broadsheets that I have already mentioned.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that, since the earnings of these lines are being affected and they are clearly in danger of closure thereby, this is something which the Government should interest themselves in and that they should make representations to British Railways about it? Does the noble Lord not think that it is extraordinary that in these stations you cannot find broadsheets or timetables while in the waiting rooms there are glossy booklets showing how to get

833
to every country from the Balkans to Sweden but not how to get to Chorlton-cum-Hardy? Is this not utterly ridiculous and absolutely reprehensible in view of the fact that these lines are threatened with closure and that people's lives in that area are likely to be affected? And does the noble Lord not agree that this should not be a matter of indifference on the part of the Government?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, there is no question of indifference. But the information I have been able to gain does not indicate that that was the case, and I am also informed that there is no question of discrimination against lines that may be proposed for closure in the future.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord be willing to investigate the two specific instances which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I started my reply by saying that this was purely a matter for railway management; and on that basis I am not prepared to undertake an investigation. But if it would help the noble Lord and the House, and if he would accept it from me on a purely personal basis, I personally am prepared to make further inquiries, although certainly without committing myself on the question of Government interference in the matter.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, to refer to the earlier part of the Parliamentary Secretary's original reply, is he aware that we heard with considerable surprise and amazement that there is something with which the Minister of Transport cannot interfere or does not wish to interfere or make a public announcement about? If it were not for the substance of my noble friend's Question, I should almost welcome this departure in the field of modesty on the part of his chief.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, would it not be more realistic to appreciate the fact that the railway management have for several years been trying to kill traffic on many of these small lines? Is it not time that we got that into our heads?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, does not most of our experience point to the fact that the railway administration are gradually
834
transferring to the individual the high cost of telephone calls to obtain information which previously they could get quite easily?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I must admit that I have difficulty in reconciling the noble Earl's question with what I have stated and what I believe to be the case. But when I see it written down I will certainly look at the matter again and consider it at greater leisure.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he says was a personal offer; but however well-meant, I must, with equal good will, say that I cannot accept it; because it is a contradiction for the noble Lord to say, first of all, that he cannot interfere in the management of the railways and, secondly, that the particulars he has obtained do not bear out these allegations. There is also the implication that these allegations are untrue. I will send the papers to the noble Lord, but I would ask him to investigate them and, in view of what he has said this afternoon, to take steps to announce that these allegations are accurate.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think I can add to what I have said. If the noble Lord sends me the papers personally, I will look into the matter. That I have already told him, and I meant it. But I cannot commit myself about what I may then do.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, will the noble Lord also look into the matter of having some form of simplified announcement of train times? There is a difficulty about publishing large sheets and giving every train time and regularly altering them; but there is no difficulty in making simplified announcements on stations. One can see the point that the railway management wants some stations to be closed down; yet they have a duty to the public to say what trains are running.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord may like to know that in the only two regions in which broadsheets are not displayed blank forms are issued to the station masters, which they can fill in in order to do what the noble Lord suggested.
LORD STONHAM: What a way to run a railway!

RAILWAY CLOSURES
3.28 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: 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 the statement by Dr. Beeching to the National Production Advisory Council on Industry on 19th July that "lightly used railway services were now being eliminated, and that had to go forward whatever happened", accurately represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the proceedings of the National Production Advisory Council are private, but a brief account of some of the main points raised is given to the Press informally after each meeting. I understand that the Press were told after the meeting on Friday, July 19, that the report from the Chairmen of the Regional Boards had said of the Beeching Report that they recognised it as a worthwhile Report but had some reservations, including the thought that it should not be implemented until a wider study of transport had been carried out. Commenting on this Dr. Beeching, who was speaking as Chairman of the British Railways Board, said that the cuts proposed all dealt with lightly used services, which were uneconomic by any standard and, from the point of view of the economics of the railways, would need to be carried through whatever further studies of road or other transport were made. Any acceleration of the road programme from these studies—and presumably retardation of the programme was in nobody's mind—would merely accentuate the necessity for the proposed changes in the railway system.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I now ask him to answer my question—which was, whether the statement attributed to Dr. Beeching correctly describes Government policy? And while he is answering that question, will he say whether his own remark, also reported in the Press, that,
"The Government would act where it was thought that changes would not be advisable for social or other non-railway reasons"
836
was intended to be a repudiation of Dr. Beeching's statement?
LORD CHESHAM: No, my Lords; my own remarks were intended to be a substantiation of what Dr. Beeching said. Nothing that he said (and I am glad for once to be able to talk about something of which I have personal first-hand knowledge) has not been said in a variety of ways in both Houses of Parliament on more than one occasion. The noble Lord asks me to answer his question. I have done that already. All I can add is that I think it is extremely tricky, shall I say, to divorce a remark like this from its context and try to draw the kind of conclusion which the noble Lord tries to draw in the last part of his Question on the Paper.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is true that his right honourable friend has decided to reprieve from the Beeching axe the branch line from Alston, in Cumberland, to Haltwhistle, in Northumberland; and if that is so, should not the noble Lord, Lord Stonham find solace in that? And does my noble friend not consider that to be a step in the right direction?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, of course that is perfectly true.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether there is not some intermediate solution between obliging the Transport Commission to run uneconomic lines which they have declared redundant, as stated yesterday by the Minister of Transport, and closing them down entirely, with the result that they all grow weeds and become a menace to the rural life of the community? Could not the Government think of some scheme of allowing the Transport Commission to sell them by putting up tenders for branch lines to business interests, either local or national, so that they could be run as tramway lines or in some other way.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that it would be difficult, extremely undesirable and not very progressive to generalise in reply to a question of that kind. What might be the best use and the optimum use of any particular line

837
must depend on the circumstances of each particular case.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, will the noble Lord make it clear to the House and to the public that there is one way of saving branch lines and that is to use the darned things?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is nothing tricky in using words quoted in every national newspaper, which he has himself admitted arose from a public statement made on a matter of national importance. In view of what he has now said, will he confirm that no line will be closed until his right honourable friend has fully considered all representations made to him on hardship, on alternative services, on costs of road improvements and, in fact, on every relevant subject?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have stated on more than one occasion, and in elaborate detail to your Lordships' House, that that is the case. I know that the noble Lord knows every word of it as well as I do, and I am not going to detail it again. I confirm what I have said, and what has been said by various of my noble and right honourable friends. On the particular statement of Dr. Beeching, he was stating an economic fact of life, and I think that what he said was a correct statement.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful for that confirmation; because it does not mean that, whatever happens, lines will be closed.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (BEMBRIDGE HARBOUR) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, and read 1a.

THE SUMMER RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I hope that it will be possible for the House to rise for the Summer Recess either on Wednesday, July 31, or, at latest, on Thursday, August 1.
LORD REA: My Lords, will the noble Earl explain why there is a departure from the programme, and why there is any doubt about our rising on July 31?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it is not yet known how many noble Lords wish to take part in the Defence debate, and it may be necessary, if there are a number of extra speakers, to have a two-day debate. Also, at the moment I am not absolutely certain whether it will be possible to have the Royal Commission on Wednesday.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us the date when Parliament will reassemble after the Recess?
EARL ST. ALWYN: No, my Lords, I am afraid that I am not in a position to do that at the moment, but I hope to be able to make a statement before long.

RHODESIA AND NYASALAND BILL
3.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the general purpose of this Bill is to enable Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to make provision for the dissolution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. As your Lordships know, the Federation was established under an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament, and it is accordingly for the United Kingdom Parliament to make legal provision for its dissolution and for the manner in which it is carried out. That the Federation is to be dissolved will, I know, be a matter of deep disappointment and regret to many in your Lordships' House. The Federation was a venture launched in high hopes, and in the minds of many, both here and in Central Africa, it represented a noble ideal of partnership between the races.

839
It is not my intention this afternoon to attempt to analyse why, in spite of the Federation's undoubted achievements, particularly its economic achievements, these initial hopes have not been fulfilled, and why the original idea has not, in practice, been achieved. In the interests of the territories and their peoples, in the interests of those individuals who will be personally affected by the ending of the Federation, we must now look not to the past, but to the future. This much, however, I must say. Her Majesty's Government were faced with a situation in which two territories were not prepared to remain in the Federation. Her Majesty's Government have felt bound to take the decisions they have (and it was with a sense of the gravest responsibility that they did so) because, in their view, the realities of the political situation in Central Africa admitted of no other course.
When Her Majesty's Government accepted some months ago that a territory which wished to withdraw from the Federation must be allowed to do so, they took the view that a Conference between the Governments should be arranged in order that there should be joint discussion of the problems to which this new situation gave rise. As your Lordships will be aware, this did not prove to be an easy task, partly because discussions with Southern Rhodesia on her future independence had not yet been brought to a conclusion. May I say in passing that, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, the position on this issue remains as stated in the letter which my right honourable friend the First Secretary of State wrote to the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia on June 14th last. He there said,
"You will remember that when we met in London we discussed possible amendments which might be made by your Government to the Southern Rhodesia Constitution which would result in broadening the basis of representation in the Legislature, and would take effect as soon as possible. We also discussed the future development of policy on non-discrimination. So far as we are concerned these matters remain for further discussion".
There the matter rests.
That, in spite of all difficulties, the Conference eventually assembled at Victoria Falls on June 28 and completed its work within four and a half days,
840
represents I think a considerable achievement on the part of my right honourable friend the First Secretary of State, as well as being a tribute to the statesmanship and the spirit of practical collaboration shown by all the Governments concerned. There was full agreement at the Conference that arrangements should be made for the orderly and speedy transfer of Federal responsibilities to the territories. That, I would emphasise, was the desire of all the Governments. It was also quite obvious that all the complex problems which this process would involve could not be settled by the Conference itself, and that special machinery would have to be set up to deal with them.
There were, however, certain important matters on which, in the view of the Conference, those responsible for carrying its work forward would need guidance. Your Lordships will have seen from the Conference Report, which was recently published as a White Paper, that these matters included such vital and difficult problems as those arising in connection with the Federal public services, the apportionment of Federal assets and liabilities, citizenship, and so on. The views of the Conference on these questions are set out in the Report, and in general I do not think I need enlarge on them this afternoon. I would, however, say a word about the problems of the Federal public services. These are of particular importance both from the point of view of the individual Federal public servants themselves, and also because the way in which they are resolved will closely affect the operation of the present Federal services after they have been transferred to territorial control. There is first the need to absorb as many Federal civil servants as possible into the service of the territorial Governments. Secondly, there is need for fair terminal arrangements for those who cannot be absorbed, or who leave the service. There is also the need to secure the discharge of obligations of both past and present civil servants in respect of their pensions.
Finally, there is the issue which was raised at the Conference in regard to compulsory secondment. I should like to make it clear that no suggestion was made that there should be any compulsory transfer on a permanent basis. The issue arose only in respect of a limited period immediately following the transfer

841
of Federal functions to the territories, during which public services must be maintained while time would in practice be needed to apply and work out in relation to individual officers whatever terminal arrangements might be agreed. No one wants compulsory secondment for its own sake. The problem is to devise a solution which takes account of the practical difficulties arising in the period immediately following the transfer of Federal Departments and which at the same time can be regarded as reasonable and equitable by the Federal Officers concerned. I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that all these problems are already being considered in Salisbury by representatives of the Governments, including Her Majesty's Government, in consultation with the Federal Public Services Association.
The machinery set up by the Conference to carry forward its work is fully set out in chapter 2 of the White Paper, and there are only two points to which I should like to refer briefly. First, there has been no delay in setting this further consultation in train. Work has already started on a number of questions, including, in particular, that of the Federal Public Services to which I have just referred. Secondly, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the decision of the Conference to establish a special committee on inter-territorial questions. We do not regard the dissolution of the Federation as a purely negative process, and your Lordships will have noted from chapter 5 of the Conference Report the views expressed on this subject to the Conference by my right honourable friend, the First Secretary of State, when he stressed that it was
"the United Kingdom Government's declared policy to seek to assist in the evolution of effective new forms of collaboration between the territories when the Federation came to an end, forms that would be acceptable to each of them and help to preserve and promote in particular the economic prosperity of all".
I think that we can feel a special satisfaction that the Conference should have made provision to enable questions of inter-territorial collaboration to be further studied by official representatives of the Territorial Governments, assisted by Federal officials, in a special committee under United Kingdom chairmanship.
Before I come to the Bill itself I should like to explain briefly what the Bill does
842
not do. It does not deal with the future constitutional development or independence of any of the territories. Moreover, it is, as I pointed out at the opening of my speech, an enabling Bill. It specifies certain matters on which provision will or may need to be made by Order in Council, but it does not attempt to lay down what those provisions shall be. We are therefore not called upon, in considering this Bill, to decide the nature of these provisions. The detailed arrangements eventually to be made can be determined only after further inter-Governmental discussion through the machinery established at Victoria Falls.
May I now turn to the actual provisions of the Bill? Clause 1(1) is a general provision which enables Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to provide for the dissolution of the Federation and the distribution of Federal functions to the territories. It also enables the making of the necessary "incidental, supplemental, and consequential" provisions. Clause 1(2) sets out a number of matters in respect of which such "incidental, supplemental, and consequential" provisions may be made. Clause 1(2)(a) covers the transfer of Federal functions to the Territorial Governments and also enables provision to be made by Order in Council in regard to Federal Assets and Liabilities, including the Public Debt. What provisions may eventually have to be made in regard to the latter problem I cannot, of course, say at this juncture. The Conference agreed that there should be a special subcommittee to deal with this in the light of the Conference discussions, and to make recommendations. It will be for this post-Conference machinery also to consider the question of an apportionment Commission, and to recommend the appointment of such a Commission with appropriate terms of reference, if it considers that one is needed.
Clause 1(2)(b) enables provision to be made as necessary for members of the Public Services of the Federation. As I have already indicated, the Conference agreed that immediate attention should be given to the working out of arrangements which would secure equitable terms for all Federal Officers and the discharge of obligations towards them. As the Report of the Conference makes clear, members of the Armed Forces and the

