Sitting of 27 November 1963

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

    Teachers' Salaries (Special Allowances)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Teachers (Scotland) Regulations, 1963.
    Sir M. Galpernasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received from local authorities regarding his proposal to grant an additional £50 per annum to teachers serving in certain areas and schools; what is the nature of these representations; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): The Teachers' Salaries (Special Allowances) (Scotland) Regulations, containing proposals to pay a special allowance of £50 to teachers in parts of the greater Glasgow area, were published in draft on 18th September. Since then my right hon. Friend has received representations from 14 education authorities, from the Association of County Councils in Scotland, and from the Educational Institute of Scotland, expressing opposition to the proposal. My right hon. Friend has asked the National Joint Council for its further views.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Under-Secretary of State realise that I received the letter which the Secretary of State sent me asking for elucidation of my Question? Apparently, the Secretary of State does not understand that the teachers' organisations are experts in all matters relating to teachers' salaries and conditions of work, and sufficient attention is not paid by the right hon.
    250
    Gentleman to the representations concerned with that correspondence. Will the Secretary of State for goodness' sake read the correspondence more carefully and realise the needs of the teachers and fulfil them at once?
    Lady Tweedsmuir:The reason why a letter was sent to the hon. and learned Gentleman was because he did not frame his Question exactly correctly. I presume that he intended to refer to the Teachers Salaries (Special Allowances) (Scotland) Regulations. It is just because we wish to take into account the opinions of all organisations that we are awaiting the views of the National Joint Council.
    Miss Herbison: Were there any consultations with the National Joint Council before drafting the Regulations concerning this £50? These Regulation have proved to be ludicrous in the eyes of all Scottish teachers, whether they are affected by them or not. Cannot the hon. Lady or the Secretary of State say today that this offer of £50 will be withdrawn immediately so that Scottish teachers may know that their legitimate demands are being fairly considered and in a sensible way?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: The recommendation to give an extra allowance of £50 to Glasgow teachers originally came through the National Joint Council. It was after that that the salary Regulations were published in draft. When objections were raised from surrounding areas, a second set of draft Regulations was published, and these Regulations are now the subject of consideration. On the last part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question, a meeting is expected to take place on 13th December, and we shall come to a decision after that.
    Sir M. Galpern: Is the hon. Lady aware that the vacillating policy of the Secretary of State for Scotland, judged by the volume of correspondence received by hon. Members, has aroused the anger of the teachers concerned? Does she realise that if the right hon. Gentleman persists in his plan to award the £50 on a selective basis it will create more difficulties than it will solve? In these circumstances, although I was in favour of the £50 being awarded to the teachers in Glasgow, it would be far better to withdraw the whole scheme.
    Lady Tweedsmuir:I understand that originally the proposal came through the National Joint Council and that it was supported by the Glasgow Education Authority. Far from my right hon. Friend being vacillating, he has done everything to see how he could overcome this particular problem in Glasgow.

    Hospitals, Greenock (Almoners)
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many almoners are employed full-time and part-time by the Greenock and District Hospitals Board.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. A. Stodart): None, Sir.
    Dr. Mabon:Is the Minister aware that there is serious concern locally, especially among voluntary workers who try to help patients after discharge, that there is no one to assist these patients? Could the hon. Gentleman arrange for an investigation into the finances of the Greenock and District Hospitals Board to see whether it is possible for his Department, through the Western Regional Board, to give more money so that these essential people can be appointed?
    Mr. Stodart:The post has been advertised on several occasions, without success, and it will be advertised again. I will certainly take note of what the hon. Member has said.

    Housing, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new permanent houses and flats were completed in Aberdeen by the local authority and by private builders, respectively, during each of the last 10 years; and if he will estimate the numbers likely to be completed in 1963 and 1964, respectively.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): As the Answer involves a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that that generalised Answer is very unsatisfactory? The failure of the Government to provide dwellings for people in Aberdeen is largely due to the disparity between the Government's plans
    252
    for building offices, on the one hand, and dwellings, on the other. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that aspect of the problem with a view to ensuring that more dwellings, as distinct from offices, are provided for the people?
    Mr. Noble: I think that the hon. and learned Member realises that if he tables Questions in this form this type of generalised Answer must be given. However, I am certainly delighted—and I am sure the hon. and learned Members knows it—to see that the figures for house building in Aberdeen are again rising.
    Following are the figures:

    THE NUMBER OF HOUSES BUILT IN ABERDEEN DURING EACH OF THE LAST TEN YEARS, WITH ESTIMATES FOR 1963 AND 1964, ARE AS FOLLOWS:

    —

    Local Authority

    Scottish Special Housing Authority

    Private Enterprise

    1953

    981

    104

    128

    1954

    1,072

    118

    121

    1955

    918

    166

    150

    1956

    994

    —

    267

    1957

    763

    78

    162

    1958

    824

    406

    72

    1959

    807

    66

    159

    1960

    618

    —

    366

    1961

    538

    —

    237

    1962

    498

    —

    258

    1963 (estimated)

    520

    —

    280

    1964 (estimated)

    650

    —

    250

    Thurso School (Appointment)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reason he has supported the temporary appointment of an infants mistress to a Thurso school who does not hold the qualifications appropriate to the post: and why no steps were taken to obtain applications for the appointment from teachers in Caithness or elsewhere who are qualified under the Schools (Scotland) Code, 1956.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: As has been explained to the hon. Member, my right hon. Friend considers that the education authority acted reasonably. The teacher concerned was a certificated teacher already in their service and of proven ability, who undertook to obtain at summer courses the additional qualification necessary for a permanent

    253
    appointment. The authority already knew the appropriately qualified teachers in Caithness and their circumstances, and had given local teachers an assurance that promoted posts in this school would be filled as far as possible from teachers serving in it.
    Sir D. Robertson: When did it become possible for any Minister, either senior or junior, to override the law of Scotland and support a group who had broken it? Is the hon. Lady aware that this post is only one of dozens of posts and that all the others have been advertised but this one was not, and that the teachers of Caithness regard it as a piece of jobbery?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: The Schools (Scotland) Code allows a certain amount of discretion to local school managers. The local authority's policy has, of course, been to fill promoted posts wherever possible. The teacher in question has been with the authority since 1958 and has undertaken to get the necessary infant mistress's endorsement.
    Mr. Ross: Was there no one in the area with the requisite qualifications and, failing there being anyone in the area, was there no advertisement to ensure that somebody with the requisite qualifications could apply?
    Lady Tweedsmuir:There was no advertisement of this post because the local authority had given an assurance to the local teachers that as far as possible it would try to fill the post from among the school's existing teachers, and the mistress in question had given very good service with great ability for some years and had undertaken to take the extra endorsement.
    Sir D. Robertson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

    Water Supplies (Fluoridation)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities in Scotland are adding sodium fluoride to their public drinking water: if they have done so on his recommendation; and if he placed the
    254
    full facts for and against fluoridation before them.
    Mr. Stodart: None, Sir. But seven with my right hon. Friend's approval are now in course of making the necessary technical arrangements. My right hon. Friend has sent to all local health authorities copies of the report on the five-year experiments conducted in Great Britain and a booklet prepared by the Ministry of Health on the subject.
    Mr. Rankin: My last figures showed that the majority of water authorities in Scotland are against the scheme Is that still the case? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that sodium fluoride is better known as rat poison? If treatment is required for dental decay, would it not be better to give sufferers treatment in pill form, or in solution, instead of taking as a therapeutic maxim the idea that if little Johnnie is suffering from a sore toe and wearing a poultice for it everyone in the neighbourhood should wear poultices, too? Does the Undersecretary accept this as good medical practise?
    Mr. Stodart:Not altogether. Although, as I have said, seven authorities are in process of making arrangements, according to my information thirteen have rejected the idea of fluoridation. Although I have used rat poison in my agricultural connection on many occasions, I have never used sodium fluoride, and I should not have thought that if we wished to cure the decay which is so prevalent in children's teeth it would be practicable to take the course suggested by the hon. Member.
    Commander Donaldson:Is my hon. Friend aware that I grew up in a part of the world where natural fluoridation was ten times more than is ever anticipated in Scotland or elsewhere in this country? Will he accept that at the age of 60 I have all my teeth as a result and that I do not think that I am a rat and I have never taken rat poison?
    Mr. Stodart: I have often admired my hon. and gallant Friend's set of teeth.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Hydro-Electric Boards (Interchange of Supplies)
    Mr. Millanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the arrangements made between the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board for the interchange of supplies over the coming winter months; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Noble: I am assured by the two boards that they are satisfied that their arrangements for the interchange of power will make the best possible use of their resources in the interest of electricity consumers throughout Scotland.
    Mr. Millan: Is the Secretary of State aware that, following the publication of the Mackenzie Report, there was a great falling off of co-operation between the two boards and considerable antagonism was generated? Will the Secretary of State look into this to see that this does not apply now and that this antagonism will not prejudice supplies of electricity in Scotland over the coming winter months?
    Mr. Noble:The hon. Member should not ask me to look into something which happened in the past and which is certainly not the case today. I am assured by the two boards that their closeness of operational control is as good as it possibly could be, and I am certain that no consumers in Scotland will suffer.

    School-Building Programme (Fife)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the school-building programme in Fife in the financial year 1964–65, in the light of the policy set out in the White Paper, Central Scotland, Command Paper No. 2188.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: It would be premature to make a statement since the authority's revised building programme is not due to reach my right hon. Friend until mid-December. The allocation of investment made for 1964–65 is as yet a provisional one and the authority is meeting officials of my right hon. Friend's Department later this week to discuss the whole matter.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is it not the case that the Fife County Council wanted to start
    256
    the Glenrothes school this year but the Department refused this, but that when Fife County Council showed that it could start it the Department approved on condition that the £500,000 that the school would cost would be taken from the £800,000 allocated to the county for 1964–65, which means, in effect, that Fife will be able to build one school next year if the Department sticks to the position which it has already taken up? Is this consistent with the policy outlined in the White Paper for Central Scotland?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: The school to which the hon. Member has referred will certainly cost a large part of the provisional allocation of £800,000. I stress, however, that this is provisional. As to the White Paper, the hon. Member will be aware that there are to be detailed surveys of the growth areas with the authorities concerned.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does that imply that the Government knew nothing about the plans for Central Scotland when making their provisional allocations for 1964–65? Is this merely an afterthought on the eve of an election?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Certainly not. If, as I am sure he has done, the hon. Member has read the White Paper carefully, he will realise that a great deal of work has gone into it over a long period.

    Hospitals, Edinburgh (Heating)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received concerning the proposed heating of certain hospitals in Edinburgh with oil; and, in view of the urgent need to safeguard and improve the future prospects of the Scottish coal industry, whether he will rescind such proposals.
    Mr. Stodart: My right hon. Friend has received 25 representations on this subject. The South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board invited all the fuel interests concerned to submit revised proposals. These have just been received and no decision can be made until they have been considered.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, in coming to a decision on this matter, the Secretary of State or the regional hospital

    257
    board will be guided by the same considerations as inspired the Secretary of State when he was deciding whether the new power station in Fife should be fired by oil or coal? In other words, will he give an assurance that the social factors will be taken into account and that the future prosperity of the coal mining industry will be safeguarded?
    Mr. Stodart: Yes, it is, of course, in the national interest to secure that in any case where coal is competitive with other fuels the Coal Board should be given full opportunity to tender for the heating installations for public institutions, and the hospital authorities do this. I would say that each case must be looked at in the light of its own particular circumstances and, to a certain degree, in the light of the price comparisons between using one fuel and another.
    Mr. W. Hamilton: I must press the hon. Gentleman. Will he give a categorical assurance that social factors, and the: fact that Fife depends almost entirely on the coal mining industry, will weigh extremely heavily with the Secretary of State in guiding the regional board to its decision?
    Mr. Stodart: I am perfectly willing to go so far with the hon. Gentleman as to say that these things will be given most careful consideration, but I would not be prepared to say that hospitals should use coal regardless altogether of cost.

    Sugar Beet
    Sir J. Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish

    CUPAR FACTORY OF THE BRITISH SUGAR CORPORATION, LTD.

    SUGAR BEET ACREAGES

    —

    1959

    1960

    1961

    1962

    1963

    Contract acreage

    16,000

    16,000

    15,982

    16,000

    15,500

    Crop acreage

    15,799

    15,899

    15,782

    15,779

    14,708

    Acreage offered in excess of the quota

    2,664

    3,374

    4,562

    3,972

    1,549*

    *Some offers were subsequently reduced or withdrawn entirely.

    Farmers (Acreage Payments)
    Sir J. Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the eligibility for acreage payments of farmers who have difficulty, owing to bad weather, in harvesting their crops.
    a table showing for the last five years the acreage of sugar beet contracted for by the Cupar sugar factory, the acreage actually grown, and the waiting list for quota acreage; and how many acres are contracted for in respect of the year 1964 to date.
    Mr. Stodart: I will, with permission, circulate in the Official Report the figures requested for the past five years. For 1964, offers from growers to talled 7,600 acres at 25th November.
    Sir J. Duncan:Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures which are to be circulated are likely to show a declining change in the acreage for beet, and that the figure he has quoted rather tends to prove it? In view of the difficulties which farmers have had with sugar beet growing and the disincentives of price and transport, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of keeping the Cupar sugar factory open in full production in future years?
    Mr. Stodart:Yes, my hon. Friend is right when he points out that there has been a comparatively minor decline in the figures between 1962–63. I would just remind him that the last three years have been particularly bad ones for weather conditions for sugar beet growers, following upon two extremely good ones in 1959 and 1960. The question of transport is under discussion between the National Farmers' Union and the British Sugar Corporation at the moment.
    The following is the information:
    Mr. Stodart: Difficulty in harvesting oats or barley as grain, due to bad harvesting weather, will not affect entitlement in respect of a crop which is otherwise eligible for deficiency payment.
    Sir J. Duncan: Will my hon. Friend tell me if any special steps have to be taken by farmers, in the deplorable situation because of the weather, to make quite certain that the fact that grain has not been harvested but fed direct to cattle will not invalidate their claims?
    Mr. Stodart: No, provided there was quite obviously an intention to harvest, and the intention has been frustrated by impossible weather conditions, the acreage payments will become due.
    Sir J. Duncan: Thank you very much.

    Doctors (Maternity Fees)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to alter the regulations for claiming maternity fees under the National Health Service.
    Mr. Steeleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the new simplified maternity fee claim form for general practitioners will be introduced.
    Mr. W. Baxterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that a simplified form for the claiming of maternity fees in Scotland under the National Health Service is introduced, on the same basis as that which now applies in England.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the regulations for claiming maternity fees under the National Health Service in Scotland will be amended to rectify the anomaly between the Scottish and English regulations.
    Mr. Stodart: There is no disparity between the Scottish and English fees, and the regulations simply provide in both countries that the form shall be issued for the purpose by the Executive Council. The form used in Scotland has been agreed with the General Medical Services Committee (Scotland) as representing the profession, and my right hon. Friend expects to discuss a revision of it with them after current discussions about a new form of maternity record card have been completed.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that these discussions and this
    260
    matter have been under consideration for over a year, and that because of the inactivity of his right hon. Friend there is serious discontent amongst doctors in Scotland who are doing maternity work? Is he aware that it is not the record card nor the fees which are in dispute, but the maternity claim form? Is he further aware that in that form doctors in Scotland have to fill in 15 separate items every time they make a visit to a maternity case during pregnancy, while their colleagues across the Border have to fill in nothing but a single tick in doing exactly the same kind of work? When is the hon. Gentleman going to remove that discrepancy?
    Mr. Stodart: I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman when he says this has been going on for over a year. I think it is a matter of about eight or nine months. [Laughter.] I think the hon. Gentleman can appreciate that there is a subtle difference. So far as indignation goes, until representations were received within the last week or two there has been no evidence of indignation at all. I must put it to the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter on which we must take guidance from the General Medical Services Committee, which is the body which speaks for the profession in Scotland.
    Mr. Steele: Did not the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the other day indicate that he tried to keep in line with England? Surely in this case we have fallen behind? Would the Minister say when this new provision was made for the claiming of these maternity fees in England, and why there has been this long delay in bringing this simplified form into operation in Scotland?
    Mr. Stodart: It has never been the case that the forms for Scotland have been in fact the same. There always have been discrepancies. Again, no matter what the hon. Gentleman says, I think I must tell him quite frankly that till the General Medical Services Committee in Scotland is satisfied with the change, although we shall, of course, draw its attention to this, we would not be prepared to put pressure upon it.
    Mr. Baxter: In view of the fact that this simplified form for the claim of maternity benefits in Scotland has been

    261
    in operation a considerable time, why is it that the Scottish Office always seems to be like the donkey's tail, right behind?Is it not time that we saw some real vigour and more determination from Scottish Ministers in seeing that Scotland gets a fair crack of the whip?
    Mr. Stodart: I would think that the answer was that, unlike the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues opposite, we do not claim to think that the gentlemen in St. Andrew's House know best.
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman said that consideration of this change has been going on for eight or nine months. Could he tell us how much longer it is likely to go on?
    Mr. Stodart: I think it is probably likely—although, of course, the General Medical Services Committee will take note of what has been said—till the profession are satisfied that the new form would comply with the requirements which they desire.

    Hill Cow Subsidy
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the review of livestock rearing farms made for the purpose of the Winter Keep Scheme will affect the future eligibility of farmers in Scotland to receive the Hill Cow Subsidy.
    Commander Donaldsonasked the Secretary of Slate for Scotland whether he will ensure that Hill Cattle Subsidy will be payable to all holdings which are eligible for the Winter Keep Scheme.
    Mr. Stodart: All farms accepted as eligible for Winter Keep Grants will also be eligible for Hill Cattle Subsidy, but it does not follow that because a farmer is ineligible for Winter Keep Grant he will necessarily lose the Hill Cattle Subsidy.
    The review to which my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway refers, however, has brought to light a number of anomalies which must now be corrected. As a result a small number of farmers who at present receive Hill Cattle Subsidy will cease to be eligible. We will inform these farmers as soon as possible. On the other hand there will be farmers who are not at present getting Hill Cattle
    262
    Subsidy who will be able to claim it in future.
    I would add that, in order to give farmers who must be excluded from the Scheme time to make any necessary adjustments in their husbandry, the Hill Cattle Subsidy will be paid to them both for this year and for 1964.
    Mr. Brewis: Can my hon. Friend say what number of farmers will now become eligible for the Hill Cow Subsidy? Will he, in particular, say whether upland dairy farmers who give up their majority dairying interests will become eligible automatically for the subsidy?
    Mr. Stodart: On the first point, I cannot give any specific figure of how many will actually receive the Hill Cattle Subsidy, because many who might be eligible might not necessarily claim it. As to the dairy farmer, I think I can say that if he rebalanced his production and went in for a certain number of hill cows he would become eligible for the subsidy.
    Commander Donaldson: To put the previous question in a slightly different form, can my hon. Friend say how many farmers are now in receipt of this support and how many are likely to be ineligible?
    Mr. Stodart: I think that about 16,000 are eligible for the Hill Cow Subsidy at the moment, although not all claim it, and I shall be very surprised if more than 50 altogether are excluded from it.
    Mr. Baxter: What measure is used to show whether a farmer qualifies for the Winter Keep Scheme or for the Hill Cow Subsidy Scheme?
    Mr. Stodart: In order to be eligible for these schemes a farm must consist predominantly of livestock rearing land, as it is classified, or for Hill Cattle Subsidy it must have an area of such land which would form the basis of a separate hill enterprise, and it must be predominantly mountain, hill or heath.
    Sir John MacLeod: What machinery is there for appeals for farmers judged to be ineligible? Is my hon. Friend aware of the very widespread feeling in the Scottish Highlands against the Winter Keep Scheme taking the place of the M.A.P.? Farmers are very worried indeed. Will my hon. Friend look into this?
    Mr. Stodart:I think that that is going slightly wider than the immediate Question. I am, of course, aware that people are worried about winter keep. In fact, I am certain that I shall go to my grave with the words "winter keep" written on my heart.
    Mr. Ross: When?
    Mr. Stodart: As to appeals, I shall be only too ready to seek help which the members of the consultative panel which has been set up to deal with appeals in connection with the Winter Keep Scheme may care to give me on the matter of qualification for the Hill Cow Subsidy.

    Edenhall Hospital, Midlothian
    Mr. J. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to enlarge the paraplegic unit at Edenhall Hospital, Midlothian.
    Mr. Stodart: None, Sir, My right hon. Friend is aware of the need for some additional facilities for the treatment of paraplegic patients, but they should probably be provided at other hospitals than Edenhall, and consideration is now being given to how this provision should be made.
    Mr. Hill:Surely the fact that this is the only unit of its kind in Scotland warrants something being done about it? At the Edenhall Hospital there is a waiting list of patients of this type for beds. The staff are prepared to accept more patients but, unfortunately, they cannot do so. As this is the only place of its kind in Scotland and in view of the calls made upon it and the fact that there are people who cannot get beds there and must go about suffering, cannot more money be provided for the South Eastern Regional Hospital Board to give it the opportunity of extending the hospital?
    Mr. Stodart: The South Eastern Regional Hospital Board has in mind to replace the Edenhall unit by a larger scheme at the Astley Ainslie Hospital, and this proposal will be taken into account in the review of the problem which is now in hand. I should add that, whereas in the past Edenhall was admirably sited because the majority of paraplegic cases came from those who worked in the coal mines, today the
    264
    majority consist of those who suffer from road accidents and falls.
    Mr. J. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve the kitchen facilities at Eden hall Hospital, Midlothian.
    Mr. Stodart: The regional hospital board has authorised the board of management to carry out certain improvements during the current financial year.
    Mr. Hill: It is not improvements which are required. What is needed is a new kitchen. The kitchen was built in 1941, and it has remained exactly the same ever since. There have been complaints about bad food being served to patients. Here we have the kitchen of a fairly large hospital which is still using the equipment put there in 1941. Is it not time something was done about about it?
    Mr. Stodart: In the longer term, the regional hospital board intends to replace the kitchen entirely. In the meantime, it is spending about £4,000 as a short-term measure on new equipment which it believes will have a considerable effect.
    Mr. Willis: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "in the longer term"?
    Mr. Stodart: I should imagine that that is where the matter of priorities must come in.
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman had better stick to agriculture.

    Randolph Wemyss Memorial Hospital
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the building progress of the Randolph Wemyss Memorial Hospital extension; and when he expects it will be available to relieve the long waiting list of geriatric patients in urgent need of hospital facilities.
    Mr. Stodart:Building has been completed ahead of schedule and the extension should be in operation by the end of the year.
    Mr. Gourlay: The hon. Gentleman's reply conflicts somewhat with the actual case. The East Fife board of management was advised that the building

    265
    would be finished in September this year. What has happened has caused considerable administrative difficulty with regard to the furnishing of the hospital extension and with regard to staff. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this merely scratches the surface of the problem of providing geriatric beds in the East Fife area? What proposals has he to speed up the provision of beds for aged chronic sick in the Kirkcaldy and East Fife district?
    Mr. Stodart: The final completion date has always been December, 1963. At one time it looked as if the building could be completed by September. In the event, this has not proved possible, but completion is still ahead of schedule. The progress of the project reflects credit on all concerned.
    On the second point, a sixty-bed unit at Cameron Hospital was completed in May this year, and a further sixty-bed medical unit is to be provided at Miles-mark Hospital, which will enable beds to be released for geriatric patients.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of those beds represent provision and facilities for West Fife and do not in any way reflect an improvement in the position of East Fife? Also, if the contract date for completion of the hospital was December, how was it that the board was advised that it could take possession of the extension in September?
    Mr. Stodart:With regard to the second part of the question, as far as I am aware this was a rather over-optimistic expression of opinion by someone. It was never official. On the first point, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not one who would suggest that "East is East and West is West and never the twain should meet."

    School Building Programme
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Fife Education Authority regarding cuts in the school building programme for 1964–65; and what was the nature of his reply.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: My right hon. Friend has so far received no representations from the authority, though he has seen its telegram addressed to my
    266
    right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It has, however, sought a meeting with my right hon. Friend's Department on this matter and the meeting will take place later this week.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the noble Lady aware that since 1958–59 the Fife Education Authority has completed £1 million—£1,275,000 worth of school building? What reason, therefore, has the Department for suggesting that it is capable of starting building work next year to the tune of only £800,000, less than £500,000 to be spent on Glenrothes High School this year?
    Lady Tweedsmnir: I stated earlier that the £800,000 was a provisional allocation. If the hon. Gentleman examines further the five-year period he mentioned, he will see that while £11 million worth of work started in Glenrothes, the picture as a whole shows that £3,650,000 worth was started in the rest of the county.

    Secretary of State (United States Tour)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the cost to public funds of his recent official tour of the United States of America.
    Mr. Noble: The estimated cost is approximately £2,250.
    Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whilst we welcome American industrialists to Scotland to set up new industries there, nevertheless quite a number of people feel that he rather demeans his high office when he goes to America, kilt in bag, in order to ask industrialists to do his job for him?
    Mr. Noble: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks reflect more than a tiny and rather foolish percentage of the people in Scotland. I see nothing demeaning in the Secretary of State, or, indeed, any other person with an interest, going abroad in order to attract industry to a particular part of the world. I think my visit was welcomed by the great majority of Scottish people.
    Sir J. Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the opinions of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) do not reflect the general view

    267
    of the people of Scotland, who congratulate my right hon. Friend on his imaginative enterprise?
    Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us do agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East? Is he not aware that it is one thing for a person interested in business to go abroad but quite another for the Secretary of State for Scotland himself to go in this way, for it suggests that we in Scotland can do nothing for ourselves? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that Scotland really gets down to a job of work under his tutelage and not go running all over the world?
    Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman forgets—not that he has not often been told—that over 80 per cent, of new industry in Scotland during the last ten to fifteen years has been created by industry already there.
    Mr. T. Fraser: That is nonsense.
    Mr. Noble: I do not think anyone in Scotland feels that it is a waste of time to try to get industry from America or elsewhere to help us.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker:Order. We have dealt with only about twenty-one Questions and it is now twelve minutes past three. Mr. Millan. Question No. 23.
    Mr. Millanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his recent tour of the United States of America.
    Mr. Noble:The main object of my tour was to meet leading industrialists, and others who might be concerned and influential in investment decisions, so that I might have the opportunity of telling them about the advantages of investment in Scotland. I am glad to say that virtually all the executives I met, of companies who had in mind to establish or expand operations in Europe in the near future, indicated to me that they would consider most seriously what Scotland had to offer.
    Mr. Millan:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are very glad to welcome industry from any part of the world? But is not the job of attracting trade and industry in the United States itself the kind of job that should be
    268
    done by officials from his Department or other Departments of the Government? Is he aware that many of us feel that it is beneath the dignity of his office, and a humiliation to Scotland, that Scotland's Cabinet Minister should be trailing round the United States pleading with industrialists to come to Scotland as though we were some kind of under-developed area in Asia or Africa?
    Mr. Noble: If the hon. Gentleman had had the good fortune to be with me, or had read some of the newspapers, he would have realised that this was not at all the kind of approach I made to these gentlemen.
    Mr. Hoy:What assurance has the right hon. Gentleman that these American companies will do anything about the matter? Does not he remember that at his request, I arranged for an executive of an American firm to meet him personally in Edinburgh and that, although the executive assured us that the firm was prepared to spend £500,000 on development in Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman has done absolutely nothing about it?
    Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that that case was not something within my responsibility and that I did not have the decision in my power. There is a considerable difference in meeting industrialists, which I do at the request of any hon. Member, if they have something that I can help them with.

    Industrial Development, Greenock
    Dr. Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why reference to further industrial development in the Greenock-Gourock-Port Glasgow area was omitted from the recent White Paper on Central Scotland.
    Mr. Noble: The object of the White Paper was not to deal with each part of Central Scotland individually, but to set out a programme which would be of general benefit to the whole area.
    Dr. Mabon: Why, then, did the right hon. Gentleman say that it was physically impossible to provide further industrial development in this area of 100,000 Scots? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the topography of

    269
    Renfrewshire and that there is a large potential area for the industrial estate at Port Glasgow to accommodate one large industry? Will he please give us this one industry which we need so desperately?
    Mr. Noble: I am not aware that I have said at any time that It was impossible to develop any industry in that area. Obviously, the areas concerned, being development districts, have exactly the same facilities as any other areas in development districts. What I did say to a gentleman of the Press was that within the towns of Port Glasgow or Greenock there was much less available space.

    Port Development
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the schemes of port development outlined in Command Paper No. 2188.
    Mr. Noble: The White Paper on Central Scotland gave a general indication of desirable port developments; consideration of detailed plans is a matter in the first place for the port authorities concerned and for the National Ports Council. My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport has drawn the attention of the Council to the special needs of Central Scotland and their recommendations will be reported to him in due course.
    Mr. Hoy: Is this not most unsatisfactory? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, in our debate on the Rochdale Report in July, said that this would cause no undue delay? Is he further aware that this proposal was put forward by the Leith Docks Commission four years ago and that it has been approved not only by Ministry of Transport technical experts but by the consulting firms and everybody else in Scotland? How much longer must we wait before the right hon. Gentleman is able to get the Government to make the decision to allow us to go ahead with the scheme which, the Rochdale Committee said, could be carried out at a price only one-fifth of that incurred in any other part of the country if it was done expeditiously?
    Mr. Noble: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who has said that he has asked the Rochdale Committee to deal with it urgently.
    Mr. Ross:It is also a question for the right hon. Gentleman, who publishes a White Paper which purports to be a comprehensive plan but does not offer any real plan or decision, merely stating that plans are being examined. This, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) has said, has been going on for four years. When will we get a decision from the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Noble: I have the duty of exercising a general oversight of the range of proposals contained in the programme outlined in the White Paper. My direct responsibilities for specific projects are, and must remain, confined to those for which I am directly responsible to Parliament.
    Mr. Ross: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for what his scriptwriters put into Tory propaganda masquerading as White Papers?
    Mr. Hoy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment once more at the earliest possible moment.

    Piped Water Supplies, Caithness and Sutherland
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why piped water supplies are still unavailable for the people who live and work in Strathnaver, Kildonan, Achmelvich, Recharm, Culkein, Drumbeg, Sleastary, Migdale, Astle, Coull, Skelbo, Torboll, East Langwell, West Langwell, Rhilochan, Knockarthur, and Morness, all in the county of Sutherland; and when he intends to Temedy this situation.
    Mr. Noble:Sutherland County Council has naturally dealt first with the needs of new housing and the more populous communities. A scheme for Drumbeg is under construction. One for Skelbo and another covering East Langwell, West Langwell, Knockarthur and Morness are at present being considered by the council.

    271
    I shall be happy to consider giving grant towards schemes for any of these areas, but as some isolated groups of houses are involved it may be impracticable in all cases to provide piped supplies at a reasonable cost.
    Sir D. Robertson:Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Romans introduced piped water 2,000 years ago and that in the Middle Ages London, Bristol and Bath and other cities had it? We are now in the twentieth century, and is it not wholly wrong that these historic straths and townships should be left once again without piped water supplies? Does he wonder that the North is becoming more and more depopulated? Will he not stand up to the duty imposed on the Secretary of State for Scotland to provide for adequate water supplies throughout the country?
    Mr. Noble:The Highland counties as a whole have made very good progress with their water schemes. I will be as generous as I can in helping Sutherland County Council once it has schemes ready.

    Road Works, Highlands
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of road improvement works for the routes between Inverness and Wick and between Inverness and Kyle arising from the intention of the Railways Board to withdraw all passenger services from the railways serving those areas as from 2nd March, 1964; and what proposals he has authorised.
    Mr. Noble: Various improvements to these roads are in hand or in prospect, but none for this particular reason. The reports from the Transport Users' Consultative Committee will help me to assess what additional improvements might be needed; and I will see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, is fully aware of the implications for expenditure on road works when the proposed closures come to him for his final decision.
    Mr. Manuel:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of paragraph 120 of the Kilbrandon Report which lays down that no line ought to be closed unless adequate alternative transport facilities are available? Is he also aware that paragraph 111 of that Report advocates the setting
    272
    up of a Highland Transport Board to make recommendations to him before any line is closed? Is it not regrettable and shocking that, while in July he promised to set up the Board, he has not yet named the members and yet there are repeated notices of closures and the Transport Users' Consultative Committee will not allow objectors to discuss anything other than hardships, not road improvements or anything else?
    Mr. Noble: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to change the system of the Transport Users'Consultative Committee for any particular line. The Highland Transport Board will be set up quite soon and I hope to be able to announce the names shortly. It will certainly be in a position to deal with any recommendations from the Transport Users' Consultative Committee and to help me long before these reports are ready.
    Mr. Manuel: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree with his own decision that the Highland Transport Board ought to be the authority to make recommendations to him about closures? Is he saying that when closures take place he will have no part in the decision, but that it will be left entirely to the Minister of Transport?
    Mr. Noble: I said exactly the reverse. I said that the Highland Transport Board would be in a position to advise me long before, I hope, the Transport Users'Consultative Committee comes in.

    Highland Transport Board
    Mr. Steeleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to announce the names of the members he has appointed to the Highland Transport Board; and if he will give an undertaking that he will approve no rail closures until the new Board have had an opportunity of giving him their advice.
    Mr. Stodart:Following what has been said, my right hon. Friend hopes to announce the membership of the Board, and I think I can go further than my right hon. Friend and say, very soon.
    Rail passenger closures are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport. He has agreed to consult my right hon. Friend,

    273
    the Secretary of State, on ail rail closures in Scotland and the Highland Transport Board will certainly be consulted as appropriate.
    Mr. Steele: While I welcome the new Minister coming in to bat on this issue, this is still the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman. Will the Under-Secretary say exactly when this Board will be appointed? It was announced in July and nothing has been done since. Would he answer the second part of my Question and say that, as his right hon. Friend has given an assurance that no railway line will be closed until adequate alternative transport is available, he will not approve any closure until he has had the advice of the new Highland Transport Board?
    Mr. Stodart:We are anxious—and this is the reason for the delay—to get the best possible membership of the Highland. Transport Board. I hope that the hon. Member will be pleased when it is announced, which, I repeat, will be very soon. Irepeat that the ultimate responsibility for closures rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, but that the Highland Transport Board will be consulted in all appropriate cases.

    Milk
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the discontent among farmers in the south-west of Scotland about the price of milk; and what proposals he has for preventing a further decline in the income of milk producers.
    Mr. Stodart: Yes, Sir. The National Farmers' Union of Scotland and the three Scottish Milk Marketing Boards have made representations on the subject to my right hon. Friend's Department. The question of the financial position of milk producers is, of course, a matter for consideration at the Annual Price Review.
    Mr. Hughes:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that our complaint against his right hon. Friend is not that he went to America but that he ever came back? Is he aware that the standard of life of milk-producing farmers has been getting steadily worse? What does he intend to do for the small farmers?
    Mr. Stodart: I would not accept that the hon. Gentleman's first surmise would be accepted by most people in Scotland. I know only too well of the difficulties facing many milk producers, but while I know of some who have gone out of production, I am not aware of any significantly large movement out of milk production. It is always reasonable to expect a certain degree of movement in any sector of agriculture, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the needs of the dairy farmers, particularly small dairy farmers, are closely borne in mind.
    Mr. Brewis:Is my hon. Friend aware that the shortage of liquid milk is affecting employment in the creameries and condensed milk factories in this part of the world? Will he urgently seek to reappraise the current view that milk is in over-supply and that we do not want any for manufacturing?
    Mr. Stodart: Yes, Sir.

    Power Stations, Irvine and Ayrshire
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future power programme, and in particular the proposed 2,400 megawatt power station to be constructed at Irvine.
    Mr. Noble: The future power programme of the Scottish Electricity Boards is set out in a brochure, Plans for the Future 1963–1970, copies of which are in the Vote Office. The brochure lists the stations which will be commissioned up to 1969. It contains no proposal for a new power station in Ayrshire and makes it clear that the decision on the type and location of new plant will depend on the economic merits of the alternatives available.
    Mr. Manuel:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the wide publicity given in the Scottish Press last Thursday to the statement that a power station was to be constructed at Irvine in my constituency? Is he further aware of the increasing need for more electric power in the west of Scotland generally? If that is so, does he think that a new power station n will be required in the west? When does he think that would come about, and would Irvine be considered for it?
    Mr. Noble:I am aware, as most hon. Members are, of many statements which appear in the Press. The decision on the location of the power station is a subject on which I should wait for advice from the South of Scotland Electricity Board. I dare say that Irvine might be the lucky place, but I have no information on that subject.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the brochure to which he referred deals only with England and Wales and not with Scotland, and that Irvine happens to be in Ayrshire in Scotland?
    Mr. Noble: If the hon. Gentleman is right, I apologise. My brief says that it deals with Scotland.
    Sir John MacLeod: Can my right hon. Friend say how many hydro-electric projects are awaiting ratification by the Scottish Office?
    Mr. Noble: That is a different question, but the Hydro-Board has published four schemes.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans there are for a new power station in Ayrshire; and if it is to use coal or oil.
    Mr. Noble: I have answered Question No. 33 with the last Question.
    Several Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman now use this opportunity to amplify what he has said, in view of the omissions and misunderstandings in his previous Answer? Does he not realise that there is intense interest in the west of Scotland, especially among the mining population, among people who want to know whether the Government have surrendered to the oil interests and are prepared to sacrifice the coal industry in the interests of oil?
    Mr. Noble:I apologise to the hon. Member for not saying that Question No. 33 was being answered with Question No. 32. It was my mistake. But there was no question of any muddle in my previous Answer when I said that the question of the fuel to be used would be judged on its merits at the time.

    Livingston
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a time-limit clause with penalties has been inserted in the contract between the Livingston New Town Development Corporation and Messrs. R. Pert, Montrose, for the construction of the first 250 houses at Livingston New Town.
    Mr. Noble: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: Why not?
    Mr. Noble: Its application might have resulted in later target dates or increased costs, either by way of higher prices or insistence on compensating bonus clauses. On balance the Development Corporation decided that a penalty clause should not be included.

HORTICULTURE
3.30 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. C. Soames): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about horticulture.
It is the continuing policy of Her Majesty's Government, as it has been for many years, to promote the well-being of the horticultural industry, as it is for agriculture. To this end the Government consider that all practical steps should be taken to bring our horticultural production and marketing to a higher state of competitive efficiency; and we propose to offer substantial aid to the industry to reduce costs of production and improve marketing. The effect of this should be to strengthen the competitive position of the industry and thereby to reduce its dependence on the tariff, which has been the principal means of support. It should thus create conditions in which reconsideration of the tariff would be possible.
Our proposals, which are embodied in the Agriculture and Horticulture Bill presented yesterday, include grants towards the cost of a wide range of production equipment—including replacement of glasshouses—for existing viable holdings, towards the reorganisation of such holdings, and towards

277
the establishment of marketing cooperatives. Arrangements are also proposed to provide guaranteed credit facilities for horticultural producers.
In addition to the grant-aid already available to growers and co-operatives towards equipment for the better marketing of horticultural produce, we propose to offer grants towards the cost of redevelopment of a number of wholesale horticultural markets throughout the country. We are also seeking powers to require the grading to prescribed standards of certain horticultural produce passing through wholesale channels of trade.
Introduction of these substantial forms of assistance will enable the Government to consider making changes in the tariff on horticultural items, where these would be in the national interest. The timing of any such changes would, however, be of great importance.
Some products are in a favourable position to withstand competition from imports because, for example, their perishability, or their bulk in relation to their value afford a high degree of natural protection. For these, early reductions in import duties could be made without damage to the industry.
Other products, however, are at present more sensitive to overseas competition and enjoy a significant level of tariff protection during the home season. For these, we shall feel free to bind the duties at their current levels if we consider this to be in the national interest. There will, however, have to be a period of about four years before any reduction in the tariff on these sensitive items could be considered. This should give the industry time to benefit from the assistance offered, and thereby enable it the better to withstand any normal competition from imports. After this standstill period the Government will be free to make reductions in the duties on sensitive items if they consider this to be in the national interest.
We recognise that the specific duties on a number of horticultural products have not only offered protection against normal competition from imports, but have also been a safeguard against abnormal competition from imports at unrealistically low prices arising from surpluses of varying degrees. It is likely
278
that such surpluses will reappear from time to time, so means to prevent them from undermining our market will continue to be necessary. We consider that such means would best be devised in consultation with other countries.
In considering possible tariff reductions and safeguards against abnormal competition, the Government will, of course, take the views of the industry fully into account. It is also our intention that there should be periodic examination, in consultation with the farmers' unions, of development within the industry, including the evidence available on such matters as costs of production and the trends in prices and imports, and the progress made towards achieving a higher degree of competitive efficiency.
Mr. Peart: We welcome the Minister's statement, but, as there is to be a major Bill, and obviously a Ministerial speech, very soon, why have we been given this statement today?
What consultation has there been with the industry? Has agreement been reached? On the question of redevelopment grants, is there to be a regional plan? Has the Minister made up his mind about Covent Garden? How will the improvement scheme continue? Will it be developed and will aid be pumped into it?
I come, finally, to the point made by the Minister about seeking powers with regard to grading to prescribed standards of certain horticultural produce. The Minister will be aware that on many occasions we have pressed him and the Government to take executive powers to deal with this matter. We are glad that there has been this conversion, but is the Minister intending to create a new type of machinery to administer this?
Mr. Soames: As to the reasons for the statement, I felt that the House would have wished me to explain the conclusions that we have reached following the thought that we have been given to horticultural policy, in consultation with the industry.
We have devised these new ideas in close consultation with the industry. It will be for the industry to express its views on them, but I have every reason to hope and believe that it will support them.

279
Next, I deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about whether there is to be a regional plan, and which markets are to be assisted. Broadly speaking, the guide will be the throughput of particular markets. We shall concentrate on the major and more important markets. We are thinking in terms of a throughput of about £5 million, and this will include Covent Garden.
As to grading, we think that there is a widespread desire within the industry to have grading of produce, and that this is best done in the way shown in the Bill.
Mr. Bullard:While welcoming the provisions in the Bill for the improvement of grading, marketing, and production, will my right hon. Friend say whether he can give an absolute assurance that in revising the tariffs—I think that was the phrase he used—there will still be protection against dumped horticultural produce coming on to the markets here, and that these measures will be used quickly to prevent the flooding of markets with produce which would undermine any steps he proposes for improving marketing itself?
Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. The whole object of this policy is to enable the horticulture industry to put itself in a much more competitive position and, therefore, to be less reliant upon the need for tariffs than it is at present, or would remain if we were to continue with our present policy without this infusion of help. It is one thing for industry to become competitive on fair terms with equivalent industries in other countries. It is another story when it comes to dumped produce. We appreciate that measures must be taken to ensure that dumped produce does not undermine the market.
Mr. Hilton: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has been convinced that this industry is in a parlous state. Perhaps I might ask two questions. Dealing with grants for glasshouses and equipment, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind in particular the position of the smaller man? Very often when grants are provided for horticulture and agriculture the people who need the grants most are unable to take advantage of them.
280
The right hon. Gentleman referred to credit facilities. Will he consider making this credit available at a lower rate of interest than at present, because, after all, certain facilities are available now, but the small men are not able to take advantage of them because of the high rates of interest.
Mr. Soames: First, I would not accept—nor would the industry—that the industry is in a parlous state. This is not so. This is a sensible and realistic policy to adopt with regard to the industry in modern times, and is not being done because the industry is in a parlous state. It is being done to make it more competitive.
As to the smaller man to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, he will see that the Bill provides for the possibility of giving him business grants.
On the question of credit, and subsidised credit, the hon. Gentleman will see that in the Bill provision is made for the Government to underwrite credit for the industry. When one puts together credit for the industry, on the one hand—in other words, guaranteed credit—and, on the other, grants for 30 per cent, of what is being done, one realises that this is considerable aid, and will, I am sure, produce the desired result.
Mr. J. Wells:I warmly welcome this great step forward in the modernisation of the horticultural industry. Does my right hon. Friend see this as the heralding of an increase in the number of horticultural growers, or does he envisage the number of growers in the future remaining static, or being reduced?
Mr. Soames: I would not expect to see any appreciable alteration in the number of growers. This is not designed to increase the size of the industry; it is designed to improve its competitive efficiency.
Mr. Hoy:I was not quite clear about what the right hon. Gentleman said in connection with the setting up of a new marketing scheme. Is he taking powers to make this compulsory? The last marketing scheme failed dismally, because it was optional in character.
Mr. Soames: Is the hon. Member referring to grading or to the building of markets?
Mr. Hoy: To marketing.
Mr. Soames: The building of markets?
Mr. Hoy: Grading for markets.
Mr. Soames: If it is grading, it is to be compulsory. Unless grading were compulsory it would not be sufficiently effective.
Sir P. Agnew:As the representative of a district where many of the holdings are very small, I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend can say whether the new arrangements about credit will enable many of those small men to take advantage of this new scheme, as before they were not able to take advantage of credit facilities.
Mr. Soames: It is with this type of grower specifically in mind that we are introducing the credit scheme.
Several Hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Speaker:I think that we should pass on. The House will do doubt have an opportunity to debate this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill.

TRAFFIC IN TOWNS (REPORTS)
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Mr. Speaker, with your permission, and that of the House. I wish to make a statement.
Professor Buchanan's Report on Traffic in Towns and a Report by Sir Geoffrey Crowther's Steering Group are now available to hon. Members. They will be on sale tomorrow.
Everyone will need time to consider these Reports, which have taken three years. We are all greatly indebted to the authors for their original and stimulating studies. They try to show what will happen in our towns when nearly every family owns a car. They examine ways of reshaping towns over the next fifty years so that we can enjoy the benefits of the car and also civilised urban living.
Cars are a boon. But they have now started to choke movement and, indeed, to threaten the quality of urban life. Buchanan offers two main ideas for re-planning towns. First, main traffic should be canalised into a "primary
282
road network". Here, traffic takes precedence. Secondly, the rest of the town should, be planned as "environmental areas". Here, the quality of living comes first. So planning of traffic and planning of land use must go together. This would make it possible in the smaller towns—at a cost—to provide for the use of cars to whatever extent their owners are likely to want. But in the larger towns, Buchanan says, this is just not physically possible, however much money is spent. He therefore stresses the importance of public transport.
We accept Buchanan's basic approach that a balance must be struck between the growing needs of traffic and the quality of urban life. Our long-term planning will be shaped accordingly. The Government are tackling the immediate problem in four main ways.
First, transport surveys: The Buchanan Report lays down the principles. The next step is to translate them into practice in each area. We need to know, especially in the conurbations, the future demands for transport, its relation to land use, and the: right balance between public and private transport. For this purpose we must have comprehensive transport surveys of an entirely new kind. Government, local authorities and public transport operators must be in this together. Such a survey is already well under way in London. Other surveys are in progress in Merseyside and Tyneside and will soon begin in the conurbations of Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham and Tees-side.
Secondly, local government: Each area has its own distinctive problems and will have to make its own decisions about traffic and the quality of urban life, Local authorities will need help and guidance. They will need strengthening. The reorganisation of local government—already well advanced in London and in hand for the rest of the country—will help to produce a structure better able to cope with major traffic and planning problems. To guide and advise local authorities the Government have created an Urban Planning Group.
Thirdly, increased resources: Spending on urban roads is rapidly increasing. This year it is £50 million. It will rise to £140 million a year by 1970.

283
Fourthly, public transport: Public transport must offer an acceptable alternative to the private car, especially for travel to and from work. Outside London this is predominantly a bus problem. But in some areas suburban rail services play an important rôle, and that is why the Beeching Plan, in the main, avoided suburban services in the list of closure proposals. But even those that are in the list cannot be closed without my consent. Before I reach a decision on any of them I shall secure the views of the local authorities and others concerned with the area transport surveys. I am sure that with these Reports we shall now be able to evolve a system of public transport by road and rail in our cities which will meet the needs, of the travelling public.
Mr. Speaker, towns and cities all over the world are facing the problem of rapidly increasing car ownership. There is no simple solution. As Buchanan says:
"it is …a social situation requiring to be dealt with by policies patiently applied over a period and revised from time to time in the light of events."
These are wise words, and we should do well to keep them in mind.
Mr. Strauss: I am sure that everybody in the House—certainly all those Members on this side—will agree with the Minister that we are indebted to Professor Buchanan for his remarkable Report, and to the Crowther Committee for pioneering the Report and for steering it and other reports on the transport situation. I also think that Her Majesty's Stationery Office deserves congratulations for the remarkable and most attractive way in which it has presented this very technical Report.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: At £2 10s.
Mr. Strauss: Yes, at £2 10s.
I want to ask the Minister one or two very simple questions. The first one is an obvious one: can we have an undertaking today that Parliament will have an opportunity of discussing this Report, which will vitally affect all the towns and the people in the British Isles?
Secondly, the Minister made various comments about the Report, and I hope that he will not take it that if we do not controvert them today we necessarily
284
agree with what he said, or accept his assertions. It seemed to me that on the whole his comments were rather dampening and complacent, and showed no sense or urgency at all, whereas the Crowther Committee stated emphatically that urgency is all-important.
I should like to know whether the Minister can give an answer to the key recommendation contained in paragraph 52 of the recommendations of the Crowther Steering Group, which says:
"if the task is to be done at all and our cities are to be saved from strangulation, a new executive agency of some sort will have to be created. We are convinced that it cannot be done by any existing agency or any joint body formed from existing agencies."
Have the Government come to any conclusion on that key recommendation?
Lastly, in the light of the recommendations contained in the Report, will the Minister revise his views about the layout of Piccadilly Circus?
Mr. Marples: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Stationery Office has done a remarkably good job in illustrating and producing this Report. The question of discussing the Report is a matter for the Leader of the House. Personally, I should welcome any discussion that we could have.
On the question of urgency, it is fair to say that the Government acted long before the Report was produced, because Colin Buchanan was appointed long before Beeching was on the railways, and I knew the way in which their thoughts were tending. Therefore, we set in train these comprehensive transport surveys as quickly as we possibly could. In London, where, as Minister of Transport, I have power, the survey has already been in hand for well over twelve months. I have now persuaded most of the local authorities for the conurbations to carry out such a survey. We have shown by our actions that we mean to be urgent.
With regard to paragraph 52 of the Crowther Report, as a first step we are now reorganising local government. We have to see how that works in practice. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, if it does not work in practice, we must have another agency because, whatever happens, this plan really must work.
As to Piccadilly Circus, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and

285
Local Government said yesterday that the L.C.C. was coming at the official level to see both his Ministry and mine.
Mr. Webster: On the point about complacency, I note that my right hon. Friend has said that he will spend £140 million in 1970 as compared with £50 million on urban transport problems. Yet in paragraph 444 of this very admirably produced Report Professor Buchanan says this:
"All the indications are that to deal adequately with traffic in towns will require works and expenditure on a scale not yet contemplated."
Has my right hon. Friend contemplated producing a rolling programme for ten or twenty years for the increase in urban development mentioned in the Report? Has he any comment to make on this?
Mr. Marples:There is no doubt that quite substantial sums of money will be required. We have to rebuild the centres of our towns, anyway. The great point is to ensure that we develop them on the right lines to come to terms with the motor car. That is what this Report is about. Let us take first things first. We must have the surveys. We must then project forward to what type of buildings we are to have. Then I think will be the time to make decisions about resources and cash.
Mr. Wade: I welcome the Report and also the decision to carry out a comprehensive transport survey, which is so long overdue. With regard to the immediate problem, is the Minister aware that in many industrial areas, particularly in the north of England, one of the most serious causes of congestion is the heavy traffic passing through the centre of towns? This is often a more serious problem than private cars. Can he give an assurance that high priority will be given to the construction of by-pass roads drawing off this heavy traffic from urban centres?
Mr. Marples:If the hon. Gentleman reads the Report very carefully, he will see that Professor Buchanan deals with the question of by-pass roads. It will be found that by-passes are more effective in very small towns than in very large towns. If the hon. Gentleman looks at it very carefully, he will see what is in the Report on this. We shall, of course,
286
most carefully study what Buchanan says before we decide what action to take.
Mr. R. W. Elliott: Will my right hon. Friend say how the Government will assist local authorities in the all-important traffic surveys? Does he contemplate subsidisation for urban public transport?
Mr. Marples: I think that subsidisation must wait for a time. It may or may not be necessary. The very first thing to do is to build up a good and attractive public transport system. The Government have already been in touch with all the bus operators to see what steps we can take physically to bring this about.
As to traffic surveys, the central Government are making a substantial contribution to the expenses, as well as supplying technical "know-how" and initiating the projects.
Mr. Manuel: In his statement the Minister mentioned repeatedly the questions of planning and controls. Is he aware that the Prime Minister, in his recent broadcast, stated that the creation of a new Britain would be brought about by planning without controls? Should not the Minister meet the Prime Minister and agree on a concerted programme?
Mr. Marples: I will read that speech with great care.
Sir R. Thompson:In the light of what my right hon. Friend said Professor Buchanan had to say about traffic congestion, and accepting that Dr. Beeching advanced that, in the main, closure of suburban transport lines should be avoided, will my right hon. Friend set his face rigidly against the closure of lines which help commuters to get into London and out again every day?
Mr. Marples: The decision to close opposed passenger services was deliberately left to the Minister under the 1962 Act. If a proposed closure—that is in Appendix II of the Beeching proposals—seems likely to conflict with the right overall solution, I can and I will refuse consent and where necessary, as I said in my original statement, I will consult those concerned with area transport services before making a decision.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: I accept the need for comprehensive transport surveys to be carried out by local authorities, but would not the Minister

287
agree that there is a danger here that the surveys themselves might be used as an argument against the modernisation of certain railway lines? Would he agree that the modernisation of the lines on the south bank of the Clyde, for example, ought not to be blocked simply because a comprehensive survey has been agreed by the local authorities there?
Mr. Marples: I think that any comprehensive survey of this sort in the eight major conurbations is really bound to produce more modernisation of railways than less.
Mr. Hocking: Will my right hon. Friend say whether people living in these cities will be consulted about the way their towns are to be redeveloped? Will he bear in mind the importance of the motor car in the country's economy and not discourage it too much?
Mr. Marples: It is a question of holding the balance between the motor car and first-class living conditions in cities. It is not an easy balance to hold. Whatever decision any Minister of Transport has to make is unlikely to please everybody. It is this balance which it is so difficult to get.
Local authorities will have a say, and they must have a say, in what happens in their own areas, because each area has its own distinctive characteristics and problems. Each area must decide what balance it wants. It must strike its own balance between the needs of traffic and the quality of living that it desires.
Mr. K. Robinson:Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the statement in the Report of the Crowther Steering Group that deliberate limitation of the volume of motor car traffic in our cities is quite unavoidable? If he does, how can he possibly square that with his ill-advised decision to reject the Holford plan for Piccadilly Circus?
Mr. Marples: I know the hon. Gentleman's indignation over the Piccadilly Circus plan, where he calls me anti-pedestrian and the motorist calls me anti-motorist because I do not provide
288
sufficient room for motorists. We have already said that we shall discuss this problem with the L.C.C., and I think we had better await the outcome of those discussions.
As to the limitation of motor cars, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking) that we must try to plan our towns so as to give the maximum use of this great and beneficial invention, the motor car, which at the same time, if it is proliferated too much, will strangle us. We must do all we can in our towns to come to terms with the motor car. Therefore, there will have to be some limitation—it is a fact of life.
One and a quarter million to 1½ million people come into the centre of London every day. Less than 10 per cent, come in by private car. Is it conceivable that the other 90 per cent, could come in in the same way?
Several Hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this without a Question before the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  New Houses (Structural Faults)
  Mr. Rhodes:I beg to give notice that on Friday, 13th December, I shall call attention to the need to protect the financial interests of purchasers of new house property in the event of major faults appearing in the house structure, and more a Resolution.
  Africa (Communist Subversion)
  Mr. Goodhew: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 13th December, I shall call attention to the continuing threat of Communist subversion in Africa, and move a Resolution.
  University of the Air
  Mr. Mayhew:I beg to give notice that on Friday, 13th December, if opportunity arises, I shall call attention to the need for the creation of a university of the air, and move a Resolution.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of Part I of, and Schedule 1 to, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 till the end of December 1964, and of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act 1943, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946 and Part II of the Licensing Act 1953 till the end of March 1965, being expenses which under any Act and to be paid out of such moneys.
  Resolution agreed to.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

    Schedule
    4.1 p.m.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 7 and 8.
    The Amendment is designed to delete from the Schedule the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919 and, consequently, the Orders made there under. The Amendment and debate enable us on this occasion, as we have done on previous occasions for many years, to review the administration by the Home Office of its conduct in regard to aliens and immigration, to consider whether the administration by the Home Office has been conducted on principles of humanity or inhumanity, with efficiency or inefficiency and with due regard to economy or with the absence of economy.
    We must, as on previous occasions, protest at the repeated failure of the Government to put this aliens legislation in a satisfactory form by introducing permanent legislation. This method of
    290
    dealing with the supervision of aliens has existed for close on fifty years. The House notoriously dislikes emergency, delegated and temporary legislation, yet year after year the House has been confronted with the situation in which we have had to deal annually with a Measure, and Orders made under it, giving widespread and arbitrary powers to the Horns Secretary to decide which aliens are admitted to this country, the conditions under which they are entitled to remain here and in respect of which they can be deported. We must, therefore, register our protest and ask the Home Secretary what is his excuse this year for once again having put this Bill in the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
    The right hon. Gentleman has conceded, as have his predecessors time and again, that this method of legislation is thoroughly undesirable. However, each year when this matter comes up we are given one excuse after another. The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton), who was the spokesman for the Home Office two years ago, expressed hope that it would not be long before permanent legislation was introduced. He gave the excuse that the Government were entering negotiations to join the Common Market. The same subject came up again last year and the Home Secretary said that he also disliked this method of annually dealing with the matter. He said that it would be more desirable if Parliament got rid of this year-by-year procedure and put on to the Statute Book permanent legislation.
    The reason which the Home Secretary gave last year—and he repeated it three times—was that the Government thought that they were going to enter the European Economic Community, which would produce a great change in the whole conditions in regard to the status of other members of the Community and their right to enter Great Britain. For this reason, he said, the right time for the Government to put forward proposals and for Parliament to examine them was when the Government and Parliament knew whether or not we would enter the E.E.C. A month or two later we knew, with President de Gaulle's action, that the negotiations

    291
    for entering the Common Market were at an end. This shows that for nearly a year the Government have been deprived of that excuse.
    What is the excuse this year? It cannot be that negotiations to join the Common Market will be renewed. I do not know what excuse the Home Secretary will give, but it is obvious that the reason why no permanent legislation of this kind is being introduced this year is that the right hon. Gentleman knows that we are now in the last Session of a dying and feeble Parliament. He is taking the line of least resistance and is leaving this, like so many other measures of reform, to the new Government which will be formed after the next General Election.
    The only consolation to the Committee—although the Home Secretary has failed to fulfil his promise, as the Government have failed to fulfil their other promises—is that we are given an opportunity of considering how the Home Secretary has been administering the Orders in Council made under the 1919 Act. It is desirable that the Committee should examine these matters in great detail before deciding whether the Government can be entrusted with these wide powers for another twelve months.
    I remind the Committee that Parliament has never yet had an opportunity, since the aliens legislation was first introduced, of considering what the policy of this country should be towards the immigration of aliens. This subject is one of increasing importance because as a result of the increase in tourism—tourism which we are ail anxious to encourage—the number of visitors to our shores increases year by year. Last year, nearly 2 million aliens—an unfortunate expression and I prefer "non-British subjects"—of one kind and another came here for various purposes.
    Some of them were bona fide visitors, here for social occasions, holidays, and so on, some were here with a view to taking up temporary employment—for three, six or twelve months—some arrived under the au pair system and some came for less reputable purposes. As I understand, the Government must consider what machinery is best devised to ensure that there is the maximum of welcome
    292
    and the minimum of fuss and interference with genuine visitors and at the same time to take steps to deal with undesirable aliens who wish to come here either for some nefarious, criminal or other purpose which we might regard as objectionable and for which they should be denied right of entry.
    In addition to those cases there is the very limited, but not unimportant, number of persons who annually come to our country to obtain political asylum as a measure of relief for political persecution in their own country. In previous years we have had occasion nearly every year to discuss a specific case which has arisen during the preceding twelve months and in which we have had to deplore the completely inhuman treatment accorded to a visitor to our shores seeking political asylum.
    Two or three years ago we had the case of Captain Galvao, who was refused permission only because it was thought that by doing so we would please the Government of Portugal, a member of N.A.T.O.
    There was the notorious case last year of Dr. Soblen, which we canvassed at some length, and in which we were able to expose the fact that the Home Secretary had used an obscure Section in the Aliens Order to circumvent the quite definite provisions of the Extradition Act. Whether it has been in those cases of political asylum, or in the case of Carmen Bryan or of Chief Enahoro, who were Commonwealth subjects, experience has shown, unfortunately, that in almost every case where the question of giving humane and sympathetic treatment to an individual has arisen, whenever the country has expected a decision from this Home Secretary that would be in accordance with the cherished traditions of our country with regard to political asylum, the Home Secretary has almost inevitably and invariably taken the wrong decision. That is something we have come to expect, and something that will no doubt continue, unfortunately, while this Government are in office.
    On this occasion, I do not propose to dwell on that particular aspect of the Home Secretary's administration of the aliens legislation. I think that today it would be more profitable to examine the machinery adopted by the Home

    293
    Secretary with regard to the whole subject of control of immigration into this country. Before I deal with that, I want to ask the Home Secretary three questions about cases of deportation.
    Of course, apart from those, about 4,000 or 5,000 individuals a year are refused permission to land for one reason or another—sometimes on medical grounds, sometimes because they have not a visa, sometimes because it is thought that they cannot support themselves, and sometimes because it is thought that they are coming ostensibly for one purpose but actually for another. In regard to those cases in respect of which permission to land is refused, I would merely observe that under the present system it is inevitable that a great many of those personal decisions must be arbitrary, in the sense that there must be a number of borderline cases.
    As the law stands, I observe that it results in the exercise of discretion by a particular immigration officer, and I know that all immigration officers do their duty with the greatest degree of conscientiousness and ability. Ultimately, the Home Secretary has to decide whether entry should be granted or refused. There must, inevitably, be some wrong decisions. Apart from those cases, there are the cases of deportation, and I have no doubt that, in a great many instances, persons who have committed criminal offences are quite rightly deported, but, in each case, it is the duty of this House to see that the individual recommended for deportation, or in respect of whom a deportation order is made, has the opportunities which elementary justice requires of being able to state his case before an order is made.
    That being so, I want to ask the Home Secretary: how many orders for deportation were made during the last twelve months? In how many cases did the individual concerned exercise his right of having his case considered by the Chief Magistrate of Bow Street? In how many cases was the decision of the Chief Magistrate to support the Home Secretary's recommendation? In how many cases did the Home Secretary disregard the Chief Magistrate's recommendation? Finally, in how many cases was an order made on security grounds, or any other ground which
    294
    deprived the individual concerned of any opportunity of having his case reviewed by the Chief Magistrate?
    It would be useful to have that information, if only because the House has a duty, as a civilised community, to see that the powers in this jurisdiction over aliens—which depends upon these Orders in Council under an Act passed in conditions of emergency—are exercised with a scrupulous sense of responsibility and humanity.
    I want now to turn to the wider question of the general efficiency or inefficiency with which the Home Office conducts its administration of immigration. Fortunately, I am able to do that because the whole subject has recently been very carefully reviewed by the Estimates Committee, which has, during the last few months, published a very enlightening and elucidating Report, as a result of which I am sure that a great many hon. Members have learned for the first time what happens. Hon. Members may be interested if I summarise the procedure.
    Every alien coming to the country has to fill in a landing card. Every alien leaving the country has to fill in an embarkation card. There are 2 million of them every year. These landing cards and embarkation cards, which are filled in at the ports or airports, are then sent to a centralised department of the Home Office at Princeton House, in Holborn—a very large place, staffed with a considerable staff—in which all the 2 million cards of those coining in and the 2 million cards of those going out—4 million in all—are carefully analysed, indexed, sorted and placed in alphabetical order so that there is a complete record of all those coming into the country and all those leaving it. That means that there are about as many names as there are in the London telephone directory. A large number of people are required to do that work.
    4.15 p.m.
    The system is that the embarkation cards should be "married" with the landing cards, the theory being that by that means it can be seen whether everybody who has landed has eventually departed. Theoretically, that would be a very good system. The Estimates Committee asked the Home Secretary,

    295
    or his representative, in how many cases it was found that the person who was allowed to come in as a visitor did not go, and there was a card missing. To everyone's surprise, it was learned that that was never done; that there was no check. Those concerned go to all the trouble of collecting all these incoming and outgoing cards, but never check to see whether or not they are completely matched.
    The Home Secretary, or his representative, was asked why the Department did not complete the job and do it properly if that was the object of the exercise. The answer was that it would cost too much. It was then pointed out that if it would cost too much to do the job properly, what was the object of going to all that trouble of collecting these cards and indexing them and not seeing what the result was? The reply was that it might be of use if the job was done properly, but that to do so would mean doubling the number of staff. The Home Office was asked whether it could not get a computer, or something like that. Apparently, it had not thought of that; or that a computer would work.
    The Estimates Committee, which is an impartial, all-party Committee, presided over by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), stated that it was
    "…greatly concerned at the immense amount of work involved."
    It appeared to the Committee that there might be some value in all this—that is, the preparation of the traffic index—if it were fully used.
    The Committee went on:
    "Your Committee feel that the inclusion in the index of an immense number of cards relating to visitors occupies an increasingly disproportionate amount of space, involves many people at Princeton House in much hard work, and, as has already been shown, occupies a considerable part of the time of immigration officers at the ports without achieving any of the purposes for which the system of control is designed."
    The Committee goes on, therefore, to recommend that
    "The system of landing and embarkation cards for those classed as bona fide visitors should be abolished …"
    Bearing in mind that of the 2 million who come in, 75 per cent. are bona fide visitors, there is yet all this elaborate bureaucratic system of collecting landing
    296
    and embarkation cards, having them filed by hordes of bureaucratic civil servants and, because it is said that it would cost too much to do this job completely, after the civil servants have done all this for two or three years, burning all cards. The Home Secretary apparently laughs, but I do not think that it is a laughing matter.
    The Home Secretary not only laughs, but, with that sublime contempt for the recommendations of the Estimates Committee, which is one of his least pleasing characteristics, he dismisses the Committee's recommendations with these cavalier words, published only a few days ago:
    "The Secretary of State has noted the Select Committee's recommendation that the system of landing and embarkation cards should be abolished for bona fide visitors This recommendation presents practical difficulties …"
    Having admitted that the system is no use, that it is inefficient and expensive, the recommendation that it should be abolished presents practical difficulties.
    The right hon. Gentleman goes on to comment that
    "… it also has implications for Departments other than the Home Office. However, these questions, and the possibility of mechanising all central records, are being studied in the course of a thoroughgoing review of immigration questions…"
    I do not know whether the matter could be simplified if there were some method of mechanisation. The Government are now preaching modernisation and mechanisation. If they are serious about that, here is an example where, employing hundreds of people doing unnecessary work and occupying expensive space in the middle of London all to no purpose, the Government are still considering whether some method of mechanisation would be of use.
    Be it observed, however, that even if they did all this it is still doubtful whether it would be of the slightest use to the country. I do not blame the staff, because the Home Secretary has laid down what they should do, but the Home Secretary and his staff then gave one other curious explanation why they went to all this trouble and expense to no purpose. They said, in effect, "We do not rely on this at all. What we rely on are the immigration officers at the ports. We rely on them to keep out

    297
    the undesirables." The Estimates Committee therefore examined whether the work done by the immigration officers at the ports is effective for this purpose.
    The object of the immigration officers is not to count the number of people coming in to see if that number tallies with the number going out, which does not seem to me a very profitable exercise anyhow. They have a perfectly laudable object. The Estimates Committee should be anxious to see that this work is properly done. If we are to spend money on Votes for the Home Secretary we should see that the work is done properly.
    The immigration officers say that they have a black book for immigrants which contains about 7,500 names of people who are regarded as undesirable for one reason or another. It is said, and I agree, that the immigration officers have great experience in detecting and distinguishing undesirable immigrants from bona fide visitors. No doubt that is why they are able to turn away 4,000 to 5,000 people a year.
    The real question on this aspect of the matter, which the Committee should examine, is whether this system is foolproof. It is notorious, and nobody denies it, that with all the skill and expertise in the world exercised by these officers no one who wants to come into the country for a nefarious purpose, for espionage or to escape Interpol or for any other purpose, has the slightest difficulty in doing so. The Home Office is candid enough to give a whole series of illustrations of how it can be done. A person can land from a yacht at some unfrequented port or get on a helicopter and land on a moorland somewhere, or, without going to that expense, come in through Ireland. [An Hon. Member: "M. Bidault."] Yes, there was the case of M. Bidault.
    M. Bidault came into the country without any difficulty at all, immigration officer or no immigration officer. The Home Secretary surpassed himself on that occasion, because my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) on 5th March this year, in order to probe this sort of question and see how the system worked, asked the Home Secretary, by means of Private Notice Question, whether M.
    298
    Bidault was in the country. Everybody knew that he was, because he had been telephoning some of his friends and broadcasting, and so forth. I believe that his photograph appeared in the newspapers.
    This is officialdom at its worst. The Home Secretary said:
    "I have no ground for thinking that M. Bidault is now in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1963; Vol. 673, c. 205.]
    This was because he had not filled in a card. The Home Secretary, in his blithe innocence, in trying to prevent undesirables coming in and going through all this rigmarole, with all these people in Princeton House filling in millions of cards, ignores those people who come into the country without filling in a proper card or passing the immigration officer at all.
    I wanted to test the efficacy of this wonderful system of immigration control the other day and see how it worked. I know that the Home Secretary admits that it is not foolproof. I wanted to see how ineffective it was. I arrived at London Airport from the Continent at 9.15 p.m. My plane was half an hour late. There was a Division in the House at 10 p.m., and there was a three-line Whip and I was, naturally, anxious to vote against the Government. I had, therefore, not much time to get to the House of Commons from London Airport. I had no time to talk to an immigration officer or a Customs officer. I therefore adopted the simple course. I left the queue and proceeded from my aeroplane to my car which I had left in the car park and I drove to the House of Commons.
    I am perfectly entitled to do that. I am a British subject. I can land in this country whenever I like, regardless of the Home Secretary, the immigration officers or anybody else. I do not boast about that. It is a common law right of any British subject. I merely exercised the right of a British subject, but if I can do it without challenge so can M. Bidault or any of those people whom the Home Office are trying to keep out of the country. What comes, therefore, of this system of immigration control and all this expenditure? What does the Estimates Committee say about it? Tt realised that it was not foolproof and the Home Secretary had admitted that

    299
    not only M. Bidault, but certain others were able to come in and to dodge the immigration officer. They did not admit how many because they do not know how many.
    4.30 p.m.
    The Committee, further examining the Home Office witnesses, said:
    "… they regard as rather complacent the assertions of the Home Office that cases such as this are extremely few.'"
    The Committee goes on:
    "One of the justifications for the present system is that it is designed to prevent the entry of undesirables, but it is, in the view of your Committee, far more important to be able to stop resourceful criminals who have access to false documents than petty malefactors."
    The Committee also stated—I cannot read it all, but I beg hon. Members to believe that, couched in the Parliamentary language of a Report of a House of Commons Committee, it is one of the most withering, scathing condemnations of inefficient and wasteful administration by a Government Department that I have ever read. The Committee considered that economies should be made elsewhere in the immigration and nationality department. Goodness knows, there is plenty of room for that by the closing down of this system involving the use of 2 million cards. The Committee recommends
    "Immigration officers should be given much more extensive information about those people whom the Home Office does not wish to allow to land."
    The Committee is a responsible body. But what happens? Again, with that cavalier attitude which he adopts, the Home Secretary comments on this recommendation. I think that this really wants some beating for mere nonchalance and contempt of the House of Commons:
    "Immigration officers are already furnished with as full information about unwanted aliens as experience has shown to be reasonable and practicable. No port control, however sophisticated, can be guaranteed proof against evasion in all circumstances. There is good reason to think that the individual case which appears to have given rise to this recommendation is quite exceptional."
    I can assure the Home Secretary that it is not exceptional at all. The right hon. Gentleman goes on, with a degree—I was going to say of effrontery—with a degree of arrogance almost unprece-
    300
    dented, to make some comment on the observations. The Home Secretary having dismissed this very sensible recommendation, arrived at after exhaustive inquiry, the Committee felt obliged to take the unusual step of commenting on the observations of the Home Secretary.
    This is a matter which must be brought to the notice of this House, because these are the comments of the Committee on the attitude and behaviour of the Home Secretary:
    "Your Committee feel bound to inform the House that in their opinion these observations"—
    the observations of the Home Secretary—
    "are unsatisfactory…. In the view of your Committee, the undertakings to keep constantly under review the recommendations in the Report are not a substitute for the action which the Committee make clear is urgently needed. Both the manner and the substance of the observations confirm the view expressed in the Report about the lack of urgency in certain departments of the Home Office."
    The Committee referred to "certain departments," but I think that they mean nearly all the departments. They certainly meant, and included, the immigration department, the object of this exercise today.
    Summing up the matter, having put this information before hon. Members, I think that I may say that the case for this Amendment may be put briefly as follows: I doubt whether the present Home Secretary may be trusted to administer any Act properly. But I am convinced that he ought not to be trusted for another twelve months to administer this Act.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) in his most valuable examination of the aliens law and its administration. It is quite remarkable that this vital part of the administration of our justice should depend upon legislation which needs the annual consideration of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill in order to give it validity.
    The treament of aliens is one of the tests of how a country conducts itself, or, at least, it ought to be. The deportation of aliens, going as it does to the root

    301
    of individual liberty, is a matter of great concern to all those who have any interest in human rights. The law relating to aliens, as the House will know, is really a continuance of legislation which came into being at the time of the 1914–18 war, the Aliens Restriction Act of 1914 and the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act of 1919; and we are still operating under the hangover of the emergency provisions of those days. Under this parent legislation Orders in Council are promulgated from time to time, and the Orders now in force are the Aliens Orders of 1953 and 1960. But, as I say, all this legislation, in turn, depends upon this annual exercise on which we are now engaged.
    I should like to ask the Home Secretary: is it the view of the Home Office that this is merely temporary legislation which it is hoped to dispense with in due course? If not, and if it is deemed to be permanent, as I suspect that it is—indeed, as I suppose inevitably it must be—is it not high time to put an end to this wholly unsatisfactory position of depending on legislation which was directed against the merely emergency conditions of the 1914–18 war?
    In my view, there is a need for a fundamental review of the aliens law for many reasons. It is a basic principle of the administration of our justice and, indeed, of the rule of law itself, that the law should be certain and ascertain-able. Another basic principle of the fair administration of justice is that the administration of the law should be frank and impartial and should be seen to be frank and impartial. In my submission, the present aliens law infringes both those principles of the rule of law.
    First, the law is certainly far from certain and ascertainable, as any lawyer will know who has had the burden of dealing with cases in the courts under the Aliens Orders. This matter has been referred to many times by judges of the High Court. I recollect, in particular, the case of Kuchenmeister v. the Home Office in 1958 where Mr. Justice Barry-was the judge. He had the advantage of enlightenment from most distinguished counsel. A High Court judge, now Mr. Justice Scarman, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Speaker and Mr. Rodger Winn—now Mr. Justice Winn—appeared for the defendant. So the judge had the benefit of high-powered
    302
    legal assistance. He found that the obscurity of the law presented him with great difficulty.
    The judge said this:
    "The question which I have to consider is whether the senior immigration officer and his officials correctly interpreted their powers and duties under tie Aliens Order, 1953. If, in fact, they incorrectly interpreted them, it would not be surprising, as the exact effect of the Order upon circumstances of the kind now under consideration is by no means free from doubt. I have had the benefit of a full and elaborate argument as to the correct interpretation of the Order, but even with that advantage, I do not pretend that I have complete confidence in the interpretation which I propose to adopt. In these circumstances, I think that no possible blame can attach to the senior immigration officer for any misapprehension which he may have had as to the real meaning of the Order."
    The law as it now stands puts the immigration officers, whose duty it is to administer this law, in an intolerable position. I am sure that they do their duty conscientiously. But I have reason to believe that, they above all others, would welcome a complete overhaul of the law relating to aliens because its contradictions and obscurities puts them in an intolerable difficulty in enforcing it.
    There is also, in my submission, a most unsatisfactory feature of the present law relating to aliens which goes to a profound matter of principle. The process of extraditing an alien from this country to a State on whose territory he is alleged to have committed a crime, or been convicted of a crime, is governed and hedged around with most careful restrictions. The extraditing Power, for instance, has to establish before the Bow Street magistrate the case justifying the extradition, so that an opportunity is given to the alien to justify himself, or, rather, a duty is imposed on the extraditing Power to prove its case.
    Above all, in relation to extradition there is the rule that political criminals are not extradited and political crimes are not extraditable. This is elementary, one would have thought, but, alas, it is not a principle which in the practice of the application of the Aliens Orders is being honoured. Until 1830 political criminals were extradited from this country. In the early part of the nineteenth century, however, public opinion in free countries began to revolt against extradition of political offenders, and