843
Judiciary, as well as Parliamentary officers and employees of statutory bodies, will be included in this consideration. Clause 1(2)(c) regarding matters pending before Federal courts and tribunals at the time of dissolution is, I think, self-explanatory. I would only add in passing that, as stated in chapter 9 of its Report, the Conference agreed that the question of a new Court of Appeal in place of the Federal Supreme Court was a matter to be pursued between the territorial Governments.
I now come to Clause 1(2)(d). This provides for the existing Federal legislation to be continued in force in the territories, by Order in Council, after the Federal Government's powers in respect of any given functions cease. This is subject to
"the powers of the authority having power to legislate in the territory after dissolution".
The subsection also makes it possible for the order to empower a territorial Government to modify or adapt Federal legislation for its own use following dissolution.
Clause 1(2)(e) enables provision to be made for the modification or adaptation of any Act of Parliament or any Instruments having effect thereunder. The Acts of Parliament in question are mainly those dealt with by Section 13 of the 1953 Order in Council which lists a number of Acts where reference to the Federation has to be substituted for reference to a colony or to Southern Rhodesia. The territorial Constitutions, however, are also Instruments made under Act of Parliament. While it is not proposed to amend any territorial Constitutions under this Bill, it has been thought desirable that the limited purpose of this subsection should be made clear. It is therefore expressly provided that this shall not authorise the amendment of the Constitution of any territory.
Clause 1(2)(e) also includes certain provisions relating to institutions or bodies which may be constituted jointly for all or any two of the territories. I have already referred to the discussions at Victoria Falls on the subject of interterritorial collaboration. The territories, or any two of the territories, might agree to set up a joint body or institution to operate on their behalf in some particular field, and might wish that some provision should be made by Order in Council for the
844
exercise by such a body or institution of the functions which the territories had agreed. There is no question here of the territorial Governments having any such body or institution imposed upon them. Whether or not such a body or institution were to be established, and if so whether any action should be taken by Order in Council under this subsection, would be a matter for agreement between the territories themselves.
Clause 1(3) enables provision to be made for any matter covered by Clause 1(2) as from such time before dissolution as may be specified in the Order. It is not contemplated that the transfer of all Federal functions to the territories should await the final dissolution of the Federation. Indeed, it was fully agreed at the Victoria Falls Conference that, wherever it was found practicable, arrangements should be made for such transfers in advance of dissolution. Satisfactory arrangements would, of course, have to be made regarding the men and money to run these services. Clause 1(4) enables provision to be made for a territory to withdraw from the Federation in advance of dissolution, and for the powers in this Bill relating to dissolution to be applied in that event. In fact, however, for reasons which I will go on to explain, it should now be possible to deal with the dissolution of the Federation as one single operation so that there will be no need to have recourse to this particular provision. Your Lordships will have read in Chapter 2 of the Conference Report that it was considered
"the effective operation of the machinery would be hampered unless the Nyasaland Government were fully associated with it on the same terms".
The Conference therefore invited the Chairman to seek the agreement of the Nyasaland Government to associate itself with this machinery. I should explain that arrangements for the withdrawal of Nyasaland were already fairly well advanced, but the Working Party responsible for making these arrangements was still operating under terms of reference which assumed the detachment of Nyasaland from a continuing Federation. This assumption had now become unreal. I am therefore glad to inform your Lordships that, given the target date of December 31, 1963, for the dissolution of the Federation, the Nyasaland Government have now agreed to

845
participate in the general arrangements to be made for the dissolution of the Federation.
May I now say a word on Clause 2, subsections (2) and (3)? I am sure your Lordships will agree that in general any Order in Council under this Act should be subject to Affirmative Resolutions. At the same time we have thought it right in subsection (3) to make provision for the work to be carried forward as necessary during the period of the Summer Recess, and we have therefore included subsection (3), which requires any Order made before October 1, 1963, to be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure only. It is not possible to say how far it may prove necessary to have recourse to subsection (3), since this will depend on the progress made by the committees set up by the Conference. I should like to make it clear, however, that it would not in any case be possible to deal by Order in Council before October 1 with such major general questions as the Federal public service, public debt, and so on. Any action by Order in Council before October 1 would be confined to the transfer of such individual Federal functions to the territories in the case of which it was agreed that orderly transfer arrangements could be made at that time.
In dealing with this matter in another place, my right honourable friend, the First Secretary, said that he would consult further with the Governments concerned on the question, including this particular provision in the Bill. From the inquiries which have now been made, it is clear that there is a desire for this provision, in case it should be needed for the purpose I have stated. I hope that, with this explanation, your Lordships will agree with me that Clause 2(3) should form part of this Bill. It was agreed by all Governments at the Victoria Falls Conference that, wherever practicable, functions should be transferred in advance of dissolution, and I am sure that we should not appear to be lacking in that sense of urgency which is so essential if this complex operation is to be brought to a conclusion in a prompt and orderly fashion. I have done my best, I hope at not too great length, to expound to your Lordships the provisions of this Bill. I commend it to your Lordships, and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the clarity with which he has described the purpose and content of the Bill. I could have wished myself that he had dealt at greater length with some of the matters of policy involved in the winding up of the Federation, and also that he had said something about other matters that were raised at the Victoria Falls Conference, such as the relations between this country and Southern Rhodesia. I have no doubt that other noble Lords will wish to ask the noble and learned Lord questions, and I am sure we shall all be delighted—and it will not weary us at all—if he is able to answer at rather greater length than is usual when it comes to the final speech in the debate.
We on this side of the House welcome this Bill, and we congratulate the Government on having introduced it. It is not often that we can talk in this way about a Government Bill, and it is all the pleasanter when it happens. It was said of King Charles I that nothing became him so well in his life as the leaving of it, and I think it is also true of Her Majesty's Government in their dealings with the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Even more than the Bill, we welcome the agreement between the territorial Governments and the Federal Government represented at the Victoria Falls Conference about the system of government in Central Africa.
For the first time since the Federation was set up in 1953 there is substantial agreement between the representatives of Africans and Europeans about their own political future. The importance of this agreement is that it is not just between Governments, but is between the races; because representatives of the races were present at the Conference at Victoria Falls. So much of the difficulty in the past has been due to the fact that there has been a deep cleavage of opinion between the Africans and the Europeans in Central Africa about their political future. But they have at last agreed to dissolve the Federation and to replace it by three separate countries whose voluntary collaboration will decide their future relationships.

847
The Federation could not have continued in its present form, as the Monckton Commission reported some years ago, without the use of force. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who is, I think, the only member of the Commission present in your Lordships' House, will speak later in the debate, and I hope that he will bear out my view that the circumstances which have arisen since the Commission's Report have made it impracticable for their recommendations to be carried out, and that in fact dissolution of the Federation is the only possible course at the present time. I am quite convinced that, if the British Government had delayed much longer and secession had been withheld, the Federation would have gone out in bloodshed and violence. But the timely, if belated, action on the part of Her Majesty's Government and the good sense and reasonableness of their African partners are bringing about the dignified and efficient transformation of a single political unit into its three components.
Partnership between the races is just as essential in Central Africa as it is in East Africa. But partnership depends entirely on equality; it is the only possible basis for partnership. From my experience of Africa, I would say that partnership is possible only after independence, because colonial rule inevitably gives the African an inferior status. It was for that reason that partnership was impossible and impracticable so long as the Federation lasted, but I believe it can become a reality when it has been wound up. But, after all, it is not the failure of the Federation that really matters to us at the present time: the great hope for the future which this measure of agreement between the races represents.
I was very glad that the noble and learned Lord referred to this, and I am sure we all agree that we should not waste time this afternoon on postmortems or sterile recriminations about British rule and the rise and fall of the Federation. The essential thing is that we still have responsibility for the 8½ million inhabitants of the three territories. It is their future which is our concern at the present moment. Let us be thankful that the long and bitter controversy about the Federation is over
848
at last and that there is a better chance than at any time during the past ten years for the Parties of this country to formulate and support a common policy for Central Africa.
My Lords, tributes have been paid—indeed, an eloquent tribute was paid by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his speech this afternoon—to the diplomatic skill of the chairman of the Victoria Falls Conference, the First Secretary of State, in steering the Conference past the shoal of walk-out and breakdown to its unanimous conclusion. But the chairman's skill would have availed nothing without the willingness of Sir Roy Welensky, Mr. Kaunda and Mr. Field to sacrifice many cherished objectives to save the Conference. Sir Roy Welensky has said many hard things about the British Government and the Labour Party, and many hard things have been said about him; indeed, some of the hard things I saw reported again in the Press this morning. But no one can have failed to appreciate the co-operation that Sir Roy Welensky and his Government are giving in what must be a most distasteful task, that of winding up the Federation.
The statesmanship of Mr. Field is evident because, despite his failure to get any undertaking from the British Government about immediate independence for Southern Rhodesia, he came to the Conference and played a constructive part in all its work. It was most satisfactory, I think, that the Conference, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, decided to set up two committees of officials, one to deal with the "unscrambling" of the Federation and the other to deal with the no less important task of collaboration between the territories. The setting-up of this machinery recognises the fact that the closest possible economic co-operation between the three territories is highly desirable if they are not to lose the economic benefits of Federation after the political tie-up is over.
There are certain Federal matters in which the British Government have special responsibility, and I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord some questions about them. First—and this is a matter to which the noble and learned Lord referred in his speech—there is the Federal Republic service and its 35,000

849
employees. I hope, as the noble and learned Lord said, that most of the Federal public servants will be willing and able to join the public service of the three territories; indeed, there will be a very great need of them, for quite a long period of time. But, of course, these public servants must be free to choose. We are responsible for the break-up of the Federation, and it would surely be right for the British Government to say that no Federal servant shall be worse off when he loses his present employment. A statement of that kind would be reassuring to the public servants of the Federation
Will the Government be willing for example, to provide the money needed to compensate civil servants who want to retire or whom African Governments do not wish to employ? I am quite sure that the Government will secure equitable settlements, but I am also quite certain, as the noble and learned Lord is aware, that it would be impossible for the Territorial Governments to shoulder this enormous burden of compensation. This, of course, ties on to another point to which I think the noble and learned Lord did not allude: that it is reasonable that the territories should take over their share of the Federal indebtedness as well as their share of physical assets; and the Federal Governments of the two Rhodesias have already agreed to do so. But here again the financial obligations may prove too heavy.
Then I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord this question: Do Her Majesty's Government acknowledge their moral responsibility towards holders of Federal stock? It is a very big sum of money—I believe it is £285,000 million.
LORD OGMORE: It is £285 million.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: To me, the thousands would be quite a large sum; but I am grateful for the correction. I do not see how we can get out of this responsibility, but I was not at all reassured by what the First Secretary of State said during the Second Reading debate in another place. I should like to quote his words—and since he is a Minister, I am entitled to do so. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 680 (No. 145) col. 1431]:
"… the attitude of the British Government would have to be considered in the light of our general policies on overseas aid."
850
My Lords, this is not a matter of aid; nor of charity. It is an obligation towards certain people who may suffer financial loss because the British Government have decided to dissolve the Federation. I hope that this will not be considered as a matter of aid, which, of course, applies equally to all the overseas countries to which we give aid, and that the Government will appreciate that the circumstances here are quite different from those which are usually responsible for our contributions of aid to developing countries.
The third matter about which I would ask the Government—and this is again a matter to which the noble and learned Lord did not allude—is the problem of the division of the Federal Armed Forces between the territories. I am clear, from what the First Secretary of State said in another place, about the position of the Army, which will be divided on a basis of recruitment; that seems a reasonable way of dealing with it. But I am not at all clear about the Air Force. The Government are proposing that all squadrons of the Federal Air Force should go back to Southern Rhodesia—at least, I think that is their proposal. May I ask whether Northern Rhodesia is satisfied with this proposal and, if not, is the matter still open for them to raise it before any final decision is taken?
I would ask a further question on this subject. Who is going to pay for the maintenance of the Southern Rhodesian Air Force if the Federal Air Force is transferred in its entirety to Southern Rhodesia? It would surely be an intolerable financial burden for the Government of Southern Rhodesia. Looked at from the British point of view, how can we justify, from the standpoint of our own strategical requirements, the maintenance of fighter squadrons in the heart of Africa? That, presumably, would be the alternative if we wished to cover the cost of these squadrons ourselves. I have seen an enormous amount of Government money wasted by small countries in Africa on armed forces that are really completely useless, apart from their prestige value. Will the Government do their best to persuade the Government of Southern Rhodesia that a powerful air force is quite unnecessary for a country of the magnitude of Southern Rhodesia, with its financial resources, and will the British Government

851
accept responsibility for the future of the Federal Air Force? It is not possible for us to say what the figure will be, but I think it is a responsibility the Government ought to accept.
These are matters in which the British Government have a very direct responsibility, but the arrangement between the territories for economic co-operation after the Federation has been dissolved are, of course, entirely matters for their voluntary co-operation. The more voluntary co-operation there is between them the better for the economic development of the whole area. I think all noble Lords would agree about that. They, not we, will have to decide how much co-operation is possible, and for how long. There will, of course, be much less than there has been hitherto under the Federation, and unless there is a change of policy in Southern Rhodesia—and I should like to come back to that in a moment—the two Rhodesias will drift steadily further apart. Mr. Kaunda has said that he wants joint management of the railways, Central African Airways, and Kariba. But another aspect of his policy is that he is already planning an alternative rail route through Portuguese territory. I fear that the racial policy of Southern Rhodesia will continue to be the big obstacle to co-operation with the Northern Territories. However much their economic interests may prompt them to work together, so long as there are these big political differences it will not be possible for them to achieve that degree of economic co-operation which is so desirable. Unless there is a rapid improvement in race relationships in Southern Rhodesia and a more liberal policy on the part of the Southern Rhodesian Government, I fear the economic links between North and South will become fewer and more tenuous, and economic barriers may easily grow up.
This brings me to the discussion which took place—and I hope the noble Lord will refer to this discussion—at Victoria Falls between Mr. Butler and Mr. Field about the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia. I am glad that Mr. Butler was just as firm about his refusal to give independence under the present Constitution as he had been during the earlier talks in London. The fact is that to grant Southern Rhodesia independence under the present Constitution would cer-
852
tainly break up the Commonwealth. African and Asian countries would not accept the new member, and some of them would almost certainly walk out. It was for this reason, I believe—although I may be wrongly informed and I know the noble and learned Lord is in a better position to know the facts than I am—that the old Commonwealth countries, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, warned Mr. Field when he was in London that they could not agree to Southern Rhodesia joining the Commonwealth under its present Constitution.
There are some people who say that if we do not grant independence to Southern Rhodesia in the very near future, Southern Rhodesia will take it, but I am sure that that is not the case. The statesmanlike conduct of Mr. Field in co-operating over the arrangements for the winding up of the Federation makes it most unlikely, almost unthinkable, he would do anything of the kind. He knows better than any of us that this would be a political and economic disaster for the people of Southern Rhodesia; he does not want them to become cut off from the outside world like the people of South Africa.
If this line of action is ruled out, the only path to independence is one that will give the African population of Southern Rhodesia a larger share in its government. The danger of a deadlock—and we seem to have reached a position of deadlock at the moment, because that was the import, I thought, of one reference the noble and learned Lord made to the position—between the British Government and the Government of Southern Rhodesia about constitutional change is that it is bound, if it goes on long enough, to lead to violence.
It will lead to violence partly because there is no safety valve in Southern Rhodesia, no constitutional means at the moment for the Africans to express their political aspirations, and partly because, judging from the views that were expressed at the Addis Ababa Conference by the other African countries, they are only less militant about British Africa than they are about Portuguese Africa because they respect our intention to transfer power quickly to African hands and they admire the record of achievement of independence in British dependencies and colonial