    303
    indeed we were in the forefront of that campaign.
    The fact that several political fugitives were surrendered by the Governor of Gibraltar to Spain created a great storm of indignation in this House in 1815, and it led James Mackintosh to proclaim the principle that no nation ought to refuse asylum to political fugitives. In 1816, Lord Castlereagh said:
    "There could be no greater abuse of the law than to allow it to be the instrument of inflicting punishment on foreigners who had committed political crimes only."
    It was the effort and resistance of this country which in the nineteenth century resulted in the recognition throughout most of the world of the principle of non-extradition of political offenders.
    4.45 p.m.
    What has happened to that principle now and today? In my submission, unhappily, the principle of non-extradition of political criminals is being corroded, and is capable of being corroded, by virtue of the provisions in the Aliens Orders, the full significance, or potential significance, of which I cannot believe this House could have appreciated when it allowed them to operate as part of the law of the land.
    Although the Home Secretary cannot, in terms, dictate the destination to which an alien who is to be deported should be sent—that has been the position ever since the case of the Duke of Chateau-Thierry—nevertheless, the end of sending him to a specified country that the Home Secretary wishes to send him to can be achieved by less formal means, by the simple means of selecting the carrier which is to take the alien, simply by putting him on an aeroplane going to the country where the Home Secretary wants him to go.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: The Soblen case.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: I hesitate to mention the case of Soblen, as I was professionally involved in it, so I propose to make no comment about that particular case.
    The use of the power of a Home Secretary to choose the carrier and to put an alien upon an aeroplane is a use which enables extradition to be accomplished by means which deprive the alien of the remedy, or the protection, of
    304
    reference to the court of his case. If it is desired that the Home Secretary should be given this power and that the principle of the non-extradition of political offenders should no longer be honoured by this House, let the law say so in terms, let not this immense power be given administratively, so to speak, through the back door.
    The position that exists at the moment is this. The power of deportation is the power to say to an alien, "Get out and stay out." That is the limit and ought to be the limit of the power of deportation. As that power is at present exercised by the Home Secretary, it is not confined to that at all; it is not simply a case of "Get out and stay out", but, "Get out and go to the place I choose you should go to."
    As I understand the position in the United States of America, where a deportee is able to say, "I have a country to which I can go", he is allowed to go there. But if, for overwhelming reasons of public security, the Government of the United States desire to specify the country to which he should go there is machinery where the State case has to be proved. It is machinery which enables the deportee to be heard in his defence in answer to this. We have no such machinery. It is, in my submission, a flagrant abuse of an elementary principle of natural justice that a person who is being deprived of his basic liberty is denied the right to have his case judicially or even quasi-judicially heard.
    While making no reference to any particular case, in my submission the existence of this power under Article 20(2, b) of the Aliens Order, attractive as I know it must be to an Administration because of its cheapness, because of its swiftness and because an alien can be stowed away without the embarrassment of a Bow Street hearing—attractive though these considerations are to any Executive—they run contrary to the principles for which this House of Commons has stood for a very long time indeed. That is another strong reason for having a fundamental review of our aliens law.
    Another serious flaw, which I think I have indicated by what I have said, is that we are in the presence of unchallengeable exercise of Executive

    305
    power. In general, the decisions of immigration officers are final. Occasionally, I understand superior officers in the service may reconsider decisions taken by inferiors. In particular cases the Home Secretary himself is from time to time obliged to make the actual decision. But what is clear in regard to all these decisions is that there is no form of judicial or quasi-judicial appeal.
    The exercise of the Home Secretary's discretion in a fundamental field of human liberty is in effect unchallengeable. There may be more than one lawyer in the House today who has had experience in court itself of the sense of frustration, indeed almost shame, that some of our judges have felt about this wholly oppressive and unsatisfactory arrangement.
    Mr. William Yates: Is the hon. and learned Member saying that this House does not in fact possess the right to challenge the Executive in the circumstances he has mentioned?
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: The House has the right to criticise the Home Secretary and to call the Home Secretary to account for the exercise of his power. The House certainly has that right and of course it has done so on several occasions. Unfortunately, when that happens the Whips are on and sometimes these matters are charged with political undertones—I do not deny that—and the individual case is lost in the battle of the parties. That is one of the troubles of the Parliamentary method of supervision and control and protection.
    When one is in the presence of an Administration which takes political attitudes on some of these problems and that Administration has a strong backing of willing back-benchers, of whom the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) is not one, there emerges the whole inadequacy of our present arrangements for the protection of aliens who so particularly need protection as they are not part of the community.
    My conclusion, after a little experience of these matters in the courts and elsewhere, is that there is now a very strong case for one of two things. We could either appoint a Royal Commission to carry out a fundamental
    306
    reappraisal of our present alien law and its administration or, if it is felt that the facts are sufficiently notorious already to justify the introduction of immediate remedial legislation, I submit that the time is now ripe—indeed long overdue—to introduce fresh legislation to consolicate, amend and clarify our present obscure and uncertain law. In particular, we should create new machinery for the judicial or quasi-judicial review of Executive decisions going to the root of human liberty which are at present unchallengeable.
    Sir Eric Errington: I intervene only because it was my fate, or good fortune, to be the Chairman of the Subcommittee of the Estimates Committee that went very thoroughly into the various matters which were contained in its Eleventh Report.
    Perhaps, in view of an observation made by the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), I should say that although it is well known that we were an all-party Committee and were investigating for the first time for quite a considerable time the affairs of the Home Office, we found the problems of immigration from a mechanical point of view more difficult than anything else we came across. We paid visits to London Airport and to Princeton House with a view to finding out how these matters were dealt with.
    I frankly confess that I was disappointed at the way in which our recommendations were dealt with. There may be arguments, which no doubt may be extended during today's discussion, but we did not feel that we were working on the same wavelength, in the sense that we had gone into the matter very thoroughly yet the answers we got were of a superficial—I might almost say a brush-off—nature.
    I shall deal quite shortly with the various points. Recommendation 3 was:
    "Immigration officers should be given much more extensive information about those people whom the Home Office does not wish to allow to land."
    The immigration officers—to whom I should like to pay tribute, because theirs is very hard work; it is very difficult at rush hours to deal with all sorts of people from all sorts of countries—are entitled to pass through the bona fide visitor who

    307
    is reckoned to comprise about 75 per cent, to 80 per cent, of all the aliens who come to this country.
    That in itself is an immense responsibility. To help him to deal with those who are not visitors and who, in his view, are not likely to be coming here for a normal week's or fortnight's holiday, the officer has only a black book which contains 7,500 names. Only in Interpol cases has he photographs or fingerprints. That is quite inadequate. We tried to say so, but we were told that these officers were furnished with as full information as experience had shown to be reasonable and practicable.
    We felt that we ought to go a little past what experience had shown and to do a little fresh thinking about this matter. We shall not get 100 per cent, stop of all undesirables. That is quite clear, but we can help our competent officers if we give them the sort of information which photographs, fingerprints and things of that kind provide.
    The observation from the Home Office that
    "There is good reason to think that the individual case which appears to have given rise to this recommendation was quite exceptional"
    prompts me to say that there was not one case. The Bidault case was exceptional in the sense that Bidault was a person whom people knew about, but we were perfectly satisfied that his was not the only case, or necessarily the most difficult class of case. It may well be that he came with a forged passport. It may well be that it would have been difficult in any event to have found him unless he was recognised on sight. That sort of thing does, on occasion, happen. That is one thing about which we are entitled to ask the Home Secretary.
    I hope that it is clear that I am dealing with this matter only from the mechanics point of view and not from the policy point of view. But then we come to Princeton House where there is a system of landing and embarkation cards for all who come in. I have no comment of any kind to make about the way in which the matter is dealt with in respect of the aliens' register, which deals with people who come through the Ministry of Labour or through other ways, such as au pair, and who have to leave
    308
    the country. Their landing cards and their embarkation cards are married, but that is only 25 per cent, of the visitors who come here.
    5.0 p.m.
    What happens to the other visitors' cards They are recorded in the index and they are also recorded going out, but nobody checks them. It seems to me rather a useless procedure, unless it is a procedure in terrorem, and I venture to say that it is unlikely to terrify anybody. But these records are kept for three years. There is, it is fair to say, a spot check of about 10,000 of the I¾ million, and the spot check has apparently not disclosed a large number of people going through.
    But one of the most amusing things, if it were not so serious, is that a microfilm is taken of all these cards—and kept for seven years—which are not checked against anything, unless it is a spot check. In those circumstances, we felt that something ought to be done. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) apparently thinks that it is amusing; but I think that it is a very serious matter, and that not sufficient consideration has been given to it—and I say that supported by hon. Members of my Sub-Committee from both sides of the House.
    The question is: what can be done? The system of recording bona fide visitors could be dropped altogether. The other alternative is to record the comings and goings of everyone and if necessary do that with some form of mechanisation. It need not be by computer. It can be done by a less sophisticated method.
    These were among the points which we tried to bring out in our Report and our recommendations, but we received an answer which did not seem to carry us very far. I will quote from the reply:
    "However, these questions, and the possibility of mechanising all central records, are being studied in the course of a thoroughgoing review of immigration questions and control procedures which was put in hand early this year and which will be completed in the near future."
    We should like to know about this review. I suppose that like any reference to any living person, this is purely coincidental—purely coincidental that a review is going on. But we have no

    309
    information at all as to the lines on which it is going on.
    We have had a similar reply to our Recommendation 7:
    "The organisation and staffing of the Immigration and Nationality Department are constantly under examination within the Home Office, and from time to time by the Treasury also."
    We were told:
    "The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, will consider any further reorganisation which may be required in the light"
    of the review referred to in the observations to which I drew the attention of the Committee.
    I think that I carry the Sub-Committee and the whole Committee with me when I say that I am bitterly disappointed that this matter has not been taken more seriously. It is not often that the doings of the Home Office are investigated. I have referred only to the matters which concern immigration. There are other matters, and I am afraid that the same sort of attitude has been taken. I regret it very much because we made a serious and determined effort to put the issues clearly so that consideration could have been given to them in detail and an answer given to the House.
    This is admittedly a difficult matter, but the. measure of its difficulty is the measure of the necessity for it to be dealt with as soon as possible. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be much more forthcoming than the replies in this Report and will give us some indication that some new thinking is taking place on these matters.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am sure that the Committee of which the hon. Baronet the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) was Chairman will be very grateful to him for the persuasiveness and moderation with which he has put the case which was contained in the Estimates Committee's Report, and I think that it would be of no value if I were to attempt in any way to emphasise or underline any of the points which he made.
    We shall all listen with great interest to what the Home Secretary says in reply to the hon. Member. After all, the hon. Baronet was not speaking only for himself. He was speaking as the Chairman of an all-party Committee in which
    310
    the Government side of the House had the majority. I feel sure that all of us will listen with great interest to what the Home Secretary says in reply to the points which the hon. Baronet made.
    This is the eighteenth or nineteenth annual occasion on which I have taken part in a debate of this kind. We have had one every year since 1945. On some occasions I have taken the initiative in it, but there has always been an initiative and there has always been a useful and temperate but nevertheless fundamental criticism of the state of the law in this country on these matters.
    I should like to make it quite clear, once again, what the argument is not about. As far as I know, nobody has ever held that any sovereign country is obliged to admit everybody who presents himself at its gates and asks for admittance. That would be an impossible proposition and I know nobody who is in favour of it. That there must be an element of protection, I think we would all agree. That it is not always right to admit everybody, we would all agree. That somebody must assume the responsibility of exercising in the name of the community a prohibition in selected and appropriate cases, we would all agree.
    That is not the issue between the two sides of the Committee. The issue between the two sides of the Committee is who shall exercise this right of our democratic community to control immigration or the compulsory emigration of aliens. This difference is quite simple. The Government maintain, and have always maintained, that this is a matter for the arbitrary exercise of a discretion by the Home Office. It is quite right that this can never be, and has never been, an absolute discretion. Of course, the Home Secretary is and always has been responsible to the House of Commons for his actions.
    But the reality—or perhaps I should say the unreality—of that control is illustrated more effectively and eloquently than it has ever been illustrated in any of the debates in the last twenty years or so, by the speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Aldershot. If an all-party Committee of this House, dominated as it must inevitably be by a majority pledged to the support of the Government, feels as uneasy as the Estimates Committee felt

    311
    in its Report, and gets such unsatisfactory answers from the Home Secretary to its doubts and misgivings as to lead its Chairman, himself a notable supporter of the Government, to make a public protest on the Floor of the House of Commons, this surely demonstrates the complete lack of reality in this proposition that the Home Secretary is in fact, as apart from in theory, answerable to this House.
    That is the issue. It is an issue of which the House of Commons, since 1918, has always been conscious. It sought to safeguard itself against that situation. It got the legislation through the House of Commons, I think late at night and without really adequate discussion, but on the basis that it was not legislating for all time, that it was dealing with a particular situation forty years ago or more which was expected to pass. Therefore, it did with this absolute power that it was giving to the Executive what this House has always done when absolute power is given to the Executive. It made it temporary. It subjected it to limitations.
    In the not perhaps exactly parallel but analogous case of a standing army, the House has always refused for nearly 300 years to give the Executive the right to maintain a standing army for more than twelve months at a time. By the nature of the thing, if we have an army it must be allowed to operate, and the Executive must be allowed to control it and direct it. A totalitarian or tyrannous or oppressive Executive could misuse this absolute power for purposes for which the House of Commons never intended it should be used. Therefore, we have our Army Act every year. It is true that we have got round this safeguard. We have had alterations of Standing Orders and we have a territorial force which is held—I do not know why—not to be a standing army. Therefore, the effectiveness of this annual control has been whittled away. It may be doubted now whether it is an absolute control, but that was the origin of it.
    It was an expression of the spirit that where the Executive is given anything which even approaches being an absolute administrative discretion, it shall exercise it subject only to the right of the House of Commons to terminate it at the end of some specified period.
    312
    This was an annual arrangement. For almost every year since that time, and certainly for every year since the end of the war, we have had this discussion. It has always been a very good and eloquent discussion. At the end of the debate everybody has always said what a great tribute the debate has been to the effectiveness of the House of Commons, how right it is that we should have the debate, that the matter should be subject to review every year, and that it should not be altered; and then the Act has been passed and we have all gone to sleep for another twelve months. I do not know whether that is the intention of my hon. Friends, but I think this principle is important. I think that the time has come when we ought to make a serious effort to alter it.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) has made two suggestions in the alternative. For my part, I think that his first suggestion is subject to his own criticism of it, that we already have enough facts to abandon this principle and to substitute a new one. It is claimed that one advantage of this system—I do not mean that my hon. Friend supported it, but he presented the argument for it fairly—is that it was quick and efficient and that it enabled things to work smoothly without too much controversy, and was, however doubtful academically, reasonably supportable in practice. Is it efficient? My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) told us about his own activities and said quite rightly that if he had been an alien he could not have done it—or perhaps he would; I am not quite sure.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Fletcher: Could have done it, but ought not to have done it.
    Mr. Silverman: He could have done what my hon. Friend had the right to do, without having the right to do it. Therefore, it is not efficient.
    I know of a case where a friend of mine, on an aeroplane, on being given one of these alien disembarkation cards to hand in to ensure that his visa would be honoured, decided to test the efficacy of the arrangement. In answer to the first question on the card, "Surname", he wrote in block capitals

    313
    "Hitler". In answer to the second question, "Christian names", he wrote also in block capitals "Adolf". To the third question which said "Born?" he answered "Yes". He proceeded to fill in the rest of the card in this highly flippant, irresponsible and mischievous fashion. But no immigration officer challenged him. It is not so efficient as all that.
    I am not suggesting that Mr. Hitler could have entered after the war with that kind of card. The point is that it can easily be evaded and, as my hon. Friend said, the system is altogether unnecessary and too onerous a burden on the immigration officers who in the end, in spite of what is said about the ultimate responsibility of the Home Secretary, themselves carry out the administrative responsibilities of the law. But it is not efficient.
    Is it just? Does it work effectively, apart from the practical administration, in order to do what the people of this country wish to do? I do not wish to deal with the rights or wrongs of individual decisions, because that is not our business tonight, but one can pick out individual cases which it is difficult to reconcile except by a principle which the House would almost unanimously reject. We have been proud of our record of political asylum, which is not a right in the alien to come but a right in the community here to allow him to come. It would be possible to argue with great force, however, that in recent years this principle of political asylum has been perverted. It is no longer an instrument of liberty. It is an instrument in the cold war.
    I am not saying that the political opinions of an alien are not an element in what has to be considered when one decides whether he should come or not. They may well be a material factor, one of the matters which someone ought to consider, but they ought to be considered judicially and not administratively. If they are considered administratively, the principles on which one allows or refuses political asylum will change according to the political complexion of the Government in power at any given moment, and this, surely, would be regarded as undesirable by every Member of the House.
    314
    Why do I say that this has happened or may have happened? I take two recent cases. First, there was General Delgado. When I made a point about his case in a supplementary question the other day, the Home Secretary, quite rightly, reminded me that this was not a case of political asylum but only a case of the refusal of a visa to an alien to come here. I think that, on reflection, he will realise how inadequate that answer was.
    If, for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman gave, we are to reject a man's right to come here for a day or two, then a fortiori by parity of reasoning, we should have to refuse him leave to stay here permanently, and, therefore, what was involved in that case, not directly but by implication nevertheless, was the whole principle of political asylum.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that we could not let General Delgado in because, the last time he came here, he made a speech, and his speech was an attack on tie Government of his country, that country being an ally of ours. Therefore, said the right hon. Gentleman, his speech was such an abuse of hospitality that it was right to refuse him passage, which was all he wanted on this occasion. Does that principle commend itself to anyone?
    No doubt, Portugal is an ally. Many people in this country, the majority, I should think, would take the view that, while Portugal is an ally and we would like it to remain an ally, and while it is in many ways our oldest friend in Europe, it is at present guilty in its own territories of a series of tyrannous and murderous acts to which not only many people in this country object but to which many people in Portugal object.
    What is wrong with that? If General Delgado thinks that his Government is wrong, who are we to say that that is a reason for preventing him from passing through our country? On that principle, Garibaldi would have been left to wander over the face of the earth. It is a completely false approach to what is involved here because, unless political asylum can be free from political influence, it is not political asylum at all. It depends on who are one's friends and whom one chooses to regard as enemies.
    Over the weekend, there was held in London a meeting which was attended by

    315
    a great many people who hold opinions which the right hon. Gentleman abominates. I am not questioning his right to abominate them; he is perfectly entitled to form his own opinions. But what he is not entitled to do is to use those opinions as though they were the opinions of the overwhelming majority of people in this country or to deny a right of access merely because he rejects the opinions held by someone who wishes to come.
    I refer here to the case of Mr. Korneichyk. Mr. Korneichyk is a Soviet writer and poet, and he is also, I think, though I am not quite sure of my facts on this, in his personal capacity a Vice-Premier of the Soviet Union, though he was not coming here in that capacity. He wanted to attend a meeting attended by a great many people from many parts of the world who wished to discuss means of disarmament. No doubt, he is associated with a Soviet committee which has certain opinions in that matter and which held a vast international meeting in Moscow a year ago.
    Bertrand Russell sent a message to that Moscow meeting. Canon Collins attended and spoke at it. I attended and spoke at it. All three of us had things to say which were in no way acceptable to the Soviet Government and which were highly critical in a number of respects. No one in the Soviet Union, for that reason, thought that we should not go. No one tried to force conditions on what we said. No one stopped us addressing the congress, and every word we said was said in the presence of about 2,000 Russians and was printed in a daily journal.
    I am not suggesting that there is any great merit in that. The demerit would have been if it had not happened. But the right hon. Gentleman's reason for refusing to allow Mr. Korneichyk to do in London what I did in Moscow was that he is associated with the policies of his Government.
    Here is a pretty situation. General Delgado is refused admission because he is against his Government. Mr. Korneichyk is refused admission because he is in favour of his Government. The only difference is that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the one and disagrees with the other. That is not politi-
    316
    cal asylum. That is not the judicial exercise of a discretion vested in him as trustee for the British democracy.
    How can we get out of all this? We can get out of it in the way suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South, by copying the United States system. In such a case, under that system, both Delgado and Korneichyk would have had the right to appeal to a tribunal which would have exercised some kind of third party judgment. They would have had the right to give evidence. They could have subjected themselves to cross-examination and would have been entitled to be represented. They could have called their evidence, made their case, and left it to the judicial discretion of a judicial body to determine whether the administrative reasons for exclusion were good reasons or bad.
    5.30 p.m.
    Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I suppose that if one sets up a judicial tribunal to arrive at judicial decisions, it must be based on a Statute, or have some direction or principles on which to work. What would they be?
    Mr. Silverman: I should have thought that we all agree that there are reasons—I will not define them, but it would not be difficult to do so—for deciding the principles on which any State is perfectly entitled to refuse admission to an alien or to expel any alien there already. It is for the Government to say what the sort of principles are and for the House to approve them, but once it is laid down and we have reached an agreement then whether in a particular case a man comes within the limits or is outside them ought to be determined judicially and not according to the convenience of the Government of the day. That is what we are saying
    For the life of me, I cannot understand why any Government really want to resist that principle. I do not know why when we divide on this question we seem to divide on party lines. It is not a party question, or a matter of the general political or economic ideals which divide parties. It is not an ideal at all, unless freedom and democracy are themselves ideologies. I

    317
    think that we are all agreed on the protection of the individual, even an alien, against the arbitrary action of the Executive, and this is what Parliament had in mind when we said, "We will give these powers for one year at a time and no more."
    That principle of one year at a time has extended over forty years or more and the time has come when we should take our courage in both hands and vote against the continuation of this Bill and compel the Government to review the situation in a light more acceptable to all of us.
    Mr. W. Yates: We have had a very valuable speech from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in his analysis of the position of the House visàvis the Executive of the day. He has said that he wishes tonight to suggest that his hon. Friends should challenge the Government on this matter. I personally would not accept the hon. Gentleman's point of view until my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has had time to reply to the reasoned speech made by my hon. Friend and also to the very able speech made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) who was Chairman of the Committee which presented this Report. But it seems to me that there should not be a tendency in the Executive to feel that it is working against the general principles for which we all stand, because if it starts working on those lines we should have to come to the conclusion that it has adopted a new maxim of power: "power is delightful and absolute power is absolutely delightful". We are going to make quite certain that that cannot arise.
    I do not wish to detain the House on these matters, but I think the suggestion that every immigration officer should in certain circumstances have the photographs available besides his book seems to me a perfectly sensible thing when he is looking for a face and when a man is most likely to come in on a forged passport. The fingerprinting would take rather a long time to administer, but if there was time to detain a person when going through the Customs or some other method, there might be time to get the fingerprinting checked—that is to say, if one is work-
    318
    ing on a day-to-day basis at London Airport or other places.
    I was surprised to read the final comment of the Committee. It says:
    "In the view of Your Committee, the undertakings to keep constantly under review the recommendations in the Report are not a substitute for the action which the Committee made clear is urgently needed."
    Knowing the Home Secretary and the Home Office I simply cannot believe that the Home Secretary, having this evening heard the speeches of hon. Members opposite and of the hon. Baronet and knowing that the majority of us wish to see this matter put right both in the; interests of the country and of security, will not wish when he replies to satisfy us completely that we should give him for another year the power which he desires from us.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): Unlike most hon. Members who have spoken, this is the first time that I have had the opportunity of intervening in this debate which takes place, of course, annually, and I will not on this occasion attempt to follow the eloquent analysis of the law which many hon. Members have undertaken for the interest and stimulation of the Committee. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said in his opening remarks that every year a different reason was given why permanent legislation to control aliens was not written into the Statute Book and that he expected this year the reason given would be that the Parliamentary programme and the legislative programme were so full that there was not adequate time. To that extent, I would agree with him.
    This year we have a particularly valuable series of legislation ahead of us—important legislation—and I can only say to the hon. Members that, of course, if they facilitate this legislation as much as possible and see that we get these Bills on to the Statute Book with the utmost facility and speed it may well be that by the end of the Session we can look again at the case for permanent legislation in connection with this matter. I would also add a word of comfort and say that this Government will be here for a number of years and will have ample opportunity to see that it is carried through.

    319
    Before I go on to the matter worrying the Committee I must answer the question which the hon. Gentleman asked about deportation. He asked some specific questions and I should like to give him the figures before I answer the main debate which has concerned us this evening. The hon. Gentleman asked me for quite a series of figures and I will, if I may, give him as adequate an answer as I can. During 1962 and the first nine months of 1963 the figures are as follows: recommended by criminal courts in 1962, 88; in 1963, 30; deported otherwise than on court recommendation, in 1962, 39; so far in 1963, 18; of the total of 18 deported in the first nine months of 1963 otherwise than on court recommendation, the number eligible to make representations to the Chief Magistrate was five; the number deciding to make representation to the Chief Magistrate was one; the number heard was one and the number in which the Chief Magistrate concurred was one. There is no separate record available for those who were refused on security grounds. I hope that these figures will answer the hon. Gentleman's question on that point. But the point that is concerning the Committee at this time is the recommendation of the Estimates Committee on certain specific points.
    May I say at the outset that before the Estimates Committee started looking into the affairs of the Home Office my right hon. Friend initiated a very thorough-going inquiry into the methods of immigration control. Hon. Members have tended to take this not as seriously as my right hon. Friend. He accepts that it is very important that we look at the whole policy of our methods of immigration control at the present time. But this is a very large and complex question which must be looked at as a whole and not piecemeal.
    This review is going on at present. I believe that the Estimates Committee was told of the review and of the thorough-going nature of it. But we have not yet had the results of the review, and, until my right hon. Friend gets them, he has not the full facts from which he can make decisions as to whether there should be wide-reaching policy changes.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: Who is conducting the review? Is it the very people whose activities are being scrutinised so carefully by the Committee, or is somebody else making the review for them?
    Miss Pike: It is an internal review by people who have great experience in this field, and therefore they are, I believe, probably more competent than anybody else to provide the fullest possible information on which my right hon. Friend can make his independent assessment concerning any policy changes which may be required.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Lady tell us who are making the review, for how long they have been making it and when we may expect a report from them?
    Miss Pike:As the hon. Member knows, it is not the practice in this House to disclose the names of civil servants. I said that it was an internal review carried on by the Home Office, and I also said that it was started in the early part of the year and that we hoped shortly to have the results. My hon. Friend will look at these matters in the light of what has been said today and with the degree of urgency which we all believe is essential.
    Mr. Fletcher: Are the people making this review adopting the attitude indicated in the Home Secretary's observations about the Report of the Select Committee—that they do not think much of it; or are they taking seriously the recommendations of the Estimates Committee; or are they, as the Chairman of the Estimates Committee said, treating the Estimates Committee with a kind of brush-off?
    Miss Pike: On the contrary, this is a very serious review, and, as my right hon. Friend said in his reply to the Estimates Committee, it is taking its views into account. However, I stress that until my right hon. Friend has the full details from this internal review he is not in a position to make policy decisions of this nature. This underlines the fact that it is quite wrong to interpret his answer to the Estimates Committee as a brush-off. In fact, it was a very serious statement of fact that a review is being carried out and that he is taking these things extremely seriously.
    Mr. John Rankin: Is it not rather remarkable that, while we in the Estimates Committee were undertaking a review, to a large extent, as the result of a decision approved by the House, the Home Office, shortly after we started, should undertake a review of its own? Is that just a coincidence?
    Miss Pike: I am afraid that the hon. Member did not understand me. My right hon. Friend initiated this review before the Estimates Committee started its investigation.
    Mr. Rankin: Did not the hon. Lady a few minutes ago say that the review by the Home Office started at the beginning of this year?
    Miss Pike:I meant in the early part of last Session. I apologise to the hon. Member. I did not wish to mislead the Committee in any way. What I had in mind was that quite soon after my right hon. Friend came to the Home Office he initiated this review which has been going on for a matter of twelve months—something of that order. I cannot without notice give the hon. Member the exact date when this review started, but it has not been going on for an interminable time. It is an important review and we expect to have the recommendations of those undertaking it very shortly, and on those recommendations my right hon. Friend will take his decision.
    I am sure that the Committee would not wish me to go further on this point. What it really wants to know is the substance of the criticism of the methods as they are at present employed. I should like to justify, if I can, and, in the hope that I will carry the Committee with me, explain the foundation and, we think, the right treatment of the methods we are employing at present. As the Committee knows, there must be a very delicate balance between as effective control as possible, which we all wish to see, and the minimum of interference with the convenience and movement of people coming in and going out of this country.
    It may be useful to hon. Members if they know the volume of traffic coming into the country at present. During the year ending 30th September last, the total number of passengers using United
    322
    Kingdom ports—that is, the aggregate number of "ins" and "outs"—increased from just over 12¾million during the: preceding twelve months to more than 14¼ million. Included in this figure are 2,123,609 foreigners who were granted leave to land, an increase of 219,747, or 11–5 per cent., over the corresponding period of 1961–62.
    5.45 p.m.
    This substantial increase illustrates the attraction which the United Kingdom has for tourists and other visitors, who accounted for over 11-million of the foreign travellers arriving in this country last year. The British Travel and Holidays Association said in its recent report that tourism remains the country's fourth largest export and the country's biggest single American dollar earner, and it is important that we do our utmost to facilitate the movement of these people and increase their comfort and convenience. When it comes to exports, we want businessmen coming into this country to come in with the greatest comfort and convenience.
    We must therefore keep a very delicate balance between as effective control as possible and speedy control, and I think that hon. Members making a study of this matter would say that to a great extent we have succeeded in this. I am sure that they would agree about the speed and efficiency of the immigration officers. We can pay them with great sincerity a very real tribute for the part they play. I am sure that the Estimates Committee and all hon. Members who have had any experience of the ports and airports in this country would agree that, on the whole, our immigration officers treat people with incredible courtesy and humanity considering the volume of traffic going through the ports.
    An analysis of the numbers does not give any indication of the pressure of the traffic and of how it comes in, particularly in the holiday period, in tremendous waves and always, it seems, at inconvenient hours, very often on night flights, and so on, when people are at their least agreeable and least patient. I think that we can claim that we act with as much speed and give as much consideration to people's convenience as

    323
    we can in trying to work an efficient system.
    Hon. Members have criticised the fact that people coming into this country are asked to fill in landing cards. It has been said that people who are bona fide visitors do not need to fill in landing cards and that therefore this is wasted effort. I take a very different view. I do not know what hon. Members are like when travelling abroad, but personally if I had to go through an immigration control, as I have to do when I go on holiday, I would much rather fill in a landing card while sitting in the aeroplane or boat at my own convenience rather than be asked a series of questions which possibly fluster me and which, perhaps, I do not understand, when I get to the immigration control. I should say that the majority of people do not find it onerous to have to fill in the landing card before reaching the immigration control. Only at the time of arrival can the immigration officer assess whether the person concerned is a bona fide visitor, and in that sense the landing card facilitates the speed at which the traveller can go through the immigration control.
    Hon. Members have asked about the other 25 per cent, who are not bona fide travellers. Here again, movement has been facilitated by so much of the work being done beforehand. Having stood at ports and watched immigration control, my assessment is that we should be ill advised to scrap the existing system.
    What, then, about those people who try to evade control, who come in with false passports or names or who are undesirable for one reason or another and whom we want to catch at the ports? As hon. Members know, immigration officers have an index containing 7,500 names. It is a bulky book, but they can get through it fairly quickly. To put a passport-size photograph against every name in the book would mean increasing its weight and bulk five and a half times. That would make it very cumbersome and much more difficult for immigration officers. Certainly, none of the immigration officers to whom I have spoken wants a passport-size photograph included in the book.
    The people whom we are trying to catch at that time are, doubtless, coming in under assumed names and if one looked at photographs, one would not have to refer to the index merely to see whether the photograph of Mr. Brown was the photograph of the Mr. Brown who was arriving. One would have to look at a continuous series of photographs of undesirable people who for one reason or another were on the stop list.
    I would explain, although it is self-evident, that it is not a question of one passport-size photograph in a screening of this type. It would mean an elaborate series of photographs and it would be a highly specialised job. We do not have available, nor has Interpol, the photographs that would be adequate in this context. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen some of the photographs that Interpol provides. Certainly, we have photographs of some people whom we wish to keep out of the country.
    There again, however, a highly skilled person would be needed to recognise from a photograph taken, probably, in disadvantageous circumstances a man who comes in with the deliberate intention of evading immigration control. If this is a specialised job, the taking of fingerprints and their assessment is much more highly specialised even than this. All this would add enormously to the delay. The view taken by successive Home Secretaries in recent years is that this would be an entirely unnecessary delay and complication, because the people who come in do so, possibly, with forged documents or passports. It is to detect the forgeries that we must apply our attention.
    Hon. Members who served on the Estimates Committee were, no doubt, impressed, as I was, by some of the evidence that was provided of ability to detect forged documents. Although one does not want to sound complacent, and although we know that people are getting more and more expertise in this direction, we can at the same time claim that our own officers are gaining in expertise and in their ability to detect these documents.
    With people like M. Bidault, who use perfectly good passports which they have

    325
    been able to obtain because of their positions in Governments of other countries—they come with passports which are not forged, which are perfectly valid but are made out in different names—a difficult situation is created. Hon. Members have said that we do not know how many of these people come in. All we can say is that M. Bidault is the only one who has been picked up in any way. We have no proof that more of these people have entered the country on passports or documents of this type.
    This is an argument that could last for ever. On the one side, it can be said that there must be more people who come in in this way. On the other side, we have to admit that there is no proof that they have done so and we certainly can give no proof that they have not.
    Under the present system, we manage to screen very adequately the large number of people who come into this country. Because hon. Members are anxious to get on to other important topics, I will not weary the Committee with the numbers and the analysis of people who are refused admission. From the Report of the Estimates Committee it was interesting to learn of the efficiency with which these categories are dealt with by our port control.
    So much for the so called "black book" or index. What of the fact that, although the landing card and the embarkation card are married, according to the judgment of hon. Members little use is made of these cards once we have them? These cards are, however, of great use to the police and to the security services should they need to use them. We would be doing a great disservice to our security services and our forces of law and order if we did not help to maintain this sort of record.
    Sir E. Errington: Nobody is criticising the records of aliens who enter the country, but I cannot understand how it is suggested that there is any value to the police in the way in which the records of bona fide visitors are dealt with. There is no criticism whatever of the way in which the record of aliens is kept.
    Miss Pike: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. I was, however, making the general point that these
    326
    records are valuable as a whole. We have a record of people coming into the country, and by means of the embarkation card we have a record of the people who leave. Although hon. Members may laugh, these records have a value.
    Sir E. Errington: The point is that they are not used.
    Miss Pike:I was coming to that. The point which my hon. Friend wants to make is that we do not go through the whole file the whole time to see whether a person has left the country when he should. Although the cards are married, we do not check through them to see how many unmarried cards remain on the file.
    Mr. Fletcher: Nor, I gather, are they used for any other purpose.
    Miss Pike: One hon. Member, however, criticised that they were microfilmed and. kept for some time.
    The point has been put that only a spot check is made and criticism was made of the fact that we regard it as too expensive to do the job completely and thoroughly. That is not an argument that everybody would reject out of hand. These are the ordinary bona fide visitors coming into the country, and under the present system it would be extraordinarily expensive to check these things adequately.
    At the same time, however, we are looking into the possibilities of mechanisation and the use of a computer system. These things are expensive in themselves, but it might well be that having got a type of mechanisation which is suitable for our records and for our purposes, to process these things either by computer or by other mechanical means would not necessarily be as expensive. It is because we are considering the possibilities of mechanisation and of using computers that our internal review is so long and complicated, because these are not easy matters to judge.
    Many people talk of mechanisation and computers as if it is possible to decide in five minutes whether this expensive form of work should be undertaken, bat when considering the mechanisation of documents and paper work one must go into complicated problems. So this is no time to decide

    327
    whether to change our policy, whether these things should be scrapped, whether we should go in one direction or the other.
    6.0 p.m.
    I would point out to hon. Gentlemen that it is not that my right hon. Friend is brushing away their suggestions and ideas. It is that these things are of value. That is why we felt that at this particular point of time our system, which has served our policy, should not go till we know the full extent of our policy review. Till then decisions to scrap this could not be justified.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: It seems to me that the hon. Lady is telling us that this system works very satisfactorily, that there is no real trouble, and that these cards are not used; therefore, why try to think up some expensive mechanised method of using cards when this is quite satisfactory?
    Miss Pike:Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman did not follow me. The Chairman of the Committee knows these aliens who are coming in, who have come to work and are not bona fide visitors. We are looking into the possibility of mechanisation of that 25 per cent, of the work, and it may well be that, having found economical, speedy, efficient methods of mechanisation of that 25 per cent, of the work, these can be readily extended over the whole field. That was the theme of my argument.
    I think that the Estimates Committee and all hon. Gentlemen who have looked into this will agree that it is done very efficiently at present, but necessarily it is being done by hand, and in present circumstances this is no time, while we are looking into suggestions, I would submit, to "change our policies. I may not have carried all hon. Gentlemen with me in this, but I would point out to hon. Gentlemen that if we thought that this system was 100 per cent, perfect, if we thought that this system did not need any change at all, my right hon. Friend would not have gone to the trouble and expense of initiating an inquiry into the whole field. It is because we want to make certain that we do get the most efficient system—as I
    328
    have said, an efficient system of keeping out the maximum number of undesirable people altogether with the greatest convenience and comfort of everyone concerned—and because we are determined to do this, that we have got this internal review. Does the hon. Member want to interrupt me?
    Mr. Rankin: I do not mind interrupting, but I should prefer to await the hon. Lady's conclusion and then perhaps I may be able to make a comment.
    Miss Pike: I am sorry. I thought the hon. Gentleman was trying to get in and that I was being discourteous in not giving way. I apologise.
    The only other comment I would wish to make on this is on Recommendation No. 7 in which the Estimates Committee suggested that we should have an extensive reorganisation of the immigration and nationality department. I would just say that this department and its organisation has received a great deal of attention in recent times. In fact it has been reviewed as much as, and, indeed, more than, any other Home Office department in recent years, because the increase in staff needed to meet the increasing work means that the Home Office staff inspectors are constantly examining this department. In 1961 there was a thorough review by the Treasury staff inspectors of all sections of this department, and, of course, once again—I keep referring to this Committee—but once again, when we get any recommendations, then of course the Home Office and my right hon. Friend will immediately look at this particular department again.
    I think that possibly what the hon. Gentleman had in mind was that the B.3 division which is the Commonwealth immigration division, is much smaller than B.1 and B.2 which is the aliens division, but I would point out that we do have a very different type of control in relation to aliens and in relation to Commonwealth immigrants and the amount of work involved is very different. It is desirable that the two should be kept completely separate, and it is for these reasons that the size and the work of the departments differ.
    I should like to reassure hon. Gentlemen that we do not take this matter

    329
    complacently. My right hon. Friend, as I say, has looked at this. I can make a confession. I came to the Home Office from a background of industrial training outside this House. I came to the Home Office from an industrial Department, the Post Office. Like many another new broom going into a new department I said to myself, "I must look at this with a fresh eye to see if I can suggest any new ways of making ourselves more efficient and up to date. "So one of the first things I did was to send a minute to my right hon. Friend to say, would it be a good idea to have a review of the control of the immigration department. By return I got a reply telling me that this had been initiated several months before I came into the Department. At least I tried.
    In fact, in the Home Office we can claim, despite any criticisms to the contrary, that our own personal attitude to this is one of great urgency. We recognise the importance of this work. We recognise the importance to the life of this country of an efficient system of immigration control. We are determined to listen to all comments, to listen to criticisms, but we are determined to make our policy decisions in the light of what is best for the needs of the country as a whole.
    We should take into account the very great experience which the immigration officers themselves have in this field, and I should like to finish, as I started my remarks on this, by saying that we owe a great debt to the immigration officers. I think everyone would join me in acknowledging that debt for the work they do. The traffic is building up the whole time.
    There is no doubt about it, that the impression which visitors to this country find the most lasting one is the first impression they get when they arrive at the ports, probably very tired and perhaps even ill after a difficult journey. It is this lasting impression that we want to maintain—of a country which welcomes people to its shores.
    Mr. Rankin:I have no desire to reopen the debate, because I know that my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Estimates Committee has spoken, and so also, I believe, has the Chairman of Sub-Committee C. Therefore, if I refer to that vigorous editorial in The Times
    330
    of yesterday and many of the details in the Report, I realise that I shall be covering ground which has been covered already, and I do not want to do that.
    I had intended being here from the beginning; and was present at the start, but by mistake the Chair advised me that the business I was interested in could not be dealt with on this Amendment and so I left. A message, however, reached me at 5.30 correcting that advice, and I promptly returned to the Chamber to discover, unfortunately, that most of the debate had already taken place on the matter I was especially interested in.
    I want, as a Member of Sub-Committee C who spent a great deal of time on the Report before us today, to express my pleasure that the hon. Lady has told us that the Home Office is not complacent. I take it that she includes the Home Secretary himself, and perhaps before I leave he can find it convenient to assure us of the fact that he himself is not complacent and that he is filled with all the urgency which the hon. Lady said filled the Home Department.
    Nevertheless, I do not feel in any way compelled, after listening to the hon. Lady, to forsake the unanimous verdict of the Estimates Committee that the substance of the observations confirms the view expressed about the lack of urgency in certain departments of the Home Office.
    I want to deal with one matter on which I interrupted the hon. Lady. The date of commencement of the inquiry by the Home Office is important. When I intervened she seemed a litle vague about when the Home Office review actually started. I can tell her, quoting from the observations by the Secretary of State, that
    "the thorough-going review of immigration questions and control procedures was put in hand early this year and will be completed in the near future."
    The Secretary of State should tell us exactly what he means by "in the near future"; he ought to define it a little more accurately than those words do. The review started early this year, but evidently he had been thinking about it a long while. Nevertheless, the commencement was this year.
    Sub-Committee C had started in the November preceding to go into this whole matter. I submit that, as a

    331
    matter of information and also as a matter of courtesy, in the evidence which came from the Home Office we should have been told that the review was under way.
    Mr. S. Silverman: What was the date of that?
    Mr. Rankin: I cannot give the date.
    An Hon. Member: It was 6th March.
    Mr. Rankin: That information ought to have been supplied in the evidence to the Committee, but it was not. Information about the review by the Home Office was elicited only as a result of a question by a member of the Committee. We are entitled to ask the Home Secretary to tell us why the Committee was treated in this somewhat highhanded fashion. In the view not merely of the Sub-Committee but of the whole Estimates Committee, the sort of treatment meted out to the work of the Sub-Committee is in keeping with the treatment meted out to the recommendations of the Committee. I hope that the Secretary of State will intervene to give us exact information on those two points and tell us why we were not informed in the evidence supplied as to what was happening.
    Thirdly and lastly, with respect to the hon. Lady, I think that all she said about this review by highly placed inside officials is completely irrelevant to the charges which are made by the Committee. Telling us that there is another review going on is not an answer to the Committee criticisms. By saying that the Home Office was doing this while the Estimates Committee was reviewing the position, listening to evidence, putting questions, coming to conclusions and making very serious charges—if one likes to put it that way—or important recommendations, the hon. Lady evades the whole issue on immigration and control procedures presented by the Committee. She said "We started another review while the Committee was undertaking its review." After it had started the Home Office said nothing about it, and then that fact is used to evade the issues which we present to the Secretary of State. I hope that, in fairness to the House, the Secretary of State
    332
    will reply to the recommendations of the Sub-Committee before this debate finishes.
    6.15 p.m.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Despite all the charm of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State in her reply, I. too, share the regret of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) that the Home Secretary has not borne the brunt of this criticism. I hope that my hon. Friend will not take it amiss if I say that I fully accept that the review is not a myth but is a reality. But it is an awkward precedent for other Departments to adopt when the Estimates Committee starts investigating their organisation and practices then immediately to start a parallel review of their own and make the existence of that parallel review an excuse for telling the Committee to run away and play when it presents its own recommendations. That is not the way that a Committee of this House should be treated.
    I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary read our recommendations carefully. I am sure that, even if he did not draft them, at any rate he completely approved of the Observations, and it is because of that that I very much regret that the has not spoken. I have one or two very plain things to say to him.
    A Select Committee of this House is the House in microcosm. It is very difficult for a Committee to steer between the Scylla of pomposity and attaching too much importance to itself, and the Charybdis of neglecting the rights and dignity of this House. So it was only after mature thought that we on the Estimates Committee passed a comment on the observations of the Home Secretary which is almost without precedent. I hope that my right hon. Friend accepted it as we meant it, as a severe rebuke.
    The efficacy of the Estimates Committee depends, of course, primarily upon our own wisdom or foolishness but, secondly, and almost as importantly, upon our relationships with Departments. There was a time when Departments regarded the Estimates Committee as their natural enemy and the Estimates Committee regarded

    333
    Departments as their natural enemy. That has all changed. By dint of hard work over many years we have now obtained the confidence of most of the Departments. Our relationships with the Treasury, for example, are ideal. The Treasury regards us as allies and not enemies. I had hoped that that relationship pervaded the whole of the Administration, but it is not so, apparently, with the Home Office. The Home Office calmly gives us what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) called a "brush off". I said that it told us to "run away and play". If that happens, it makes nonsense of the efforts that this House makes through the Estimates Committee to fulfil it rôle of a watchdog on expenditure.
    As the House knows, the Estimates Committee interprets its duty as being to recommend specific economies, and to try to recommend measures to increase efficiency and so to get better value for money spent. But that all turns into a farce and a nonsense if we are treated as the Home Secretary has treated us. I take a grave view of it. I can only put it down to ignorance on the part of the Home Office, whose affairs have not been investigated for many years. I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend has done this, and I hope that he will give us an explanation.
    Mr. Paget: I want to preface what I have to say by expressing my personal thanks to the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary for the manner in which she has dealt with a series of individual aliens cases which I have raised with her throughout the year. They have been dealt with sympathically and with great care. The hon. Lady has always given me the impression of treating me not as a suppliant but as a responsible colleague in a humane task. I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for the manner in which she has treated me in these individual cases.
    Having said that, however, I am bound to say that I am not in sympathy with the reply she has given today, although I very much regret that I was not able to be here for some of the earlier part of her speech. I do not want to deal with the mechanics of this system—the bona fide visitors, the marriage which takes place between the in-card and the
    334
    out-card, apparently a sterile marriage and a somewhat joyless one which comes to no result, together with the new suggestion that this marriage should now be consummated mechanically instead of manually.
    Since there is no point to the end result that I can discover, I do not see why we should now go into this sophisticated research of the ways to bring it about. When the hon. Lady refers to the good impression which we desire to give visitors, I should have thought that there would have been no better impression than to have no cards at all.
    There is another aspect with which I am more concerned, and that is the desire to keep people out. Surely the whole lesson of modern times and our own experience show that there is no greater asset to a country than people coming into it. The Flemish weavers and the Huguenots are examples in our own history. Such movements were a considerable cause of what I suppose in another century would have been called, had the term then been invented, the "British Miracle".
    In point of fact, this has been the leading cause of what is referred to as the "German Miracle". The vast economic expansion and recovery of Germany has been the result of the free entry of immigrants in great quantities—the refugees. With the checking of the flow of refugees by the Berlin Wall, this process has been stopped.
    I was recently in Hong Kong, where a similar miracle is taking place. I have never seen such prosperity. No one has ever seen a boom like it. It is founded on the inflow of immigrants. Very much the same has happened in France. The miracle one sees in France is very much a result of the inflow of immigrants from Algeria.
    Since it seems to be so much to the advantage of a country that people should come into it, I am somewhat sorried by the attitude of the Home Office that anything is justified if only it will keep people out. From the political point of view, I find the Government apologising for the presence of M. Bidault. I would have expected them to apologise for keeping him out, not for letting him in.
    Really! Are we reaching the stage where people are kept out because they

    335
    are in conflict with their Governments? We had another example the other day in the case of General Delgado, the Portuguese opposition leader. I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on doing well, even if he only did so by mistake, in the case of Bidault in the same way as I condemn him for doing ill in the case of General Delgado.
    But the omission from the hon. Lady's speech which worried me most of all was the way in which she turned down almost casually the request put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) that at least a commission should be appointed to consider legislation in this matter, because I regard this as of very big and fundamental importance. It really is a question as to whether or not there should be rule of law, or whether it is right or wrong to deny people the law.
    Here we have a body of people—the aliens—who are wholly without rights in our law. As to admission, we have heard of the famous "Black Book". There is no legal process for entering someone's name in it nor removing that name. Names are placed there, aliens are condemned, penalised, without any right of recourse to the courts.
    When they do come into the country they are people without rights. They can be searched, they can be arrested, they can be imprisoned without trial. They can be held indefinitely in prison at the will of the Home Secretary. They can be sent away in any ship. They can be sent, even though they are unextraditable, to a country where they can be killed. And all this power is the Home Secretary's without recourse to the law.
    I believe that these are powers which should not be put in any single man's or Government's hands. There should not be this absolute power—power over individuals who are denied any recourse to the courts. I refer for a moment to what the Declaration of Human Rights has to say on this. It states:
    "Every one is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations…."
    That we deny to every alien. Another Article of the Declaration states:
    336
    "No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
    Yet all these things we provide for aliens.
    Let us remember that one could have the case of an alien who has never, with conscious eye, seen another land, who came here as a baby, who speaks no other language than ours, whose wife and children are British. But that man can, at the arbitrary will of the Home Secretary, be arrested and deported, separated from his family, without any right of appeal or recourse to any court whatever.
    Surely this is not right and it is not a sufficient answer to say, "But in practice we are most careful about this". Human beings are not just entitled to the care of a beneficent autocrat. They should live under the law. In addition, when we leave ourselves in such flagrant breach of the Declaration of Human Rights we are setting an extremely bad example to a world which contains many Governments—including many new ones—which tend to look to us for example but who, in their practises and traditions, are far less liberal and beneficent than we are.
    6.30 p.m.
    Therefore, this brushing aside of a request that we should at least consider the machinery for bringing these people under the law is a great defect in the hon. Lady's reply. After all, if a man is refused admission, his inclusion in the "Black Book" may be a complete mistake. Why should not there be some form of tribunal to which he could appeal and to which he could say, "Before I am shut out and treated in this way, I ask for a trial."? On the question of deportation; we shall soon be considering the position of immigrants from the Commonwealth. They can be deported only on the recommendation of a court. Why should not the same rights under law be accorded to the foreigner?
    I conclude by quoting what seems to me to be a very profound moral principle which I take from the Book of Exodus. I am not a fundamentalist, but I believe that one of the very marvellous things about the Bible is the way in which deep ethical principles there expressed have endured. What is said there is this:
    "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you".
    That is a guiding principle to which we should pay some attention.
    Mr. Alan Hopkins: I do not wish to go into the broad principles raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), but. as a member of the Sub-Committee concerned, again to refer to matters raised by the Report of the Estimates Committee.
    I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had to say and I was convinced of her charm, which struck me as being in noticeable contrast to the tone of the observations addressed to the Estimates Committee. I do no', want to go over that ground, but I want to ask my hon. Friend one question. She referred to the inquiry which was set up some time ago and which, she said, is likely to report in the near future. As it is a Departmental inquiry, presumably consisting of civil servants, I assume that in the normal course its report will not be published. If that is the case, will my hon. Friend undertake to tell the Committee the nature of its findings, so that those of us on the Estimates Committee, with the knowledge which we have acquired, will be able to judge whether the new plans to be introduced are sensible.
    Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: I have heard every word of this debate and wish to say just one thing about it. I have taken part in the debates in previous years and, although I would not hang a dead dog on my memory of these debates, I am fairly certain that in or towards the end of earlier debates on this topic since 1945 we have had quarter promises and near half promises and even rather more than half promises of serious consideration of whether this matter ought to go on resting on temporary legislation. I should not like this debate to end without Ministers being reminded that there have always been voices on this side of the House saying there there was a heavy onus of proof on anybody who thought that we ought to go on doing this job year by year.
    I disagree almost completely with the three or four legal luminaries on the other side of the Committee whom we have heard debating today about asylum and political crime and much else, but I wish to place it on record that I am in agreement with them, and I believe that a good many other hon. Members
    338
    on this side of the Committee are, in saying that we are already overdue for serious consideration of whether there ought not to be not necessarily even a change in the law but a clarification in the law and the making of it into a permanent Statute.
    Mr. Fletcher:The Home Secretary owes it to himself and the Committee to clear up the unsatisfactory position of what has been the central feature of the debate, namely, the recommendations of the Select Committee. The hon. Lady left me in a state of complete uncertainty about the present position. In one part of her speech she appeared to be justifying the present procedure of the Home Office for landing and embarkation cards. The Select Committee examined this matter at great length and made the specific recommendation that landing and embarkation cards for bona fide visitors should be abolished. It made that recommendation because it came to the conclusion that the whole of this complicated system of indexing and analysing nearly 2 million cards was not only very expensive and very extravagant and very wasteful but completely ineffective, a complete waste of time, a complete waste of public money and served no useful purpose.
    Will the Home Secretary tell us whether he still attempts to justify this wasteful, extravagant, ineffective procedure, or whether the Home Office intends to abolish it and is having this review to consider the best means of doing so? As the Chairman of the Select Committee, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee and various other members of the Estimates Committee have said, they feel themselves affronted by what has been called a brush-off of their recommendations by the Home Secretary's observations. I think that the whole House of Commons is offended by the contemptuous manner in which the Committee's recommendations have been treated by the Home Office. In its leading article yesterday The Times said:
    "… the Estimates Committee is the eyes and ears of the public, whose interests these departments are maintained to serve."
    The Home Office is the servant of the public and the Estimates Committee is the watchdog appointed by the House of Commons.

    339
    After the Select Committee has taken all its evidence and reached these conclusions and pointed out the scandalous and ineffective waste of public money, it is not good enough for the Home Secretary to brush off these recommendations with the contemptuous remark that they are being considered. Does he still justify this absurd useless waste of public money, or is he saying that he is urgently conducting a review m order to say that it will be abolished?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I assure the Committee at the outset that there is no question of a brush-off, but before I come to the Estimates Committee, may I reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn)? I agree very substantially with what he said. It is not satisfactory that from year to year we should renew an Act which was passed in 1919. Had I not had some other legislation of some importance to bring before Parliament this Session, I would have liked to have taken some action on this. However, I considered that the Police Bill, to which the House gave a unanimous Second Reading yesterday, an essential Administration of Justice Bill, and another Bill concerned with the Court of Criminal Appeal, were urgent matters which I ought to present to Parliament in this Session. I am certainly not going to quarrel with my hon. Friend, and though it may not be in this Parliament, I hope that in the next one this annual continuance by 12 months of the 1919 Act will be overtaken by permanent legislation.
    I cannot go as far as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) went, and I wonder whether he had fully thought out his idea of aliens who are refused admission at ports being able to put their case to some kind of judicial authority. A judicial authority must be given some terms of reference, some criteria to apply, and I must say to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to the House, that, apart from relatively easy cases, very difficult security cases arise, and in my view it is the Home Secretary or some other one Minister who must take a decision on these matters. Ministers are responsible for the security of the
    340
    State, and I do not believe that it is possible for all the evidence to be put before the kind of judicial tribunal which the hon. and learned Gentleman advocated.
    I am not going to claim that our administration of this control—my present administration, and the administration by previous Governments all the way back to 1919—is perfect. Nobody could claim that. It is certainly not 100 per cent, perfect. However, certainly over the period that I can remember, the number of cases of difficulty and disquiet in comparison with the enormous number of aliens now arriving at our ports—2 million a year—has been very small indeed, and, as the House knows, in every case of this kind the Home Secretary is answerable to the House.
    Mr. S. Silverman: We welcome the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has approached this matter and his promise of legislation of a permanent character as soon as he is able to introduce it.
    I wish to ask a question about this appeal to some judicial authority. We all recognise that there are difficulties. We all recognise that there is at any rate one category of case—the one which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—which presents great difficulties, but surely the Home Secretary is aware that the United States, which is no less security-conscious than we are, manages to overcome these difficulties? Why should we not do so?
    Mr. Brooke: Perhaps I was led away by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton into discussing the manner in which we could amend the law. The only question before the Committee is whether this Act, as it stands is to be continued for another year. Though many of us might think that certain Amendments are desirable, it is not possible in the context of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to amend this Act or any others that we are seeking to continue.
    I come now to the Report of the Estimates Committee. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson), who gives a great deal of his time to the work of this Committee, and to my hon. Friend the

    341
    Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Erring-ton) that I not only read the Report of the Estimates Committee on the Home Office but I read the whole of the evidence given before the Committee—250 pages of it—and I wrote part of the Home Office replies myself and approved every word of them, so I take full responsibility in this matter. I am sorry if any hon. Members thought it discourteous of me not to rise first but to invite my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State to speak. I was proposing to speak on a later Amendment to this Bill. I do not like hogging the Dispatch Box all day, and I know that my hon. Friend is a very capable spokesman at the Box. What I did—and I should like to put this on record—was to cancel an important engagement when I knew that this business was coming on at half-past three this afternoon so that I could be here, and I have been ready at all times to intervene in the debate if it seemed desirable.
    6.45 p.m.
    As to these recommendations, I do not know whether I can make my views more clear than my hon. Friend has already made them. I do not think that any member of the Estimates Committee could claim that, because that Committee was investigating a particular Department during a particular Session, it should be regarded as a bar to the Minister in charge of that Department setting up what further internal or other inquiries or reviews he thought fit.
    Sir G. Nicholson:My right hon. Friend is mistaken. By all means set up internal inquiries. My right hon. Friend will find that other Departments do not use the existence of an inquiry—never mind when it was set up—as a bar to giving reasoned answers to the recommendations of the Estimates Committee. Our complaint arises from the absence of reasoned answers. We are not infallible, but we do not want to be put off by the Minister in charge of the Department saying it is not worth giving a reply because the Department itself is investigating the matter in question.
    Mr. Brooke: I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) criticised me for setting up a review inside the Department during the
    342
    year when the Estimates Committee was examining the work of the Department.
    There are two recommendations which have been chiefly under discussion. The first is Recommendation (3) which says:
    "Immigration officers should be given much more extensive information about those people whom the Home Office does not wish to allow to land."
    That is a perfectly arguable point of view and I certainly would not dismiss it, but I think that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State was entitled to put to the Committee what the implications of this would be. At present an immigration officer has to have a book containing between 7,000 and 8,000 names. If no each of these names there is attached even a passport-sized photograph, it will immensely increase the bulk of the book, and I understand the suggestion is that there should be such passport photographs.
    Apart from the bulk of the book, I think that one must consider what this will mean from the immigration officer's point of view. Presumably the photograph will be of value only if somebody is seeking to come in under a false name, because if his name is in the book he can be identified by it. It will be presumed that somebody is coming in under a false name and that he might be identified by a photograph or by fingerprints.
    If hon. Members think about this, they will realise that if this check is to be effective the immigration officer will have to examine every single incoming alien by consulting his book of photographs and his set of fingerprints. As Home Secretary, I have to think not only of my duty of keeping undesirable people out of this country but of keeping up the good name of this country among foreign visitors. I believe that the incoming tourist trade is of immense value to this country. I have often heard hon. Members on both sides of the House say that we ought to make it as easy as possible for visitors to come in and that we ought to give them as friendly a welcome as possible.
    If the recommendation that the immigration officer should refer to photographs and fingerprints were implemented, I find it impossible to see how it could be done without imposing a good deal of inconvenience and delay on

    343
    the 2 million aliens whom we handle each year at the ports. In all humility, I ask all those who suggest this method to take into account what I am saying now.
    I certainly paid attention to what the Estimates Committee said, but I hope the Committee will feel that it is not wrong for a Minister, when he receives a report from the Estimates Committee, also to take account of what his own staff who are actually on the job say and feel.
    I have not been made aware of any desire on the part of immigration officers who are charged with these great responsibilities that they should have these photographs and fingerprints in order to make their task easier. When in my reply I said that
    "Immigration officers are already furnished with as full information about unwanted aliens as experience has shown to be reasonable and practicable"
    that was neither my unadulterated view nor the unadulterated view of the immigration officers; it was a combination of both. This is founded both on experience and on my sense of responsibility as a Minister who wishes the great mass of friendly people who come to this country from abroad to be passed through the immigration control quickly.
    Sir E. Errington: It does not seem to be clear to my right hon. Friend that 80 per cent, of the people who come through are bona fide visitors, and that the problems and difficulties that he has been indicating arise only in connection with a comparatively small number of people. If a system were established of getting the bona fide visitors through there would be more time and less cluttering up at the ports and airports. It depends entirely on the distinction between the two classes of immigrants.
    Mr. Brooke: I follow my hon. Friend's argument, but the dangerous people are those who seek to conceal what they are, and if there is to be no control on anybody who calls himself a bona fide visitor I can imagine that the ranks of the so-called bona fide visitors will be swollen by people who are not bona fide visitors at all but who have discovered that if they describe themselves as such they will be passed through without any inquiry.
    344
    I now turn to the next recommendation, which is:
    "The system of landing and embarkation cards for those classed as bona fide visitors should be abolished, and immediate consideration should be given to the possibility of mechanising the Traffic Index for the remaining aliens."
    It is true that the possibility of mechanising not only the Traffic Index but all central records is being examined. As to the question of landing and embarkation cards, I read the Select Committee's Report carefully, and I can say that if I could easily and safely get rid of this immense amount of paper nobody would be more pleased than I. But on reading the Report I was not able to detect an answer to the practical question to which this recommendation gives rise. That was why I said in my reply that the recommendation presents practical difficulties. The practical problem is this.
    At present an alien is given a landing card to fill up on the aircraft or boat before he reaches the immigration control, and all aliens therefore approach the immigration control with cards. It appeared to me from this recommendation that on the boat or aircraft all aliens would have to be told that if they were bona fide visitors they need not fill up a card, but if they were not bona fide visitors—if they were the sort of people whose entry could be controlled—they must fill up a card. I know what my reaction would be if a stewardess on an aircraft said to that to me. I would not fill up a card. If that system were adopted we should be putting a considerable additional strain upon immigration officers. A great many aliens would come without cards, saying that they were bona fide visitors The immigration officer would know nothing about them at all. Unless his suspicions were particularly aroused by somebody he would have to pass them in. We would then have no record of their entry, as we do have at present. I am not saying that these difficulties are insuperable, but they are practical difficulties to which we have not yet found an answer.
    Mr. Fletcher: Surely that is not the position. Surely it is not suggested that they should not have to fill up a card. The position is that when they reach the immigration officer he stamps the card. Some are stamped "Bona Fide

    345
    Visitor", and others are stamped "Au Pair", or "Permission to Work". What I understand the Select Committee to suggest is that having got the whole batch of hundreds of thousands of cards stamped "Bona Fide Visitor" there is no point in going to the effort of indexing, analysing and keeping them.
    Mr. Brooke: With respect to the hon. Member, that is not what the Select Committee said. In paragraph 20, it recommended
    "that the system of landing and embarkation cards for those classed as bona fide visitors should be abolished,"
    I read that as meaning that the landing cards as well as the embarkation cards should be abolished. That brings us straight to the practical difficulties which I have just mentioned. There is tremendous gain to people coming to this country if they can fill up their cards beforehand and if they do net have to be asked to fill them up when they meet the immigration officer.
    Mr. S. Silverman:Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what information is provided on the card, wherever it is filled up, that is not already contained in the passport and, where a visa is necessary, in the visa? What purpose does the card serve?
    Mr. Brooke:The card is a very convenient record. We do not have the man's passport. He keeps it. The card is a convenient record of the man's entry. It is true that we do not go through all the cards of bona fide visitors to see whether they have all gone back, but we do spot checks, and those have shown that virtually 100 per cent, do go back. Some hon. Members have asked whether there was any use in these cards, which are married up but not all checked. There is a use. From time to time it is useful to discover whether somebody has been paying visits to this country. We unfailingly discover that if, at a later date, we wish to know. They are not a waste of time. But if we could find the means of doing this which would be more economical and no more burdensome to the visitor, nobody would be more pleased to accept it than I. It may be that the review which is being carried out will produce an answer to the problem.
    346
    I am extremely sorry that my replies were not as full as the Estimates Committee wished. I thought that the practice of the House was that these replies should not be made at great length, or be substantially longer than the recommendations of the Committee. In this case I knew that a thorough-going review, covering a much wider field than the question of landing cards, was in process, and that when I got the report, as I hope to get it next year, it might take up not only the matter upon which the Estimates Committee has concentrated but the wider aspects of the whole system of control. When I get that report I shall be pleased to make a statement to the House. I give that undertaking.
    It appeared to me—perhaps I was wrong—that it would be more practical to handle the matter in that way than to go into great detail at this stage on a specific recommendation, which was admittedly concerned with one part of the field of control and not the whole. I hope that what I have said will help to clarify the matter. The last thing that I wished to show was any discourtesy either to members of the Select Committee or to this Committee, as a whole. I trust that my reply has shown that I have a fairly close knowledge of the matter; that I have given it a good deal of thought; that I am certainly not complacent or lazy about it, and that I am greatly hoping that the outcome of the survey now in progress may lead us to financial economies that will be consistent with a system of control that will not be more burdensome to the visitors than the present one is.
    7.0 p.m.
    Sir G. Nicholson:After what my right hon. Friend has said, it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge his courtesy in speaking, and the courteous manner with which he referred to the Select Committee. I am sorry that all this has happened, but it really is the fault of my right hon. Friend and I hope that he and his Department will consult the Treasury to try to see how relations between a big Government Department and the Estimates Committee should be conducted.
    Sir E. Errington: I should like to echo what has been said by my hon.

    347
    Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) and to express the hope that when the review—now that its purpose has been explained to us—is followed by a Report we shall have an opportunity to debate the whole affair, because there are other matters which have not been raised today but which I consider worthy of careful consideration.
    Amendment negatived.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 9 and 10.
    This Amendment concerns the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949. As the date suggests, this Act was initiated by the then Labour Government. From time to time there have been arguments—and this was crystallised by the action of the then Secretary of State in 1957—that in fact the usefulness of this Act and the nature of the problem it sought to rectify had changed completely.
    In order to find out the trend of events in relation to the Act, on 1st May of this year I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for renewal of tenancies were made under the Act in 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962 respectively, For the record, the figures are 308, 232, 173, 133, 118 and 136. It follows that a fair presumption would be that the need for this legislation in its temporary form is passing and might be considered in another context. But I disagree. I think that the problem is deeper than would appear from a superficial argument that because applications to the sheriff have been declining over the years the need for the Act is also declining. I invite the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to tell us what is the position in 1963. My information is that there is a growing number of tenant shopkeepers who are obliged to seek refuge in the provisions of the Act in order to retain premises which in many cases they have occupied for a number of years.
    I must here declare an interest—in fact, I have four interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan) hopes to raise a number of cases involving small shopkeepers in Glasgow. One is a near and dear relative of mine, although I have no
    348
    pecuniary interest. My second interest is that of a co-operative society member and so naturally I am concerned, as are the co-operative societies in Scotland, with the state of affairs in this regard. I wish to speak on behalf of many of the societies. Thirdly, I must, strangely enough, speak on behalf of some of the multiple traders in Scotland who are being subjected to the activities of property development companies, and in many cases because of the peculiarity of their leaseholds in relation to these shops are being obliged to pay extremely high rents for their premises.
    My fourth interest is on behalf of the customer. We must all recognise that where pressure is exerted on shopkeepers which is not primarily concerned with eviction, but to get more rent, the shopkeeper, in order to stay in business and make a profit, must obviously make the charges higher for the goods and services which he provides. So, in the last analysis, this position affects the community as a whole. I do not wish to speak within the narrow confines of the first three interests but in the general interest of the community as a whole.
    The Prime Minister, when he assumed office, appeared on television and told us that one of the functions of the Government—I assumed that it was a new function—would be to "come clean" with the people and take the people into their confidence. He was going to tell us what was happening in Whitehall. This, sadly, has not been the case in respect of this Act and the activities of the Secretary of State for Scotland. On 1st May, 1963, I asked the Secretary of State:
    "what progress has been made in his present Departmental review of the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949; and whether he will publish a White Paper when the review is completed".
    The Minister replied:
    "I am not yet ready to make a statement about this. I shall consider, when my investigations have been completed, what may be the best way of informing the House of my conclusions."—[Official Report, 1st May, 1963; Vol. 676, c. 103.]
    So far the only way which the right hon. Gentleman has found to tell the House of his conclusions has been in answer to a Question which I can only describe as inspired—perhaps innocently inspired, who knows—from the hon.

    349
    Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). Only last Thursday, when this Amendment had been tabled, we learned that some form of this temporary law would be made permanent. This comes as a surprise, and a not entirely welcome surprise, because any new permanent provision to replace this law would be very courageous and must be very complex.
    If the Government wish to take the people of Scotland into their confidence, as the Prime Minister said, I suggest that we ought to be discussing the nature of this new provision now, in the public Press and in the various trading organisations existing in Scotland. We must be reasonable in this matter and remember that there are the landlords who are concerned. The organisations representing the landlords have as much right as anyone to know the terms of this projected new legislation. That is why I feel sad that the Government have not published a White Paper on the matter to afford the widest area for debate on the subject of what would be a reform of considerable standing.
    I do not wish to go into the whole history of this matter or to refer to the Reports of the Taylor Committee and the Guthrie Committee, but I wish to refer to the latest Report on the subject, that of the Shearer Committee, dated July, 1958. The Chairman of this Committee is now the Lord Advocate. It is interesting to note that the Committee—to the surprise of many critics of the Conservative Government—came down on the side of carrying on this Act for another five years. This very important paragraph, paragraph 23, appeared in the Report:
    "It is important to bear in mind that the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act,1956, has opened a period of transition in Scotland, the full effect of which cannot yet be ascertained."
    This is in 1958:
    "Two changes, hitherto quite foreign to Scottish law and practice, have been introduced, the abolition of owners' rates and the quinquennial valuation of lands and heritages taking effect in 1961. It is conceivable that as that Act takes effect in practice there may be a marked change in the Scottish attitude towards leasehold tenures. It might be, in result, that Scottish practice would begin to approximate to what we understand to be the English practice in regard to leases for years. If this were so, it appears to us that the 1949 Act should certainly go. If it were
    350
    thought necessary or desirable to legislate in regard to the legal position of tenancies, and plainly that decision must await events, we consider that the whole question should be examined afresh."
    I agree with that wholeheartedly, I make one reservation about the statement
    "… would begin to approximate to what we understand to be the English practice in regard to leases for years."
    You, Sir Robert, will know much more than I do about English leasehold law, but I am led to understand that it is extremely complex. It seems unfortunate that the phrase,
    "would begin to approximate to"
    should be used about what is in fact an extraordinarily complex position.
    I gather from my experience in this House from English hon. Members that there is an urgent need for leasehold reform in England. If that is so, why should Scotland want to adopt a leasehold system which is already out of date in England? It would seem to me that this is a vastly appropriate subject for a debate on the kind of leasehold reform that we want to see in Scotland. My hon. Friends and I are dissatisfied with the present situation, and that is why we have taken this opportunity to raise the whole subject. It is, in a sense, the evolution of law which we are discussing, but it has also added to it a certain urgency because there seems to be evidence that there are property companies, some legitimate and some, I would suggest, otherwise, which are coming into Scotland and trying to buy up large blocks of shops in the centres of towns and cities, not to facilitate trade but to get the highest possible rent from those premises.
    I suggest that with the Scottish law being so inadequate in relation even to the present English system, there ought to be a certain amount of urgency in the Scottish Office to try to get a permanent law on the Statute Book which has the consent of most people in Scotland. That can be done only if the Government come clean and, as the Prime Minister said, take people into their confidence.
    That is why I hope that the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State, when she replies, will recognise the Herculean task which she has to perform—that is if she is not going to promise us a White Paper, which I should be very pleased

    351
    to hear was to be done—and, if we are not to have a White Paper, she should explain more clearly than has been done by Ministers so far the intentions of the Government at this stage. Shopkeepers are now facing these notices and, in some cases, have been given sheriffs' notices in relation to the expiring of their terms of lease, so there will be a great period of uncertainty between May of this year and the beginning of a new Parliament in October, or November next year. We have witnessed this during the summer when we did not know what was to happen regarding this law and whether it was to be included in the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill. It is not fair that these people should have to wait with bated breath for many months to know whether they will survive for another six months. There is no provision for compensation for many of them who have served for many years in small shops and who will lose their position entirely if, even under this law, with the provisions as they stand, they are faced with an adverse verdict in the courts.
    The law in Scotland is not as strong as one would wish in relation to the position of many of these people. I concede that the law was not designed to meet the situation as it is today. It replaced a war-time Defence Regulation which was used quite out of context with the original intention of a Defence Regulation. This idea of using a law passed for one purpose to achieve another is all very well as a temporary equivalent, but it is not at all the right way of carrying out the proper Government administration of the country.
    I shall be brief in view of the amount of business we have ahead of us, but I want to impress on the Under-Secretary the urgency of this problem, the fact that there are many small shopkeepers seriously affected by it, and that she may not have noticed the numbers that are affected. I want to impress on her that the activities of some of these companies considerably disturb us. There is no genuine attempt on the part of many of these new absentee landlords, with whom Scotland has been cursed for many years, to settle the tenant but, rather they wish to evict the tenant so that they can conduct a wholesale reorganisation of the area which the shops occupy. I hope
    352
    that the hon. Lady will give us a fair reply tonight because there are many shopkeepers in Scotland, small shopkeepers, co-operative shopkeepers and multiple trade shopkeepers who will anxiously await what she has to say.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Mary-hill):I am very conscious of the important business which is to follow the discussion on this Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act. Nevertheless, one of the attributes claimed by this House is that however small the number of people, or any one constituent who may feel himself or herself aggrieved or suffering from an injustice, their complaint should be aired in this House at whatever inconvenience to other business. Therefore, I make no complaint about turning to this proposition.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has mentioned how important it is that the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act should be not only continued but enshrined in some form of permanent legislation. I had cause on 26th October—I asked the Committee to pay attention to the trend of events—to write to the Secretary of State informing him that 11 shopkeepers in one part of my constituency had received notice to quit their premises by 28th May next. No offer was made to them to purchase their shops at whatever agreed figure nor even to rent them. One thinks of the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, but we have drysalter's, fruit shops, newsagents, dairies and so forth. It took the Secretary of State practically a month to reply to me on the 20th November, in which he apologised for the delay—I accept that—and said:
    "I am sorry I have not been able to let you have an earlier reply to your letter. …You will have seen from this year's Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill …that we propose to continue the 1949 Act for another year."
    I underline the next sentence:
    "I shall shortly be making a statement about the future of the Act beyond the end of 1964."
    We await that statement, but it is curious that while that reply was sent to me on 20th November, not knowing or indicating what was going to happen, on 21st November, the next day, in HANSARD was reported a written reply to the hon. Member for Fife, East, (Sir J.