853
territories since 1947. So we cannot allow a deadlock of this kind to continue, and I hope the Government will take the initiative by inviting the Government of Southern Rhodesia to a constitutional conference to which African leaders of Southern Rhodesia would also be asked, at which a further broadening of the Constitution could be considered and discussed. I hope the Government will do what it can to bring the two sides in Southern Rhodesia closer together. It seems to me it could play a very important part in this direction.
I nevertheless think it is only fair to Southern Rhodesia that our long-term policy should be made perfectly clear. I wish the Government would say, as we have said, that we cannot hand over Southern Rhodesia to minority rule. This would be completely contrary to British policy. We have never done it under any Government, whether Conservative or Labour, during the period since Indian independence in 1947, the period in which the British Empire has been transformed into a free commonwealth. The last time we did it was in 1910, and that was a very unhappy precedent. Whatever Mr. Butler has said in private—and that, of course, I do not know—he has not said in public that majority rule is a condition of independence. I am sure it would be better for Southern Rhodesia to know where it stands and to realise that it cannot expect more from a Conservative Government than it could expect from a Labour Government.
Of course, I know there are differences of opinion about this in the Conservative Party; but, judging by one speech made in another place by Lord Balniel—to my mind by far the best speech made from either side in the debate on the Second Reading—there are Members of another place like himself, Conservative Members, who would resist to the utmost any Bill introduced into this Parliament to give Southern Rhodesia independence so long as minority rule continues. If this cannot be done without splitting the Conservative Party, is that not another reason for a Conservative Government to say it will not be done?
I am perfectly certain the reputation of this country in Africa, at the United
854
Nations and in the outside world as well, and, indeed, more important still, the survival of the Commonwealth in its present form, will depend on how the Government deal with the constitutional position in Southern Rhodesia. This, of course, is an even tougher problem than federation. It can be solved only if we stick to our principles and if the leaders of Southern Rhodesia continue to act with the wisdom and moderation they showed at Victoria Falls. I strongly commend this Bill to your Lordships. I hope you will pass it during the course of the afternoon and that it will reach the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment, because I am quite certain its passage into law will do this country enormous good, not only in Africa but throughout the world.
4.20 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I welcome this Bill, and I believe that the Government have been wise in bringing it in at this juncture. Like him, too, I do not propose to spend any time in going into the past, except to make two comments. The first is that the Government were warned by many of us in 1953, in this House and in another place, that this sort of thing might happen if they proceeded with their intention to force federation on this area without the consent of the African inhabitants. Happily, or unhappily, depending on how you look upon it, our forecast has been proved correct, and this Bill to-day is part of the statutory culmination of that unhappy series of events which, in my view, need never have taken place.
The other delving into the past, a little more into the past, has been prompted by Lord Listowel's remark about Lord Balniel. If I am not mistaken, Lord Balniel is, partly at all events, a Cecil—he belongs to the family of which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is such a distinguished head. It is an odd thing to remember that there would probably never have been a Southern Rhodesia at all if Lord Salisbury, the distinguished Prime Minister of the nineteenth century, had had his way; or, at all events, had even heard that there was a project on hand to seize a large part of the

855
present Southern Rhodesia. So frightened was Cecil Rhodes that Lord Salisbury might get to hear of what he and Dr. Jameson were up to in their raid on the Matabele that he hid in the bush for several days in order to prevent a telegram, should one be sent by Lord Salisbury, from reaching him—the second of Cecil Rhodes' private wars, both of which were started and successfully carried out by him in the teeth of probable opposition from the then Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, who knew nothing at all about them until they were over. One cannot conceive of that situation to-day; but when we talk of Southern Rhodesia it is just as well to remember its origin—this buccaneering adventure against the wishes and, indeed, without the knowledge of the Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury.
This Bill before us to-day is, in fact, a blank cheque. There is little in the form of facts that are given in it, and there are few facts also given in the Report of the Central Africa Conference (Cmnd. 2093) which was held in the Victoria Fails Hotel. That is inevitable; because, of course, the details have to be worked out, not by the Government of this country alone but in consultation with, and in agreement between, the Government of this country and four other Governments. Therefore, it is quite impossible for us to have a great many details to-day. But I think we can, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has already shown, draw attention to some of the main features upon which we feel there should be agreement. I should like to reinforce a great deal of what he said in this respect.
It is perfectly true, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said, that many of the functions are to be transferred to the Territories which at present comprise the Federation but will soon be independent. There will, of course, be questions to face: how many civil servants they are going to take over; what financial arrangements will be made, and so on. But there are some functions that cannot be taken over—at least, I have seen no suggestion that they should be. Presumably the Railway will still remain the Railway. It is difficult to carve up the Railway. It could be done, but it would be most inconvenient. The Airways Corporation also is not easy to
856
carve up. It is a small one, but most efficient. It is one of the few airways in the world that makes a profit. It seems a pity to carve up Central African Airways: it is already almost unique. So far as I know, Central African Airways and Cambrian Airways are about the only two in the world that make a profit.
There are some other functions which it would be a great pity to break up. I feel that considerable attention should be given by the Governments concerned to having a continuing organisation in respect of these common services. Such an organisation must be set up straight away. There must be no waiting until the exact moment of dissolution on December 31. A continuing organisation ought to be in being to-day, getting ready to take over things, and not waiting until the last possible moment.
Then there is the Federal debt, the total of which was rather exaggerated by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on his first mention of it, but which, even on the true figure, is a considerable amount. I feel as he does, that the British Government have a good deal of responsibility with regard to this debt. I do not believe that, with an infant Federation like this, which had no backing except the pledge of Her Majesty's Government that they were going to continue it under an Act of Parliament, anybody would have invested money in a Federal debt of this kind. If anybody can convince me to the contrary, I shall be pleased to be so convinced. There are a number of noble Lords here who have a good deal of experience of the City and finance. I shall be glad to hear from them that I am wrong, but I think I am right. If that is so, it means that these people invested hundreds of millions of pounds in order to develop the Federal services and the resources of the Federation on the understanding, and with the applied assurance, that Her Majesty's Government backed this debt. I believe that we have a responsibility here. I do not know what the legal responsibility is, but certainly we have a moral responsibility; and it would be an altogether dreadful thing if we let down those who had invested in this debt and took part of the debt for future development of this area.
Then, with regard to the Federal services, again I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that civil servants

857
joined the Federal service on the understanding that it was going to provide a life's work and a career; and these people may or may not wish to go to the Territorial Governments. I hope that they will continue with the Territorial service; but if they do not wish to do so, I feel that it is their choice and no one should impose a choice upon them. Here again, I think the British Government have a considerable responsibility.
Unhappily, it has already been said by Northern Rhodesia that they propose to impose tariffs on imports from Southern Rhodesia as soon as possible. As a free trader myself, I object to tariffs of all kinds, everywhere, if they can be avoided. Surely this is one place where one would hope they could be avoided. Between Northern and Southern Rhodesia there is an absolute community of interest. Northern Rhodesia requires the coal from Southern Rhodesia, and Southern Rhodesia provides various services from Northern Rhodesia to get out the copper once it has been produced. I think it would be a pity if they started up various tariff barriers against one another immediately, almost before the end of Federation. I hope that it will be possible to avoid that.
With regard to the military forces, I had intended to ask a question, and I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, did so. There is no need for me to expand it, but I should like to support his question, because I think that the future of the Rhodesian Air Force is something on which we must have an assurance. It is not like many other of these things. After all, the Air Force is largely dependent upon us here in this country. They obtain aircraft from this country; spares, equipment, training manuals, and assistance of various kinds: and, as we all know to our cost, Air Forces are extremely expensive items and are likely to be far more expensive in the future.
I cannot believe that Southern Rhodesia is going to be able to afford an Air Force, even if it needs one. I do not know why Southern Rhodesia in particular needs an Air Force. Very few of the new States of Africa have got Air Forces. Presumably, Northern Rhodesia is not going to have one; Nyasaland is not going to have one; nor are Tanganyika, Kenya and Uganda. Why should Southern Rhodesia believe that it is any more likely to be
858
attacked than anybody else? In fact, it cannot afford one. This year it is hoped to keep the deficit on current account in Southern Rhodesia down to £580,000, which will bring the accumulated deficit to just over £3 million. In other words, it cannot afford to pay for an Air Force, and I have a strong feeling that, in all probability, it is the British taxpayer who will be asked to supplement the Budget of the Southern Rhodesia Government in order to provide for the Southern Rhodesia Air Force. I therefore feel that we ought to look at this point a little more closely.
My Lords, there are one or two other matters that I would mention. First, in regard to the Court of Appeal (this point was not mentioned by Lord Listowel, but it was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack), for years past several of us in this House have been pressing for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to put itself in a position to carry on when these countries become independent. There is a tendency for them to leave the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee when they become independent, or soon afterwards. I think they do this for two reasons. First because they never see the Judicial Committee. It never goes around, it is not peripatetic; it sits here in Whitehall, and secondly, until recently very few of the countries' own judges became members of the Judicial Committee. The late Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, from time to time gave us indications that he had some sympathy with this point of view—I do not know about his successor.
I believe that it is most important to retain a Supreme Court of Appeal for the whole Commonwealth. Even now, many of the judges in the Commonwealth, and people who teach at universities are getting worried, because as we turn from Empire into Commonwealth there is no longer one Supreme Court of Appeal for the whole Commonwealth as there was for the Empire. There are very great divergences between judicial decisions on various matters. I do not think that from a legal point of view, it would be a good thing to continue in this way; and if we could retain the Judicial Committee, or evolve that into a Commonwealth Court of Appeal, it would be an extremely good thing. I am quite sure, from my own

859
knowledge of these various countries, that the independent overseas countries will not agree to such a course unless occasionally the Court sits in their own territories and unless some of their judges become members of it. I believe that there is at the moment a judge from Nigeria and also one from New Zealand on the Committee. That is a very good sign.
The other point I wished to make is in regard to the need for trade and aid. We must not suppose that just because we pass this Bill all our responsibility is at an end. That is not so. I believe that we have tremendous responsibilities, both in aid and trade, towards all these developing countries, whether they are so-called "colonial" countries, or whether they have achieved full independence; and we must help them in every possible way we can. I am very glad that President Kennedy, in a recent speech, has given the green light, so far as America is concerned, by hoping that there will be a strengthening of the international monetary system. He said that this hope reflected the concern of the United States that adequate provision should be made for the growth of international liquidity to finance expanding world trade over the years ahead. This attitude on the part of America to world liquidity will help tremendously in the economies of the underdeveloped countries.
Unhappily, although a number of countries are prepared to give a certain amount of aid to developing countries there is by no means the same even modified support for trade. As we saw from some of the speeches on the Finance Bill in this House yesterday, as soon as there is any question of trade from one of our young Commonwealth countries beginning in any way to impinge on trade in this country there is immediately a cry for a quota or tariff barrier, or something of that sort, with the purpose of keeping out the trade of that Commonwealth country. What is the good of giving them aid unless we also take their trade? I believe that we should do both. We must recognise that it is impossible either to give aid or to do trade with our Commonwealth friends and co-partners without at times some sacrifice in our own economy. You cannot give and at
860
the same time retain; giving must mean a certain amount of sacrifice.
Finally, my Lords, I would support Lord Listowel's plea for a conference at an early date with Southern Rhodesia to try to expand the constitutional basis of that country. I believe that if we make it known that our policy in Southern Rhodesia is exactly the same as it has been everywhere else, whether in India, the Far East, South-East Asia, Africa, or the West Indies—that is to say, universal adult suffrage—we shall be doing the right thing.
4.38 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we must all be extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the very clear exposition he has given of this Bill. I am sure it has been extremely valuable to your Lordships. Indeed, if I intervene at all in this debate to-day it is not, in any sense, to oppose the Bill, nor to go back into the past—not even to enter into discussion with my noble friend Lord Ogmore as to what my grandfather really thought almost eighty years ago. I would only comment that, as I listened to him, I could not help thinking that it was rather typical of the Liberal Party to live so very far in the past. But at any rate, I do not live there. In my view, whatever we may feel about the past controversies between the Government here in the United Kingdom and in the Federation, we must recognise that federation is now dead and nothing can bring it back to life again, though, if I may say so, I firmly believe that the names of Lord Malvern and Sir Roy Welensky, who have been so closely associated with its short but distinguished history, will live on for future historians as men, not behind, but ahead of their times.
The fact, however, remains, my Lords, that the Federation, if not for ever, at any rate for the time being, is dead; and in these circumstances everyone, both here and in Central Africa, whatever their past views may have been, must be prepared to face up to the new situation and see whether, even without any political connection between the three territories, some basis of co-operation can be found which will inure to the greatest possible benefit of the peoples of Central Africa. Even if, in the present political sphere, that is at present impossible, there surely

861
are other spheres—and here I agree, wholeheartedly, if I may say so, with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—where much could be done. To give one instance, there is the sphere of health, where a great deal could be achieved, and there are yet other concerns of common interest between all three territories, Kariba, the railways, the air services, all of which have been mentioned this afternoon, where, with good will (and, of course, without good will nothing could be done) things could, I believe, continue, under some sort of international public utility system, not so very differently from what has obtained in the past.
It is to facilitate that possibility, as I understand it, that provision is made in Clause 1(2) of the Bill for the setting up, by agreement, of institutions or bodies constituted jointly for the territories. That, I take it we shall all feel, is a most valuable provision. There are, of course, aspects of the winding up of the federal Constitution which must cause us all concern. There is, first of all, the debt. But as I understand my noble friend Lord Colyton is going to speak of that, I shall not trouble your Lordships with it this afternoon. Then there is the position of the Federal civil servants, of which much has been said already. What is going to happen to them? They are some of the casualties, if I may so describe them, of the dissolution of the Federation. They had dedicated their lives to this service and now it has, as it were, crashed about their ears and they are left in the ruins. I thought that the White Paper was rather vague about them. It merely said that it was agreed at the Conference that as many as possible should be absorbed in the territorial service. But suppose they do not want to go into the territorial service—and I can imagine that men coming from the federal service might not get a very cordial reception there—what then? I do hope they will be given a completely free choice, and that no undue pressure shall be exerted on them.
It seemed as if that situation had already been entirely clarified by the assurances which were given by the First Secretary of State, during the passage of this Bill in another place, that there would be full consultation with the Federal Public Service Association, and that no attempt would be made to impose
862
on them permanent compulsory secondment to the service of the territorial Governments. But the latest information I have—and it is quite recent—seems to show that the sub-committee which has been set up to consider this question is likely to recommend that the federal officers shall either be forced to accept territorial offers, or lose their compensation; and that the territorial representatives on the sub-committee are exerting considerable pressure in favour of this course. I hope, therefore, that we may have to-day in this House a very clear reaffirmation of the assurances given by the First Secretary of State; an assurance that, if the sub-committee produces proposals which conflict with these assurances, Her Majesty's Government will reject them; and also an assurance that, if the civil servants do not feel able to accept even temporary compulsory secondment to the territorial service, they will not be deprived of any compensation due to them, owing to the ending of the service to which they had, as I said, devoted their lives. These federal civil servants are our responsibility, and I feel it is essential that they should not suffer from our action in dissolving the Federation.
My Lords, I have spoken quite briefly of one or two detailed questions which seemed to me to arise from the Bill. But what, frankly, is worrying me most, on looking at the position as a whole, is one much larger consideration. How far is civilisation as we know it—the civilisation that men like Livingstone went to Central Africa to implant—going to be able to survive at all in Central Africa in the new situation with which we are now faced? I read the speeches made in another place last week during the Second Reading of this Bill, and they seemed to me still to be inspired—and I thought the same might be said to be true of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, this afternoon—by a passionate and rather pathetic belief that one had only to introduce a system of unrestricted democracy, based on one man one vote, for our troubles to be over; for the establishment of peace and prosperity in the land; for the perpetuation of free institutions; of equality of justice for all sections of the population; of lions lying down everywhere with lambs in the best of possible worlds. My