    353
    Gilmour) in which the Minister said that he proposed to enshrine it in terms of permanent legislation. I thought on the face of it this was a little unfair. He certainly knew on 26th October, the date of my letter, and he could have replied within two or three days, giving probably the same answer—but no doubt it is the new technique that every letter, every action of the Government from now on shall be framed with a view to an eye on the next election.
    I leave that point to return to the story. Contrary to the spirit of the 1949 Act, the previous owners of this building of 11 shops, McKerracher's Trust, have done a deal over the shopkeepers' heads, with a new trust called the Glasgow Investment Trust. Consequently, the shopkeepers did not have the opportunity of saying which form of let, lease or purchase they would prefer to have. It is not a question of negotiating with the owner for this trust is a completely new set of owners who have come on the scene. Incidentally, I asked the Secretary of State in my letter if he could tell me who the new directors were. He replied that he did not know who were the directors of the development trust mentioned in my letter.
    I should have thought that officials of the Secretary of State could have telephoned, as this place is almost next door, to find the names. I found the names within two days. They are five Glasgow gentlemen. I do not know, but I should be interested to know, whether they form a subsidiary of one of the London companies which for some time have been coming to Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland and muscling in on the lucrative market of city and town development. We want to know about this. This is all the more important when people in a small way of business such as my 11 constituents—some in business for 34 years and some for 25 years in the same job—have built up a business with goodwill and are to lose not only the capital value and the goodwill of their shops but their very livelihood. These are important reasons why this Act should be enshrined in permanent legislation.
    As a result of letters coming to them last year, my constituents approached their solicitors and went to the sheriff,
    354
    as they are allowed to do under the 1949 Act, and were granted a year's extension. This also, however, is uncertain. The Guthrie and Taylor Reports and the 1958 Report all refer to the uncertainty of the year-to-year lease. The fact that the Act has to be renewed each year, as is being done tonight, makes the position even more uncertain.
    A letter sent to one of my constituents said quite definitely:
    "Although your tenancy is now secured for a further year we have no doubt but that the purchasers of the premises will serve a fresh notice on you to quit the premises at Whitsunday, 1964 since it is obvious from the communications which you have had from the purchasers' property agents, Messrs Healy & Baker, that it is the intention of the purchasers to develop the whole block and they will therefore be anxious to obtain possession of your premises as soon as they possibly can."
    Messrs. Healy & Baker have a head office address in London. The proposal is that once the shopkeepers have been swept out the whole block will be redeveloped as a supermarket.
    My constituents keep in touch with their solicitors. These shopkeepers have the onus put on them to show that they have made exceptional efforts to find alternative accommodation. A notice has come from the sheriff's officers that they are to move on 28th May, 1964. This is proof of the procedure which will go on. One of my constituents has sought the assistance of valuers for premises further up the same street so that she may take them if they are available at a reasonable figure.
    In a letter of 1st August this year the valuer wrote:
    "These premises comprise a ground floor shop, with frontage of approximately 12 ft. and depth of 40 ft. We would be in a position to offer you a new 21 year full repairing and insuring lease, with Landlords' right to review the rent at the end of the 14th year,"
    We should all hold our breath, for the letter goes on:
    "at a commencing rental of £550 per annum exclusive, this being on the understanding that the ingoing tenant would be responsible for the Landlords' legal costs and disbursements incurred in the grant of the lease."
    The shopkeeper is to be responsible for the legal costs and disbursements in addition to being asked to pay £550 rent, plus, on a rough calculation, £670 10s. 0d. in rates, making

    355
    £1,220 10s. 0d. These people are not concerned about the shopkeepers' livelihood. All they want is the property. The sheriff has already sent the notice.
    Glasgow Corporation has several development plans, but this move has nothing to do with those plans. I am informed that the corporation has no plans for this specific area for the next 20 years. No development permission has been sought. I am told that if planning permission were to be sought it would be very difficult for the corporation to refuse because no change of use would be involved. There has been a spread of corporation property in the area, houses and a new school, and it is a developing area. Some people with a nose for opportunities, particularly financial opportunities, have been nosing in.
    Another shopkeeper produced receipts to me for £17 charges made to him by valuers to value other property as an alternative to the premises he has where the shops are situated. These 11 reputable citizens have been pursuing their business and trying to wrest a living from it, but they have been harried and harassed for years. This shows the importance of the Act becoming permanent legislation.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock dealt with the Shearer Report, which came out in 1958. The Taylor Committee suggested that the Act should last only until 1950. The Guthrie Committee suggested that it should go on till 1955. The Shearer Committee, contrary to all the evidence, suggested that it should not become permanent legislation. That seems to run contrary to all the evidence produced in the Report itself. The Committee made some important admissions. One was that the Act had not operated in such a way as to cause great hardship to owners of shop premises, although it does restrict their rights. It went on to admit that since the Act landlord-tenant relations had been satisfactory. It went on to say that in the three years preceding the inquiry premises had changed hands at fair values, there had been no criticism of administration of the Act and there was complete confidence on both sides in the sheriffs if the Act were to be continued.
    356
    The Committee admits that the Act has served a useful purpose in the circumstances of its introduction and goes further and says that it continues to serve a useful purpose. Similarly, the Guthrie Committee admitted that it had a restraining influence and that in going to the sheriff courts those who felt that they were: suffering an injustice at least had an opportunity of expressing themselves and knew that there was an adviser who would make a decision which was fair in all the circumstances to both parties.
    7.30 p.m.
    It is therefore difficult to understand the conclusions and the advice tendered to the Secretary of State. The Committee said in paragraph 19:
    "The bulk of the evidence, and this we accept, does not favour making the Act permanent in effect."
    Unless I completely misunderstand the situation, this is most surprising. We are anxious for an assurance from the hon. Lady on this point. The Committees—the Guthrie Committee and even the Shearer Committee—accept that their figures do not reveal the total size of the problem. I believe that it is much more widespread than we are inclined to suggest. Even the figures in the appendices show that the incidents have not varied very much between 1952 and 1957. We have figures varying between 304 and 340. These are figures for five years, and out of a total of about 20,000 shops.
    As hon. Members we are all aware of individuals who will not approach us about their problems because—and I do not use this term in a derogatory fashion—some of them, simply through lack of experience, will not use the telephone. Because of lack of experience they have to have someone else to write a letter for them. From my experience in the insurance world I know how many people for whom one had to write a letter; one put a pen in their hand, and said "Sign here". Out of this experience I am convinced that the figures do not show the scope of the problem.
    Because of these factors, I ask the hon. Lady to mike it clear in any firm assurance which she gives tonight that some provision for permanent legislation will be made which will afford protection to the honest, decent citizens who are shopkeepers and who have been pushed about

    357
    too much. I will not develop other matters now because that would be out of order, but many years ago we should have dealt with the problem of warehouses and offices.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: I rise as a one-time small shopkeeper who one day was faced with a "buy or quit" notice. I have great sympathy with persons who find themselves in that position, and I have some idea of the worries which they have and their difficulties in trying to make suitable arrangements to carry on their business.
    I was one of the first, if not the first, to raise the matter in the House after the war—and the same arguments are relevant now as were relevant them. This applies particularly to Glasgow, where much evidence was collected. Property companies from England were going to Glasgow, buying up blocks of property in the centre of the City and serving notice on the shopkeepers either to pay an enormously increased rental or to get out. Now we have property companies coming to Scotland to buy property in the city centres not so much for the purpose of allowing shopkeepers to carry on business as for the purpose of redeveloping the area.
    The shopkeepers' hardship is exactly the same. I was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan) that when this problem first arose it was difficult to get evidence. The first Committee which inquired into it recommended that nothing should be done, because, the Committee said, there was no evidence. We, as Members of Parliament, then gathered together and supplied the evidence to the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) remembers this quite well. A second Committee examined all the evidence which hon. Members presented and decided that something should be done. Finally, after a great battle, we had the Act which we are discussing and which I believe has served a very useful function. I do not say that it is the best possible Act that we could have designed, but it has served a very important function, and the necessity for permanent legislation to protect shopkeepers is as important today as ever it was.
    358
    Every one knows what is going on today. One has only to observe what is happening to the shares of property companies and to look at the centres of cities and large burghs in Scotland to see how much property will be redeveloped in the next ten or twenty years. One has only to read the reports of local authorities and their concern about city centre development to know how real the problem is for the shopkeeper in the city centre, in particular. He will have many difficulties to face in future and he deserves some kind of legal protection.
    I believe that this Act should be made permanent. Not only should we be told in a Written Answer what the Government feel but we ought to be told what the Government have in mind about when they will introduce this legislation. We have heard of other legislation which has been put back year after year. The fact that this legislation has had to be renewed each year has itself been a cause of uncertainty, because no one has known how long this protection would last. No one has known whether it would last until next year or the year after that. That in itself has led to some confusion and uncertainty.
    I do not want to take much time but only to associate myself with my hon. Friends 'pleas and to ask the hon. Lady to give us more information than we have so far had about the nature of the legislation and when we are likely to get it. This is desperately important. The hon. Lady would not only be serving the House well if she gave that information but would be serving the shopkeepers in Scotland well, too, because I am sure that they would like to know something about this.
    Mr. William Ross: I hope that the hon. Lady is fully seized of the importance of this matter. We have had years of consideration of it, and not always has there been the same urgency and emphasis placed on it as has rightly been placed on it tonight by my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan).
    There is no doubt that these incidents are happening in many parts of Scotland. It is not for us to go into the reasons why; we have to recognise the fact that

    359
    they are happening. They are happening in Kilmarnock, too. Shopkeepers have come to me asking me what can be done. They have suddenly had a notice saying that they are being offered a new lease to last three to five years. Immediately there is an increase in rent by three, four or five times with the threat that on the expiry of from three to five years there will be a further arrangement about the rent. This arises out of the Scottish lease system. It is the system of tacit relocation. It applies to occupant tenants of shops and it used to apply to houses as well. If nobody raised a question about the rent they carried on paying the same rent. We had this trouble immediately after the war, and we called it "buy or quit". This is one of the difficulties which stem from the failure of people to come forward and complain. It has come to be known as the "buy or quit Act", although there is now no question of buying at all.
    Mr. Willis: Sometimes there is.
    Mr. Ross: I agree that sometimes there is some buying element. The Act states that if the tenant is unable to get a renewal of his lease on terms satisfactory to himself he has the right to approach the sheriff. The sheriff has to adjudicate hardship, to look into the circumstances, and he may grant up to one year's continuing tenancy with a rent fixed as reasonable by the sheriff.
    The difficulty stems from the year-to-year nature of the lease and the type of new property owners. The protection is only from year to year. The very knowledge that it only from year to year and the fact that the tenants have to go back to the sheriff year after year—it may even be every two or three months—with the continued expense and threat, inevitably leads to the situation that the protection is completely eroded. We shall be hearing more and more about this situation. We ought to be taking action now instead of waiting for the deluge of complaints.
    High streets and shopping centres are changing. The old shopkeepers, the people who have been there for generations, are being squeezed out. We must take action. Some of the names of the property companies concerned are not unknown. We have heard of them
    360
    coming into Kilmarnock indirectly, by taking over the interests of other firms which own blocks of shops. The small jeweller and grocer are being penalised because some of them look on this from the point of view of speculation, redevelopment and investment.
    If we are concerned about hardship, we should show the same sense of urgency today as we showed in 1949. Indeed, we took action in those days. The fact is that people are afraid to approach Members of Parliament, and it is only when they do approach Members that we can raise the matter and get action taken. I sincerely hope that this will be done.
    The Guthrie Committee which dealt with leases in Scotland has been mentioned, and I had the honour of serving on that Committee. We felt that the situation of the tacit relocation lease, the year-to-year lease, had been met, and this protection was absolutely essential. The need for this protection has proved not to be a temporary phase in the light of property development in Scotland. In view of this new influx of property developers, it has proved to be something which we must make permanent if we are to give the required protection.
    I hope the Under-Secretary will give us a different outlook in the matter from the point of view of urgency of legislation. We on these benches will help all we can. If she can persuade one of those innocent hon. Members who put down stooge Questions to sponsor a Private Member's Bill we will support it in order to afford the protection that the Scottish shopkeepers need.
    7.45 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) for raising this subject. Hon. Members who have spoken, notably the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) who quoted cases from his own constituency, for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) who himself has had personal experience of this matter and for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), have shown that the Act has served a useful purpose. Therefore, we must all be glad that my right hon. Friend has decided to have permanent legislation on this subject.

    361
    I am glad to have the opportunity to give a little more information on the reasons why my right hon. Friend has come to this decision. Various hon. Members have mentioned the three main committees which have considered this subject since 1947. I should like to refer briefly to the Shearer Committee. The use made of the Act has shown that it has served a useful purpose. As hon. Members know, it has been continued year by year by this procedure of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I accept that that in itself gives a little uncertainty.
    The Committee which served under the chairmanship of Mr. Shearer—now our Lord Advocate—considered whether the Act should be kept in being after 1958. It concluded that it still served a useful purpose but thought that it should not become permanent in its present form. The Committee found that the Act was by then being used mainly to protect shop tenants against the ill effects of the short notice of termination of shop tenancy which is normal in Scotland. It thought it undesirable that an Act passed to deal with a temporary shortage of shop premises should come to be used for a different purpose. I think that is what was behind the Committee's reason for recommending that the Act should be continued for not more than five years from 31st December, 1958. That period would have come to an end this year.
    When the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill was being discussed in Committee in 1962, my late colleague Mr. Leburn was asked to state the Government's intentions about the future of the 1949 Act. He replied that a review would take place on the basis of which we should consider whether or not the Act should be continued. That review has taken place. We invited all the persons and organisations who had given evidence to the Shearer Committee to say whether they thought the 1949 Act should be continued in being. Having examined their evidence and having taken account also of the number of applications to the sheriff over the years, we concluded that the Act should be made permanent.
    It seems to us that there is still competition for shop premises. This was a point the Shearer Committee thought
    362
    might pass with the years; but we believe there is still competition, at any rate in the more populous areas, and that the number of shop premises is unlikely to increase. One or two hon. Members—indeed, I believe every Member who has spoken in the debate—have drawn attention to the problems and the effects of redevelopment in the cities and large towns, including redevelopment by local authorities. It may well be that this will reduce the number of shop premises available, although of course we all want to see the centres of our towns redeveloped. In those circumstances, it is possible that the tenant will be at some disadvantage in striking a reasonable bargain, and I think that experience of the working of the 1949 Act shows that it protects the tenant in such circumstances.
    In the evidence submitted to us, it was suggested by one of the associations of shopkeepers that the Act would be particularly useful in protecting tenants of shops against property speculators, but it was not suggested in the same evidence that many tenants had suffered at the hands of property speculators. The Glasgow and West of Scotland Association of Licensed Grocers suggested that its members had been put in difficulty by both private development and local authority redevelopment, notably in Glasgow. However, we do not know how many of the applications to the sheriff arise from large-scale redevelopment.
    The hon. Member for Greenock gave the figures for several years, and he asked me to give the latest available figures in this year, 1963. First, I recall to the Committee that, in 1950, there were 367 applications made to the courts. Last year, there were 136, and up to the end of September this year there were 85. Of these 85, 22 were successful, four were unsuccessful, and 54 were otherwise disposed of.
    It is of interest also to see in what court districts these cases are considered. By far the largest number, of course, arises in Glasgow. In 1962, there were 36 in Glasgow itself, and in the first nine months of 1963 there were 47. Continuing with the large cities, in Edinburgh there were 16 in 1962 and seven in the first nine months of this year. In Dundee, there were nine last year,

    363
    six this year so far. In Aberdeen, there were seven last year, and five this year so far. Apart from the big cities, the largest number in any district is in Hamilton, with 10 in 1962 and four this year.
    Among those who gave evidence, there were eight associations and one individual who were in favour of the Act being discontinued, and these included such organisations as the Law Society of Scotland, the National Federation of Property Owners and Factors and the Society of Writers to Her Majesty's Signet In favour of the Act being continued there were altogether 28 representations, including two from individuals, the organisations including, for example, the Scottish Branch of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Counties of Cities Associations—with reservations by Dundee—and the Multiple Shops Federation.
    One hon. Member suggested that the protection afforded to tenants under the 1949 Act should be reinforced in any legislation which is introduced. I cannot say at this stage what form permanent legislation will take except that it will be no less than the provisions of the present Act. Any suggestions will, of course, be considered on their merits. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked when legislation would be introduced. I can give him no definite date. He will have noted that we have a very full programme of legislation before us. On the other hand, I think that the uncertainty to which he drew attention will be put to an end because we have undertaken to have permanent legislation the provisions of which will be no less than those of the 1949 Act, and if perchance we could not introduce legislation this Session the Act would be continued under the present procedure, as we are now doing.
    It has been suggested that there should be a White Paper giving all the various pros and cons on this rather difficult problem. I had not thought that a White Paper would be a great deal of use because I had hoped to take the opportunity in this debate to give as much general information as I could. Various individuals and organisations have submitted evidence, and I shall now give some broad conclusions drawn from what was said on both sides.
    364
    The reasons given for discontinuing the Act were as follows. One, there is no longer a scarcity of shop premises. Two, the right of application to the sheriff conferred by the Act interferes with the normal freedom of contract between landlord and tenant. Three, it is a hardship to a landlord not to be able to obtain possession of his own property. Four, modernisation of premises and of business methods may be impeded by an unsatisfactory tenant. Finally, on this side of the case, it is said that the number of applications to the sheriff has declined, that this indicates that there is no longer a need for the Act and that most of the applications made are settled out of court.
    The reasons given for continuing the Act were as follows. One, there is still a scarcity of shop premises, particularly in the cities and larger towns. I have already referred to this. Two, this scarcity is likely to become more pronounced in areas which are redeveloped by local authorities, where the number of shops tends to be reduced, particularly in Glasgow, where licensed premises are not allowed in certain areas of local authority development, and there is an acute problem for the licensed trade. Three, year-to-year tenancies are still normal arid the period of notice is still short. A tenant may suffer hardship if asked to leave at short notice. He may also have difficulty in disposing of his stock, and he may not be able to find other premises in the time available. Four, the existence of the Act in itself induces landlords to offer reasonable terms to their tenants. Five, it is maintained that the Act provides protection against the speculator who buys a property with the intention of selling at a quick profit. Finally, although the number of applications to the sheriff has fallen, the current number still indicates a need for the Act, and, in fact, there was a slight increase in 1962.
    Because of all those factors, and because my right hon. Friend felt that the weight of evidence was in favour of continuing this legislation, after fourteen years of trial, we intend to make it permanent.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: In view of the assurances which have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 13 and 14.
    The Committee will recall that, when the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was introduced, we on this side strongly opposed its particular terms for three main reasons. We opposed it, first, because it was, in fact, based on race and colour discrimination, however much attempts were made to suggest otherwise. Second, it discriminated against the Commonwealth. Passed as it was during the Brussels negotiations, when the Government at that time were determined to enter the Common Market, its effect, if we had gone into the Common Market, would have been to exclude Commonwealth citizens while freely admitting citizens of Common Market countries. Our third reason for opposing the Bill was that it was not based on consultation, still less on agreement, with Commonwealth countries. In fact, it was unilaterally imposed by the United Kingdom.
    Those three grounds which were the grounds of our opposition to the Bill are just as true today as they were then. In this week, I do not need to stress the feeling which, I am sure, is shared on both sides of the Committee about race and colour discrimination. At such a time, when perhaps the future of the free world or of the whole world depends on attitudes to colour questions inside individual Western countries, it is important that we should again repeat our view on this subject.
    8.0 p.m.
    We supported, and we do support, certain provisions of the Act. We supported then, and we support now, the health check on immigrants and the right to exclude or deport immigrants found guilty of certain criminal offences. The right to deport depends to a considerable extent on the attitude of the Home Secretary, and we have had to take issue very sharply with the right hon. Gentleman on one or two cases. There was a case last year in which we felt that irresponsibly he was agreeing to the deportation of a person for a first offence, a shoplifting offence, which we thought was quite unjustifiable. Therefore, we emphasise that the right to deport granted in the Commonwealth
    366
    Immigrants Act should be exercised with humanity.
    Having said that, I must point out that we believe that there are loopholes in the Act, and we would favour a strengthening of the legal powers, provided always that the Home Secretary was responsible to the House of Commons in his exercise of the powers conferred. We believe that health checks should become more effective. There is evidence which suggests that in certain cases and certain countries health checks have not been sufficiently effective. We would be prepared to support a change in the law relating to deportation. At present the Act provides this limit of five years' residence in this country. If an individual found guilty of certain crimes has been in this country for more than five years, he is excluded from the operation of parts of the Act.
    Mr. Brooke: On a point of order. The deportation provisions are permanent and are not included in the part of the Act which this Bill is designed to continue. I have no objection to anything that the right hon. Gentleman has been saying, but it would be helpful to the Committee, Mr. Arbuthnot, if you could give us some guidance as to whether it will be in order for us to discuss other parts of the Act.
    Mr. Wilson:Further to that point of order. We are just dealing with the exclusion provisions in this Amendment, but I suggest that it is virtually impossible for the Committee to discuss the position on those exclusion provisions without making some brief reference to the rest. I was not intending to develop this point and certainly not to make it one of the main themes of this part of the debate, but I suggest that it is not possible to debate these exclusion provisions without referring to parts of the Act which remain.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): I thought that it was a passing reference that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was making, but, as the Home Secretary says, the provisions relating to deportation are permanent and should not be discussed in the debate.
    Mr. Wilson: It was a passing reference, Mr. Arbuthnot.
    Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Further to that point of order. Could you help us, Mr. Arbuthnot? As the Home Secretary said, we are being asked to continue a limited section of this Act. Would it not be right to say—and I ask for your guidance on this, Mr. Arbuthnot—that the way in which other parts of the Act operate very much affects our minds as to the merits of those sections of the Act which we are being asked to continue? Therefore, may I respectfully suggest that, subject to your Ruling, Mr. Arbuthnot, it is in order to deal with the operation of other parts of the Act which we are not asked to perpetuate in so far as we are considering the merits of continuing the first part of the Act?
    The Temporary Chairman:I think that that is correct. The hon. Member may refer to other parts of the Act, but only in so far as they affect the merits of the part which we are specifically considering. That is what I thought the right hon. Member for Huyton was doing.
    Mr. Wilson:I thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Arbuthnot. It has made the matter clear to us. I was making this brief reference to the deportation provisions against the background of whether the parts of the Act we are being asked to renew should be renewed or not. I think that one of the defects in the Act which must affect the views of many hon. Members about the Amendment which I have moved is that it is very heavy-handed, and there are some very revolting crimes in respect of which we should not mind seeing the Home Secretary given powers going beyond five years—not for life, but for seven, or ten years, or whatever it may be. But it is vital that any powers, whether already in the Act or in an amended Act, should be exercised with humanity because many of these cases, including the one to which I have just referred, the Carmen Bryan case, do not involve revolting crimes or anything we have in mind.
    I come to the general issue about the control of immigration. We do not contest the need for control of immigration into this country, and I want to put forward a positive policy towards solving the problem arising from immigration as our alternative to the
    368
    continuance of this part of the Schedule. What we suggest should happen, and what the Labour Party would do if we were in power, is that we should enter into negotiations with Commonwealth countries for the purpose of working out agreed quotas and arrangements for their implementation by effective control over the numbers leaving each country. Pending these negotiations, we recognise, as all hon. Members will recognise, that a hiatus between the ending of British national control as covered by this part of the Act and the coming into force of the revised arrangements which would result from consultation would be likely to lead to an artificial stimulus to immigration through large numbers jumping the gun.
    If it were known that this Act was coming to an end in this way and some months might be required to arrive at the alternative arrangements, there is a danger of an artificial increase in immigration through people jumping the gun. I am, therefore, prepared to say on behalf of my hon. Friends that, if the Government will announce now their willingness to open negotiations on these lines, we would, because of the realisation of the hiatus point, be prepared to accept the continuance of the Act for the period necessary to complete the negotiations with Commonwealth countries.
    This was said two years ago. We said very plainly that there should be consultation and we asked the Government to withdraw the Bill in order to have these consultations. If the Home Secretary is prepared to accept this proposal now, we would be prepared to accept continuance of the Act for a limited period to avoid the hiatus and we should immediately ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. John Hall: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that before the introduction of the Bill some attempt was made, in consultation with other Governments, to try to persuade them to introduce some sort of voluntary control over the movement of citizens but that it had no effect whatever?
    Mr. Wilson: No. This was very fully debated at the time, and, although this point was made from the benches opposite, I remember that Hugh Gaitskell particularly and other Members from

    369
    this side were quite satisfied that there had not been adequate consultations. There had been some discussions, but there had been no general Commonwealth consultation, and in the end that was admitted by the Government in the course of the debate.
    Mr. John Hall: There is some confusion. The consultation to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring and which was brought out in the Committee stage of the Bill was consultation about the operation of the Bill itself and the intention of the Government to introduce the Bill. I am referring to consultation which took place before we even contemplated introducing the Bill and which was designed to try to persuade Governments to limit their migration to this country.
    Mr. Wilson:We were not satisfied that this consultation had taken place, and when Hugh Gaitskell suggested to the Government that they should withdraw the Bill and that they should have proper consultation to secure this kind of agreement there was no willingness to do so on the part of the Government. So far as I can see—perhaps the Home Secretary will correct me—there has been no attempt at consultation since the Bill became an Act. I have made our offer to the Government. If it is accepted in the spirit in which it is offered we shall be prepared to withdraw the Amendment forthwith. Only if this proposal about consultation is accepted by the Government can we on this side assent to the continuation of the Act by means of the Bill with which we are dealing.
    The Committee will be aware that under our procedure we cannot move Amendments. It is not possible, for example, for us to move a reasoned Amendment, which we did on the last occasion, I think, on the continuance of this Act. We have either to vote for this part of the Schedule, which involves the continuance of the Act as it stands or that part of it covered in the Schedule, or we have to vote on our Amendment to delete from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill the reference to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. Therefore, if the Government refuse to base their policy on agreement with the Commonwealth—and we wait to hear about that from the Home Secretary—we shall have no choice but to oppose
    370
    the Act in its present form as, in effect, a permanent Measure. We regard it as essential to alter the basis of control of Commonwealth immigration.
    I hope that I am not getting out of order if I support what I have been saying with one or two slightly more general propositions, because these must be in all our minds in deciding whether this national unilateral immigration control is to continue. We believe—and I am sure that the Government will agree with this—that immigration problems cannot be solved in terms of control alone, however or wherever that control may be exercised.
    Even under the terms of the Act, there is the problem of immigrants already here and of those who will come here in the future. A much greater sense of urgency must be shown in dealing with the problems which exist and which impose serious strains upon certain areas of the country. We must also—and this affects the views of hon. Members on the continuance of the Act—take into account the problem of racial incitement and racial discrimination in this country. That would affect the views of many of my hon. Friends in connection with the continuance of the Act under any terms. The matter cannot, therefore, be considered without reference to that aspect. From that viewpoint, we feel that legislation should be introduced clearly making illegal incitement to race hatred and banning racial discrimination in public places.
    The problem of assimilation of Commonwealth immigrants—those already here, those who would come in if the Government's wishes prevail tonight and the Act is perpetuated or those who would come in under the system of control which we propose—is one which every hon. Member knows to be extremely acute in certain parts of the country. It is a problem which is characterised mainly by housing and education. All of us agree about this. We have debated it in the housing and in the education context. Overcrowding is an evil whatever the cause of it, and local authorities need greater powers to remedy and prevent it. Again, the restoration of a measure of rent control would remove one of the causes which has led to overcrowding in those areas.
    Clearly, therefore, we cannot come to a final decision in this matter unless we

    371
    have at least at the back of our minds—in the case of my hon. Friends and I, at the front of our minds—the measures that would be needed to deal with the problem of assimilation. This is why we feel that financial help should be given to local authority and voluntary efforts to ensure the integration of Commonwealth immigrants in local communities. In this connection, our party is setting up a working party to study these problems.
    There are, of course, a number of vital issues. A number of other important steps have to be taken which I should be out of order to outline in detail tonight. [An Hon. Member: "Hear, hear."] They are relevant to whether the Act continues. I merely make passing reference to them. They should include, for example, the maximum facilities to provide for Commonwealth students to come here for university education and other courses, to understand our ways of living and to understand the solutions which we propose to the various social, political and economic problems facing the Commonwealth countries. There is great need to promote interchange of visits of Commonwealth citizens, especially through trade unions and co-operative and other organisations, to this country and of our own students to Commonwealth countries. All these are relevant to the decision which we have to take tonight.
    Every one of us recognises—it was said from both sides in the earlier debate this evening—that this problem will not be solved purely, or even at all, by controls or by any action taken in this country. The large numbers who seek entry into Britain are an index of the poverty and of the lack of employment opportunity in so many areas of the Commonwealth. We are not discharging our duty to the Commonwealth until or unless we take adequate steps, directly and through the appropriate Commonwealth and United Nations organisations, to increase the flow of economic aid to those areas and to expand Commonwealth trade with them, to enable them to raise living standards to the point where emigration, whether to this country or elsewhere, under the whip of hunger and poverty ceases to be a feature of Commonwealth relations.
    8.15 p.m.
    Those are the general considerations that should be urged as an alternative to what the Government propose, which is the simple continuance of the parts of the Act which we are debating tonight. I have given our proposals to the Government—I have had to sketch them briefly because one knows the difficulties of keeping in order—but the central proposal of all is that the Government, whether Conservative or Labour, should announce their decision now to enter into negotiations with Commonwealth countries to provide agreed measures and arrangements for handling this problem.
    For the reason which I have given—the danger of the hiatus—I have said that if the Government will now announce their acceptance of this policy, we are prepared to allow the Act to continue for a little longer while the negotiations take place and to withdraw the Amendment. If, however, the Government are not prepared to accept this proposal, if they intend to go on as a permanent measure with an Act which was imposed unilaterally and which is still so open to the arguments which I have used and which were used two years age, we shall have no alternative to pressing our Amendment in the Division Lobby.
    The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Brooke.
    Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order. I do not know whether this is a convenient time, Mr. Arbuthnot, to raise a matter relating to the Amendment which has been accepted by the Table Office. On 21st November, the original Amendment was) tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues. On the following day, a similar Amendment was drafted by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party and his colleagues?. Those two Amendments were merged and the Amendment, therefore, subsequently appeared in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the names of my hon. Friends being subsequently appended as if they had signed the original Amendment in support.
    We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition the circumstances in which he would see fit to withdraw the Amendment. In so far as there has been a merger, does the wish of the first six

    373
    signatories to the Amendment act as a complete veto or can the Amendment still be put if it is so wished?
    The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Member wishes the Amendment to be voted upon, he has only to say, "No" at the appropriate time. The point which the hon. Member has made is borne in mind by the Chair. The additional names appeared on the Notice Paper, but the ruling is that only six names can appear on the day's Order Paper.
    Mr. Brooke: This is an important matter. It is a human matter. It is of intense importance socially to the present and the future of this country of ours. It is of profound importance to the Commonwealth of which we are the centre, and therefore, so far as I can, I would like to go along in agreement with the right hon. Gentlemen.
    I agree profundly with what he said about Commonwealth students coming here. Of course, he will be aware that the Act imposes no barrier on the passage of Commonwealth students. I look forward to the time when the movement of young people will be more intensive than it is now, both inwards, from the Commonwealth here, and outwards, from here to the Commonwealth, because I believe that the future of the Commonwealth depends to a great extent on cherishing and developing among the younger people of Britain and the Commonwealth lands the Commonwealth idea, and the best way of doing that is for us all to get to know one another.
    If I do not follow up all the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions about aid and so forth it will not be because I am out of sympathy with them but because, Mr. Arbuthnot, I know you would wish me to direct myself first of all to the Amendment.
    I am sorry to say that my brief answer to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment has to be that there is not the smallest chance of achieving effective voluntary control of immigration from Commonwealth countries to Britain by agreement between Commonwealth Governments.
    The history of this matter is important. India and Pakistan imposed control, fairly stringent control, over their emigrants to Britain for a number of
    374
    years. Nevertheless the flow from India and Pakistan began rising, and rising sharply, in 1961, as I will show, despite that control. The West Indian Governments had been asked by the British Government, and they replied that they were not prepared to impose any control on the issue of passports for emigration to Britain. They were not prepared to impose any control except in the case of old people or unaccompanied children or people with criminal records. Now this was the time before the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was in existence, when the prevailing immigration was from the West Indies and, as I have said, the suggestion of voluntary control at the other end was refused.
    It was precisely against this background that we were forced in 1961 to legislate—forced to legislate. My predecessor, as the Committee knows, did this most reluctantly and only because by then it had become clear that control by voluntary agreement was not feasible, and experience since has shown how right he was. If any fault can be found it may be that he went on too long hoping against hope that the necessity for distasteful legislation could be avoided.
    What are the figures for this period? The inward movement to this country from the West Indies was 16,000 in 1959; 50,000 in 1960 and 66,000 in 1961. From India and Pakistan together it was under 4,000 in 1959, still under 8,000 in 1960, but it leapt to 49,000 in 1961.
    Now as the Committee knows the Act admits dependants, students and visitors in freely. During the first year of control, that is, the period from July, 1962, to June, 1963, 19,000 dependants. 18,000 students and over 180,000 visitors from Commonwealth arrived here quite freely. The only brake is on those coming here to work, and that is done by a system of vouchers. I invite the Committee to think over the figures I am going to give for the first sixteen months of the control, the most up-to-date figures we have, running from July, 1962, up to 25th October, 1963, just a month ago. In those sixteen months 319,000 vouchers were applied for from all parts of the Commonwealth and 284,000 of those applicants were from India and Pakistan. From the rest of the Commonwealth 35,000 vouchers have been applied for; 21,000 of the applicants have got their

    375
    vouchers and 14,000 are waiting for them. But as to India and Pakistan, 38,000 have got their vouchers and 246,000 are waiting for them.
    I ask the Committee to consider these figures—260,000 people applying to come and work in this country and not yet issued with vouchers enabling them to come, 246,000 of those from India and Pakistan; and more applications for vouchers are coming in, now at the rate of nearly 10,000 a week, mostly from India and Pakistan.
    In the light of these figures I must ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to say plainly and clearly whether or not they think there must be some effective control over the rate at which these people can be accepted here. There are a quarter of a million now applying to come to live and work here and fresh applications are coming in at the rate of half a million a year.
    Is the solution to this to try to go back to a system of voluntary control at the other end, the emigration end, a system which proved unworkable even when the numbers, at any rate of Indians and Pakistanis, were tiny compared with what they are now? I ask the right hon. Gentleman on what basis he would suggest that we should ask the other Commonwealth Governments to exercise voluntary control? Would he suggest that the Indian and Pakistani Governments be asked to impose a far stricter limitation on their applicants than the rest of the Commonwealth was asked to do? What would India and Pakistan think of that? Or, as India and Pakistan are producing nine-tenths and more of the applicants, are they to have nine-tenths of the places and the rest of the Commonwealth only one-tenth? What would the West Indies or Nigeria think of that?
    Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman has asked what the Pakistanis and the Indians would think about this. May we ask him what he thinks about the present position with regard to C voucher applicants, which I understand are on a "first come, first served" basis? Is it true that no quota system at all is applied in regard to all the various countries in the Commonwealth, that it is simply a matter of "first come, first served" and that,
    376
    therefore, the Pakistanis and Indians, because there are more applications, have a better chance of coming here than the Jamaicans?
    Mr. Brooke: It is a matter of "first come, first served", subject to the fact that we have made a rule that not more than 25 per cent, of all the vouchers shall go to any one country. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is prepared to intervene later in the debate to explain the voucher system, which, as the hon. Gentleman probably realises, is operated by his Department and not mine.
    I have been seeking—I do not want to make a long speech—simply to present the problem to the Committee. Spread over the last seven or eight years, Britain has already accepted more than half a million Commonwealth immigrants. They are part of our community. Most of them are here to stay. At the time that the control started in the summer of 1962 there was a good deal of unemployment among them. It is now lens than half what it was then. Of course there are some idlers and law breakers among them—so there are in any community—but the overwhelming majority of these immigrants are hard working and keen to earn their living by doing their job well, and several essential services—transport and nursing in particular—would be in grave difficulty without them.
    But it is perfectly obvious, particularly if one looks at the pressure on housing accommodation in those areas where most of the immigrants choose to congregate themselves of their own choice, that we cannot absorb unlimited numbers of immigrants from anywhere.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. H. Wilson: What proportion of the vouchers granted have not been taken up?
    Mr. Brooke: I want to give a few more figures later.
    This is a densely populated country. We simply have not the capacity to absorb unlimited numbers. There must be a reasonable rate. In everybody's interest—not least in the interest of the immigrants themselves—there must be some regulator, as it were, over the rate of immigration.

    377
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I have the task of administering Part I of the Act, the part which we are asking the Committee to prolong. There was, of course, no previous experience of a control like this but it has proved entirely workable in practice. In the first twelve months of control—July, 1962, to June, 1963—the net inward movement from the whole Commonwealth was 34,000. Of these, 8,000 were men and 26,000 were women and children. Vouchers issued totalled 44,000 and 14,000 of these were presented on entry. Those are figures from the White Paper which was laid before Parliament. I thought, however, it might be helpful if I gave also the figures for the last four months.
    Since the 1st July, 1963, the rate of entry has quickened and this was, I think, mainly because last year immediately after the control started immigration was for a time almost nonexistent. Those who had been wishing to come came in before the control started. The other cause of the quickening is clearly that the use of their vouchers by Indians and Pakistanis, which at first was very slow, is now much quicker. The total inflow from the Commonwealth in the last four months has been 30,000. In that time 14,000 vouchers have been presented as against 10,000* in the whole of the previous twelve months.
    Now I come to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. In the first sixteen months of the control, 60,000 vouchers have been issued and 24,000 actually presented. One cannot simply substract 24,000 from 60,000 and say that 36,000 are outstanding for, of course, a considerable number of the vouchers will have lapsed because, after six months, if a voucher is not presented its validity expires.
    Obviously, at first we could not be certain how many of the vouchers issued would be presented. We were feeling our way as one always does when one is administering new powers for the first time, and I want to stress that it is impossible under the Act to predetermine how many Commonwealth immigrants will arrive by how many vouchers one issues. Vouchers are only needed for those who want to come and live and
    * Note: See Mr. Brooke's correction in column 405.
    378
    work here. There is no control over the number of dependants who may arrive.
    Mr. John Diamond: The right hon. Gentleman makes it clear that there are three sections. Two are not controlled and the third is controlled by the voucher system. But he says that the voucher system shows that it is impossible to control immigration by vouchers. What system of control does he say that we have?
    Mr. Brooke: Evidently the hon. Gentleman misheard. I did not say that it was impossible to control immigrants by vouchers. I was addressing myself to the terms of the Act. The Act imposes control by voucher on those who wish to come and work here but, rightly, does not impose any control on those who wish to come as students or as temporary visitors or—perhaps most important—on those who are dependants of the people who have already come from the Commonwealth to settle here.
    I hope that it will be agreed on both sides of the Committee that there should be no control of them. If a man is here he should have the right to have his wife and children here. The point I was making, because it is misunderstood, maybe not in this Committee but outside, is that we cannot say, "I am going to issue x vouchers in a certain time and it will follow that x or 2x or 3x Commonwealth immigrants will come in during that time".
    Mr. Diamond: Exactly. It does not work.
    Mr. Brooke: It works extremely effectively, as far as people who are coming here to work are concerned. All we are doing is to ask that the Act should be continued for another year as it stands. No question arises this evening of imposing control on dependants.
    Mrs. Barbara Castle: Is it not clear, from the big discrepancy which the Home Secretary has admitted to exist between applications for vouchers and the numbers taken up when granted, that the rather alarming figures which he gave us of the numbers waiting to come in are totally unrealistic? It merely means that many of the applicants have misunderstood the purpose of the voucher. They may have thought

    379
    that it meant a free passage. Clearly what matters is the figures of vouchers taken up. These are a much better indication of the kind of influx we should have even if the Act were withdrawn.
    Mr. Brooke:With respect, the hon. Lady is mistaken. The ordinary person who applies for a voucher does so because he wishes to come to this country. There are over a quarter of a million applications for vouchers which have not yet been granted. Neither I nor anybody else would seek to argue that if control were lifted a quarter of a million people would immediately arrive in this country. Nevertheless, a very substantial percentage of them would do so. We must take that into account.
    I am not claiming that the Act is perfect. We have to learn by experience. But the experience of its working during the first year has been far smoother than the critics foreshadowed. The only question before the Committee is whether it should be continued unamended for another twelve months.
    I submit that the Opposition Amendment is based on a wholly unrealistic idea that an effective system of voluntary control at the other end by Commonwealth agreement is attainable. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition can point to one country which thinks that it is or which is urging this on us now as a policy. We have received no suggestion from any part of the Commonwealth that this could be done better by effective control at the overseas end than at the British end.
    Mr. H. Wilson:During the period the Act has been in operation have the Government consulted the Commonwealth on this question? Have they asked any Commonwealth country whether they would be prepared to have voluntary quotas? We know that they are not keen to have any control at all, and that is why they have not made this suggestion, but have the Government put this suggestion to them?
    Mr. Brooke: We have kept in close touch with Commonwealth countries over the operation of the Act. We know that the West Indian Government informed us earlier that they were not prepared to impose any control at that
    380
    end. We know that, despite the efforts of the Indian and Pakistani Governments to effect control over the issue of passports, they were not productive in keeping immigration from Pakistan and India to this country down to the sort of numbers which we could absorb. The simple truth is that Britain has no choice; either we continue the Act or there will be no effective control at all. That means that if the Opposition vote against continuing the Act tonight they will be voting for no effective control at all.
    Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The final words of the Home Secretary are indeed a very sad indictment of his view of the cohesion of the British Commonwealth. He is in effect saying about the chances of voluntary agreement, "It will not work. There is no possibility of doing so, so we will not try." If what the right hon. Gentleman is saying has not penetrated the minds of all hon. Gentlemen opposite, I shall paraphrase it and perhaps put it in simpler terms.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that before the passage of this Act it had not been possible to get Commonwealth cooperation. He went on to say, "We have kept in close touch"—which is a Ministerial way of not answering the question—"but we are confident that no form of agreement can be arrived at". I would have thought that one was entitled at least to ask the Government to try before they conclude that our relationships with our equal partners in the Commonwealth are such that any discussions are doomed to failure in advance.
    But perhaps the value that is attached to the Commonwealth is slightly greater in some parts of the House than in others. The bitter opposition to this Bill led to vigorous Amendments being moved and some carried with the assistance of some Conservative Members who, to their great credit, were prepared to fight the backwoodsmen on their own side. I think particularly of the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), who I am sure many hon. Members are delighted to see in the post he occupies in the Colonial Office. He and others were prepared to stand up and vote against the Government of the day, with the result that the Bill was considerably amended and improved.

    381
    There were three reasons for the bitter opposition. The first was that there had been no effective Commonwealth consultation about the Bill. Either a distinguished West Indian Prime Minister was a liar or he was to be trusted when he maintained that the first he knew of the Bill was when he read about it in his daily newspaper. That was the extent of Commonwealth consultation.
    That did not establish a precedent for the party opposite. They do not consult the Commonwealth when they think it is unlikely to be pleased with what it is to be told. That is why the Prime Minister of Canada read about Suez in his daily newspaper, and why the Commonwealth countries were told in another connection that Britain had decided to apply to join the European Economic Community at the moment when it was most disadvantageous to the Commonwealth.
    So there is a precedent of non-consultation for this great party of the Empire, a party to which my grandfather belonged. He sat on the benches opposite and was known as "Empire Jack", because in those days the Tory Party really minded about the Empire, as it was known then. Failure to consult creates no new precedent, and therefore must come as no surprise to hon. Members on this side.
    That was the first reason for the bitter opposition to the Bill—the fact that a matter which was going to vitally affect the economy of many poor and developing territories in the Commonwealth was effected by a Bill the terms of which had never been discussed with them, and on which they had never bee n asked for their views.
    The second reason for the opposition was that the Bill when introduced bore all the hallmarks of racialism in its most blatant form. I say straight away that this was not the motive which prompted the present Foreign Secretary to introduce the Measure. He is a humane man. Perhaps in the Tory Party that has been his great drawback. He has been too humane for their liking. They prefer the wielder of the axe to the man with a human heart. [Laughter.] There may be some human hearts on the benches opposite, but there is very seldom much blood to be found coursing through the
    382
    veins of hon. Members opposite when an issue such as this is before the House of Commons.
    Sir Cyril Osborne: Do not be so sanctimonious.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Thorpe: Most surprising of all is when one hears the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) telling anybody in this House—not excluding the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black)—not to be sanctimonious. But if the Foreign Secretary was a humane man, the speeches of some hon. Members opposite and particularly the hon. Member for Louth—we all remember when, like some poor man's Hailsham, he appeared on television saying, "Do you want this to be a country of black men?" I remember that broadcast very well—
    Sir C. Osborne: Well, do you want it to be?
    Mr. Thorpe: Pavlov's dog is still at work. Certainly the speeches by many hon. Members opposite which led up to the passage of this Measure reasonably led the Commonwealth to believe that there was an element of racialism in it.
    The third reason for bitter opposition was that this was the first time in the history of the British Commonwealth that we were restricting entry into this country. We were the first colonial Power in Europe to restrict free entry. Not even Portugal has yet got round to that mechanism.
    We are being asked whether we are prepared to renew Part I and Schedule 1 of the Act, which give certain powers to immigration officers. I do not share the pessimism of the Home Secretary about the possibilities of Commonwealth consultation.
    Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Rubbish.
    Mr. Thorpe: Although I hear the word "rubbish" from the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) I am afraid that tonight, although he is in a coalition with the Home Secretary, he is in strange company, because the former Prime Minister had a high regard for the possibilities of Commonwealth consultation. That was why, after an event which directly touched

    383
    the Act, when there was another distressing incident, in respect of Chief Enaharo, and it was felt that the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, needed to be brought up to date, the former Prime Minister indicated that the law as it was must be carried out but that this was a case where there should obviously be Commonwealth consultation and discussions to see whether or not some suitable arrangement could be made concerning questions of extradition and deportation. However pessimistic the Home Secretary may be, it is fair to say that the former Prime Minister had a slightly more optimistic view of the possibilities of success of Commonwealth consultation, and a slightly greater enthusiasm for them.
    I believe that there are many matters which could and should be discussed among Commonwealth Prime Ministers. We might discuss the whole question of immigration, exclusion, expulsion, political asylum and extradition. I shall answer the point raised by the Home Secretary about quotas, because I believe that even within the framework of the present immigration laws there should be a far greater degree of fairness as between one territory and another. He has said that under the present Act it is possible for 50 per cent, of all immigrants to come from Pakistan and India on the 25 per cent, plus 25 per cent, basis. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is thinking hard. May I refresh his memory? The Home Secretary said that at the most 25 per cent, of the total applications granted, that is the total vouchers granted, could go to one country. Therefore, if India and Pakistan are granted as many vouchers as are successfully applied for, it follows that 50 per cent, of the vouchers issued—in theory and almost in practice—could be awarded to those two countries. So I believe that even under the existing law there is unfairness as between, say, the West Indies on the one hand, which depends greatly on migration, and India and Pakistan on the other. Even within the framework of the present Act there is injustice and I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
    I hope he will mention also a fact which is perhaps not generally known to hon. Members. It is that the number
    384
    of refusals at the ports has greatly increased in the past four months. I am informed that up to 30th June there had been a total of 246 exclusions at the ports. That is the total for the whole period since the passage of the Act. But in the four months subsequent to date there have been 216 refusals. So there have been very nearly as many refusals in the four months as in the whole of the preceding period. It would be interesting for the Committee to know why. Indeed, it would be an indication of how the present Act is being operated if we could be given an explanation for this staggering increase.
    I believe that there is great inequality regarding deportation. In the operation of this Act there were inequalities. One court might order deportation for what was a minor matter whereas another court, perhaps for something more than a misdemeanour, might not order deportation. In this matter I think that the Home: Secretary has brought about some measure of uniformity and I pay tribute to him for that. But it is an extraordinary commentary that if one considers the deportation figures, the greatest—
    The Temporary Chairman:Order. The hon. Member must not go into detail about deportations. We are not considering deportation.
    Mr. Thorpe:If you please, Mr. Arbuthnot Without going into figures, may I make a comment which turns very much on the merits of that half of the Act which -we are being asked to perpetuate? It is that the recommendations for deportation and the actual orders made in respect of deportations for citizens of the Irish Republic, who are of course specifically excluded from the operation of this Bill, are higher than the number of recommendations and deportations for the whole of the rest of the Commonwealth added together. This, clearly, is a very grave defect in the Act if it is to be allowed to continue. Here we have the position that there is no control at all with regard to aliens whose deportation rate is far greater—
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. We are dealing with immigrants and not deportation.
    Mr. Thorpe:I think that the point has been made and I will not press it.

    385
    As a result of the discussions during the Committee stage and many of the undertakings which were wrung out of the former Home Secretary—the present Foreign Secretary—because of representations made not only from this side of the Committee but by hon. Members opposite who were genuinely worried about the matter, I concede that in the period in which this Act has been in operation it has been enforced far more humanely than any of us would have dared to hope. I say that without any qualification. But what do we see if we consider the effect of the Act? We see, first, those who applied for vouchers under Category A, that is to say, those who have jobs to go to. The Home Secretary did not break down the figures and I fear that my figures are only up to the publication of the White Paper on 30th June. But I think that the percentages are comparable. There were 7,000 issued for the 10,000 applied for. I think it true to say, therefore, that a very high percentage of those applied for in this category were granted vouchers. If one is faced with the fact that this Act is in operation, I think it true to say that it has worked reasonably well in respect of that type of application.
    Regarding category B vouchers, given to those with special skills which are needed, there has been little difficulty in securing a voucher. In Category C the percentage of those who have successfully applied for vouchers is the lowest of all. The Home Secretary has given the latest figures. In June the figures were 29,000 issued and 145,000 were applied for.
    I wish to ask questions of the Home Secretary on the basis that the Act is to continue because in that event we shall want assurances. Then T wish to say what I think ought to happen regarding the Amendment under discussion. But it is right that subject to the 25 per cent, limit which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, that is to say, that no country can get more than 25 per cent, of the applications, the "first come, first served", principle applies.
    Is it right that on the basis that 30,000 were issued under category C—or 29,000 to be exact—there are already enough applications in the pipeline for
    386
    the next three or four years without any fresh applicants coming forward? We know that 145,000 applications were made and 29,000 were awarded on the "first come, first served" basis. Are the remainder to keep their place in the queue, or does everyone reapply after a period? If the former is the case, Pakistan and India, who have got into the queue first, are to have the lion's share and it will be a very long time indeed before the West Indies, Cyprus and other countries will be able to catch up.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman if we can have a reply to this. Does he think that on the assumption that this Act is to continue there ought to be some more equitable distribution of vouchers than the "first come, first served" principle, possibly some sort of quota system for countries of the Commonwealth according to their needs and, perhaps, if a particular quota is not taken up by one country it can be distributed among other members of the Commonwealth who want to exceed their quota? I press that very hard.
    It is true that in the first year 130,000 Pakistanis and Indians applied for vouchers and only 6,000 West Indians applied. In a sense it was the fault of the West Indies for not coming forward or not being aware of the "first come, first served" basis, but this has meant that the West Indies, who have always relied on migration for their economy, have been very much left out in the cold.
    In regard to the question of free entry, which was the third reason why the Immigration Bill was passed, I concede straight away, although I was bitterly opposed to the Bill and am still bitterly opposed to the Act, that obviously there are certain limited benefits which have flowed from it. [Interruption.] I am not as ungenerous as the hon. Member for Louth and I shall say what I think those benefits are. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet will allow me to continue now, I shall give way in a moment, when I have elaborated this point.
    9.0 p.m.
    In so far as it is easier to obtain a category A voucher—that is to say, for a man who actually has a job—than it is to obtain a category C voucher—that

    387
    is, for a man who merely comes here without a job and joins the general labour pool—obviously it is preferable to encourage a Commonwealth migrant to fix up a specific job before he comes to this country. He should do that for his own sake and it is better than that he should come in on a category C basis. I accept straight away that this is a benefit, but I do not see that this Act is necessary to achieve that objective. Clearly it is a very great advantage and before the Ad: this was not possible. I do not think there was any representative from the Ministry of Labour here in Jamaica to help in regard to jobs. If there was he must have had a very skeleton type of staff.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: May we take it that the hon. Member is speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party on these matters and that this is the party's considered view and that this was not only its original opposition to the Measure, but continued opposition? In elaborating the remarks I think he is about to make, will the hon. Member say what the party's proposals are as to the way in which limited immigration, if at all, should be so provided?
    Mr. Thorpe: I appreciate the anxiety of hon. Members opposite to know precisely what the views of both Opposition parties are because we know that this is a matter to which the party opposite attaches considerable electoral importance. We know some of the remarks which have been made in by-elections, no doubt not by hon. and right hon. Members opposite but by their supporters in areas where there happens to be a large coloured population sometimes suffering from a housing shortage which, strangely enough, is not of their creation but of the Government's. Therefore, I can understand that the hon. Member wants to probe and I shall be delighted to satisfy him. [Interruption.] Of course it is always difficult to give one's conclusions if one is continually interrupted.
    Of the 45,000 vouchers which have been issued, only 15,000 have been taken up. The point which the late Hugh Gaitskell made in the Second Reading debate on the Immigration Bill, in what I thought one of the most brilliant speeches which in a very short period
    388
    in this House I ever heard him make, was that there is a precise correlation between the rate of migration from a Commonwealth country to this country and the rate of unemployment and availability of jobs in this country. I think it very interesting that only one-third—although the figures which the Home Secretary gave were 24,000 and 60,000—at any rate a small percentage,of those who have actually obtained vouchers came to this country.
    The reason for this is that migration is controlled very largely by the employment prospects in this country. It is true that there was a massive bulge before the introduction of the Act, but there is no doubt that this was partly caused by a frenzied attempt to beat the ban. We are back, under control, to approximately the net migration rate of 1958 and 1957.
    I have been asked, and I will make perfectly plain, what our position is. Two factors concern me about the Commonwealth. The first is that if we in this country have the benefit of a higher standard of living than have some of the less fortunate members of the Commonwealth, and if we are to continue to share it with them, as we have done; in the past and as we are trying to do now—hence, for example, turning the Colonial Development Corporation into CD. and W.—which is obviously the view of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, then I am anxious that those benefits should be shared among members of the Commonwealth as fairly as possible. Under the present Act that is not happening. The lion's share is going to the two main Asian members of the Commonwealth while other members, the African and West Indian, are clearly not getting a fair share.
    The second consideration is that people coming to this country should be encouraged to come as what I might call category A migrants as opposed to category C migrants, that they shall be assisted in obtaining jobs. For example, the long-term agreement with Barbados whereby a specific number of migrants is taken annually from Barbados for work at the London Passenger Transport Board is a very good thing for Barbados, because it can give certainty

    389
    to a percentage of its employable population, and it also produces a vital source of labour for the London Passenger Transport Board.
    Having said that, I believe that there is a case for some form of co-operation. [Interruption.] I do not see anything funny in co-operation between the London Passenger Transport Board and the Government of Barbados whereby that country provides a certain number of workers every year, and guarantees to provide them, for service on our buses and underground. However, I believe that in return we have the right to claim freer entry than at present exists into certain Commonwealth countries.
    In some Commonwealth countries there are barriers which are wholly unreasonable, and we have the right to negotiate with them and to try to improve the position for migrants from this country. Migration from this country is very large and the number of 350,000 who have come into the country is only some 30,000 fewer than the number who have gone out. We must see whether we can apportion some form of quota system among various members of the Commonwealth.
    One advantage of the Act is that prior to its passage there was great exploitation of Pakistanis and Indians who came here on what was virtually an indenture system. Their passages were paid for here and 30 or 40, and sometimes 50, per cent, of their income had to be paid to the person who had made their arrival here possible. It was for that reason that they had to lodge their return fare with the local magistrates. That abuse has been considerably checked. All of these are matters which are the subject of Commonwealth negotiations. The real question is this, and I ask it quite plainly. Do we say, on the one hand, that we dislike this Commonwealth Immigrants Act in principle and practice and that, therefore, we will scrap it tonight and start negotiations with the Commonwealth? Or do we say on the other hand—I face this quite frankly—that we object to this Act in principle; but we think that it has been more humanely administered than we had hoped it would be when it was introduced, but that we are not satisfied with it and we would prefer to put this problem on a Commonwealth basis?
    390
    I would say, and I accept what the Home Secretary said, that there has been difficulty in getting agreement from Jamaica and some of the other islands in the West Indies. I think that politically we may well be in a stronger position if we can say that we are prepared to give up this Act and merge it in some Commonwealth plan when there is an agreed plan by which all the members of the Commonwealth will agree to abide, and that we might have to reconsider the position if agreement is not arrived at. This seems to me to be a far more honourable approach than saying that we do not think the Commonwealth will agree with us, that we have had difficulty in getting agreement before and, therefore, we shall not even try.
    If the Home Secretary is prepared to give an assurance that the explanation of this massive increase in refusals at the ports—
    Mr. Brooke: Perhaps I may answer that point straight away. There is no mystery about it. The ratio of refusals to entrants has virtually unchanged in the last four months. There has been a much higher rate of entrants and, therefore, there has been a much higher rate of refusals.
    Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was quoting from a letter which his Department sent to somebody who had inquired. The implication in the letter was that the increase was thought to be somewhat surprising. If I heard the Home Secretary's figures aright, the rate of inflow in the last four months has not been proportionately greater than the rate of inflow in the preceding sixteen months of the Act.
    We are now in this position, that whilst 246 have been refused entry over a period of, I think, 16 months—I am subject to correction—216 have been refused over a period of four months. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the rate of increased inflow is in direct ratio to the rate of increased refusals? Is he suggesting that the rate of inflow has increased four times? Unless he is, the logic of his argument cannot stand. There has been an enormous increase in the number of refusals at ports, and perhaps the

    391
    Minister will deal with this point when he replies.
    We have asked about the quota system—the "first come, first served" system—and about refusals at the ports. I hope the Government will reconsider this question of Commonwealth consultation, because unless they are genuinely prepared to start discussions with the Commonwealth in order to achieve these two vital objects—first, a fair distribution amongst the Commonwealth, and secondly, the encouragement of voucher A category as opposed to voucher C—I for one will certainly vote for the Amendment.
    Major Sir Frank Markham:May I put a direct question to the hon. Gentleman? Was he speaking for himself or for the Liberal Party? He has not made it clear. Will the hon. Gentleman give the House a direct answer to that question?
    Mr. Thorpe: Certainly. I was speaking for the Liberal Party.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Norman Pannell: The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) knows that my views on this subject do not exactly coincide with his. He based his objections to the renewal of the Act on two main grounds: first, that there should be consultation; second, that the Act was based on racialism. The first point has been effectively answered by the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Thorpe: I am most anxious to correct any wrong impression. I did not suggest that the Act is operated on racial lines. I said that one of the reasons why the Bill was opposed initially was that it had come into being in such a way that it was thought to be anti-colour, and, if I may say so, the speeches of the hon. Gentleman gave credence to this. I am not suggesting that this is the way in which the Home Secretary is operating it.
    Mr. Pannell:It seems that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make another speech. He certainly did mention that his objection to the Bill was based on an attitude to racialism. Obviously, as the figures which my right hon. Friend has given show, the vast majority of
    392
    applications for vouchers for entry into this country come from coloured people and, as a consequence, since most of the people concerned in the question are coloured, any restriction can be said to be colour bias by those who are prejudiced.
    I entirely reject that point of view. The Act itself is entirely impartial; it covers all parts of the Commonwealth.
    Mr. John Hall: Except the Irish.
    Mr. Pannell:Ireland is not in the Commonwealth.
    The Bill was strenuously and bitterly opposed through all its stages by hon. and right hon. Members opposite in the Labour Party and in the Liberal Party. I think that many of them have modified their views during the operation of the Act. I believe that a great many of them have had pressure brought to bear on them in their constituencies regarding the problems which arise.
    Mr. Donald Wade rose—
    Mr. Pannell: I cannot keep on giving way. I vail give way in a moment or two when I have finished this passage.
    The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West must not persist.
    Mr. Pannell: In this matter, sentiment is struggling with reason. Many people who would like the Bill continued have, I think, given way to sentiment. Sentiment has triumphed, and that is the reason for the Amendment. I give way to the hon. Gentleman now.
    Mr. Wade: There was something of an accusation, an unfair accusation, I think, in the words which the hon. Gentleman used. There are many West Indians and Pakistanis in my constituency, but I have nor. had pressure brought to bear on me.
    Mr. Pannell:If one hon. Member has not had pressure brought to bear upon him, that does not mean that others have not. I know of cases where such pressure has been brought.
    If hon. and right hon. Members of the Opposition, the Opposition of either party, vote for the Amendment tonight, they should declare—this does not apply

    393
    to the Liberal Party because the possibility of its getting power does not exist—that, if they got power, they would repeal the Act. The Liberals should equally honestly say that they would support such a repeal if individual Liberal Members were returned. I, for my part, would freely accept that challenge at any General Election.
    I depart from the views expressed by the Opposition in that I think that the Act was reluctantly and apologetically introduced into the House. [An Hon. Member: "How apologetic was the hon. Gentleman himself?"] I disagreed with the apologetic manner in which it was introduced. I consider that the Act has been timidly applied. We have been given figures, some of them most inaccurate, by the hon. Member for Devon, North. I hope to correct some of his mistakes in the course of my speech.
    In the 18 months prior to the coming into force of the Act, immigration into this country totalled nearly 250,000.
    Mr. Charles Loughlin: What was the reason for that heavy immigration?
    Mr. Pannell:We know the reasons for it. I do not want to go into them. I am just giving the figures. The hon. Member may have the opportunity of making his own speech later. I do not think there is any inhibition this evening on anyone speaking.
    There was, quite naturally, a dramatic change soon after the Act came into force. The figures given to me show that the net influx in the first six months was 2,503, a very small figure. For the next six months ended 30th June this year, the figure was over 30,000. Therefore, the tempo has been rising and, as my right hon. Friend said, it has continued to rise, so that the next influx in the four months ended 30th October was 30,000. If that rate continues, there will be an annual net influx of 90,000 immigrants from the Commonwealth.
    In the eight years from 1955 to 1962, 500,000 immigrants came in, a figure which my right hon. Friend gave, which, despite the tremendous influx in the last 18 months, gives an average for the eight years of about 60,000 a year. I am gravely disappointed that the implementation of this Act seems to mean
    394
    that we are prepared to accept a figure for immigration of 90,000 a year, 50 per cent, more than the average for those years when the problem was giving great anxiety to my right hon. Friend's predecessor.
    The hon. Member for Devon, North. spoke about vouchers. I want to put the record straight, because his figures are very out of date. As my right hon. Friend said, the number of applications was 319,000, and 60,000 vouchers were issued. Of those, 12,000 have lapsed, which means that 48,000 remain valid. Of those, according to the figures which I have received, 29,000 have been used, which means that there are roughly 20,000 valid vouchers outstanding.
    It is pertinent to consider how these vouchers have been issued in the different categories. In category A—that is, those with jobs to come to—9,572 have been issued. In category B—those with special skills—13,393 have been issued. In category C—those with neither of those qualifications—37,084 have been issued. It is extraordinary that in a period of high unemployment vouchers should have been so freely issued to people who have no home or job to come to and no special skills to offer.
    The hon. Member for Devon, North, said that there is a correlation between unemployment and immigration. Surely that theory is exploded when we realise that in a period of high unemployment, higher than for many years, applications to come to this country amounted to 319,000. The argument is that people would not want to come here if there were high unemployment in this country, yet in this period of much higher than average unemployment there were 319,000 applications. What would have happened if there had been no Commonwealth Immigrants Act? How many would have come in then? The figure would have been staggering, especially when we consider that for every immigrant who comes in at least one dependant arrives, and on the average last year one and a half dependants. Therefore, the figure of 319,000 would be inflated to something like 800,000.
    Mrs. Barbara Castle: Is not the hon. Member effectively proving that the institution of control has stimu-

    395
    lated applications, which is the result we suggested would happen, and does not the fact that when the vouchers were given on a much smaller scale than the number of applications even this small number of vouchers was not taken up, prove that by instituting control the Act has confused the people concerned and has ruined the natural regulator of which we on this side spoke?
    Mr. Pannell: I consider that a specious argument. Clearly, if 319,000 people applied for vouchers, there were 319,000 people who wanted to come to this country. That is the point I was making.
    Mrs. Castle: If that argument is correct, why did they not take up the vouchers when they came here?
    Mr. Pannell: Hon. Members know, many of them better than I, the grave difficulties which are arising in housing with multi-occupation. There will be an opportunity of discussing this in the debate tomorrow on the Housing Bill. I have no desire to go into it in detail tonight. I do say, however, that the Housing Act, 1961, sought to make a contribution to the solution of that problem, but I do not think that it has done so. The problem still exists in acute form, causing great distress and difficulty in many parts of our great cities.
    We hope that the new Bill will be more effective. It is, however, the height of foolishness to allow the position to be aggravated by the influx of tens of thousands more immigrants until that problem is solved. I feel this very strongly. Every 10,000 who come here make the problem worse.
    Now, I shall say something that will create much controversy among hon. Members opposite. I am not shirking this fact, because it is the duty of the House of Commons to take all factors into consideration without prejudice and without fear or favour. I refer to the question of crime. Successive Home Secretaries have repeatedly stated that the incidence of crime among Commonwealth immigrants is no higher than among the indigenous population.
    I have pointed out, and I think it has been accepted, that in regard to two
    396
    crimes that is not the case. In regard to living on immoral earnings, more than half of the convictions in the Metropolitan Police area are of Commonwealth immigrants. I have the figures if any hon. Member wishes to challenge me. Since these immigrants represent only a small proportion—1 or 2 per cent.—of the population, one must admit that a 50 per cent, figure for these crimes is disproportionate.
    9.30 p.m.
    As to the drug traffic, in Cannabis or Indian hemp, or being in possession of dangerous drugs, more than 50 per cent, of the convictions have been of Commonwealth immigrants. Now, however, we have a book recently published by F. H. McClintock, Fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge, and Assistant Director of Research in the Institute of Criminology, entitled Crimes of Violence, in which he points out that
    "It is quite clear that the broad proportion of such Irish and Commonwealth immigrants who are convicted of crimes of violence is far greater than that found in the indigenous population".
    He gives figures and shows that over 30 per cent, of attacks on the police are attributable to Irish and Commonwealth immigrants in almost exactly equal proportions, 15 per cent, for Commonwealth immigrants and 15 per cent, for the Irish. That has risen in recent years. In 1950 Commonwealth immigrants were responsible for only 2½ per cent, of attacks on the police. That proportion had risen in 1960 to 15 per cent. Since the great influx of Commonwealth immigrants has been since 1960—half have come in since 1960—it is reasonable to assume that the number of crimes committed by them and its proportion to the total has substantially risen in the meantime. In fact 13 per cent, of all convictions in 1960 were of Commonwealth immigrants.
    Mr. Thorpe: Including the Irish?
    Mr. Pannell: I am excluding the Irish from that figure. The Irish do not come into this Bill. It would be out of order for me to mention them. I am sorely tempted to follow the hon. Member for Devon, North and go into the question of deportation, but I have expressed my views on that before, and I am inhibited from doing that this evening,

    397
    but obviously that question is very pertinent to the points I have just been discussing.
    I know that many Members wish to speak and so I shall conclude by saying that never has any Act had greater justification, on the grounds of housing, on the grounds of unemployment, on the grounds of public order. So on all those grounds this Act has been essential. I. contrary to those who have spoken from the other side of the Committee, hope that this Act will not only be renewed, but that it will be more strictly implemented, and I confidently ask the Committee emphatically to reject this Amendment.
    Mr. Frank McLeavy: I think that all on both sides of the Committee will agree that the problem we are discussing this evening is an extremely human one. Whether the question be the interest of the immigrant or the interest of the citizen of this country we are bound to feel that there is a profound human element to be considered. I believe that in giving consideration to the operation of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act and the wisdom of its continuation we must come back to the real issue involved. To my mind, it is whether we agree with a controlled immigration into this country; that is to say, whether we think that, in all the circumstances, it is wiser to regulate the flow of immigrants so that they can be absorbed into the industrial life of the nation.
    I believe that controlled immigration is both in the interests of our country and of those wishing to come here from overseas. It is in the interest of the country, like that of other Commonwealth nations, in that it enables the country to regulate the intake according to the number and type required to meet our industrial needs. It is in the best interests of the immigrant for the very sound reason that it ensures that when he arrives in Britain he has a job to go to. I know of nothing more distressing than a person arriving in a strange land and finding no work available. Parliament surely has a clear duty to avoid such circumstances arising.
    Australia in particular is taking a large number of emigrants from this country annually, and they have to be medically fit, of certain ages and
    398
    required for industry and agricultural development. While I believe it is good that people from Britain should go overseas—[An Hon. Member: "Black and white?"]—to seek new opportunities of reward for their labours, I believe it is regrettable that we in Britain are losing so many of our scientific and other skilled workers when they are so urgently needed at home. That is another matter to which, though not tonight, Parliament must give very urgent consideration.
    I say with all sincerity that we can no longer apply the old policy of an open door to all who wish to come to this country. My hon. Friends have got to understand what this involves.
    Mr. Diamond: Some of us understand it better than my hon. Friend does, and I hope to get an opportunity to explain why I say that.
    Mr. McLeavy: Perhaps some do. At least I am prepared to concede that there may be a difference of opinion about the method of approach to the problem. I do not charge anyone with lack of sincerity about the points of view they put before the Committee. It is not very easy for me to speak tonight of this matter, but I am speaking because I believe that it is my duty to the people I represent in Bradford and also to the nation, and I intend to carry out that duty whatever the cost may be.
    We must say clearly that, while we welcome Commonwealth citizens to our country—I want them as much as anyone else—they must be absorbed into our industrial requirements. In Bradford we have a large influx of immigrants from Pakistan and India—[Interruption.] My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) will get his chance afterwards. I am making my speech now.
    Mr. Paget: Will my hon. Friend—
    Mr. McLeavy: No, I will not give way at all.
    The immigrants from Pakistan and India in Bradford now total about 10,000 and there are to be a further 2,000 immigrants from India, plus a few from West Africa. I want hon. Members to let these facts sink in. These immigrants now constitute about 10 per cent, of the male labour force in the city. The vast

    399
    majority have found suitable employment and are doing a very good job of work, but, unfortunately, we have in our midst a number who are still unemployed.
    Hon. Members must recognise that there are a number of large cities like Bradford confronted with problems arising from large numbers of immigrants living in their midst. Parliament cannot ignore the growing social problems relating to housing, health and other matters which have been aggravated, and will continue to be aggravated, by the influx of Commonwealth workers.
    The Government should urgently examine the special problems of cities like Bradford to see how far it is possible, financially and in other ways, to help the local authorities to grapple with this problem. I say to the Government quite frankly that they cannot just allow people to come to this country without taking some responsibility for their housing and for the social services. They must not put it all on the backs of the local authorities who are already hard pressed.
    I suggest that the Government should carry out a national survey of the problem in large towns and cities where there are aggregations of immigrants. I say quite sincerely that I want as many Commonwealth citizens to come here as it is physically possible for the country to take. I share with my right hon. and hon. Friends the absolute feeling that the Commonwealth can be the greatest foundation of Britain's greatness in future. But we face a problem which also faces other Commonwealth countries. Other Commonwealth Governments apply these restrictions because of their economic position and my only argument is that we must control immigration for precisely the same reason.
    We cannot afford to be the welfare State for the whole of the Commonwealth. We cannot do it, and hon. Members must recognise the fact. But they must also recognise that most of us who have worked in the Labour Movement from early ages and have made our sacrifices in building up that movement are not going to sell our principles on this question.
    Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Leave the Labour Movement out of it.
    Mr. McLeavy:There are people in this Committee and in the country who have not had the experience in our industrial life that many older Members have had and, after all, we'have a responsibility to our people from the trade union point of view when they feel that they are being put into difficulty because of the danger to public health of overcrowding. We have a responsibility to our ordinary trade union members in our towns and cities who have been waiting for houses for many years because of the neglect of the Tory Government. [Interruption.] Yes. that is true.
    There is, and everyone accepts the fact that there is, a very serious housing shortage in our large towns and cities, and it is therefore absolutely essential that the Government should urgently re-examine the position of the local authorities to see exactly what can be done to help places like Bradford carry out what they want to do—which is to give a really good service to their citizens, including the immigrants whom we welcome in our midst.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. John Hall:I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) will allow me to congratulate him on a most courageous speech. He faced up to the facts with a realism which it was most refreshing to listen to. I want to support him from my own experience in my own constituency where I have lived with this problem for a number of years. All of us will agree with him in saying that we wish to see as many Commonwealth citizens come to this country as we can properly absorb and assimilate into our population, but the problem is arising because of the rapid increase in the rate of migration to this country and the difficulty of assimilation, especially in comparatively small communities.
    I have no great industrial centre in my constituency. The biggest town is High Wycombe with a population of about 45,000, but now about 8 per cent, of the population comes from Pakistan, India and the West Indies. This is a very high percentage for any town to absorb over a period of a few years.
    It is true that to some extent the flow of immigrants into this country has some

    401
    relation to employment possibilities, as the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said; but it is a rather limited relationship, because from some of the countries, notably Pakistan, those who come over here, even if they do not succeed in obtaining employment for some time, are still much better off materially in this country than in their own, and there is therefore a good deal of encouragement to them to come here.
    If we are to help the countries of the Commonwealth which are economically backward, countries where there is a great deal of poverty and a great deal of unemployment, we cannot be expected to keep on receiving the whole of their surplus labour force unless in the first place they are prepared to do something about it themselves by restricting their population growth.
    Mr. Paget: Since the war we have had three examples of unrestricted immigration, Germany before the wall in Berlin, Hong Kong, and France since the fall of Algeria. In all three of those instances, unrestricted immigration has resulted in unparalleled prosperity for the recipient.
    Mr. Hall: That shows the folly of giving way, but to reply to that intervention I point out that the type of migration into West Germany from East Germany was very different from that which we are receiving from the Commonwealth, for it was skilled labour and it enabled West Germany to go ahead on a vast surplus labour market, which is now drying up. In the examples of Hong Kong and Algeria, the size of the influx of migrants enabled the obtaining of a considerable labour cost advantage, That does not apply in this country where all immigrants are paid precisely the same trade union rates as are applied to the rest of the country.
    The point I was making was that the flow of immigrants into this country, and particularly into places the size of Wycombe, creates a number of problems perhaps more for the Pakistanis, and perhaps the Indians, than for the West Indians, because the Pakistanis come over here with very few of them knowing any English and finding it much more difficult to get work than the West Indians do and mostly without their families, which creates serious problems
    402
    in their relationships with the community and in the development of diseases which spring from this fact. This creates great tensions in the communities into which they go.
    In the Committee stage of this Act two years ago, I mentioned that my constituency is no stranger to this problem of the influx of populations from areas outside the country. We had it after the war from Yugoslavia and Poland as an aftermath of the war, and for a short time the same kind of stresses and strains were felt by the population of Wycombe as are felt now.
    This problem has nothing to do with colour. I wish that we could get away from that. This is a question of people coming from countries with different cultures, different habits, different characteristics and completely different backgrounds. It does not mean that their habits and customs are any better or any worse than ours, but they are different. It takes time for them to be absorbed into a community. If they arrive in a reasonable flow they can be absorbed and there is no difficulty, but if too many come in at one time, if they congregate in certain areas in a town or district, and if they set up establishments of their own in which people of one particular race live, they create difficulties. To some extent the Act has tended to slow down the rate of migration until recently, and I think has helped very considerably in that direction.
    The West Indians, and, indeed, the Pakistanis and most of the Commonwealth immigrants, who have come here have made a considerable contribution to this country. As has been said already, they have made a contribution to running transport services and staffing hospitals, and no doubt many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee could give examples of how these immigrants have helped the labour effort in this country. They have been a valuable acquisition, but there must be a limit to the number that we take at any one time.
    Every other Commonwealth country, with the exception of India and Pakistan, for obvious reasons limits, and in some cases prohibits, the entry of migrants to their countries. Until the passing of this Act we were the only

    403
    country that allowed completely free entry, and I believe that the passing of it has not only lessened the strain on our housing and labour resources, but has benefited those immigrants already here.
    What I would hate to see, and what I have been working in my constituency to avoid, is such a flood of immigrants into an area that there is angry reaction on the part of the indigenous population. I do not want to see Notting Hills created in different areas which become flooded with immigrants from one part of the Commonwealth or another. We shall get this kind of thing more and more unless we are sensible about the rate at which immigrants come in, and therefore I have no hesitation in recommending the Committee to reject the Amendment. I think that it would achieve no useful purpose.
    I cannot see that the Opposition, or indeed the Liberal Party, has any workable alternative to put forward. We know that before this Bill was contemplated approaches were made to, and negotiations took place with, Commonwealth Governments in an endeavour to get them to operate voluntary schemes of restriction and control. To their credit the Governments of India and Pakistan attempted to impose restrictions and controls, but it is almost impossible for any Commonwealth Government to do this effectively. The controls can easily be evaded, and I am sure that it is impossible to operate a system of control while this country acts as a magnet to migrants from India, Pakistan, the West Indies, or indeed any other area where the standard of living is so much lower than our own.
    There are probably long-term solutions to this problem. We must do much more to improve the economies of the countries from which these immigrants come. We must do what we can to help them to encourage family control in their countries so that there is not a constant increase in population. There are lots of things that we may be able to do as a long-term solution, but for the immediate future, and for the next few years, I think that we should keep this Act on the Statute Book.
    Mr. John Diamond: First, although my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) is not in his place, I should say that I recognise that he spoke with complete sincerity, and that every hon. Member is entitled to say exactly what he feels on this topic, provided that he speaks with sincerity. I am sorry if he took my remarks as any reflection upon his sincerity. I take an entirely different point of view on this matter, arid I have as sincere convictions on the question as he has.
    There need be no difficulty in dealing with the Amendment. The problem of principle hardly arises. The Government have made it clear—and the Home Secretary has repeated it tonight—that they brought in the Act with the greatest reluctance, and the pressure which was put upon them by several of their own back benchers over several years for this kind of restriction was resisted by them because they accepted the principle that this kind of legislated restriction was a matter which ought not to be entered upon owing to all the other difficulties involved.
    The obvious fact was that they would be giving an appearance of introducing colour bars, and destroying the feeling in the Commonwealth that this is the mother country, and that the mother country keeps her doors open. Because these principles were well established the Government did not want to depart from them. Therefore, the only question that we are really considering is whether a certain form of control works.
    I would remind the Committee that this Measure was introduced for one year. Why was that? It was to give everybody a chance to see whether or not it worked. It was not because of any other question. There was no question of principle. It was to give the Government and the House of Commons an opportunity of seeing whether it would work. Let us examine, coolly and free from prejudice, the question whether this part of the Act which the Government introduced for one year only—providing that it would cease to be in existence unless the House renewed it—is working well, or whether the automatic control which existed previously worked as well or better.
    The Government would not have wanted to introduce this form of control, with all the difficulties that go with

    405
    it and all the overtones that are read into it, if they could have avoided it. The right hon. Gentleman has referred again to the reluctance with which the Government brought it in.
    The right hon. Gentleman said, although not in exactly these words, that the control is not working. He explained how it was not working. He said that there were certain categories in respect of which there was no need for control and that there was only one category where there was control, in respect of which category vouchers were issued.
    Mr. Brooke: What I said was that the control provided for in the Act was working very effectively. What we are asking the Committee to do is to extend the Act as it stands for another twelve months. In case, by any mischance, I have misled the hon. Member, I should like to tell the Committee that I realise that I made one slip in my speech. I referred, quite correctly, to the number of vouchers presented in the first twelve months as being 14,000. Later in my speech, by a slip, I quoted it mistakenly as 10,000. The correct figures are 14,000 for the first twelve months and 14,000 for the next four months, making a total of 28,000 out of 60,000 vouchers issued.
    Mr. Diamond:The right hon. Gentleman may be of the opinion that this form of control is working, but the arguments and figures that he gave demonstrated that it was not. If he is patient I shall show why this is the lesson to be drawn from his own facts and arguments.
    The Government say that we are controlling only those who need vouchers. The Government have therefore imposed certain criteria, which are not very easily understood. They are not based upon equity, or on comparative populations of the countries concerned. They are certainly not based on need, hunger or poverty. No such criteria have entered into Government thinking. The criterion which they have laid down is the rather simple one of "first come, first served". It does not need a lot of humanity to think of that criterion. The chap who pushes in first is at the head of the queue. That was the criterion adopted. The Government then said that they would issue vouchers. Presumably this was on the basis that the Government thought that they could accomplish—
    It being Ten o'clock. The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Brooke.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Diamond: I was seeking to demonstrate that this control was not working, because the Home Secretary, or the Minister of Labour, presumably issued vouchers to the people they wanted to come in. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to say that he issued vouchers because he did not want the people to come in, that would be a surprising argument, but it would be an explanation, and it would controvert what I am about to say. But, presumably, they issued vouchers to people because they wanted to admit them. But they have not been admitted. The number of vouchers issued, the number which the right hon. Gentleman wanted to see come in to the country, and the number given according to the control—the number he was feeding into his control system, into his computer—did not come out at the other end, not by miles. And the right hon. Gentleman is not contradicting this. The figures given show that there was a vast difference between the vouchers issued and the vouchers taken up.
  Mr. Brooke:If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to contradict him again, I will. Naturally, in issuing these vouchers we took into account that some of them would not be taken up—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that would always, and obviously, happen.
  Mr. Diamond: The right hon. Gentleman has now taken the loophole which I gave him. He said that he issued vouchers because he did not want them to be taken up—or something. That was