863
Lords, I believe—I hope as much as anyone else here—that democracy is the best form of government yet devised, for those who can work it. I most cordially hope that we shall always be able to preserve it in this country, where we have a very long experience of democratic Government.
But recent events in many other countries should surely have proved to us, if we did not know it before, the truth of that classic dictum, that the cycle of government moves from dictatorship to oligarchy, from oligarchy to democracy, and that a further turn of the wheel brings mankind inevitably back to dictatorship. I am afraid we must face the fact that, where countries are not yet sufficiently advanced for full democracy—and, my Lords, it is the most difficult form of government in the world to operate—they will go straight back to dictatorship, with all that that involves in the way of the destruction of those free institutions for which we ourselves stand, and which we had hoped to implant in Central Africa. That I suspect—and I hope I am wrong—is pretty certain to happen in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, just as it has to a great extent already happened in Ghana and Tanganyika.
But Southern Rhodesia, at which I should like to ask your Lordships to look for a moment, presents, I feel, rather a different picture; for she is at a different phase in the cycle of government to which I referred just now. She is at the phase of oligarchy. Southern Rhodesia, since the arrival of the white man, has been ruled by a section of the population who are not the majority but who have been regarded, at any rate until quite recent times, as having an inherited experience which fits them to occupy a special position in the sphere of government. It is this oligarchy that has, in fact, as we all know, governed Southern Rhodesia, just as a similar oligarchy governed our own country for upwards of 700 years until not so very many years ago. Anything that smacks of oligarchy is, I know, now considered very shocking by many people in this country; as more wicked, curiously enough, in many cases than straight dictatorship. But I, personally, do not feel—and I am sure there are other noble Lords who will agree—
864
that there is anything inherently wicked about oligarchy. It is a form of government that comes into being to suit the needs of a community at a certain stage in its development: and for a people at that particular stage of development it may be the very best form of government.
And, my Lords, after all, who are these oligarchs, these wicked oligarchs, who are so furiously attacked to-day? They are people exactly like ourselves, people of British outlook with a British background, people inspired by British traditions. If they, living on the spot, are convinced, from personal experience, that the African population is not yet ready for full democracy, are we to say that they are necessarily wrong; and are we necessarily right to assume that they are just digging in their toes for a permanent, built-in white domination when they may be merely trying to go forward at the best and the safest pace?
My Lords, what lesson do I draw from what I have said? I suggest it is this. So far as Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are concerned, I have nothing to suggest. There the die is cast. They will, I believe, pass rapidly through the phase of a rather bogus democracy and proceed as quickly as may be to one or other form of dictatorship. But Southern Rhodesia is different. Here, could we not allow the oligarchy to pass through to democracy, as it must pass, at its own pace and in its own way? Could we not at least try the experiment of not jogging its elbow the whole time, as I am afraid I thought the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, tried to do this afternoon? I may very likely be told—I think Lord Listowel implied it this afternoon—that the Government have to consider the views of people outside Rhodesia—the Afro-Asian group, the United States, the white members of the Commonwealth, and so on. But, my Lords, I would suggest, if I may say so with very great deference, that in spite of what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said, the Government would be very unwise to pay too much attention to such siren voices.
After all, the Afro-Asian group want only one thing: they want to get the white man entirely out of Africa; and, surely, we cannot accept that. They do not care a tinker's cuss (if I may be

865
excused such an expression in your Lordships' House) for democracy or free institutions. Or take the United States of America. In the United States, my Lords, they do not really care so much as all that about the full equality of races, as we know from what is happening at this very moment in their own country. And finally, as for the white members of the Commonwealth, it is certainly not for me in this House to criticise their policies; but if I were, for instance, an Australian, I must confess that I should be very chary, taking into account my own Government's "white Australia" policy, of encouraging outside interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Our duty in this country, I should have thought, and our Government's duty, is not to listen to outside voices but to judge the Rhodesian problem for ourselves on its merits.
Or I may be told—it has once or twice been hinted to me in this House—that I advocate the policy I do merely because I have personal interests in Southern Rhodesia; but I do hope that noble Lords will believe that that is not my reason. I have indeed, as your Lordships know, a share in some farming operations in the country; for I have always had a great affection for Southern Rhodesia since I went there originally, as far back as 1908, and especially so after being in at the start of the multiracial experiment. But I have continually expressed exactly the same views about Kenya, where I have no interest of any kind. No, my 'Lords; it is not any personal reason that has led me to take the line I have in these controversies: it is because I feel so passionately that we in this country are tragically deluding ourselves in our attitude towards Central Africa.
No doubt those who take these views have convinced themselves that, when they talk about handing over these countries to full democracy, at their present stage of development, it is a democracy such as we have here that they will get. But, in fact, the very opposite is the truth. It is not democracy they are going to get: it is dictatorship. It is suppression of all, or most, of those liberties on which civilised life rests, not only for the 300,000 white Rhodesians, whom we have encouraged to go out there, but for the Africans themselves. This, my Lords, is what the Southern Rhodesians know
866
perhaps better than we do here, 5,000 miles away. I have no doubt at all that they will always try to act, even in this agonising situation, with strict constitutional propriety: but they might well be driven to a point—that point which was reached by the British settlers in our American colonies 180 years ago—when they felt that they had no option but to take their destiny in their own hands. I do implore Her Majesty's Government and the whole House not to drive them to that point. That, I feel, would be tragic, not only for themselves land for us, but for the world: here, I am afraid, I come, at the end of what I have to say, to exactly the opposite conclusion from that of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Do let us have an end to all this haggling and boggling to which we have become accustomed in the last few years. Do let us give these people their independence without more ado. If we do, I feel confident that, being of British stock, blood of our blood and bone of our bone, they will prove worthy of it.
4.56 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, in moving the approval of the proposal for a Central African Federation on March 24, 1953, in another place, my noble friend Lord Chandos said this [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons) Vol. 513, col. 659]:
"The policy at which we aim in this scheme is far-seeing. It is to foster a partnership of the races upon which a great and prosperous State will grow. The political and economic advancement of all its inhabitants can be secured only by the races working together, and to federate, I suggest, is to try to bring them together."
To-day we are meeting to carry out the purpose of destroying all that was built up in 1953 and since. The Times newspaper, in a leading article on July 11, talked about the
"melancholy and necessary task of demolition."
Melancholy, my Lords, yes: necessary, no. I do not believe that, when history comes to be written, it will be possible to justify the successive steps of omission or commission whereby the Federal structure of Rhodesia and Nyasaland has been, little by little, eroded and undermined, so that to-day we are meeting to discuss the funeral rites.
I have often pondered the reasons which in 1960 led Her Majesty's Government to embark upon the dramatic change

867
of policy now loosely defined as, "the wind of change". I have my own ideas on the subject, but I shall not inflict them upon your Lordships this afternoon. Whatever the reasons, Her Majesty's Government decided on that course; and so, instead of holding the reins firmly in their hands, they allowed them to drop, with an occasional touch of the spur. So this has brought us to the calamity—and I can use no less strong a word to-day—with which we are faced. The Monckton Commission, of which my noble friend Lord Molson was a member, at the end of Chapter 4 of their Report, said that to break up the Federation at this crucial point of history would be
"an admission that there is no hope of survival for any multi-racial society on the African continent and that differences of colour and race are irreconcilable."
They went on to say that they could not agree to any such conclusion, and they then developed their ideas as to how this could be avoided. All this has gone by the board. No attempt was made to work out a fresh constitution on these lines. In the face of African nationalist intransigence, one position after another was abandoned, until we came to the moment when the late Governor-General of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, in his last speech from the Throne, felt himself bound to refer to "the betrayal of the people of the Federation". Now we are left to tidy up the bits.
The Victoria Falls Conference, from which this Bill flows, can be described only in the most limited sense as an attempt to further some other form of association between the territories. According to the Report—and almost, as it seemed to me, as an afterthought—the chairman suggested that the conference should give some thought to the range of subjects in which the question of inter-territorial collaboration arose.
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, a Committee on inter-territorial questions was indeed set up. In the terms of reference the emphasis is firmly on dissolution and its results; and it is on this dissolution that we are called upon to concentrate mainly this afternoon. The Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, is merely a blank cheque giving the Government, by means of Orders in Council, powers to dissolve
868
the Federation and to redistribute its functions, property and liabilities among the territories. Now I think, apart from what may be described as the urgency of the situation, having regard particularly to the future of the Federation's civil service, no one could regard this procedure as satisfactory. All these arrangements affecting the lives and future of millions of people, including these 35,000 civil servants, are to be dealt with by Orders in Council. It is true they are subject to an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament; but, as we all know, that means that we cannot vary their terms. But even this provision does not run for the period of the first three months up till October, when Parliament will not be sitting. These orders will take affect automatically and are subject to annulment only when Parliament reassembles—and then it will be too late to do anything.
We had an assurance from the First Secretary of State in another place that this Negative Resolution procedure would not be used (and, indeed, we have had that assurance repeated by my noble friend this afternoon) for major issues, such as assets, liabilities, the public debt or the public services. All the same there are bound to be matters—I can think of one, for example: the breaking-up of the Federal broadcasting service—on which there may be many opinions and which may well come before the Committee for consideration during the next three months. I can only say that I regard this helter-skelter procedure of dissolution as most unsatisfactory. The whole business took only a matter of a few hours in another place with less than one hour in Committee. I can recall in the summer of 1953 that we took no less than three days in Committee alone in another place; it is an indication of how things have changed. As Mr. Butler explained, the Bill depends on the Report of the Victoria Falls Conference; and it is on this White Paper that we must rely alone for some indication of what is to take place.
Let us consider what the break-up of the Federation involves. In the first place it means the end of the common Customs tariff and the common system of taxation, under which the gross national product rose from £383·3 million in 1954 to £546·8 million in 1961. As other noble Lords have said, it is clear from

869
the recent statements of the Northern Rhodesian leaders that they intend to impose tariffs against Southern Rhodesia at the earliest possible moment. This, I fear, disposes of any hopes of maintaining a common market, as had earlier been foreshadowed. No doubt the damage to the economy of Southern Rhodesia will be substantial, since her exports to Northern Rhodesia affect some £28 million, or 10 per cent. of the economy of Southern Rhodesia.
It may be argued that a return to the very close trading relations with South Africa which were deliberately broken by the Federation Government in 1955, coupled with drastic external tariff increases, would solve the problem of Southern Rhodesia. That may be so in the long term, but it has been estimated that the effect of the possible change in the tariff position in Northern Rhodesia, together with the effect of secession in Nyasaland, will concern no fewer than 55,000 jobs in Southern Rhodesia—where unemployment is already high. Northern Rhodesia, with its limited consumer market, is unlikely to sustain a high rate of growth, and any attempt to raise tariffs drastically could only aggravate the high cost of the economy. We must never forget the geographical isolation of Northern Rhodesia and its complete dependence with its one commodity economy—copper—on Southern Rhodesia for power and transportation. Of course, in the latter case this dependence is shared with the Portuguese in Mozambique and in Angola. Then there will be the severe effect on Northern Rhodesia of the separation through the loss of access to the Federal market for its existing secondary industries.
In Nyasaland the effects will be even more drastic. The Federation Government has been pouring money into Nyasaland and spending as much as ten times more on certain public services as was spent before federation. In the nine years since federation, the Federal Government spent almost £41 million more in Nyasaland than the total it received from the territory during that period. Nyasaland's development is bound to be retarded, with an inevitable increase in unemployment. Here, again, one is bound to draw attention to the danger of any open breach between Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia or South Africa. It is estimated
870
that 200,000 Nyasalanders are employed in those two countries at any one time. Should this flow be interrupted, or, still worse, reversed, the economic situation of Nyasaland would be disastrous. Nyasaland, again, is totally dependent on Mozambique and the goodwill of the Portuguese for its rail communications with the outside world. I am glad to say that at the present time there is considerable goodwill between the Malawi ministers and the administration in Lourenco Marques.
My Lords, this overall decision to break up the Federation was taken by Her Majesty's Government and is their sole responsibility. It is they, I consider, who will have to foot the bill, not only by making good the funds hitherto provided by the Federal Government to Nyasaland but by ensuring that, as far as possible—and I do not rate it too high—some form of advance in development will continue such as would have been assured by the continuation of the Federation. I do not think it is unfair to say that these problems to which I have referred were virtually untouched in the Victoria Falls Conference and, indeed, are scarcely mentioned in the White Paper on which the present Bill is based. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, when he comes to reply, will be able to enlighten us as to how the Government hope that some of these grave results of the breakup of the Federation are to be counteracted.
A further and formidable effect of the dissolution, and one on which the White Paper has some bearing, is that of ensuring further investment capital to the three territories. During the years 1954–62 the Federal Government raised £64 million in long-term loans and £30 million in medium-term loans in the domestic capital market. A further £66 million was raised abroad. In addition, £28 million was raised in the Federation and nearly £47 million abroad for the construction of the Kariba Dam. Further, the capital market was still further assisted by the establishment of the Central Bank.
The Federal Government, in a paper submitted at the Victoria Falls Conference, pointed out that the economic strength of individual territories would not be equal to the strength of the Federation as a whole. They further

871
argued that, as the dissolution of the Federation was an exercise of sovereign power by the British Government, in the interests of the people of the territories and of creditors the British Government should themselves assume the responsibility for these obligations. The British delegation, on the other hand, held that if the United Kingdom took over liability for debts they should also take over liability for the corresponding assets. This, of course, would produce an intolerable situation. They therefore took the view that the assets and liabilities should be shared among the territories, and the British Government should be called upon to step in at a later stage only if help were required, in accordance with their general policy towards Commonwealth countries.
There are two very real difficulties in this matter which appear to have been overlooked by the British delegation. The first is the fact that the possibility of raising funds in the future for these territories will be gravely jeopardised if there is no guarantee on existing federal commitments. The second (and I would most seriously draw my noble and learned friend's attention to this point) is that part of the external loans are held in the United States, and unless the existing guarantees of the Federal Government are renewed in some form or other acceptable to the New York Stock Exchange, the latter would find itself obliged to delist these loans, with disastrous effects on the values of the securities concerned. It would clearly be quite unfair to give any special guarantees in the case of funds raised in the United States compared with those raised in this country or in the Federation itself. Having regard to the attitude put forward by the Government, the only solution I can suggest—and I should like to hear the noble and learned Lord's comments on this point—is that each tranche of the Federal debt when it is broken up, should be guaranteed by the individual Territorial Government concerned and that Her Majesty's Government should be associated with the guarantee in every case. This seems to me to be the only course which would meet the requirements to which I have referred.
In the case of the Kariba project, the loan of £28½5 million from the Inter-
872
national Bank for Reconstruction and Development is already severally and jointly guaranteed by the Federation and by Her Majesty's Government. The Colonial Development Corporation loan of £15 million and the Commonwealth Development and Finance Company's loan of £3 million are guaranteed by the Federal Government alone. On the three Federal Government loans which make up the balance of £28 million on Kariba, the Federal Government has obligations to original lenders, but the Federal Power Board has no contractual obligations at all. In the case of all these loans I suggest that a similar procedure should be followed—namely, a guarantee by the Northern and Southern Rhodesian Governments, with an associated guarantee by Her Majesty's Government.
A further arrangement in this case is that some body would be required to be set up to take the place of the Federal Power Board. It will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that the whole Copper Belt production is already largely dependent on Kariba power, and the installation of a second line to Kitwe would make it almost entirely so. For this reason the acceptance by the Northern Rhodesia delegation in principle of inter-territorial collaboration in regard to Kariba was welcome but inevitable. They also accepted, in principle, co-operation in regard to the railways and Central African Airways, and for certain joint interim arrangements in regard to currency. It seems to me that these proposals fall far short of what is required if the services in the territories are not going to be gravely damaged. I need only draw your Lordships' attention to the effect on postal charges, telecommunications services, higher education, agricultural research, irrigation schemes and many other fields of activity, if the existing machinery of collaboration is now to be totally demolished.
I should like to turn to three further matters covered by the White Paper on which I think we require further assurances from Her Majesty's Government. The first is the question of the future of the existing members of the Federal public service, a matter on which several noble Lords have already spoken. The Federal Government, it will be remembered, has given a firm undertaking that