  407
  the only possible loophole. If the right hon. Gentleman would be a little more explicit—I have forgotten the figures and he has them. I repeat, and I think I am right in maintaining, that the difference was so substantial between the vouchers issued and the vouchers taken up that it could not simply have been the case—I am alleging this—of the right hon. Gentleman allowing for the fact that a small number might fall by the wayside, and that therefore he should issue 2 per cent, or 5 per cent, more to make up for this well-known possibility of slack. What I am saying—he knows it full well—is that he wanted to admit a certain number; he did not get them, and so, as a control, from that point of view, it did not work. All we are saying—the right hon. Gentleman is laughing, but this is all he is asking us to do. He is asking us to approve the Section under which this control is renewed. He is saying that we put it in the Bill because we thought it would not work and we might need to improve it and come in a year's time with a modification.
  Hon. Members on this side of the Committee cannot introduce any modification. But the right hon. Gentleman can. If he wanted one to work, he could introduce a different idea instead of sticking blindly to this idea which his own figures have demonstrated has not worked at all. It is not a control to be justified on grounds of equity. It is a fantastic idea that we can say that not more than one country shall take up 25 per cent, of the allotment. What relation is that to anything, except simply a figure taken out of some hat? It does not mean a thing and the right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to justify it.
  It does not work according to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell). He was one of the greatest supporters. He did not want control, he wanted restriction. He said so all the time from the word "go". I am being fair to the hon. Gentleman. He wants the numbers reduced. He has made the case fairly for all of us. It has not reduced the numbers, even if one includes the extra number jerked into coming into the country because of the fact that the door was about to be closed. Is it not the case that many people would attempt to go through a door if they thought that it
  408
  was about to be closed? But even including that extra number, on the eight-year average the hon. Member for Kirkdale complains that, from his point of view, the control is not working because we got more or less the same number now as we were getting then, over an eight-year average. Then without control; now with a control which the Government seek to continue. That is not a great argument in favour of this kind of control.
  The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) produced an entirely different and irrelevant argument. He said that the control is not working, not because of the numbers coming into the country, but because of the numbers coming into Wycombe. That is what he is concerned with—
  Mr. John Hall rose—
  Mr. Diamond: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  All that the hon. Member for Wycombe was saying during the whole of his speech was that what is wrong is the concentration in particular areas. He was not complaining about the numbers coming into Ruislip or Twickenham—indeed there may not be any there. He was complaining about the parts of the country to which these poor chaps do go, and especially about his own constituency.
  Mr. John Hall:I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. This shows the difficulty of communicating ideas. What I was endeavouring to do was to use Wycombe as an illustration of how this worked in particular in parts of the country. Practical experience is far better than a lot of theorising. I did not refer to controls at all.
  Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman cannot ride off on that one either. First, I have as much experience in Gloucester as he has in Wycombe, probably more—right? Secondly—[Hon. Members: "Wrong."]—is there any hon. Member who wishes to interrupt? I always give way if anyone desires to do so.
  Secondly, the whole of his speech—the hon. Gentleman should read it in Hansard—was directed to the difficulty of the concentration of immigrants, with different cultural backgrounds and so

  409
  on, in particular areas. What the hon. Gentleman wants is control within this country. Having admitted so many Commonwealth immigrants we are to say, "You shall go to Bradford. You shall go to Leeds. You shall go to this place and you shall go to that place"—and, so far as possible, none shall go to Wycombe.
  Mr. John Hall: The hon. Member must not do this sort of thing. It makes good fun, but it is not very sensible. I was not asking for controls within controls but referring to the situation which in fact existed before the present Act came into existence. I was pointing out the kind of problems which arise from the unrestricted entry of immigrants to this country because they concentrate in certain areas, and asking for control to prevent that.
  Mr. Diamond:I do not think I need go over it again. The hon. Member is saying that this control is not satisfactory from his own experience and that is why he is voting for its continuation. I am voting for its discontinuation because it contains many extremely unsatisfactory and immoral features. It is no good at all. It does not satisfy the restrictive attitude of the hon. Member for Kirkdale. It does not satisfy the geographical attitude of the hon. Member for Wycombe. It does not satisfy the desire of the Government to admit a given number of people because the given number of people do not come in. It does not satisfy anyone's criteria of equity, fairness or justice, so what is the benefit of it?
  One has to examine the situation as it was before. We had an automatic control which worked without all these difficult overtones. It worked perfectly satisfactorily. When there were jobs, people came, and when there were not jobs they stopped coming. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] That is what happened. Let all hon. Members in all parts of the Committee understand that if we want an economy to be prosperous we need more and more manpower. Do not let me be the authority for that. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer be that authority. The Chancellor has said when introducing his Budget on more than one occasion, and the current Chancellor used this precise phrase, that the limitation in the expansion of
  410
  our economy is the limitation in our manpower.
  Sir C. Osborne:The hon. Member is completely wrong, because his own leader said at the Labour Party Conference in Scarborough two months ago that automation would require 10 million people fewer to produce more wealth. I wish he would speak sense.
  Mr. Diamond:This is a simple principle which everybody in all countries accepts. I do not want to weary the Committee with the arguments for it nor to remind hon. Members of the evidence for it in any country they care to name, particularly on the Continent. In West Germany and Switzerland a fantastic percentage of foreign labour is employed, something over 20 per cent., I believe. Prosperity rises in those countries which have a large immigrant labour force. Does this control help in the problem of unemployment as has been alleged?
  Not for a second can that be said because, if we have a varying level of unemployment, 4 per cent, one year and 1 per cent, the next, and we fill up the immigration space when we have 1 per cent, unemployment, presumably when it is 4 per cent., as we have under this Government, we have to reverse the process and give them vouchers to go back again because we have too large a labour force. The whole idea that we can control it in this way in order to achieve a satisfactory level of employment is nonsense. That is one argument out of the way.
  The other argument out of the way is housing. It is nonsense to say that this causes housing problems. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] This causes housing problems to be seen, which is a very different matter. The shortage of housing becomes evident, but the shortage of housing is always there. If these immigrants, instead of being black, were white, if they were Canadian or Australian, there would be no complaint. It would then be seen that there are not enough houses to accommodate the people.
  Of course we need more houses. Germany has solved the problem by building something like ½ million houses a year. It was able to accommodate the people coming in.

  411
  This is demonstrates the need for more housing in any event. We cannot have more people doing nursing, being doctors, building houses, or driving buses and living nowhere. Even white people have to live somewhere if they are to carry out these functions. White nurses have to be accommodated in nurses' homes. The reason why two hon. Members opposite have asked particularly the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) what is the attitude of the Liberal Party, and have asked us to make our attitude clear, is that they know as well as I do that this is an electoral issue.
  Mr. W. Yates rose—
  Mr. Diamond: I shall give way afterwards, but I have already given way eight times. What is the electoral issue? It is not unemployment; I have demonstrated that. It is not control; I have demonstrated that. It is not housing, I have demonstrated that. It is because the people who support this attitude loathe black men. [Interruption.] It is because some people who support this attitude will give hon. Members opposite their support in the election. They will switch their votes because we fought against this because we had certain principles. We said that black or white makes no difference to us. They give support to the idea that it is right to have white and wrong to have black people coming here. This is the only element left of electoral advantage. If hon. Members opposite want it, they can have it.
  10.15 p.m.
  Sir C. Osborne: First, I want to refute the utterly contemptible statement just made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) that hon. Members on this side of the House hate black men. That is a scandalous untruth, and we reject it utterly. [Hon. Members: "Withdraw."] He refuses to withdraw it. Let me make my speech.
  The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), for the Liberal Party, complained that no recent figures were available. Apparently the Liberal Party do not read HANSARD later than June, because all the up-to-date figures were given in HANSARD yesterday. When the Bill was being discussed, I asked the Leader of the Liberal Party whether the
  412
  Liberal Party would repeal this Act when they had a chance, and he said, "Yes". At the Liberal Party conference a few months ago this question was raised again, but the Liberals had changed their minds and said "No". Where do they stand on it? They do not know.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) spoke most feelingly about the problems which affected his constituents. We ought to realise that it is the ordinary working men and women in the overcrowded industrial areas who feel the pinch of this problem. He spoke most feelingly for his constituents in Bradford. The hon. Member for Gloucester, who has just spoken so eloquently, earlier tried to shout down his hon. Friend while still seated.
  Mr. Diamond: I did not interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy). Unfortunately, I passed a remark to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), which was intended to be sotto voce and was not as sotto as it should have been. There is no question of my having passed a comment to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East.
  Sir C. Osborne: There is no point in pursuing Ibis matter. If I misrepresented the hon. Member, I apologise, but HANSARD tomorrow will show that his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East protested.
  I am one of those who pressed the Government for this policy eight years ago. I do not apologise for what was done. Indeed, I thought that what was done was inadequate and too late, and I stand by the attitude which I took then. May I make it clear for my hon. Friends and myself that we all believe that everybody in this country, irrespective of race, colour or religion, is entitled to the full protection of the law, and that anyone who stirs up hatred of any kind on racial matters or any other matter or who indulges in anti-Semitism should be punished to the utmost rigour of the law. [Hon. Members: "Which law?"] We all say that. Please let us get rid of the dreadful untruth which the hon. Member for Gloucester recently uttered.
  Mr. Fenner Brockway rose—
  Sir C. Osborne: The hon. Member has only been in the Chamber for two minutes. He has just walked into the Chamber. I do not propose to give way to him.
  But while I say that all Commonwealth immigrants have a perfect right to be protected to the uttermost by the law of this land, so the Englishman born in this country has a perfect right to protect his own way of life in his own country. It is high time that someone in the House spoke up for the people of this country, and I propose to do so. Why do these people want to come to this country? Why is restriction necessary? Let us face the facts. A month or two ago Dr. Julian Huxley gave a lecture in which he estimated that at the beginning of this century the world population was 1,000 million. Today, he said, it is about 3,000 million, and at the end of the century it will be 6,000 million. This growth in population is the greatest factor in world affairs, and immigration into this country is a reaction from this enormous growth in world population.
  At the end of the century the two great problems which will have to be faced will be: where shall we live, and will there be enough to eat? As to where we shall live, a fact which is so often forgotten is that the density of population in this country is greater than anywhere else in the Common-wealth, except for Hong Kong. The density in this country is 567 per square mile as against India, which we are inclined to regard as vastly over-populated, where the density is 347.
  May I point out that so few of these immigrants go to Scotland, Wales or Ireland, and therefore this is an English problem. The problem arises in India and Pakistan where there are 550 million people. That is where the pressure comes from. About three months ago the Economist said that in India, so far as could be estimated, there were about 8 million unemployed and about 18 million chronically under-employed. That is why they want to come to this country. In addition—this is another vital fact which I beg hon. Members to face—it is estimated that between now and 1971 the population of India will grow by another 116 million. It is obviously impossible for this small
  414
  island, already over-populated, to deal with the vast unemployed army in India and to take the consequences of the enormous increase in the world's population.
  Mr. Maurice Foley: Who is suggesting that we should?
  Sir C. Osborne: Please let me continue my speech. Another fact which I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind is that in the Indian Parliament about two months ago the Leader of the Opposition said that there were 270 million Indians living on 3½d. a day.
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: That is our disgrace.
  Sir C. Osborne: Mr. Nehru, the Prime Minister, corrected the figure and said that it was nearer Is. 3d. The Times said that it would rather take the figure of 3£d. which was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) says that this is our fault. If we had international Socialism, such as the former Herbert Morrison once asked for, and wages in Britain were in proportion to those in India, the average wage here would be less than £2 a week. Does the hon. Lady advocate that? Let us face the problem. It is because of these immense pressures of population and this intense poverty which we cannot comprehend, that there is this great desire on the part of other people to come to this country.
  Now, one or two other points which I put to hon. Members for their consideration. Medical science is doing wonders in India. In recent years, malaria has been conquered, and it has been calculated that malaria used to take 1 million people a year. The Indians hope that, before long, the other two killer diseases, cholera and smallpox, will also be conquered. We hope so too. The infant mortality rate in India—this will appeal to the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North—used to be 20 times greater than in this country. If we can reduce it to our level, and if the expectation of life in India is raised from 35 to 75 years, as in this country, the population of India will go up to 1,000 million. The pressure to come to this country will be intolerable. These are facts which we

  415
  must face. They are there now. It is useless closing our eyes to them. This is why it was obviously so important that we should have some control and regulation.
  What about the effect of the Act? Has it done good? Was it necessary? I give the House some figures taken from yesterday's Hansard which, apparently, the Liberal Party has not read. In category A, men with jobs to come to, there were 14,900 applications and 9,500 vouchers were issued. In category B, skilled people but with no job to come to, the unemployed, there were 14,400 applications and 13,400 were granted. But now comes the problem which should really worry hon. Members opposite in the trade union world. In category C, the unskilled, the unemployed, there were 289,704 applications, and 37,084 were granted.
  If it had not been for the Act, there would, on these figures, have been at least another 250,000 from India alone, unskilled and unemployed, in this country. Is that what trade union members want?
  Mrs. Castle: Will the hon. Gentleman—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  The Chairman: If the hon. Member does not give way, the hon. Lady must resume her seat.
  Mrs. Castle: I challenge the hon. Gentleman's figures.
  Sir C. Osborne: I have given way a number of times. I have done my share and given way enough already.
  Mrs. Castle: On those figures —
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mrs. Castle: I am trying to clarify the hon. Gentleman's figures. First, he gave us the number of applications, and then he spoke of vouchers issued. Does he mean vouchers issued or vouchers taken up?
  Sir C. Osborne: If the hon. Lady had listened, she would have heard me speak of vouchers issued.
  Mrs. Castle: What about vouchers taken up? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the figure for that?
  Sir C. Osborne: I did not say that they were taken up. I am sorry that hon. Members opposite do not like these facts.
  Mrs. Castle: They are not the right facts.
  Sir C. Osborne: These are the facts which must be faced, no matter who sits on the Government benches. I thank God I am not married to the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Castle: So do I.
  Sir C. Osborne: In view of the enormous figures of unemployed, in view of intense poverty in India and Pakistan and in view of the growth in population in those countries, I have been trying to reason that some restriction was inevitable. This small island, which, I have tried to show, is already the most densely populated part of the Commonwealth, could not be the dumping ground of all the increased population and the whole of the unemployed from the Commonwealth. I remind hon. Members that even the United States of America, which has the Lamp of Liberty and says "Send me your poor in distress ", has had to stop free entry into that country. The density of population there is only 51 to the square mile, against our figure of more thin 500. Therefore, I argue that restriction was inevitable.
  I will give hon. Members another reason. Today, we have received a fine booklet from the Ministry of Transport showing us how we must deal with the enormous problem of transport. It is proposed by the architects that there should be three-tier towns to deal with the enormous growth in transport and population. Even with the existing restriction, Commonwealth immigrants are coming to this country at the rate of 90,000 a year.
  That means a new city of the size of, say, Bath, Burnley, Cambridge, Darlington, Doncaster, Exeter or Halifax being put into this country every year. Obviously, ibis cannot go on. There must be some restriction. If the extra quarter of a million had come in, goodness knows what would have happened.
  I draw hon. Members' attention to the problem of unemployment. I tried to correct an hon. Member opposite about

  417
  what the Leader of the Opposition said. At the Labour Party Conference, at Scarborough in September, the Leader of the Opposition said that there was no room for Luddites in the Labour Party. He went on to say that in the next ten years, automation would dislodge at least 10 million of our workers from their jobs.
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: What he said was that 10 million new jobs would be needed.
  Sir C. Osborne: We would have to find 10 million new jobs because of automation; I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member. That being so, and 10 million new jobs having to be found for our workers, does it not seem crazy to open our doors to allow millions of unskilled unemployed to come here to make it more difficult for our own people to find work for themselves? [Interruption.] I am quoting what the Leader of the Labour Party said to his own people.
  Take the question of housing and what immigration has done there. Hon. Members opposite should speak to their colleague who represents Bradford, East, who knows the problems which have arisen. Half a million immigrants have come to this country in the last eight years. If they had not come, there would be no housing problem. [Hon. Members:" Nonsense."] I beg hon. Members to go back to their town halls and ask their housing committees what influence there would be upon their waiting lists if that half million were taken off. There would not be nearly the intense problem which exists in housing.
  Then I think this question ought to be faced squarely. I said when we dis-
  418
  cussed this matter six or eight years ago that even if the immigrants had white faces, were as white as snow, with their coming in in present conditions the problem would remain the same.
  We must face this. We must be honest with ourselves. Throughout the world, wherever there has been a racial problem, a colour problem, whether it be in East Africa, of Africans against the Asians, or anywhere, where there is a racial problem, there is difficulty, and so far men of good will of every race have yet to find the answer to the terrible racial problem. [Interruption.] The newly emerging African States are sending from their States Asian traders. I have not done that. It is unfair to say that. The problem is there the world over, and so far no one has found a solution to it, and it seems to me the height of folly to bring the problem unnecessarily into our midst. It is a tragedy for which our children will curse us.
  Finally, I want to say this. The Labour Party Amendment, I believe, is a cowardly one. It asks the Commonwealth Governments themselves to impose restrictions which the Labour Party themselves are frightened to do. It is the most cowardly thing I have seen done in the eighteen years I have been a Member of the House, done by him whom people outside call clever little Harold. It is asking people like Mr. Nehru with his 26 million unemployed and some 270 million living on about threepence halfpenny a day to try to impose restrictions on those people because we have not got the guts to do it ourselves. That is the Labour Party. I hope this Committee will reject it utterly.
  Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: Not everything the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) said was altogether clear. At one stage I thought he was arguing that the danger was that we would be faced with a problem of an influx of Luddites. At any rate, what he said was that our children would curse us for permitting these people to enter this country. By the time he had come to the end of his speech he had forgotten all about unemployment.
  That speech will be much more widely reported round the world than the Home Secretary's cautious speech in which he rejected my right hon. Friend's proposal. That speech reflects the real racial character of hon. Gentlemen opposite. All I can say is this, that the hon. Gentleman convinced me that if there were a Commonwealth conference at which he were the British representative it would be worse than no British representation at all.
  Sir C. Osborne: At the Commonwealth conference which the hon. Gentleman wants to go to, would an Englishman have any rights at all?
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has really gone beyond the point of being comic. The hon. Gentleman would now try to raise the racial issue over the Commonwealth field regardless of the question of the country's needs.
  Of course, this is how the world sees the Act. They see it in this way because, as my right hon. Friend said, when the Measure was first introduced the party opposite at its conference was shaking its head off at the idea of free entry of the Community of Six, the Common Market, although the Irish were allowed in in very large numbers. But the hon. Gentleman has been frank enough to make it clear that it is to keep people with coloured skins out.
  This is the nub of the argument. It is not about immigration itself.It is about coloured people coming into Britain, and I warn the Home Secretary about the last few words in his speech, when he began to hint at the election challenge he intends to throw to us from platform to platform up and down the
  420
  country, and gave us notice that the Conservative Party, in the election, was going to use the Commonwealth Immigrants Act as a weapon to use against the Labour Party.
  Before the right hon. Gentleman does this—of course he will do it respectfully, and hon. Gentlemen will do it frankly, and their supporters in a much less attractive style still-—let him consider the consequences of it. The hon. Gentleman said that there would be no housing shortage without the immigrants. That is to say that if a man has not got a house or is living in slums in Bristol or Liverpool and writes to the hon. Gentleman, he will reply that it is the coloured persons who are preventing him from getting a house. That is what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If a man does not get a job, what is the answer? The answer he will be given is that it is the immigrants who are keeping him from getting employment.
  What the hon. Gentleman has said will release forces in the country which are so explosive and dangerous in character that even hon. Gentlemen opposite will regret what they have done. I warn the Home Secretary not to give respectable cover to the sort of arguments that we shall hear from people like his hon. Friend in every constituency in the country—[An Hon. Member: "Dallas."]—or, indeed, the consequences of that. We know very well where racial violence can ultimately lead.
  As to the other case against using the argument, as my right hon. Friend made clear, the argument is not about the principle of control but about the means by which such necessary control as there may have to be is organised. The hon. Gentleman himself gave the case away. He said that it is not a problem in Scotland. What did he mean? He meant that the unemployment that the Tories have created in Scotland produces a self-regulating factor which prevents immigrants going to Scotland. Indeed, a quarter of a million Scots have left Scotland to come to England over the last 10 years. What the hon. Gentleman says is that if there is a stagnant economy in Scotland, the immigrants will not go there. Therefore, what my

  421
  hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) said was absolutely right.
  There are many forms of Commonwealth consultation. But if there is a case for control, one can ask the Commonwealth countries to try to apply it. If they will not, one can have a voucher system and ask them to distribute the vouchers. If all else fails and we have that consultation, we may have, of course, to act, because the right to control immigration is part of the sovereign right of any State. But what the Bill does is the worst of all because there has been no attempt at Commonwealth consultation at any stage.
  Coming to the second point, the hon. Gentleman said he was in favour of prosecuting with the maximum rigour of the law those who engaged in discrimination. What is the truth of the matter? If the hon. Gentleman as an employer goes to an employment exchange and says "I want only white labour ", does the employment exchange say "We do not accept inquiries involving discrimination "? Not at all.
  Sir C. Osborne: I have three or four companies, and they all have black people working for them.
  Mr. Benn: That is not the point. I am not dealing with the case of employers who do employ coloured people. [An. Hon. Member:" Withdraw."] I was at no stage accusing the hon. Gentleman. If he thinks that I am unfair—I think that my case is good enough without being unfair to him—I will withdraw what may appear to be an imputation.
  If I went to an employment exchange and said "I want only white labour", what would they say? They would say "Certainly we will give you a list of white workers." They would not say, as they do in America, "We do not entertain inquiries from people who have racial discrimination built into their request." We have all been praising President Kennedy this week for his struggle against racial intolerance. I have a letter here from the United States Department of Labour saying that it is prohibited for a department of labour to help an employer who lays down qualifications of race, colour, creed or national origin.
  10.45 p.m.
  The hypocrisy of hon. Members opposite in praising President Kennedy for his stand but never giving support to the Racial Discrimination Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), never seeking to outlaw racial discrimination even when connected with the Ministry of Labour, confirms our suspicions that this Act is motivated by racial feeling. It is known from the United States that if one wants to eliminate racial discrimination there has to be legislative and executive leadership and not just a tailing behind hoping that public opinion will educate itself.
  Finally—and I hope that I carry all hon. Members with me on this—there is the case of the immigrants already here. I agree that race relations are difficult. I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Louth said about South Africa, the Southern States of America and about East-West relations between Russia and China, where there is an undertone of colour.
  But because we have a problem, that is not a case for running away from it. There has to be expert help and advice for communities with immigrants, and part of my case is that the Government have allowed immigrants in but have done nothing to help them to settle down in these areas. When my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) makes his impassioned speech, he is reflecting the anxieties of his constituents. When I talk to the West Indians in Bristol, to which a large number went in good faith, having read the Daily Express and believed it and who now realise they are not wanted and cannot get jobs, I find that they have a sense of being let down as well.
  My complaint against the Government and the case for the proposal by my right hon. Friend is that his plan would be positive in giving the lead to get local authorities to organise real services designed to help immigrants to settle into their new communities. None of that is to be found in the Government's policy.
  What the Government hope tonight is that they will emerge from the debate as the ones with a policy and that they will be able to accuse the Labour Party

  423
  of being negative. But the truth is the other way round. The truth is that the British people are not so stupid as hon. Members think. They know that race is the biggest question in the world today. They know the problem. They know that Britain without the Commonwealth is really a very lonely little island off the west coast of Europe. They believe in a Commonwealth that is not an empire even if hon. Members opposite are not so very interested in it.
  They know, too, that if immigration is to be properly handled it must be done in consultation with the Commonwealth. They know that racial discrimination is a danger unless the community takes positive action. They know, from their own experience in areas where they feel it, that unless there is local Government initiative these problems can get out of hand.
  On balance, when this debate is seen free of the excitement of argument tonight, it will be seen that hon. Members opposite are meeting a racial and economic challenge in an entirely negative way and that hon. Members on this side of the Committee have tried to see this matter in its world and Commonwealth context, in terms of the right balance and in terms of the needs of the whole community. Because our side is so positive, I shall be delighted to go into the Lobby tonight against the right hon. Gentleman and his racial hon. Friends.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: The hon. Gentleman has come back from another sphere having picked up some astonishing habits. I know that he only went there in embryo, but while away he has learned some extraordinary histrionics and has expressed them in a very glib speech. I wish that the speech had been only glib, but it was extremely muddled. The Labour Party, as exemplified by what one might call the pseudo-intellectual wing, refused to draw a distinction—
  Mr. John Hynd: In black and white. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I hope that the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) will stop sniggering. At least we listened to what he had to say.
  424
  As I was saying before that sniggering interruption from the only representative of the Liberal Party—
  Mr. Thorpe: Where are the Tories? We have just increased our number by 100 per cent.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The Liberals have now doubled their number with the arrival of the hon. Member for Hudders-field, West (Mr. Wade).
  The theme of the speech of the hon. Member for Devon, North, to which I listened with great care, was that there was no distinction to be drawn between the perfectly true statement that racial discrimination is a great and difficult and dangerous problem and that of colour. After I have made a few observations, I want to address myself to the problems of racial discrimination, because most of the other matters have already been covered by the Home Secretary or other hon. Members and I do not want to traverse that ground again.
  The Liberal Party made it quite clear that it believed in uninhibited immigration into this country and that it was categorically opposed to the Act and still was and, I understood, would vote against it tonight. In an intervention, I gave the hon. Member every opportunity to say what would be the Liberal Party's policy, but I got no reply; nor did I expect one. What we got was a division of his speech into three points—consultation, racialism and restrictions. I do not believe that many Liberals subscribe to that view and certainly Liberals will not do so.
  It is plain from the speeches of hon. Members opposite that the Labour Party does not retract from its previous position on free entry and that it offers no constructive alternative to the Act. Although it would seek some restriction by consultation with the Commonwealth, it could not achieve it that way, and if it passed the burden of selection to Commonwealth countries, this country would not be prepared to meet the resulting situation for long. Clearly, if there are to be immigrants into this country, we must decide which class of immigrants they are to be and not have them selected by the country which at that time they are preparing to desert, perhaps to the end of their days.

  425
  I came into the House of Commons in 1953 and in 1954 I wrote to Lord Mancroft, who at that time was a Home Office Minister, and I asked specifically for the introduction of a Measure such as that which we now have. I was told by the Home Office in 1955 that it would be quite plain that we could not get the support of the Labour Party for an all-party Measure. I was told that there had been long talks through the years in turn with the West Indies and then the African leaders—" talks" is a better word than "consultations "—but that it was quite clear that none of the Commonwealth countries was willing to enter into any agreement, either singly or collectively, to arrive at an effective solution to this problem.
  Over a period of years the Government, quite properly, tried to get an agreement with hon. Gentlemen opposite to introduce this Measure. It was the failure to get this agreement which prevented this Act being introduced sooner than it was. The only criticism which the Government can offer of themselves now is that they were too late, and their mitigation is that the fault of their being late was their democratic endeavour to try to get agreement in this House and the knowledge that the Liberal and Labour Parties would oppose them, as they did, root and branch. That is the background to the position.
  That gives the absolute lie to, first, the statement that there was no discussion with every single major country in the Commonwealth, and, secondly, that the Government did not do everything they could to arrive at an effective agreement because they knew that it was impossible to get agreement with the Labour and Liberal Parties or indeed with any of the countries which were likely to have a substantial number of migrants.
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that his party, with a great majority, was morally incapable of standing up for something in which hon. Gentlemen opposite believed?
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I happen to take the view that one should not try to steamroller legislation through the House of Commons. Having made his intervention, the hon. and learned Gentleman is now trying to run away. That is the
  426
  complaint we make about the Labour Party. It ran away from the problem two years ago, and it is running away from it now.
  I make this prophecy, that if by any chance it should be England's misfortune that the Labour Party should win the next election, within the next two years at the most hon. Gentlemen opposite will themselves have to introduce amending legislation, as we will undoubtedly have to do, to strengthen certain aspects of the existing Act, which are far too weak to enable us to achieve the control which is necessary to be effective.
  I turn now to the heart of the problem and I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite, if not the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, to realise that in dealing with this question we must try to think a little clearly. I was deeply upset by my experience of spending some time in New York last year. I wanted to go into the Puerto Rican, Italian, and Harlem quarters. As most of those who have been to New York know, there are complete and absolute compartments of races. One sees racial departmental administration. They have the Harlem quarter, the Puerto Rican quarter, the Jewish quarter, the Italian quarter, and so on, and it would be dreadful if London or any of our great cities were to become like New York.
  New York is a tragic, desperate city. I was there with a number of extremely able and liberal-minded men, many of them from Harvard and Yale, many of them leaders in their own spheres of industry and the law. I said that I was proposing to spend an afternoon and evening in Harlem. I was advised that it would be extremely dangerous for me to do so, and that I would be in physical danger and would learn nothing. I went, nevertheless. I could not go with a white taxi driver because no white taxi driver would take me. I went with a coloured taxi driver, and I went right round. When I went into restaurants and other places, the moment it was realised that I was English—in fact, I said that I had come from England and was a Member of Parliament—I was made extremely welcome. I had an extremely good time and saw something of the workings of that part of the city.
  11.0 p.m.
  But when I explained this in Washington to one or two Representatives of Congress they told me that they shared the view of their own citizens, and that they would have been afraid to do what I had done. I want to translate that situation into what is happening already in this country. Before speaking in this debate I took a great deal of trouble to find out the conditions which existed in certain parts of London and in our larger cities. There is now only the seed—the very beginning—of a much bigger problem.
  Let us consider the Polish community. After the war the Poles got together. If, on a Sunday morning, one goes to Brompton Oratory one will find that the entire Polish community attends that church, They go together. It is natural, right and proper. It is racial absorption that I am talking about—and it has nothing to do with colour. The Polish community stick together; the Italian community stick together intensely; the Jewish community stick together; the Ghanaian community stick together; the West Indian community stick together. [An Hon. Member: "And the Old Etonians."] Somebody said that the Old Etonians stick together. That is quite possibly true. Freemasons stick together. The Pakistanis stick together.
  The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) made a great reputation for himself with his great independence of mind in considering these racial questions. He understands a good bit about them. When I went to Nairobi to deal with the question of conditions in the detention camps I sought to cross-examine the detainees, and I found that there were 11 tribes in Kenya, and that they prefer to live in their own quarters.
  When such people come into this country they create their own communities. In Brixton, there is already an area where neither white people nor policemen want to go at night. If hon. Members disbelieve me I can take them there. There is a similar area in Paddington, and Ladbroke Grove. There are similar parts of Birmingham and Liverpool, and other cities to which I can take hon. Members. My hon. Friend
  428
  the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is quite right, and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) quite wrong. The real point is that these people, whatever their race may be, form small communities and then become intensely unpopular with those who live around them and who do not understand them. Because of this the members of these communities become self-protective and introvert in their practices and habits.
  There is a certain sect in the West Indian community which believes that what is best for them is to purchase the property in which they are living—a very laudable sentiment—and then to arrange to put in it only members of their own community—West Indians—as tenant!. Having done that, West Indian ownership creeps down the adjoining houses until the West Indians have gained control of the whole street. It is their declared aim to gain control of the whole area in which they live. In another part of the country Pakistanis do the same sort of thing. The Poles also do it. If they could, the Irish would. The trouble is that the Irish are a little vagrant and itinerant in their ways. As my hon. Friend said in an aside, the Irish have usually gambled all their money away whereas the West Indian who works saves.
  What I want my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to do is this. I want him to make a survey of the racial absorption in this country. I think that he will set; that the races are all cheek by jowl in certain areas. The proper yardstick of the rate of immigration into this country is the rate at which we can properly absorb these races without them getting into these closely knit communities.
  For example, I hope that everyone in the Committee would have, and have had—I know that I have done so many times-—coloured people of all nations to stay with them—Africans, Indians, Pakistanis. No one minds having an individual Pakistani in the flat above him. No one minds an individual coloured man in one's club. What causes the trouble is when it is a completely Polish, Pakistani, West Indian, Ghanaian, West Indian, or even Canadian, or whatever it may be, community; when they get around and

  429
  force out the English people who have lived in that area and create a complete niche for themselves and follow their own livelihood.
  Why? Because they are not true immigrants. The true immigrant is a person who wants to come to Britain in order to become a Briton. If he wants to do that it is because he is going to participate in the British way of life. If he is going to do that, then we want him to adopt our methods of society and our way of life. We do net want these people coming in as islanders and occupying an island of their own, entirely carved out of their own set and trying to create their own cultural ties. We want them to come into this State of ours so that they can enjoy with us the way of life on which we depend.
  I quite agree that I have given inadequate expression to what I feel, but I hope that we will all try and take this problem away from pure colour. I have tried to point the moral of New York. I was dining with my hon. Friend the Member for Baron's Court (Mr. Compton Carr) the other night and I said to him that I feared in ten years' time we would have a Harlem here. In all fairness to my hon. Friend, he said that I was talking absolute rubbish. Indeed, I was not and I will prove it. If any hon. Member wants to come with me I will take him and prove to him what I have proved to my own satisfaction.
  We are faced with this problem, and the right way to deal with it is to try to understand the. problems of racial absorption by putting them fearlessly into practice. We would welcome the amendment of the Act, but at present there is nothing but to support it. I hope that hon. Members will support it. I hope that we shall not have the cockshy thrown up by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East of a General Election which becomes an all black and white affair. I have heard the suggestion, and the equal one of the other side of the coin, that all black people vote Labour and all white people vote Conservative. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's point of view. I do not want to see that.
  Hon. Members must try to be a little less sentimental about this matter. They were sentimental, and still are I know, about Franco. The mere mention of Franco raises a feeling of horror in any Labour man. Hon. Members opposite have this colour business a little twisted and are emotional about it. Let them snap out of it and try to get down to the practical side of the matter. If we all do that, then I am sure that we can achieve the right solution.
  Question put. That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 181, Noes 131.

  Division No. 3.]

  AYES

  [11.11 p.m.

  Agnew, Str Peter

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Aitken Sir William

  Clark, William (Nottingham, 8.)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, 8.)

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Cough, Frederick

  Allason, James

  Cooke, Robert

  Gower, Raymond

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Coulson, Michael

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Green, Alan

  Barlow, Sir John

  Crawley, Aidan

  Grosvertor, Lord Robert

  Barter, John

  Critchtey, Julian

  Gurden, Harold

  Batsford, Brian

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Bitten, John

  Curran, Charles

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Harris, Reader (Hesttm)

  Bingham, R. M.

  Dance, James

  Harrison, Cot. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Bishop, F. P.

  Donaldson, Cmrdr. C. E. M,

  Hastings, Stephen

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Doughty, Charles

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Str Lionel

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hendry, Fortes

  Boume-Arton, A.

  Eden, Sir John

  Hiley, Joseph

  Box, Donald

  Elliot, Capt. Waiter (Carshalton)

  Hilt, Mrs. Evetine (Wythenshawe)

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Elliott,R-W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

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

  Braine, Bernard

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Bromiey-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fell, Anthony

  Holland, Philip

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Buck, Antony

  Freeth, Derail

  Hopkins, Alan

  Bullard, Denys

  Gammans, Lady

  Hornby, R. P.

  Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Naim)

  Gibson-Watt, David

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

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Glover, Stir Douglas

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Chichester-Clark. R.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Iremonger, T. L,

  James, David

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

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

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Temple, John M.

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Pott, Percivall

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Pounder, Rafton

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Kirk, Peter

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Turner, Colin

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Pym, Francis

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

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

  Walder, David

  McLaren, Martin

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Walker, Peter

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy(Bute& Ayrs)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Wall, Patrick

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Matthews, Gordon Meriden)

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

  Webster, David

  Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Mawby, Ray

  Russell, Ronald

  Whitelaw, William

  Maxwell Hyslop, R. J.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

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

  Sharples, Richard

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Montgomery, Fergus

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

  Wise, A. R.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Smithers, Peter

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Neave, Airey

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Speir, Rupert

  Woollam, John

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Worsley, Marcus

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Mr. Finlay and Mr. MacArthur

  NOES

  Alnsley, William

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Albu, Austen

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Prentice, R. E.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Probert, Arthur

  Alien, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Redhead, E. C.

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hoy, James H.

  Rhodes, H.

  Barnett, Guy

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hynd, John (Atteroliffe)

  Ross, William

  Blyton, William

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Short, Edward

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Silkin, John

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

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Bowles, Frank

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, s.)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Small, William

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Callaghan, James

  Kelley, Richard

  Snow, Julian

  Carmichael, Nell

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Lawson, George

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cliffs, Michael

  Ledger, Ron

  Stonehouse, John

  Crosland, Anthony

  Loughlin, Charles

  Swingler, Stephen

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mabon, Or. J. Dickson

  Symonds, J. B.

  Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  McBride, N.

  Taverne, D.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  McCann, John

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Diamond, John

  MacColl, James

  Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Evans, Albert

  MacDermot, Niall

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mahon, Simon

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

  Finch, Harold

  Fitch, Alan

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

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Foley, Maurice

  Manuel, Archie

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Mason, Roy

  Warbey, William

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Weitzman, David

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Crmrthn)

  Millan, Bruce

  White, Mrs. Elrene

  Gourlay, Harry

  Milne, Edward

  Whitlock, William

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Morris, John

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

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

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Oliver, G. H,

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Winterbottom, R. E,

  Harmon, William

  Oram, A. E.

  Woof, Robert

  Harper, Joseph

  Paget, R. T.

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Peart, Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Healey, Denis

  Pentland, Norman

  Mr. Grey and Mr. Ifor Davies.