873
no officer will be compulsorily transferred to the service of a territorial Government. As I understand it, the Northern Rhodesia delegation at Victoria Falls were anxious to see some requirement of compulsory transfer, and this issue is now being discussed by Committee A, which was set up as part of the post-Conference machinery. Like my noble friend Lord Salisbury, I have heard indications that the fears of the Federal public servants in regard to transfer have not been dispelled by what has been going on in that Committee. I feel that it would be wholly wrong to lay down any terms which involve compulsory transfer to one of the territorial Governments, even for a short time.
Although we are clearly anxious that as many civil servants as possible shall be enabled to continue the excellent work they are doing, there are many of them who would not be willing, simply on grounds of conscience, to continue their service under a régime in which multiracialism no longer plays a part. We must not forget that there are also a number of officers recruited from the Federal Service from outside the territories whom it would be quite unfair to ask to transfer permanently to a territorial service. In this connection, I should like to ask my noble and learned friend another question: can he tell me whether the terms of the Colonial Pensions (Increase) Act, 1962, will be applicable to members of the Federal Service who may now retire, or to members of the territorial services, once the territories become independent? This question refers, of course, to increases in pension in line with increases in the cost of living on the same basis as increases are given to civil servants in this country. In the case of Federal civil servants, only the British Government will be able to assume this responsibility, for by that time there will be nobody else left to do so. In the case of officials in the territorial services, I assume that when the territories do achieve independence these officials will be included in the Schedule to this Act so that, should the territorial Governments not pay the appropriate increases, they will be able to obtain payment from Her Majesty's Government.
I should like to say one word about citizenship, which is dealt with in chapter 8 of the White Paper. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chan-
874
cellor said in our debate on Kenya last week, this is a most complicated issue, and I do not want to enter into it in any detail today. I do, however, find it a little difficult to reconcile what the noble and learned Lord told us last week with what the White Paper lays down for the terms of reference of the Committee of Experts, whereby in appropriate cases there would be provision for double, or even triple, citizenship.
I am aware of the general features of dual nationality, which exists all over the world, but I have always assumed that there was some difficulty in regard to dual citizenship. There is, I believe, a clear legal distinction, and it was this factor which made it impossible for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to give us the assurance that we desired in regard to Kenya last week. The statement in the White Paper gives me some encouragement to hope that some more satisfactory solution may be found in regard to the retention of British citizenship in Kenya, but the question I should like to ask my noble and learned friend is: "Would the provisions of the White Paper make possible the retention of United Kingdom citizenship, and, indeed, also the status of a British subject, in the event of one of the territories concerned either leaving the Commonwealth of its own free will or, alternatively, being forced out?". I realise that I may be told that this is a hypothetical question, but I pose it mainly in order that it may be studied by the Committee of Experts, when examining the question of citizenship.
Then, my Lords, I would refer to the statement, in chapter 9 of the White Paper, that the Federal Supreme Court would come to an end with the dissolution of the Federation, and that the question of a new Court of Appeal was a matter to be pursued between the territorial Governments. I should like to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor why the question of a future territorial Court of Appeal should not be settled through the post-conference machinery before the dissolution of the Federation. Before the introduction of federation, there was a Rhodesia and Nyasaland joint Court of Appeal, which sat six times a year, at Salisbury, Bulawayo, Livingstone and Blantyre. Is there any reason whatever why we should

875
not forthwith revert to that position, leaving any possible changes to be negotiated thereafter by the territorial Governments? I hope that it may not be too late, even now, to adopt this suggestion. I should also like to ask my noble and learned friend what provisions are being made for the continuation of appeals to the Privy Council.
Neither in this Bill nor in the White Paper has there been any discussion of the future constitutional developments in the territories themselves. However, the Northern Rhodesia Government has already asked for a Constitutional Conference, with a view, I presume, to the introduction of full internal self-government as a preliminary to independence. It is also reported that Dr. Banda is seeking independence by the end of this year. As things have developed, I do not see how we can oppose these proposals.
At the same time, I think it right to draw your Lordships' attention to the highly disturbing events in Northern Rhodesia which have been revealed by the Commission of Inquiry now sitting into the causes of unrest and violence on the copper belt. Here it is a ease of acts of violence perpetrated by one African nationalist Party against members of another African Party. Recently, in another place it was announced that in the past six months there have been 1,257 incidents in Northern Rhodesia with some political implication. Twenty persons have lost their lives as a result of such disturbances. In this present Inquiry one district commissioner after another has got up to describe these events in their full horror—events which seem to have been mainly the work of the United National Independence Party youth brigades and the illicit, so-called Zambia police. One district commissioner compared the youth brigades with the Nazi Jugend in Germany; and another, only last Friday, is reported in the Daily Telegraph as having described the actions in the mining town of Bancroft as "like Germany before the night of the long knives finally removed Hitler's Opposition".
My Lords, this is what is happening every day between supporters of U.N.I.P. and the African National Congress, and in certain areas, according to reports, the latter Party is being entirely destroyed.
876
It is hard to believe that Mr. Kaunda is personally encouraging these deplorable activities—and I do not believe it. But something more is needed: it seems necessary to call upon him to come out openly, and not only rebuke his adherents but take active steps to disband the youth brigades and other terrorists involved in these activities. It should also, I feel, be made plain that these incidents are bound to affect the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards further constitutional developments and the timetable for independence. I believe that Her Majesty's Government still adhere to the view that no territory should be granted independence unless they are satisfied that it is free from violence and fear; that condition certainly cannot be said to exist in the Copper Belt in Northern Rhodesia to-day.
We know, my Lords, that immediately before the Victoria Falls Conference the First Secretary of State and the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia had further conversations, quite separate from the Conference, about Southern Rhodesia's demand for independence. We understand—and my noble and learned friend has confirmed it this after noon—that little or no progress was made. We have all read the exchange of letters between them on this matter which were published in the form of a White Paper last June. I have no hesitation in saying that, in my judgment, Southern Rhodesia should be given her independence forthwith. The 1961 Constitution formed a new and advanced step forward in the constitutional development of Southern Rhodesia and in the direction of a fully democratic and multiracial society. Now that the Federation is to be dissolved, this process must be taken a step further. There is no doubt whatever that had there been no Federation, Southern Rhodesia would have been independent long before this. The Government of Southern Rhodesia has shown itself to be fully competent to discharge the functions of an independent sovereign State. Certainly it would be out of the question to delay the independence of Southern Rhodesia one day after either of the other two territories had acquired their independence.
I appreciate the dilemma in which my right honourable friend the First Secretary and the Government find themselves

877
placed in this matter. But I beg them, as did my noble fiend Lord Salisbury, not to be intimidated by outside pressure, whether from the Afro-Asian bloc, the United States Administration or by the threats of members of the Commonwealth, to delay the grant of independence to Southern Rhodesia. I have no doubt whatever, from my personal knowledge of Mr. Winston Field and the great mass of Europeans in Southern Rhodesia, that they seek nothing better than to proceed by proper stages to a fully democratic system in which all races can play their part. To this extent, the noble purpose of those who created the Federation ten years ago may stall be preserved.
I think that perhaps Mr. Winston Field would be well advised at the appropriate moment to give some further tokens of the intentions of his Government in this respect, though I quite understand that he feels unable at the present stage to go back on his election pledges. But with the combined wisdom of Mr. Field and his Government, together with, I feel sure, the sound advice of Sir Roy Welensky in these matters, and coupled with a reasonable and helpful attitude on the part of Her Majesty's Government, I cannot help feeling that it should not be impossible to find a compromise which would be acceptable to all. Should that, unfortunately, prove to be impossible, and should the other territories of the Federation in due course be granted their independence, I can only say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Salisbury that the Government and people of Southern Rhodesia could not be blamed if they took matters into their own hands.
My Lords, I could never bring myself to vote in favour of this Bill, which I can regard only as a disastrous setback in the affairs of 9 million Africans, Europeans and Asians living in the Federation. Although the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor calls upon us to recognise practical realities, I believe that three years ago the reality was totally different. It is we in this country who have let the Federation down. In concluding, I should like to address one word to Sir Roy Welensky and his colleagues in the Federal Cabinet. Although this unhappy Bill is now going forward to become law, let Sir Roy be
878
assured of the place which he holds in the hearts of the British people; and of their admiration and gratitude for the part he and his colleagues, past and present, have played in the building up of the Federation with its immense benefits to men of all races. However dark the situation may appear to us at this moment, I feel quite sure that their work was not wasted and that from the ruins of the great edifice which we are tearing down to-day will emerge, in process of time, other institutions which will bear the stamp of Sir Roy's courage and integrity and his faith in the future of the people of his country.
5.27 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I should first of all remind your Lordships that I have some personal interests in Southern Rhodesia. In company with friends, I farm a certain amount of land there. I trust that my judgment is not influenced by that, but of course it is influenced by the love that I have come to have for both the land and the people of that country. Like all other noble Lords who have spoken to-day, led as we were by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I recognise that there is no point whatsoever in looking back. I have no intention, therefore, of speaking of the tragedy—for tragedy I think we most of us agree it is—of the breakdown of the Federation; and I deliberately use the word "breakdown" rather than "failure", because federation has not failed: it was succeeding.
Nor shall I make more than a passing reference to the steady sapping of belief in the good faith of the British Government over the last few years in Rhodesia. It is all the more a tragedy, in that it occurred in this territory, Southern Rhodesia, and in the mind of a statesman, Sir Roy Welensky, than whom this country has never had more loyal or devoted subjects. But it is not the past that matters. Where do we go from here? The Federation has gone, but the three territories and the 9 million or so people who inhabit those territories remain. What of their future? There is little to say about Nyasaland or Northern Rhodesia. They are both virtually out of the Federation. One has attained self-government, and the other soon will have done so; and we must wish them well.

879
The real problems, surely, are the economic relations it is possible to maintain between the two Northern Territories and Southern Rhodesia, and the one about which the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, spoke; namely, independence for Southern Rhodesia. To-day we none of us know what arrangements will be made between these three territories. We know that Mr. Butler has been struggling manfully for arrangements that are important—I think one is entitled to use the word "vital"—to all of them. But unfortunately we also know that neither common sense nor economics always prevail in human, and certainly not in African, affairs, though the fact that on page 10 of the White Paper certain agreements are suggested between the territories on power, transport, and so on, are, I think, encouraging.
It is important to remember—and I hope Southern Rhodesia will bear this in mind—that Kariba power, transport, coal, and so on, are the only cards she has to play. We must assume, therefore, that she will not give those cards away at the beginning of negotiations before receiving some satisfaction as to reasonable co-operation in other fields. Fortunately, if the negotiations do not go as well as we hope, the cards are not too unfairly distributed. Southern Rhodesia needs labour from Nyasaland, but Nyasaland would be severely hit if she lost what is in fact her main export. Northern Rhodesia has copper, a very great asset, which puts her in a strong economic position, provided the price of copper is maintained. But it is virtually her only asset. She will, of course, quite wisely, try to build up her own industries, particularly her own light industries. But as the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, told your Lordships, she has only a small employed population—I think it is just over 250,000. She has also to keep in mind the effect of a heavy tariff system on her cost of living.
The trouble about cards like these, on both sides, is that they are virtually sanctions, and if they had to be applied they would bring ruin and chaos to the whole of Central Africa. So we must hope and pray that good sense prevails, and that the game of universal throat-cutting is not started. It would mean not a game but a war which no one
880
could win. The really important question we have to ask ourselves is this: Why does the possibility of difficulty or conflict even arise? Equally, why can there be any doubt about Southern Rhodesia being fit for independence? I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, are not here at the present moment, because I hope to some extent to reply to some of the points they made.
If we cast our minds back two years, we may remember that the noble Earl, Lord Home, spoke of the danger of what I think he called "standards of double thinking", by which he meant allowing one country to get away with a standard of behaviour which we were not prepared to tolerate in another. He was speaking on international affairs in general; but this is, I am convinced, the main problem we have to face in connection with Southern Rhodesia. It is the sort of thinking that at one end of the scale allows Russia—the greatest of all Imperialist powers to-day—to be one of the leaders of anti-Imperialist thought—and, at the other end, allows Kenya, in claiming freedom from white rule, to establish the rule of the Bantu over the Somali. As the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, it takes no account of the policy of white Australia in judging Southern Rhodesia. It allows India to walk into Hyderabad, Kashmir and Goa without protest; Egypt to bomb villages in the Yemen, and America, with her troubles in Alabama and the Southern States, to lecture us, who have given freedom to nearly 600 million people since the war! It then proceeds to attack Southern Rhodesia.
With this background in mind, and I hope your Lordships will not think I have travelled too far afield, let us go back to Southern Rhodesia. Is the criticism on constitutional grounds (certainly the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke very much of constitutional faults), in that Southern Rhodesia is not yet a full democracy? But what about other members of the United Nations—Russia, the Iron Curtain countries, Yugoslavia, Ghana, Ethiopia, and most of the Middle Eastern countries? Why not take independence away from Ghana?—I am not suggesting that, of course; but I am suggesting a standard of single thinking.

881
After all, Southern Rhodesia's Constitution of a year ago was laid down after a Conference with all Parties and all races, and it was fully agreed by all who attended, except the extreme European Right Wing. It is true that three weeks later the African Nationalist leader, Mr. Nkomo, went back on his agreement, but at the time he gave his agreement. It was not only endorsed, but actively pressed on Southern Rhodesia by Her Majesty's Government, in the person of Mr. Duncan Sandys.
Inherent in that Constitution is a certain future majority for Africans. It can be speeded up by Parliament, but it cannot be slowed down without the agreement of all races, including that of Africans. It may or may not go quite far enough or fast enough in everybody's view; and, speaking for myself, I should be inclined to favour speeding it up. But delay for a maximum of twelve or fifteen years cannot by any stretch of the imagination be termed permanent white domination, as it has been described. My Lords, if African States cannot negotiate with Southern Rhodesia because of her Constitution, leading as it does to a future African majority, how can they do so with the dictator countries, with all their forces devoted to the permanent continuance of dictatorship over their own and other races whom they now dominate?
If the trouble cannot logically be constitutional, is it then because of racial discrimination? We all know perfectly well that here we have a very deep human problem; and I, for one, say quite clearly that I could have wished that Southern Rhodesia might have advanced more rapidly in that sphere. I have always been quite open on that point. But in Malaya the Malays and the Chinese have yet to integrate; in Ceylon the Singhalese and the Tamils are frequently in open conflict; and African students are leaving Russia and Bulgaria and other Iron Curtain countries to-day because of racial discrimination. Americans have had the Negro with them for over 200 years, yet I have met Rhodesians who have been horrified by the treatment they have seen accorded to Negroes in the Southern States of America.
Europeans have been in Rhodesia, we always say, for 70 years; but actually, in
882
terms of any effective numbers or any effective system of government, the period is very much less. To-day, over one-third of Salisbury University is African, with all races working, playing, eating, and living in common. Not for Southern Rhodesia a battalion of infantry to force one Negro into a hostile university, with the opposition led by the State Governor and the chief of police. In Southern Rhodesia, the Post Office, banks, cinemas, railways (both as regards employees and passengers), and a great number of hotels accord equal service without discrimination. The chambers of commerce and professional bodies not only permit but welcome African membership. The monthly journal of the African Farmers' Union is printed by the European Farmers' Union. All grades of the Civil Service are open to Africans. I know perfectly well—and I repeat this—that it would have been better if some of these things had been brought about earlier; but, once again, unless we work on a system of double-thinking and double standards, it would seem hard, nay, imposible, to disqualify Southern Rhodesia on grounds of racial discrimination.
Is the trouble, my Lords, to do with social and economic standards? There was a Conference of African States held in Addis Ababa two years ago, in 1961, so presumably the facts and the conclusions coming from that Conference are not prejudiced in favour of the European. According to figures given at that Conference, the proportion of children between five and fourteen years of age at school is 3·8 per cent. in Ethiopia; 7·7 per cent. in Mali (I mention Mali because it was one of the States sent by the United Nations to report on whether Southern Rhodesia was responsible); 22·4 per cent. in Liberia which has been governing itself for generations; 50 per cent. in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland; and 83 per cent. in reactionary Southern Rhodesia. In Liberia there is one hospital bed to every 4,000 of the population; in Nigeria, one to every 2,200; in, Ghana, one to every 1,100; in Southern Rhodesia, one to every 330 of the African population. African wages in Southern Rhodesia have risen from £12½ million in 1948 (not very long ago) to over £60 million in 1961. African savings were £600,000 a year in 1948. I am afraid I cannot give your Lordships the

883
up-to-date figures, because African and European savings now seem to be combined, but African savings rose from £600,000 a year in 1948 to just on £3 million in 1958—that is, in the space of ten years.
We cannot in this country now determine the attitude of the two Northern Territories towards Southern Rhodesia. With independence, or even self-government, that becomes their affair. But the point of the remarks which I venture to make to your Lordships is that we can be clear about our own attitude. It is we who will have to take the decision as to how far to levy taxes on our own people in order to finance the needs of these countries, swollen as they may be, if economic co-operation is unreasonably refused. It is we who must decide whether to be forced into a decision against granting independence by a threat from any member of the Commonwealth to leave it if we do so. After all, we have to ask ourselves just how valuable a Commonwealth is if it can be kept together only by submitting to blackmail. I greatly dislike saying that, but I believe it is something that must be said.
For my part, like the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, I hope that Southern Rhodesia will help the position by making reasonable concessions in the matter of voting rights and land apportionment. For myself, if I venture to express an opinion on her affairs, I think it would be right for her to do so on the merits of the question, quite apart from any bargain. But, in any event, in an impasse such as that which faces us to-day no one can expect not to have to make concessions. A head-on collision can lead us nowhere. But having said that, I return to my point that we must judge Southern Rhodesia by the same standards as we judge other States, whether they be black or whether they be white. And if we do so, she will come very well out of any comparison with a great many other States, perhaps a majority of members of the United Nations, with whom everybody is very pleased to trade and whose right to independence is unquestioned.
My Lords, I think it would be wrong and ungenerous to close without congratulations to the First Secretary of State for what he was able to bring out
884
of the Victoria Falls Conference, and to wish him well. I know it is very easy to say that nothing really concrete has come out of this conference, but he has at least kept people talking to each other; and while there is talk there is hope, hope for a reasonable settlement embodying economic concessions between the three Central African territories, some political concessions on the part of Southern Rhodesia and independence for her as well as for her two northern neighbours, independence, of course, within the Commonwealth. Sir Roy Welensky and Mr. Winston Field, Mr. Kaunda and Dr. Banda, have all done, and certainly said, things in the past that might suggest to us that compromise between them is impossible. But since embarking on these discussions they have each and every one of them shown signs of real statesmanship. Therefore, my Lords, I trust that in agreeing to this tragic Bill we shall feel we need not do so with a sense of complete despair, because we can at least hope for common sense and statesmanship in these countries to prevail, led and guided, as is being done, by the wisdom of Mr. Butler.
5.53 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to make a brief contribution to this debate I am trying to keep in view the fact that this is merely an enabling Bill. It is in fact an obituary notice empowering the Government to deal with the situation created by the death of the Federation. Doubtless contributions towards this demise have been made by all Parties here and in Central Africa as well. Further enumeration of them would, I know, serve no useful purpose now, and I do not propose to go into them. But I would merely remark in passing that I am sorry to say that I think a major contribution has been made by Her Majesty's present Government. The climate of vacillating incoherence in which their African policy has drifted along, and their anxiety to placate every vocal African politician, has made them less than fair to the European community whose pioneering work has built up an economy which was conferring ever greater benefits upon all races in the country. The habit of trimming their sails to every wavering gust of wind has, as I see it, rightly or wrongly, left an impression of purposeless expediency.

885
Be that as it may, I want to look briefly at this Bill and its immediate purpose, the legalisation (I suppose one may so describe it) of the machinery decided upon by the Central Africa Conference held at Victoria Falls a month ago. The First Secretary of State is certainly to be congratulated on his success in getting the delegates to meet at all and to consider, in something approaching a co-operative spirit, the steps necessary to give effect to the dissolution of the Federation and the orderly transfer of power and responsibilities. One must, however, endeavour to keep in mind that all the problems, which are many, complex and potentially controversial, remain to be solved by the series of committees and sub-committees which have been set up. It is true that a certain amount of general guidance was given to the committees, and your Lordships are familiar with the terms of the July White Paper (Cmnd. 2093) presented to Parliament by the First Secretary of State.
There is also a comprehensive White Paper of 120 pages entitled The Break up: Effects and Consequences on the two Rhodesias. This was presented to the Federal Assembly on June 26, 1963, by the Federal Prime Minister. If your Lordships will allow me, I would quote a relevant paragraph from the foreword which seems to me to summarise better than I have seen it done anywhere else the consequences of dissolution:
"… the consequences will extend to the education, health and well-being of all Rhodesians and their children; to the basic economic structure of the two Rhodesias, to agriculture, transport and communications, power supplies and the post office; to such vital issues as the public debt, currency and coinage; and to the security, well-being and future of Federal civil servants, members of the defence forces and officials of Parliament, the statutory bodies and similar organisations, for whose loyal and efficient service over the past ten years the peoples of the territories have reason to be deeply grateful."
That paper, presented to the Federal Assembly, deals with every aspect of the problems involved. I do not think it should be any part of this debate to go into detail on these matters, but perhaps I may be allowed to quote a very brief final paragraph on the subject of the Armed Forces as an instance of the consequences, external too, of the dissolution to the Rhodesias. It says:
"What the Federal Government has achieved in its defence forces is not only a balanced
886
Army and Air Force but a balanced whole. They were the final deterrent to a serious unrest in this part of Africa; they were ready to play their rôle, as required, in Commonwealth defence. In both cases, the Army and the Air Force have demonstrated their willingness and ability. The position of the Armed Forces, as in the case of the other parts of the Federated Government machine, is that the future of the whole or the component parts is an unknown quantity. If it is assumed, as seems only logical, that each of the territories will require a defence force, then what has been achieved and built up under the Federal Government will be broken and the three pants cannot have the strength or the quality of the whole as it stands to-day."
I have not been able fully to appreciate, or to understand, why the noble Lords, Lord Listowel and Lord Ogmore, have been so anxious to single out Southern Rhodesia and urge that it should be rendered defenceless; they said that it had no need of defences. But none of this argument has ever been applied to the numerous other countries, with perhaps far less reason to have suitable defences.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for no more than a moment, I think he did not quite follow the point made by myself and by Lord Ogmore. We did not say that Southern Rhodesia should be defenceless. We said that it should have its share of the Army. But with a share of the Army, its defences would be comparable to those of other African countries of the same size.
LORD MILVERTON: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Earl. I felt that he was rather minimising the needs of Southern Rhodesia. But, in any case, perhaps this is a suitable moment to express my complete agreement with what the noble Marquess, and the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, said about the tendency of certain noble Lords to offer gratituous advice to a country like Southern Rhodesia on how it should run its own affairs. To my mind, it must be extremely provocative for competent people to have others who do not live in their country and have no experience of what it is like living there, constantly intruding advice upon them, and criticism too, about how they run their affairs.
The failure of the Federation is a human tragedy as well as an economic one. The Government assure us that the dissolution has come about because of the political realities of the situation.

887
To my mind, that phrase carries us no further at all. It all depends on what one accepts as a political reality, or a political reality so dominant as to enforce acceptance. It seems to me that in Africa political realities are practically non-existent. Everything is in such a fluid state that there is hardly any such thing as a political reality there. The self-interest of each country points to the wisdom of agreement and co-operation with each other, and I am not sure that this will not come more easily to these countries when they are freed from the interference of Whitehall and Westminster. I think there is far more likely to be amicable co-operation in the three countries we are now discussing when they are freed from this interference and, in modern times, this unnecessary overlordship.
I have deliberately avoided any discussion of the problems facing the Committees. They are all set out in the White Papers, and it seems to me that the time to discuss them must be when the Committees have reported their conclusions. Anxiety for the proper treatment of Federal staff is naturally acute, as is the desire for the effective continuance of the university. Financial obligations and their future assumption are also, of course, of paramount importance. The position again in relation to that has been succinctly stated by the Federal Government recently, when they said:
"Britain's sovereign power set up the Federation, and Britain's sovereign power will now destroy it. While the Federal Government was in being it pledged the public faith to many people—to those who worked for it, to investors, to bodies which looked to it for income, and so on. In the same way as its power so to pledge the public credit was given to it by Britain, so it is a British decision that suddenly deprives it of any power to honour its pledges. It is for Britain now honourably to accept the consequences flowing from the exercise of its sovereignty, and to assume responsibility for the liabilities of the Federal Government."
That seems to me a most reasonable statement of the case, and it is one which the taxpayers of this country will doubtless soon become fully aware of. Of course, it will take into consideration the fact that a certain amount of financial liabilities of the Federation will be taken over, and willingly taken over, by the Rhodesias; but that will still
888
leave a large amount for this country to shoulder.
I have no further comment at this stage, except to express a hope that those who are pleased to see the end of this Federation will reflect that it was, and is, a noble enterprise, nobly conceived, and that its failure need not detract from its high purpose. It is surely a subject for sorrow to-day, rather than rejoicing. The spirit of these lines, which are well-known, is, I hope, in Mr. Butler's mind to-day:
"Yet I despised not nor gloried,
Yet as I wrenched them apart
I read in the razed foundations
The heart of that builder's heart:
As he had risen and pleaded,
So did I understand
The form of the dream he had followed in the face of the thing he had planned."
So if the First Secretary gives full weight to those thoughts when his own constructive dreams are perhaps frustrated by human frailty around him and come to naught, he, too, may be able to write the epitaph as he abandons these dreams or the construction of them, without bitterness and despair, and writes across the record:
"Only I cut on the timber,
Only I carved on the stone.
After me cometh a builder,
Tell him I too have known."
I should like to conclude by endorsing fully all that has been said in praise of, and sympathy with, Sir Roy Welensky and Mr. Winston Field; and to say that I, too, can see no reason why we should be intimidated into refusing to Southern Rhodesia the independence which she has richly deserved and is fully capable of honourably shouldering.
6.9 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I do not know why my noble friend Lord Milverton should think that those of us who support this Bill and approve the general policy of Her Majesty's Government do not share entirely with him and his friends their deep regret that the great and idealistic project of Federation launched ten years ago has in fact failed. Sir Roy Welensky, in a recent speech, attributed the collapse of the Federation to the Monckton Report. To do so is as reasonable as to attribute to a consultant, called in to diagnose

889
and to prescribe, the death that may result after his advice has not been accepted. In the summary of our conclusions we set out our four outstanding findings. They are to be found in paragraph 340—and here they are:

"(1) Federation cannot in our view be maintained in its present form.

"(2) A dissolution of the Federation would lead to poverty, hardship and distress".

"(3) The three territories could best go forward if they remained linked in a Federal association."

Because of those three findings of fact, the fourth thing was that
"We proceed to outline a number of changes, constitutional and other, to remove the main objections"
to Federation. Our proposals included the possibility, at a later stage, of secession. That, we thought, was the only way to obtain from Africans who were hostile to the Federation the patience to wait and give a chance for the Federation to make a fresh start. I felt no confidence either that the Africans would show the necessary patience, or that the Europeans would be willing to try a fresh start. And, since the Europeans did not try the fresh start, there was no encouragement for the Africans to show their patience. In fact, nothing was done to conciliate African sentiment. Two noble Lords speaking from quite different angles, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and my noble friend Lord Colyton, have both said that no action has been taken in order to assist Federation during these last few years. That, of course, is quite true. The disaster that we foresaw and tried to avert has now come.
When I was invited to become a member of the Monckton Commission, the Prime Minister said to me that the dangers which faced us in Central Africa were twofold; on the one hand, another Servile War; or, on the other hand, of a Boston Tea Party. My classical knowledge not being equal to that of the Prime Minister, I had to look up what I had known in my schooldays; that is to say, what was the Servile War. I found that there was a long guerrilla war led by Spartacus and his gladiators, supported by slaves, which continued for a long time until, with great difficulty, it was suppressed by Crassus. The Boston Tea Party I think we all understand. This was before the Prime
890
Minister's visit to Central Africa, and it shows his clear political vision and his capacity for producing illuminating historical analogies. I think that the First Secretary of State, in his conduct of the Conference at Victoria Falls, has shown astonishing patience and skill, and the outcome so far can fairly be described as brilliant; but I am sure that he will be the first to say that we are far from being out of the wood.
I do not intend to indulge in recrimination, but it is important to reply to some of the criticisms that have been made of Her Majesty's Government and of both political Parties in this country. Sir Roy Welensky so towers over his colleagues (whom I notice he does not usually describe, as other Prime Ministers do, as "my colleagues" but as "my Ministers") that he must carry a very large share of personal responsibility for what has happened since the Monckton Report was presented. Inability to see the situation as others see it is almost an occupational disease of Ministers. Indeed, Joseph Chamberlain, in his old age, remarked that when one has retired from politics one stands astonished at the blunders one made as a Minister. And, of course, not only was Sir Roy Welensky Prime Minister, but, as one of the remarkable men who were fathers of the Federation, it was difficult for him to perceive any defects in his well-beloved offspring—a shortcoming from which other fathers frequently suffer. The result is that he was made so angry by the reference to secession (which we included only in a desire to preserve federation) that he certainly never understood the Monckton Report—and I sometimes wonder whether he read it.
I have previously described the various steps between 1953 and 1960 which led to increasing African bitterness against federation. There is no need to repeat now what I said. But what we must bear in mind is that the open efforts by the Federal Government to obstruct and defeat constitutional reforms for Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland (both of which the Monckton Commission considered to be necessary) gave public confirmation to the African belief that the Federal Government was an instrument of the European community in its efforts to delay African emancipation. What had been an African theory and belief

891
was shown and admitted to be a fact. That is what made the dissolution of the Federation inevitable.
My Lords, we are left with the difficult problem of Southern Rhodesia. Our constitutional theories debar us from intervention in a Colony which was given self-government in 1923. But it is not only a matter of constitutional theory. We lack the power. And with the transfer of so much of the armed forces of the Federation to Southern Rhodesia, the power would have been more completely lost than it was in the past. We can, however, continue our present line of conduct. Just as we passed an Act last year increasing the rights and liberties of Southern Rhodesia, in return for a quite substantial constitutional reform, so we can say that the further step of granting independence to Southern Rhodesia will not be made until a far more liberal Constitution has been introduced.
It is not surprising that opinion—not confined to one Party—should be opposed to any grant of independence to Southern Rhodesia at the present time. There is, first of all, the proscription of the African Opposition. In an earlier speech I begged noble Lords to refrain from condemning one of the repressive Acts passed pending the outcome of certain prosecutions, which I had been told were likely to show that there was a conspiracy and that the Government had to take drastic action to deal with it. So far I have seen no evidence to justify that legislation. I am disposed to think that it was like the alleged Nyasaland murder conspiracy, which was inquired into and found by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin not to be a reality. I rejoice that a British court, true to the principles of British law, presided over by the Chief Justice, Sir Hugh Beadle, should in an impartial interpretation of the law have ordered the release of Mr. Nkomo.
Secondly, the attitude of Africans to Southern Rhodesia has been very much influenced, first by the defeat of Mr. Todd in the General Election of 1958, when he was succeeded by someone regarded as being less liberal than he, and then in 1962 by the defeat of Sir Edgar Whitehead, who had gone as far as public opinion would allow him to go in the direction of removing racial discrimination. That is not a good augury for the
892
future, and undoubtedly had much to do with the break-up of the Federation. The Monckton Report said that a complete change in the attitude to racial discrimination in Southern Rhodesia was an absolute essential if the Federation was to be preserved. Thirdly, at that time it was understood that the Land Apportionment Act was likely to be substantially amended, if not repealed. I understand that the new Government has announced its intention of retaining the Land Apportionment Act very much as it is at the present time. Fourthly, there still remains discrimination. I would say to some of my noble friends who take a contrary view, that there is a difference between majorities discriminating against racial minorities, however reprehensible that may be, and a racial minority ruling over and discriminating against a racial majority. I think there is a fundamental difference between the two which should not be overlooked.
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government face an immensely difficult problem, and it is only fair to realise how much hostility this country would incur if the Government were prepared at the present time to grant independence to Southern Rhodesia. It certainly would incur the enmity of the United Nations. If it be argued that that is dominated by the Afro-Asian group, I would say that the condemnation would not be confined to them or to countries supporting them. In the second place, my information (I do not know whether my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will feel justified in commenting upon this matter) coincides with that of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel: that Canada, Australia and New Zealand would not be prepared to agree to Southern Rhodesia's obtaining independence within the Commonwealth if there were not a fundamental change in the Southern Rhodesian Constitution. I cannot entirely agree—indeed, I cannot agree at all—with my noble friend Lord De La Warr, when he describes an attitude of that kind on the part of the members of a club as being "blackmail". I think a more apt term would be blackballing. Then, finally, there would be a large body of opinion in this country which would be hostile to any such step.
I regretted that my noble friends Lord Salisbury and Lord Colyton seemed to express some sympathy with Southern

893
Rhodesia if it were to adopt independence on its own as an act of force majeure. But I would say to my noble friend Lord Salisbury that, however little some of us may agree with his views, I am sure there is no noble Lord here, and there are very few people in the country, who would think that his sincere and passionately held views on a matter of this kind were in any way influenced by his financial interests in Southern Rhodesia. Indeed, I think that one can look to an entirely different, an hereditary, explanation of this. I recall that his grandfather, the Prime Minister, led the Conservative Party to oppose the principle of Home Rule for Ireland. It is clearly within my recollection, for I was already in politics, that his father was largely responsible for a certain split that took place in the Conservative Party on the question of Home Rule for India. It is therefore only natural filial piety on the part of my noble friend that he should follow in the steps of his grandfather and father and oppose a similar step in the case of Central Africa.
I do not think that we need go into details about the matters that are being dealt with by the committees in Salisbury. I would, however, say to the Government that I hope they will not necessarily accept the advice that has been given to them from both sides of the House with regard to Federal civil servants. I believe that one of the great mistakes we have made in the last ten or fifteen years has been that the terms of compensation to colonial civil servants have been such that they have often been encouraged to retire from the service rather than to continue to serve.
With regard to the national debt, I would say this. The debt incurred by the Federation is represented by very valuable assets in that territory, and those assets should enable the interest upon those debts to be paid. Therefore I see no reason why the territories which have been benefited by the creation of the Kariba Dam, and other assets should not be in a position to service the debt that was incurred. I hope the Government will be very chary of giving, at the present stage, any guarantee of any parts of the public debt that they have not already guaranteed. To do so would be a clear invitation to some African Government in the future to repudiate its liabilities, knowing perfectly well that
894
this burden would be carried by the British taxpayer.
My Lords, in conclusion I would say that the moderation and statesmanship shown at the Victoria Falls Conference justifies us in feeling some slight measure of optimism for the future. I hope that the realities of the situation will result in the self-governing Governments of those territories coming together in agreement, in order to form some kind of Customs Union or economic understanding, in place of the Federation that was forced upon them in the past. I am sure that that is essential for the prosperity and well-being of their peoples; and I hope, therefore, that the statesmen concerned will show the realism to do what is necessary.
6.30 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am extremely glad that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, made the remarks he did concerning the feelings of those who, like myself, welcome this Bill. That in no way means that we are at all less sad than other noble Lords at the reason for it and the failure of Federation. I think we all feel sympathy for all those people who were involved in the experiment of Federation, whether we agree with them or not; and, just as I felt great sympathy for Sir Grantley Adams when the Federation of the West Indies came to an end, I similarly feel sympathy for Sir Roy Welensky now that the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland has come to an end.
I am glad, also, that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and other noble Lords gave praise to the First Secretary of State for what he was able to achieve at Victoria Falls. But we must be under no illusions about what he was able to achieve. What he did was to put out the fire which had already destroyed the building. There is now nothing left. He has for the moment prevented the fire from spreading, and he has for the moment prevented loss of life—and his ability as a fire-fighter is considerable. But all he has done now is to clear the way for the future, for those who now have to build upon the wreckage which has been left behind as a result of this fine idea, which was carried out in an incompetent and a blind manner.
Although I agree also with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor

895
that it is our job now to look to the future, I do not think that it is right for the country to let the present Government off so lightly and say, "We will not look to the past at all. If there is blame, we will not pin it upon anybody. We must now get on with the future". Do not let us spend too much time talking about the past, but let us be quite sure in our own minds that the Government have failed in this, and have failed in an abysmal manner. Their failure is all the worse because, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has told us, the way in which this failure might have been turned into a success was pointed out clearly, unequivocally, by the Monckton Commission, and was ignored entirely by people, not only in the Federation itself, not only by Sir Roy Welensky and his colleagues, but also by Her Majesty's Government—and that, I think, must also be made abundantly clear in this debate.
However, my Lords, having said that, let us now move on and see what we can do to make up for this waste of years, this waste of effort, this disillusionment that has resulted from the past mismanagement; and let us see, also, what we can do to restore the confidence, the good will and the desire to co-operate which has been so rudely shaken. Because we must create—it is the job of those of us here—a new Commonwealth where there was a former Empire. Although we all talk about it, and although we all pay lip service to it, there are far too many people who do no more—and I specifically exclude the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, because he also mentioned the need for building up the Commonwealth, but he is not one of those who does no more than pay lip service to it; he works for it. We must realise that it requires not only work by individuals but thought, clear and honest thinking by the Government, if we are going to have a Commonwealth which in fact means anything at all and is not simply a form of words which is trotted out on certain occasions.
It is too late to deal with all the many interesting points which have been raised by noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, but I should like to deal with a point which I think was first raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury and was also mentioned in different forms by various other noble Lords who have
896
spoken. That is this question of democracy in these territories of Central Africa: what form of Government there is; what form of Government there should be. He said that there are some—and I think he included my noble friend Lord Listowel in this—who have what he described as "a pathetic belief" that all our troubles will be over if we can create a democracy based on "one man, one vote". He then went on to tell us the thesis first put forward, I believe, by Polybius in Greece: that there was the movement from dictatorship to oligarchy, then from oligarchy to democracy, and then, if that failed, back to dictatorship. My Lords, I think that when such people as Polybius, and later Machiavelli, put forward that thesis—and there is no significance in the fact that it was Machiavelli who supported this strongly—they were referring to city states. That is sound enough: I will not argue with that. But it would be very dangerous to suggest that what ancient scholars and theoreticians felt was the right form of dealing with their own city states, and the normal course of evolution, could automatically, and without any alteration, be applied to these vast areas of Central Africa.
In spite of that, I think that in general that is the correct form of evolution; and our differences with the noble Marquess and his friends lie, not in his assessment of that evolution but in this timing of it. He said that Southern Rhodesia was at the moment being governed well by an oligarchy, and asked, "Why should we throw bricks at these people—honest men, good men, doing a good job? Leave them alone. Do not jog their elbows "—I think those were his words—"and, in due course, democracy will appear when they think it is right". But if we look back over history, we shall find very few rulers, whether they were dictators or oligarchs, who happily and willingly gave way to the higher stage of development in government. Their elbows had to be jogged—and their elbows were jogged in very uncomfortable manners, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, quoting the Prime Minister, said, in the Servile Wars, and on many other occasions.
We cannot leave it to oligarchs, any more than we can leave it to individuals—and possibly noble Lords on the other

897
side may feel this more strongly than we do at the present time—to choose the time of their going. How often do we hear people say, "I should like to retire. I should like to give up this arduous burden and hand it over, if only there was somebody capable of carrying it on "? That is what the oligarchs say, whether it is in Southern Rhodesia, whether it was in Ancient Athens or wherever it may be—and their elbows have to be jogged. So I do say, with all deference to the noble Marquess, that, whether we think the oligarchs of Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia, have done a good job or have not done a good job, now is the time for the great step forward to be made to the next evolutionary stage of democracy.
I would take up just one more point which the noble Marquess, and also the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, made. This threat of secession by Southern Rhodesia—which, with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, I deplore—is analogous with what American colonies did because of the blindness of what was at that time His Majesty's Government; and because of the refusal of that Government to face the facts. Before and after that step the American colonists had to take pretty stern action against the indigenous population, the Red Indians. It was not just a peaceful taking-ever of power; it entailed the slaughter of the people who were there first; it entailed pushing them farther away from their territories into strange lands; and it led to many hardships for future generations in the United States and to the cruelty of the Indian wars.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord arguing that it would have been better to leave the Red Indians in control?
LORD WALSTON: I am not arguing that; but I am arguing that the acquisition of independence by what is now the United States was not done in a peaceful, happy and harmonious way, but in a manner which world opinion to-day would not tolerate. It was done because our Government at the time were blind to the true facts and refused to face them; and they refused to listen to people who knew what those facts were.
I should be very unhappy, indeed, if any words of the noble Marquess or of the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, were
898
taken by Europeans or others in Southern Rhodesia to mean that there is any support at all in this country—though I am sure that it was not meant that they should get this impression—for any faction that was considering the question of secession. But, rather, I hope that attention will be paid to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, urging Mr. Winston Field to make concessions. I think "token concession" were the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton; the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, was a little more expansive and talked in general of concessions to the feelings of the African population. I hope those observations will be listened to far more than the other remarks.
I should like to turn to what I consider to be some of the more positive things which Her Majesty's Government can do now in order to rebuild this burnt-out wreck of the idea of Federation. First of all, let us look at the common services, which have been referred to by my noble friend Lord Listowel and other noble Lords. I agree—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, takes this point—that it is quite reasonable that the three territories should have their army, their military forces, in the manner as laid down, on the basis of their recruitment. But when it comes to the air force—and here my noble friend made a differentiation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—we find no reason at all for that to be at the disposal of Southern Rhodesia.
LORD COLYTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware that the Royal Rhodesian Air Force is, in fact, recruited almost entirely in Southern Rhodesia?
LORD WALSTON: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that fact. I am also aware that the aircraft they fly come entirely from this country. I would suggest that the air force should be kept in being, but under the control of Her Majesty's Government, either directly or by some form of ad hoc body. And in the same way I suggest that as many of the common services as possible should also be administered in that manner; in other words, retained under the control of the United Kingdom pending the entire independence of all three territories. When that time

899
comes—which I hope will not be long delayed; and I will come to that question again—then will be the time to hand over all the retained common services: the air lines, the railways, Kariba and the rest, including, I hope, the universities, to joint authority agreed on between the three independent territories. That could form the basis of some new eventual Federation stemming from the common services and the common interests engendered in that way. I would once more disagree with the noble Marquess when he said that Federation is dead and nothing can bring it back to life. I believe that it is possible by some sort of action eventually to bring Federation back to life.
Another way by which I feel we can help these newly-independent territories is in a manner that we discussed a few days ago when we were dealing with the Bill concerning the Commonwealth Development Corporation and the Colonial Development and Welfare Funds. As I said on that occasion, countries such as these have an enormous need for the basic investment with which to develop not only their economic life but their general standard of living and education and understanding of affairs. The Colonial Development and Welfare Funds, as we heard from the noble Marquess who replied for the Government, are not cut off from the newly-developed independent countries. Schemes in train are completed. New schemes cannot be started. This is the time to start a new scheme, as well as completing the old. I feel here that we should be failing in our duties to help create the Commonwealth which the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said we should, and with which we all agree, unless we were prepared to give some material assistance of this kind.
I have just touched on education in dealing with the universities. Without a vast increase in education we cannot have the progress we want to see in the world, and the newly independent countries cannot have the progress they want to see, and without which they can never develop the form of civilisation to which they aspire. That entails money. It entails teachers of course, but it entails money for buildings, for the staffing of teacher-training colleges. There are some; but there is a need for more;
900
and there is a need for training for technical education too.
Here I would like to commend to Her Majesty's Government a scheme which I understand was put to them several years ago in a somewhat different context as a practical and far-from-expensive method of helping in this manner. We need all forms of education it is true; we need literacy and, in the first place, we need the ability to read. Understanding of what is read is needed more than the ability to write. But, as anyone with experience of such territories would amply confirm, there is an enormous need for what one can call the "white collar class", the people who are going to be the local government officials, the medium-rank civil service, the floor managers, or whatever they may be called, in the shops and banks, as well as agricultural craftsmen, electricians, plumbers and people of that kind. No country will be able to progress without an increasing supply of such people.
The scheme to which I have referred envisages the training of such people by bringing them from whatever territories they come and placing them in similar occupations in this country. Some people have already been found—public-spirited departmental stores, farmers, local authorities and banks—who are prepared to take these people and sit them side by side with their own typists, electricians, shop assistants and clerks for a year, enabling them to understand not only our work but our way of life, at no cost to the Government of this country or of the sending country. If that can be organised through the Government and transport to and from this country arranged, it would do a great deal of practical good as well as have a great psychological effect in those countries and make them feel we are anxious to help them in a practical manner.
The final point I wish to make on the rebuilding of goodwill in the Commonwealth comes back to what so many noble Lords have spoken of—that is, discrimination. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, gave us some interesting and encouraging figures concerning the decrease of discrimination in Southern Rhodesia, and I accept them happily. I

901
know they are true. But it is also an indictment that there should be any need to boast about these figures. As the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said, bad though the discrimination of a majority against the minority is, the discrimination of a minority against a majority is infinitely worse.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I was not boasting about these figures. I was contrasting Southern Rhodesia with America and other countries where discrimination exists and saying that it is unfair to pick out Southern Rhodesia, where they are not committing that sort of discrimination.
LORD WALSTON: There is a difference between the United States and Southern Rhodesia on an historical basis. Although Southern Rhodesia is self-governing, it is a Colony of this country, and the United States is not. Although I do not wish to defend the United States and the discrimination practised there, to pick out one small group of universities where discrimination is practised from the vast number of universities where it is not is not entirely a fair comparison.
For all that, we are agreed that there is less discrimination in Southern Rhodesia than there has been and less than there is in some other countries. But there is still discrimination of a substantial kind. I received to-day an account which is entitled "Plans to open Salisbury City to African Traders." It is now being proposed by the Salisbury City Council Health, Housing and African Administration Committee that the City Council should ask the Governor to declare the central business and commercial area of the city one in which land may be acquired, leased, used or occupied by an African for business purposes. Until this proposal has been acquiesed to, as I am sure it will be, it is still impossible for an African to open a business or trade in a very large area of Salsbury. That is discrimination on a substantial scale. Even if this proposal is granted, the African will still not be allowed to live there. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Molson, the Land Apportionment Act is in existence and shows every sign of continuing to be in existence. So long as that exists, there is discrimination.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I think, to be absolutely fair, the noble Lord should say that this change which is now proposed in Salisbury is in fact a variation of the Apportionment Act.
LORD WALSTON: It is, but only in a very restricted area. I do not deny that it is a move in the right direction and I give credit for it, but we must remember that there is still a long way to go before it can be said that there is anything approaching non-discrimination in Southern Rhodesia. All noble Lords who have spoken on this matter have ignored the major indictment of discrimination—which is the discrimination when it comes to voting. Until that has been removed, we cannot say Southern Rhodesia is a free democratic country.
Finally, I would underline what my noble friend Lord Listowel has said. We believe that independence should be granted to Southern Rhodesia as soon as possible, but we further believe that we cannot, and must not, grant independence under the present Constitution. The longer we wait, the greater the tensions will be and the harder it will be to arrive at the form of co-operation and living together which we all desire. I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will not now sit back and say that they have put out the fire, the Chief Secretary of State has done a magnificent job, and now they need do nothing but leave it to the people there. Now is the time to press on and create something new. That cannot be done under the present Constitution in Southern Rhodesia.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, and rightly said—and this is one occasion where I wholeheartedly agree with him—thatwithout goodwill nothing can be done. There is a lot to be done in these territories and we must have the goodwill and co-operation of all people there, whatever their background, whether they are Africans of one generation or of one hundred generations, or who went out there only ten years ago we must have the goodwill and co-operation of all those who love the country, as I know the noble Marquess and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, love it, even though it is not theirs, and of all those who love the people who live there. They must work

903
together and be led by their political leaders—Dr. Banda, Mr. Kaunda, Mr. Field and the others. That is the service they can and must render to these territories, and we here must give them all the assistance we can in carrying out that great and difficult task successfully.
6.59 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I venture to say that few who have heard this debate in your Lordships' House, at least after it started, will have realised that the subject under consideration was the question of giving a Second Reading to this Bill. Apart from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore and Lord Walston, who said that they welcomed the Bill, little was said about the Bill at all. The only critic of the Bill was the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, and he was critical of one provision, to which I referred when I moved the Second Reading. So, in dealing with the Bill and the question really before the House, perhaps it could be argued that I need confine myself only to the criticism of the Bill. However, it would be discourteous of me if I were to take that course.
If I may, I will deal with that criticism straight away. The noble Lord, Lord Colyton, drew attention to the fact that certain Orders in Council would be made before October 1 of this year which were subject only to the Negative Resolution procedure. I dealt with that point at some length in the course of moving the Second Reading, and as I said then, after the point had been raised in another place my right honourable friend made inquiries of the Governments who are dealing with these matters—that is to say, Governments other than Her Majesty's Government—and the fact is, as I then indicated, that the Governments concerned are very keen that this particular provision should be inserted in the Bill. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, talked of the Government here having failed, and of the waste of years that have led to the situation which exists to-day when I have to move the Second Reading of this Bill before your Lordships. I would dissent from him most strongly when he
904
talks of the wasted years. I think everyone will agree that the Federation has brought great economic benefits to these territories. I do not think it is right, therefore, that we should regard the years of existence of the Federation as wasted years. But, again, I think it is not right to ignore the fact that, as those years went on, so did difficulties with regard to the continued existence of the Federation arise. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, drew the attention of your Lordships to the finding of fact of the Monckton Commission, that federation could not be maintained in its present form. I drew attention to the fact that Her Majesty's Government could not maintain a Federation of three Territories, two of whom were bitterly opposed to any form of federation continuing. In my view, it really is not a correct representation of the position for the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, to seek to represent that determination of this Federation is a matter that is due solely to a decision of Her Majesty's Government. It is their decision, it is true; but it is one based, as I have said before, on the realities of the situation.
Little of this debate has been devoted to any question of the past, although some of it has. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, was mainly devoted to what had happened in the past, and the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, also said a good deal about that. But most of the debate to-day seems to me to have turned on two questions: what one might expect to be in the Orders in Council that will come before your Lordships if they are made under this Bill; and, secondly, the position of Southern Rhodesia. May I say straight away, in relation to the question of independence of Southern Rhodesia, that I stated the position in the course of my opening speech to your Lordships, and I cannot elaborate further on it. The discussions between my right honourable friend the First Secretary of State and Mr. Winston Field are not concluded, and in these circumstances I do not think it would be right for me to animadvert upon that subject further than I did in moving the Second Reading.
A number of questions have been raised dealing with the problems which do arise, and have to be dealt with—

905
some of them, as I am sure your Lordships will realise, difficult, complicated and somewhat intractable problems. On many of them your Lordships have expressed your views. I will deal with as many of them as I can, quite shortly, in this concluding speech, but at this late hour I will resist the temptation to accept the invitation of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to speak at greater length than is usual upon these occasions. The noble Earl raised the question of the Federal public service, as did several others of your Lordships, including, I think, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I thought it right to deal with this matter at some length in moving the Second Reading, and in particular with regard to the question of compulsory secondment. I had hoped that I made it clear that there is, so far as I am aware, no question of compulsory permanent secondment. But this is merely a temporary provision.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, raised the point that there should be freedom of choice for the members of the Federal public service as to where they should serve, and that no civil servant should be worse off as a result of the dissolution of the Federation. On the first point, as the First Secretary of State said in the Committee stage in another place on July 16, there is no question, so far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, of permanent compulsory transfer to a territorial Government service. The basis of the discussions now taking place in Salisbury on the dissolution machinery is understood to be arrangements for voluntary secondment for the limited transitional period.
Her Majesty's Government recognise the importance of the second point—namely, that no civil servant shall be worse off. They and the three territorial Governments are anxious that as many officers as possible should be absorbed into the Federal Government services. The terms on which they may be so absorbed, and in what circumstances recompense should be available to those whose terms and conditions of employment may be changed, or whose employment is brought to an end, are matters at present under discussion and negotiation between representatives of the Governments concerned in Salisbury. That, I am sure, is the best way to reach fair
906
and reasonable solutions, and, if your Lordships will forgive me, I should prefer not to say more to-day that might prejudice those negotiations.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as I understand it, there are two forms of compulsory secondment. There is permanent compulsory secondment and temporary compulsory secondment. The noble and learned Lord has made the position for the permanent compulsory secondment absolutely clear; but there is the other point which I mentioned in my speech. I had information from what I regard as a reliable source that pressure was being exerted on the sub-committee considering this subject in favour of a decision whereby a Federal civil servant who refused temporary compulsory secondment would be deprived of any compensation in respect of his service under the Federation. I said I hoped that that was not true, and that if there was any suggestion of it, I hoped Her Majesty's Government would come out strongly against it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess. He dealt with the point of temporary compulsory secondment, to which I, too, drew some attention in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I can neither confirm nor deny the information the noble Marquess has put forward in the course of this debate. Bearing in mind that all these arrangements will have to come before your Lordships for consideration, I think that that will be the time at which to comment on them. I should feel rather embarrassed about expressing any view while negotiations are going on.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor would pass on to the proper quarter what I said on this subject.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can assure the noble Marquess that I will bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the First Secretary all that has been said in the course of this debate.
The next point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and by others of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, referred to the position of what I might call Federal stock or Federal debt. On this matter I cannot add much to what has been said already

907
in the White Paper. The question of handling the public debt was discussed at the Victoria Falls Conference. It was agreed that a special committee should be set up within the post-Conference machinery to carry forward consideration of the vital and complicated financial problems connected with the apportionment of Federal assets and liabilities, and it must now be left, I feel, to this Committee to tackle this range of subjects. We cannot be expected to anticipate their conclusions and the result of that work.
Then there was a question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about the position with regard to the Royal Rhodesian Air Force. The position with regard to that can be stated quite simply. The Victoria Falls Conference agreed that all the units of the armed forces, with certain exceptions, should remain at their present stations, passing under the control of either Southern Rhodesia or the United Kingdom, in the case of Northern Territories. As the Royal Rhodesian Air Force is stationed entirely in Southern Rhodesia, it was clearly envisaged and understood that it would fall to Southern Rhodesia. The practical problems which remained to be tackled in regard to the defence forces will be discussed directly between Governments, and the whole matter is one of relevance to the apportionment of assets and liabilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, apart from raising the interesting question of the membership of the noble Marquess's family, described this Bill as a blank cheque—and so, of course, to some extent, it is. It is, as I have said, an enabling Bill, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that, having reached this decision that the Federation must be brought to an end; having secured agreement to that, and having had a unanimous report from the Victoria Falls Conference, it would be stupid indeed if we were to delay or to hold up that process unduly. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked about the Court of Appeal. That is a question which I gather will be taken up by the three Governments among themselves. But I understand that Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland have already shown some reluctance to have one. Whether or not they have a common Court of Appeal is, of course, a matter
908
for them. I must say that I personally hope they will decide that there are considerable advantages in having one.
With regard to the question of recourse to the Judicial Committee—whether or not there will be one in the future—that question is not related to the issue whether there should be a common Court of Appeal; and whether there is an appeal to the Privy Council will depend on the Governments concerned. All I can say is that we shall do all we can to encourage recourse to the Judicial Committee from these three territories in the future, and I hope that we shall be able to persuade them that it is to their advantage. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, drew attention and made some observations about the rôle of the Judicial Committee as a Commonwealth International Court. I must say that I hope very much that it will develop that way, and that is one of the reasons why I am personally extremely keen to see the right of appeal maintained and, if possible, enlarged.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that expression of sympathy with the point of view I put. Although I do not ask for an answer now, I would ask him whether he will take under consideration the other matter I put; that is to say, the possibility of the Judicial Committee sitting in these various territories from time to time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that proposal has been under consideration more than once, and I am quite certain that it will be considered again. There are difficulties with regard to it, but occasions may arise when those difficulties can usefully be dealt with.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, made a speech which I must say I found extremely interesting, though I do not think he will expect me to comment on his observations in relation to Southern Rhodesia. He said—and I entirely agree with him—that since one accepts the fact that Federation has, or will shortly, come to an end, some basis of co-operation must be found. I agree with him; and I believe that the fact that it was possible to secure such a measure of agreement at Victoria Falls is a good sign for the future. I am not for one moment saying that we shall

909
not have, and the territories concerned will not have, great difficulties to overcome. But I feel that the successful conclusion of that Conference augurs well for the future, or, perhaps I should say, better for the future than many of us could have imagined six months ago. I think we should be very careful not to say or to do anything which would prejudice the growth of a tender plant which we all hope will grow and lead to a real and strong co-operation between these territories, based on their voluntary association. If it is so based, then I believe that that co-operation will endure to the great benefit of all those territories and all the people engaged therein.
My Lords, I have already said a good deal in relation to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Colyton. I do not think that he was fair to my right honourable friend the First Secretary when he rather suggested that only at a late stage had my right honourable friend been concerned with thoughts of future co-operation between the territories. For months and months my right honourable friend has had that firmly in his mind, and in many speeches and in many utterances he has drawn attention frequently to the need for co-operation. He asked a question about citizenship. I could not quite follow why he thought there was any discrepancy between the White Paper and what I said recently in this House on citizenship in Kenya. I do not think there is the slightest discrepancy. I think he must be in some slight confusion over a very technical branch of the law. If he likes to write me a letter about it, I will certainly let him have a reply. I do not think there is the slightest conflict between what I said and what is in the White Paper.
I think I have covered most of the points which have been raised in the debate, which has been wide ranging and interesting, and I should like to conclude with this note. I know full well that to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, to Sir Roy Welensky, and many others, the
910
fact that a great Federation is coming to an end is a great disappointment and a great blow to them. We can only hope that what will grow up in its place will be something the growth of which will be in a way accelerated by the fact that it starts from the ashes of the Federation. I do not think I can usefully add anything to this interesting debate which has taken place on this important measure.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 23) Bill read 3a, and passed.

KILLINGHOLME JETTY BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  MINTING OF THREEPENNY PIECES FOR TELEPHONE BOXES
  MINTING OF THREEPENNY PIECES FOR TELEPHONE BOXES