  Schedule agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

  SCHOOLS (RACIAL INTEGRATION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes- Young.]
  11.20 p.m.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalien: We have just been discussing the question of the control of the flow of immigrants into this country. I want for a short time to raise an allied matter, that of handling a section of them once they have arrived in this country. It is a somewhat wider subject in some ways because it deals with all non-English-speaking children, whether they happen to come from the Commonwealth or from anywhere else.
  It is a little difficult to know just what the size of the problem is because we do not exactly know the numbers of non-English-speaking school children at present in this country. I doubt very much whether over the country as a whole it is a very serious problem. Out ofthe present school population in London of about 400,000 there are about 5,000 who are non-English-speaking—1¼ per cent.
  As has been mentioned in the earlier debate, a problem arises where these children are concentrated in particular areas. In the area of the L.C.C. there is, I should judge, a fairly high concentration in places like Kensington and Islington. There is a high concentration in parts of Birmingham and, so I hear, in Bradford, and I believe that in Bedford there is the highest concentration of all per head of population.
  Where there is this concentration a problem arises for schools. I know of. one village school in Buckinghamshire which, at the beginning of one term, had to face the problem of 12 non-English-speaking Italian children suddenly arriving on its doorstep. There is a real danger when a large number of non-English speaking children arrive at a school. There is the danger either that they will be left to their own devices so that their education will not develop very quickly, or else particular attention will be paid to them which could conceivably retard the progress of the English children in that school.
  434
  Various methods are being tried to deal with this problem. In the L.C.C. area, for non-English-speaking children of secondary school age there are various centres, such as the Laycock Centre in Islington, where they are taught English for half of each school day and then return to their ordinary school to cope with the ordinary curriculum as best they can. I do not think any special steps are taken to deal with primary school children. They are left to pick up their education as best they can, and that seems to work reasonably well, partly through the special devotion of the teachers who, I believe, give up their lunch hour to give extra tuition to some of these children.
  In Birmingham, I think there is a scheme whereby itinerant teachers go from school to school and take special classes in English. In Bradford, a very small experiment is being tried in a centre to which a small number of non-English speaking children are invited to go, there to be taught in their own language.
  There are snags about these various schemes. The problem is difficult, because not just one foreign language but many are involved. There is difficulty in getting teachers who are sufficiently qualified to teach in all the languages which are required. There is also the snag of teaching English through the child's native tongue. It is rather an encouragement to children to think in their own native language, and, indeed, to continue to use it among themselves. But I am not an expert teacher, so I shall not pontificate about methods.
  I have, however, two certainties in my mind about the handling of this problem. First, whatever we do, we must not allow the education of the English children to be retarded. There was a feeling—I do not know how justified it was—that this was happening in Southall, and the Minister himself had some experience of it. Whether it happened there or not, it should not happen, and in no way should the education of English children be retarded. My second certainty is that any proposal to have special schools solely for non-English-speaking children should be as strongly opposed as the Minister did, with great courage, on that occasion.

  435
  I wish now to bring to the attention of the House an experiment which is being conducted in my own constituency of Huddersfield which avoids the retarding of the education of the English children who go to the school and any question of a separate school for non-English speaking children. This experiment is taking place in an ordinary primary school. Spring Grove County Primary School, in Huddersfield.
  In addition to the English children of the area who go there, all non-English-speaking children, from whatever part of the borough they come, are invited to enrol there. From the very beginning, they take part in some of the activities of the main school. They join in assembly. They play games all together. All the children go for their swimming lessons together. They do their P.T. together, and a certain amount of music together.
  But, at first, those children who cannot speak English at all go into special classes where they are taught the English language intensively, and some academic work. After a period, they pass from the special classes into what are called transfer classes where they have more academic work; and, eventually, after a period of time which depends on the speed with which they pick things up, they move into the main school and are completely integrated. There are various refinements, but that is the main way in which the school works.
  There are, I think, one or two snags in this particular scheme in Huddersfield. It is probably wrong that secondary school children should be brought into a primary school; they are rather too old to be mixing with children very much younger than themselves, and a separate school for secondary children should, I think, be developed. There is also, I regret to say, the trouble that the balance between the English and the non-English-speaking children is being upset by slum clearance and other schemes which are tending to move a great many of the native-born families out of the area into other parts of the town.
  It may well be that, in time, the local education authority will have to consider shifting its centre to another place so that it can preserve the balance of
  436
  immigrant children, of whatever colour or race, with native-born children. But the essential point remains that in this school the education of the English children is not retarded. Indeed, it tends to be slightly wider than in other schools, because when they are learning about foreign lands in history or geography, added point is given to their lessons by the fact that they may be sitting side by side with somebody who comes from one of those countries.
  Furthermore, the non-English children in the school, instead of being merely left to pick up things and, therefore, moving rather slowly, tend to move fast, thus making it possible all the sooner for them to take their place in the main school. After a comparatively short time, a child who arrives at the school wholly incapable of speaking English is fully part of the life of the school.
  Therefore, recognising that there is a problem and that various methods are being tried to cope with it, I appeal to the Minister and the Ministry to do everything they possibly can to spread the knowledge of the different methods that are employed and the different experiences that teachers throughout the country have with this problem. I understand, from an Answer given to a Question of mine the other day, that the Ministry is about to do this with the publication of Pamphlet No. 43, which Is to be issued. I believe, tomorrow or the day after.
  I should like the Ministry to back up that pamphlet by having at least regional conferences of areas where this problem arises. The Ministry should do all that it can to facilitate the interchange of visits between one school and another dealing with the problem so that they can all learn from their separate experiences. I should like the Minister also to consider the possibility of giving special responsibility allowances to teachers in schools like this one in Huddersfield where very special work is done without any extra pay and a great deal of extra time is devoted to it.
  I should like the Minister to do what he can to stimulate the local authority to do its share in guiding the parents of immigrant children into our ways and showing them that it really is a help if they attend school functions and take

  437
  the normal part of a parent in school life, which some of them do not seem willing to do. In addition, the local education authority should make it clear to English parents that in schools like this one in Huddersfield, their own children are not being retarded in any way but are getting a first-class education.
  To sum up, whatever our views may be about the Act which we have been discussing today, no one in the House of Commons has suggested that we should send back to their own countries all the various immigrant families who are here. Therefore, it is to our interest to do everything possible to ensure that they are absorbed into our community and that integration really takes place.
  I know that racial discrimination is fairly well an adult disease—it does not often appear in children—but we can help to prevent its onset by mingling the children together a great deal when they are very young. In so doing, we shall help the children to educate their parents.
  The teachers who do this job, and who are doing it effectively, are doing work of supreme national importance. They are doing a job of work which will benefit not only ourselves immediately, but the lives of our children and the whole of our community in years to come. I end, therefore, by asking the Minister to do, as I know he will, everything he possibly can to help these teachers in their work.
  11.34 p.m.
  Mrs. Eirene White: I should like to say a word of welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu for raising this subject. It is one in which I have taken an interest for more years than I care to think. More than thirty years ago, in New York, I came up against this kind of problem with the first and second generation immigrants.
  I ask the Minister not only to think of the great importance of the children in the schools, but, also, whether something could be done to encourage teaching mothers at least spoken English. The tension in the home when the child is taught English in school and the mother cannot speak English can lead
  438
  to all kinds of disciplinary problems. I have here a report of a recent conference held in London of the Cypriot community where this matter was raised of the gap which arises between the generations. It is the mother in particular who is apt to be at home; father picks up a certain amount of English at work; but the mother may be monoglot in her own language. This can raise the greatest difficulties, and it may affect the child in such a way that delinquency, and so forth, may follow owing to instability at home.
  This question of helping adult education of mothers, so that they can at least have some knowledge of English, is something to which the Minister ought to give his attention.
  11.35 p.m.
  The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I can tell the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) straight away that the last chapter of a pamphlet, "English for Immigrants," which is appearing on 29th November, specifically has the theme of English for adults, and quite deliberately it does not only include the children's age group.
  As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) said in introducing this debate, we have been discussing for some time earlier today the question how many immigrants should be admitted. Now we are dealing with the certainly no less important question how we can achieve integration between the communities who live in this country, and I think that perhaps especially in the week of President Kennedy's death I must at the start state to the House my own belief that the problem of racial relations, and of integration versus segregation, will continue for generations to be one of the most important facing the free world. I am, therefore, very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having enabled us to have a debate on this subject.
  I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that all experience suggests that children are, by nature, free of racial prejudice. I heard a very wise teacher in Birmingham say at a conference recently that we shall achieve integration in this country when the children of different

  439
  races attend one another's birthday parties in their homes as a matter of course. I think that that is true. Children of different races tend to play and learn together very easily if adults do not put them off with their own fears and superstitions. The school is, therefore, of great importance as the obvious instrument for achieving integration.
  I am not, of course, directly responsible for running the schools, but my approach to this is a very simple one. It seems to me that I am responsible quite clearly to this House for all children who are resident in this country, whatever their intelligence, whatever their race or colour, and receiving education according to their age and ability.
  After all, one of the strongest arguments we all use when we advocate educational advance is this. We say very truly today that our children tend to be more equal as physical specimens than they ever were before, and that today the average child of or 2 is a much better physical specimen than the average child of that age in the past, but the opportunities children have in their homes for learning and gaining knowledge of England can be very unequal; and just as they can be unequal as between native children, as one says so often, so there are greater inequalities of opportunity between native children and immigrant children. It is, to my mind, for that reason that this is a subject which must certainly be taken very seriously indeed.
  So far as I can influence these matters at all it is my own hope that schools will not become segregated. That is to say, I do not wish to see in this country—and I am sure no one in this House wishes to see—laissez faire acceptance of what one might call de facto segregation between immigrant schools and native schools. I am sure that that is wrong for two reasons.
  In the first place, in the interests of the general policy for racial integration, it is my view that efforts must be made to prevent individual schools from becoming only immigrant schools. Secondly, there is the educational point of which we must not lose sight. If possible, it is desirable on educational
  440
  grounds that no one school should have more than about 30 per cent, of immigrants. I have the greatest admiration for the hundreds, indeed thousands, of admirable teachers in the country who are coping with the problem. I will mention them particularly in one context. But I am sure that the educational problems that one gets above the level of 30 per cent, immigrant children become infinitely harder and perhaps impossible to tackle.
  Let us be under no illusions as to how difficult the problem is from the point of view of local education authorities. It is easy enough for us in the House to pronounce general principles, but I have every sympathy with a local authority and its staff who actually have to tackle the problem. For example, one must realise the difficulty in places where nearly a whole neighbourhood is taken over by immigrant families. The school serving the neighbourhood will cease to have a sufficient supply of native children, and it is both politically and legally more or less impossible to compel native parents to send their children to a school in an immigrant area if there are places for them in other schools. Moreover, even when native parents continue to live alongside immigrants, they will often seek to transfer their children to more distant non-immigrant schools if their local school has more than about 30 per cent, of immigrant children. That is the sort of problem that a local authority has to tackle.
  When I speak of the importance of all children receiving a proper education, I mean all children—that is to say, immigrant children and native children. One must recognise the perfectly legitimate anxiety of many of the parents of what I call the native children; one must recognise the reasonable fear of many parents that their children will get less than a fair share of the teachers' attention when a great deal of it must of necessity be given both to language teaching and to the social training of immigrant children.
  So I say, on the general principle, by all means, let us stand firmly in this House against segregation between native school and immigrant schools. I hope that the House will never be attracted by the spuriously respectable doctrine which has gone by the name of

  441
  " separate but equal". In practice, separate will always mean unequal. In practice, immigrant schools, if separate, will never be equal. But let us realise at the same time the legitimate fears of the parents of native-born children and let us very fully realise the particular problems, administrative problems not least, with which any local authority will be faced.
  It is fair to say that lately public attention has centred on the particular instance of this problem as it has affected Southall, in Middlesex. I want to mention this subject because I addressed a meeting of parents there on 15th October. In a political life of about thirteen years in this House, it was one of the best public meetings that I have attended. We had about 400 people in a large hall, I talked for 25 minutes, we had a long question time, and I thought the spirit of the meeting was admirable and the questioning extremely thoughtful and constructive. Nothing more disreputable happened than, as The Times fairly reported, a British Union banner being rather unceremoniously unfurled and a rather damp paper parcel being undone at the end and a very few leaflets being given out. The spirit of the meeting was absolutely admirable.
  My Department is due to meet the Middlesex and Southall education authorities in December to work out arrangements for distributing Indian and Pakistani children over the schools of the borough. I must regretfully tell the House that one school, Beaconsfield Road School, must be regarded now as irretrievably an immigrant school. The important thing to do is to prevent this happening elsewhere.
  To look on the brighter side, I must say that the schools of Southall have coped extremely well with this problem. There has been a real burden on Beaconsfield Road School. The two headmistresses, both of whom I met, have done a really first-class job and I was struck at the meeting by how admirable were the contributions made by the teachers who were present.
  I am certain that the spirit in Southall is extremely good on this subject. The aim is to lessen the concentration in Beaconsfield Road School, but, at the same time, that particular area has
  442
  changed its character so much that the problem there might be insuperable when it comes to preventing it becoming an immigrant school.
  I have also been to a conference in Birmingham on this subject. I attended at my own request. I am greatly impressed by the manner in which Birmingham is tackling this question. But anyone who knows the Director of Education, Sir Lionel Russell, will not be surprised. The education committee has done extremely well and is getting good co-operation from the leaders of the West Indian community. I know just how well those leaders are helping the authority.
  I want to make one or two remarks about the practical steps that can be taken. I take account of the need for extra teachers to cope with immigrants by giving the authorities concerned additions to their teacher quotas. I announced to Southall that we have made deliberately a small addition there. It is always difficult with a quota, however. The more exceptions one makes the less fairly the system tends to work. But I am sure that it is right that we should bear in mind the need for extra teachers to cope with immigrants.
  I certainly will support any authority which tries to spread immigrant children by introducing zoning schemes. This must be a matter of co-operation rather than compulsion, but I can promise any authority which attempts to spread immigrant children my strongest support in so far as it lies with me.
  As far as I can fit this in with my other engagements, I shall always be ready to travel to various parts of the country where this is a real problem to see whether there is help I can give or to answer parents' questions, because this is a highly important subject both for the present and the future.
  We shall certainly do all we can to disseminate advice and information about teaching of immigrant children. Her Majesty's inspectors aim to do this all the time in their normal contacts with teachers and authorities and the pamphlet which will be published on 29 th November is the fruit of a number of years of study.
  Finally, I have asked the under-secretary in the schools branch of my Department to take special responsibility for

  443
  advising me on these matters, and I am considering whether it might not be possible to strengthen this particular branch of the Ministry so as to ensure that adequate work is done in collecting and disseminating information on this subject. I agree entirely that there are a number of interesting experiments, not least at Huddersfield, and that it is very important that this knowledge should be as widely shared as possible.
  This is a subject which I think would well merit a longer debate on a number of occasions. Let us remember that the present immigrant settlers will produce an increasing number of children. Immigrant children as they reach maturity may well reproduce in larger numbers than perhaps some other parts of the population. This is not just
  444
  a short-term matter, but a long-term question as well. It affects secondary as well as primary education. In my constituency I know that there is a feeling among some teachers that we tend to think relatively not enough about it in the secondary education context.
  I have every sympathy for those who feel difficulties in a new community, and I ask all concerned to think not just about the immediate problem of today, not just 1:0 compare the problem of today with the Britain of ten years ago, but above all, to see that in tackling it we help to build the sort of Britain and the sort of local communities we all wish to see for the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  School Accommodation, Kirkintilloch
  School Accommodation, Kirkintilloch
  New Factory Buildings, Cumbernauld
  New Factory Buildings, Cumbernauld
  Hydro-Electric Schemes
  Hydro-Electric Schemes
  Livingston New Town Development Corporation
  Livingston New Town Development Corporation
  Housing
  Housing
  Glasgow Overspill
  Glasgow Overspill
  North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board
  North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board
  Development Programme (Consultations)
  Development Programme (Consultations)
  Public Development, Central Scotland (Land)
  Public Development, Central Scotland (Land)
  Inshore Fishing Fleet (Boats)
  Inshore Fishing Fleet (Boats)
  Cereals Deficiency Payment Claim (Mr. McDonald)
  Cereals Deficiency Payment Claim (Mr. McDonald)
  Central Scotland (White Paper)
  Central Scotland (White Paper)
  Polmont-Falkirk By-Pass
  Polmont-Falkirk By-Pass
  House Building, Central Scotland
  House Building, Central Scotland
  Central Scotland (Public Service Investment)
  Central Scotland (Public Service Investment)
  Roads, Edinburgh Area
  Roads, Edinburgh Area
  Upland Farms (Winter Keep Scheme)
  Upland Farms (Winter Keep Scheme)
  Western Isles
  Western Isles
  Hospitals (Medical Staffing Structure)
  Hospitals (Medical Staffing Structure)
  Municipal Houses, Dumfriesshire and Ayrshire (Rents)
  Municipal Houses, Dumfriesshire and Ayrshire (Rents)
  New Town Development Corporations (Contracts)
  New Town Development Corporations (Contracts)
  Church Organisations (Youth Work)
  Church Organisations (Youth Work)
  National Health Service (Maternity Fees)
  National Health Service (Maternity Fees)
ROADS
  Street Lighting
  Street Lighting
  Motorways (Edge Marking)
  Motorways (Edge Marking)
  M.5 Motorway
  M.5 Motorway
  Lichfield Road Improvement Scheme, Willenhall
  Lichfield Road Improvement Scheme, Willenhall
  South Orbital Road
  South Orbital Road
  Winter Maintenance Arrangements
  Winter Maintenance Arrangements
  Menelaus Street, Cardiff
  Menelaus Street, Cardiff
  M.1 Motorway (Extension)
  M.1 Motorway (Extension)
  M.5 Motorway (Extension)
  M.5 Motorway (Extension)
  Motorways (Anti-Dazzle and Crash Barriers)
  Motorways (Anti-Dazzle and Crash Barriers)
  A.1 Roads, Hatfield-Stevenage (Reconstruction)
  A.1 Roads, Hatfield-Stevenage (Reconstruction)
  South Coast Trunk Road
  South Coast Trunk Road
  Park Lane (Subway)
  Park Lane (Subway)
  Underground Garage, Hyde Park
  Underground Garage, Hyde Park
  A.19 Road (Reconstruction)
  A.19 Road (Reconstruction)
TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicles (Hire-Purchase Agreements)
  Motor Vehicles (Hire-Purchase Agreements)
  Traffic in Towns (Report)
  Traffic in Towns (Report)
SHIPPING
  Nuclear Propulsion
  Nuclear Propulsion
  Ports (Rochdale Report)
  Ports (Rochdale Report)
  Ships (Sale Abroad)
  Ships (Sale Abroad)
  "Reina Del Mar" (Crew)
  "Reina Del Mar" (Crew)
RAILWAYS
  Children (Concessionary Fares)
  Children (Concessionary Fares)
  Proposed Closures (Local Authority Representations)
  Proposed Closures (Local Authority Representations)
  Proposed Closures (North and West of Inverness)
  Proposed Closures (North and West of Inverness)
  Disused Railway Lines
  Disused Railway Lines
POST OFFICE
  Newton Aycliffe
  Newton Aycliffe
  Inland Letters (Postage Rate)
  Inland Letters (Postage Rate)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Merton and Morden
  Merton and Morden
  Telephone Kiosk, Cardiff
  Telephone Kiosk, Cardiff
  Liberty, Derwent and Cherrywood Exchanges (S.T.D. System)
  Liberty, Derwent and Cherrywood Exchanges (S.T.D. System)
  Pontefract, Featherstone and Castleford (S.T.D. System)
  Pontefract, Featherstone and Castleford (S.T.D. System)
  Directories
  Directories
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Independent Television Licences
  Independent Television Licences
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Abbotsinch Airport
  Abbotsinch Airport
  B.O.A.C. (Corbett Report)
  B.O.A.C. (Corbett Report)
  AW681 Aircraft
  AW681 Aircraft
  Argosy Aircraft
  Argosy Aircraft
  Aldergrove Airfield
  Aldergrove Airfield
  Fowl Pest (Vaccination Policy)
  Fowl Pest (Vaccination Policy)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Small Farms, South-West
  Small Farms, South-West
  Milk Production, South-West
  Milk Production, South-West
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Stanmore Depot, Shropshire (Buildings)
  Stanmore Depot, Shropshire (Buildings)
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
  British West Indian Airways (Viscount Aircraft)
  British West Indian Airways (Viscount Aircraft)
EDUCATION
  Dunkirk County Primary School
  Dunkirk County Primary School
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Greyhound Racing (Pool Betting Duty and Bookmakers' Licence Duty)
  Greyhound Racing (Pool Betting Duty and Bookmakers' Licence Duty)
  Pirestwick Airport (Tax-Free Zone)
  Pirestwick Airport (Tax-Free Zone)
  CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSIONERS
  CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSIONERS
  SOUTH VIET-NAM
  SOUTH VIET-NAM
  INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
  INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
HOSPITALS
  St. Thomas' Hospital
  St. Thomas' Hospital
HOUSING
  Local Authority Building
  Local Authority Building
  Birmingham, Small Heath
  Birmingham, Small Heath
  Dockyard Workers
  Dockyard Workers
  Local Authority Houses (Cost)
  Local Authority Houses (Cost)
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  British Films (Marketing)
  British Films (Marketing)
  Drums (Australian Import Duty)
  Drums (Australian Import Duty)
  Peterlee
  Peterlee
EMPLOYMENT
  Boys and Girls, Northern Region (Benefits)
  Boys and Girls, Northern Region (Benefits)
  St. Ives
  St. Ives
  South-West
  South-West
  Falmouth and Camborne
  Falmouth and Camborne
  North-East
  North-East
  Contracts of Employment Act, 1963
  Contracts of Employment Act, 1963

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

SUBSIDY ON LAMB EXPORTS TO FRANCE
2.35 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the amount of subsidy paid during the last three months on British lamb which has been exported to France.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, there are no figures relating specifically to lamb, but I have the latest available figures for exports of sheep and carcases which cover the three months ending with September. These show total exports to France over this period of some 10,000 sheep and 238 tons of carcase meat. This is equivalent to a total of 23,000 lambs. It is impossible to say how many of these received the guarantee payment, but even supposing that they all received subsidy the total payment would have been some £26,500.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that information. Although he does not think some £25,000 is a significant amount, would it not be fair to say that this is money which is in fact coming from the British taxpayer for which the British consumer gets no benefit whatsoever, but from which either the French consumer or French middleman derives considerable benefit? If that is the case, would the noble Lord not agree that this is not the right way to spend the British taxpayers' money?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, there are two replies to the noble Lord's point,
642
both supporting each other. In fact, I quite see that at first sight this must seem to be to the cost of the British taxpayer. But, in fact, in estimating the effect we have to go through rather a complicated exercise: on the supposition that the removal of these animals from our market raised the average price above what it otherwise would have been by as little as one-sixteenth of a penny, there will, in fact, be a saving to the taxpayer of some £33,250, which will more than offset the subsidy payment. In fact, the taxpayer has not lost over this. In making the other reply to the noble Lord's Question, I must ask him to remember that the subsidy is paid to the producers; and the subsidy enables the producers in this country to sell their produce at the world market price in competition with imported supplies. The United Kingdom market is a free market and this postulates free import and export. If it is a free market inwards, it is right that it should be a free market outward as well. So the position is that the French buy in our markets at world prices.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has given us very many figures for which I am most grateful. But would he not agree that the logical conclusion to be drawn from his second answer, at least, is that it is to the benefit of the British taxpayer if there is less on the market; and therefore would he not agree that this is in contradiction to the whole of the Government's professed agricultural policy to encourage agricultural production? I am sure that the noble Lord must agree, if he stops to think and is not blinded by his own figures, that this makes nonsense of the whole present policy with regard to deficiency payments and increased production.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I think the noble Lord is being even naughtier than usual. He knows very well that when we say we want less on the market it is when the market contains a surplus. If the market can be relieved of a quantity of produce by selling it, then we are absolutely delighted; and I should have thought that he would have been as well.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not a good thing for the French public to acquire a taste for British lamb; and

643
will the noble Lord give an indication of which restaurants in Paris will serve it, so that we may enjoy it there?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, it is a question of research rather than forecast. This lamb has already been sold. I regret that I do not have the figures with me at the moment.

PERMANENT EXHIBITION OF BRITISH CRAFTSMANSHIP
2.38 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: 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 the reasons for the rejection of the proposal made by the Council of Industrial Design for the establishment of a permanent and changing Exhibition of British craftsmanship, in view of the Government's declared intention to encourage the development of British industry and the expansion of exports.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the Council of Industrial Design receive an annual grant-in-aid from the Board of Trade, and we are at present considering their proposals as to the level of the grant in the three years beginning in April, 1964. These proposals involve continuing their existing activities and undertaking some new ones—including the exhibition of British craftsmanship at the Council's premises at the Haymarket, to which the noble Lord has referred. We have not yet taken a decision on the Council's proposals as a whole, but it would require a very large increase in their grant to enable them to do all that they have in mind. We have therefore thought it right to let them know that we cannot support this particular proposal which, we think, could be carried out only at the expense of other work to which we attach greater importance.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his information concerning the grant to the Council of Industrial Design, but I would ask
644
whether he feels that he has given an adequate reply to the Question I have addressed to him, which is whether or not the Government are prepared to give support for a
"permanent and changing Exhibition of British craftsmanship …"?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Question concerns the exhibition in the premises of the Council of Industrial Design. Noble Lords will appreciate that the Council of Industrial Design is primarily concerned with design for industry: whereas the Crafts Centre was concerned not only with design for industry but also with design on the basis of individual artist-craftsmen. We do not underrate the contribution which artist-craftsmen can make, but we are not convinced that providing an exhibition of the kind proposed would appreciably increase the impact which those craftsmen make on the engineering, capital goods and other industries where we look particularly for improvements in the standards of design.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether the kind of exhibition for which Government support is requested is the kind of thing that is being done in certain other forward countries such as Sweden, who are making progress in engineering and other industries after having design exhibitions? We shall be inclined to be left behind unless we get as good exhibitions as they have had.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not fully informed as to the kind of exhibitions which are run, but I am aware that other countries do run craftsmen centres and exhibitions for craftsmen's designs. But this particular Question has to deal with whether or not that sort of exhibition should be comprised within the exhibition which is organised by the Council of Industrial Design and we feel that, while there might be quite a lot to be said for that, this cannot be one of the highest priorities in the Council for Industrial Design at a time when they have many other projects in view.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while declaring my interest as a member of the Council of Industrial Design, and having no collusion with

645
my noble friend who has raised this Question, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the Council view with great distress the apparent decision that has been taken by the Board of Trade? May I ask him, although I am speaking in an individual capacity this afternoon, whether he realises that we feel that the Government do not appreciate the great value of craftsmanship to British industry today? And would he feel it possible to consider this matter, as I know what an interest he takes in these affairs?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I much obliged to the noble Baroness, but the main question here is one of priorities between this particular project and other projects. I think I can say that while the Council wish to undertake this activity, they would not place it in the highest priority among the projects they have in view, and we thought it as well to rule it out in the consideration at present going on, on their hopes for next year.
LORD WILLIAMSON: My Lords, I understand that this is the first time that the Minister has appeared to answer Questions from the Front Bench and I would warmly congratulate him and wish him well. Does he not agree that this proposal would not only encourage and stimulate interest in craftsmanship, but assist in the efforts for improved industrial training, and that on this count alone it warrants the Government's reconsideration of their decision?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am certain that it would assist in industrial training, but I must revert to the point that this is really a question, not of whether this may be a good thing in itself, but of whether, in comparison with other projects, it is the best way of spending the available money, because obviously this is not the only way in which craftsmanship can be exhibited.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, the noble Lord has indicated that this proposal is not a high priority of the Council of Industrial Design. Has it not the unanimous support of that Council? The second question I would ask the noble Lord is this. Is it not the fact that every single one of the Scandinavian countries has an exhibition of this character, which has proved a stimulant to design and,
646
contrary to what the Minister has said, has a considerable influence on industrial design, which is the point that was particularly put to the Minister by the Council of Industrial Design?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, but surely this question is whether, given the limited space available in the permanent exhibition in the premises of the Council of Industrial Design, and given also the fact that the budget for them cannot be unlimited, this is the best way in which they can devote their limited funds to improvement in the standards of industrial design.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I must protest. Is it not a fact that the Council of Industrial Design have indicated that they have adequate accommodation and that the total cost of such an exhibition would be less than £20,000 a year?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, I cannot confirm the estimate of £20,000 which the noble Lord has given. My information is that the estimate was considerably higher than that. I must say again that, given their existing Vote of £250,000 and the fact that there are other projects in view, we have to weigh the value—and I do not dispute the value—of an exhibition in the premises of the Council of Industrial Design against their other projects, particularly bearing in mind that the emphasis just now must be on exhibition for such purposes as engineering productivity, which is one of the projects which they have in mind.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that, however restricted the exhibition might be, it is better than nothing at all?
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is so, my Lords; but my information is that at the present time the Crafts Centre is carrying on, though admittedly on a precarious basis.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, while adding my congratulations to those of my noble friend, may I ask the noble Lord how much autonomy the Council of Industrial Design have and whether this should not be their decision, given a budget, rather than the Government's?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, they have complete autonomy in putting

647
up proposals for expenditure. But in the last resort, it must be the Government who decide, in consultation with them, which of their applications for increased expenditure are conceded.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask one last question? I apologise to the House for the fact that this matter has taken a little time. The Government need thousands and thousands of millions of pounds for their programme of expansion. It has been proved in Scandinavia that a small expenditure on design, kept up steadily, has led to an increase in industrial production. All we say in this case is that our workmen, many of whom engage in design in their spare time, need encouragement in designing as well as in producing the finished work which is exhibited. They want to see how it can be done and whether it is worth going on with new designs. What we really want to do is to build the basis of expansion.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think there is any disagreement at all between us on the desirability of encouraging design, but the function of the Council of Industrial Design is only to promote the excellence of industrial design, whereas craftsmen are concerned with many forms of design that do not directly contribute to industrial design. This is a question of priorities.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Chesham will be making a statement on the Buchanan Report, and my noble friend Lord St. Oswald will be making a statement on horticulture, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.

NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to alter the perambulation of the New Forest, to make further provision for the New Forest, to amend the New Forest Acts 1877 to 1949, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to
648
move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Crathorne.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

HIRE-PURCHASE BILL [H.L.]
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to hire-purchase and credit-sale, and, in relation thereto, to amend the enactments relating to the sale of goods; to make further provision as to the registration and licensing of mechanically propelled vehicles in relation to vehicles let or agreed to be sold by way of hire-purchase or conditional sale; to amend the Advertisements (Hire-Purchase) Act 1957; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Committee be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

E. Lucan,

E. St.Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

V. Hall,

L. Amulree,

L. Ogmore,

L. Silkin,

L. Strang.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

KENYA INDEPENDENCE BILL
Brought from the Commons, printed (pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A), and read 1a.
ZANZIBAR BILL
Brought from the Commons, printed (pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A), and read 1a.
BAHAMA ISLANDS (CONSTITUTION) BILL
Brought from the Commons, printed (pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A), and read 1a.

CENTRAL AFRICA AND THE HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES
2.53 p.m.
LORD WALSTON LORD WALSTON rose to call attention to the situation in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the High Commission Territories; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for initiating a debate on this subject, in spite of the fact that it is not many weeks ago since your Lordships had an opportunity of touching upon it. A certain amount was said on that occasion, but, in my view, and I believe in the view of many people, the whole subject of Southern Africa, comprising, so far as this country is concerned, primarily the High Commission Territories and the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland, is of such enormous importance that it should be debated at the greatest length that can be spared.
The area of Southern Africa is one where the future of that whole continent is at present being decided, and for all we know the future of the world well may also be decided by what transpires there. In essence, the struggle that is going on there is a struggle between the European and the African races, and, in particular, between the two philosophies, apartheid and multi-racialism—or, as it is now perhaps aptly called, non-racialism. I do not think there are many people in this Chamber or in this country to-day who would disagree with
650
the words of the Prime Minister on that subject. With your Lordships' permission, I will quote words that he used on another occasion, and which he first delivered at a meeting of the Royal Commonwealth Society, when he said that he believed that
"the greatest danger ahead of us is that the world might be divided on racial lines."
He went on to say:
"I see no other danger, not even the nuclear bomb, which would be so catastrophic as that."
That is true, my Lords. It is in the context of Southern Africa that we now see this struggle being decided. Therefore, it is only reasonable that in discussing the problem of the High Commission Territories and of the Federation we should allow our eyes to wander a little over the strict geographical borders and take a short look at the Republic of South Africa: because it is there that the opposing philosophy to non-racialism —apartheid—is being put into practice.
I do not want to devote much time to this matter, because I have much to say. All I would say is that my own personal impression, after a short visit to the Republic of South Africa, was that the policy which was being adopted there was infinitely more abhorrent and repellent than had seemed to me, bad enough though that was, simply by reading about it and by hearing of it. There is no point in pretending that this is purely a question of political apartheid; that there are certain groups of people who, because of their education, and for no other reason, are not entitled to vote and have a say in the running of the country. That is something which can be defended. But this is not simply political apartheid. This is social apartheid; it is dividing people up solely on the grounds of their colour; forcing them to live in certain places; refusing to allow them certain jobs; preventing normal social intercourse; insisting that they be educated in different places of education; and, in fact, as is going on at this present stage, refusing to admit that an African has any right to reside in the Republic, whether he be born there, whether he be married there, whether his family be there or not; and only if he has a job and a permit to work, which can be arbitrarily withdrawn at any moment,

651
should be allowed to live there. That is, briefly, the situation in the Republic of South Africa at the present time.
But it is only right to say, here and now, that there is a body of very fine men and women, of all colours and races and of all political beliefs, or nearly all political beliefs, who are strongly opposed to this policy of Verwoerd's Government. They are doing their best to alter this situation; but with the laws as they are at the present time their struggle is a vain one. However, I think it is right that we in this country should realise that there are those people there, and we should salute the efforts they are making and the fight they are putting up, often at considerable personal risk to themselves, in order to stand by the principles in which we believe and in which they also believe. And very many, but, alas! not all, of the leaders of the churches in the Republic are taking a similar line.
I know it is said by those who support apartheid that the answer is to help the Africans to develop on their own, and the Bantustan is the practical example of this. But to anybody who has gone into this with any degree of care (and to anybody who wishes to I would recommend the writings of Professor Pistorius of the Republic of South Africa, a well-known student of these matters) it is abundantly clear that the Bantustan idea simply is not a starter from the economic point of view. There is not sufficient area there to enable the vast number of Africans to live and develop happily; the people themselves do not wish for it, and, apart from the Transkei, have refused, and are refusing, to co-operate; and the Transkei itself makes a mockery of its elections in what we in this country call a democracy. It is going even further in the rigging of elections than happened in some of the Communist satellite countries in the years after the war. So we must not delude ourselves here that Bantustan is the answer to this economically; or that it is the answer politically and socially, or on human grounds, either.
There is one more thing about which I think it is worth reminding your Lordships before I leave the Republic of South Africa. People say, "Why do not these liberal-minded people you have spoken of do more about it? Why do
652
they not organise themselves and use constitutional means with which to fight this present system?" I do not think people who say that sufficiently realise the power of the central Government as it is in the Republic to-day; the power of the security police and the various laws which have been introduced, in particular the infamous 90-day detention Regulations, which empower the Minister of Justice to detain without trial for 90 days anybody he suspects of Communist or allied activities—and that covers a very wide range indeed—without trial and in solitary confinement; without access to their family, friends, or even their lawyers; and, at the end of the 90 days, if he so wishes, to continue to detain them. Since this Regulation was introduced, not many months ago, 500 men and women have already been detained in the Republic of South Africa. Of those, 120 have eventually been released without being brought to trial at all; 300 have been charged, but have not yet been convicted or acquitted—indeed, very few have, in fact, been brought to trial; and 80 have not yet even been charged. That is the position, very briefly and sketchily, of the political and social situation in South Africa itself.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the subject of South Africa, may I say, in fairness to the South African Government, that I have always understood that they spend more money per head on the African population than any other Government in Africa. For social reasons I do not personally agree with the policy of apartheid, but I think it should, in all fairness, be pointed out that the South African Government, from the material aspect, looks after the African far better than any other independent Government in Africa.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has said. I do not dispute it; and I intended to come to that point. But it is not a reason for praising the South African Government. It is, I suggest, a reason for very deep shame on our part, that we ourselves spend so little money on the welfare of the Africans in our own Colonies and Protectorates that it should be possible that that could be said.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I said "independent" Governments.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I have no wish to intervene, but I would draw the attention of the House to the terms of the Motion.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, with permission, I will now resume what I was saying, which is directly concerned with the High Commission Territories. I maintain, however, that one cannot get a proper assessment of the position in the High Commission Territories, or in the Federation, unless one takes a brief look at some of the neighbouring countries. Without that the whole exercise would be completely in vacuo and useless. I would further suggest that we cannot arrive at any reasonable or satisfactory conclusion to this whole problem of Southern Africa unless we look at it as a whole. We cannot pick out Bechuanaland and say, "What shall we do there?" and then pick out Nyasaland and say, "What shall we do there?" Because, although they are geographically separated, the Africans must be regarded as one problem.
I would take up the point which has just been made about the welfare of Africans in the Republic of South Africa and admit, with shame, that, in spite of the conditions that I have described, there are every year hundreds of thousands of Africans who are prepared to submit to these social indignities and hardships, and fears of imprisonment, in order to escape from the grinding poverty in their own countries—countries which are under the protection of Her Majesty's Government, and some of which are actually at the present time British Colonies. That is something to which we cannot blind our eyes.
What we must do with the Protectorates as the Economist pointed out in an article two week ago, is to invest more money and more technical help, and, of course, give other forms of assistance, as we are to a minor extent giving at the present time. We cannot dodge our responsibilities there, because if we are sincere in supporting the views expressed by the Prime Minister con-
654
cering the dangers or racial strife we must ensure that our shop windows of non-racialism in the Protectorates and the countries at present forming the Federation on the borders of apartheid, are good shop windows which show that non-racialism can work. Just as the West has been prepared to pour money into West Berlin in order to show that Western democracy can work and works better than Communism, so we must be prepared to give all the assistance that we can to these territories to show that non-racialism can work, and that apartheid is not the only, nor, indeed, the right answer; otherwise the words of the Prime Minister, great though they are, are empty words.
Going briefly through the different Protectorates, let us look first of all at Bechuanaland, a vast area without many people, an arid country, with small mineral resources—though there are some—dependent almost entirely upon the livestock industry. What is needed there more than anything else (and the Morse Report of several years ago made this quite clear) is water. There must be a hydrological survey; and, following that, money must be invested in boreholes, in canals or in dams, or in a combination of them all, to enable an increased head of cattle to be kept and to permit an increasing export of meat and hides. While on that subject, I should like to pay tribute to the useful and admirable work done by the C.D.C. in its Lobatsi abattoir, which, though I will not say that it has transformed the economy of that country, has certainly made a great difference, and shows what a really imaginative and large-scale programme of work of that kind can achieve.
But in regard to Bechuanaland I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to education and to the health services, because our responsibility is not only in the matter of economic welfare: it is in the matter of general welfare also. There are still in Bechuanaland schools where there are 100, or even 150, pupils with only one teacher; and that teacher not qualified in any way. There is only one teachers' training college, though it is fair to say that another is being built, very late. But two teacher-training colleges do not make very much impact on a problem

655
as great as that. There is only one trade school teaching the Africans trades and crafts, and that turns out every year 24 pupils out of a population of 350,000. To turn to health, I myself visited a hospital in Francis-town which serves a total population of 80,000 people. The hospital has 190 beds. There are two doctors—admirable, devoted men, but only two: and there are six trained nurses with a couple of dozen trainee nurses to help them. And that is in a British Protectorate.
With regard to Basutoland, what can we do there? What has been done there? First of all, I think that we must accept that Basutoland can have no future divorced from the Republic of South Africa. It is an island surrounded by the Republic. It is relatively a small country with a large population, three quarters of a million or somewhat more, of whom approximately 200,000 go to work every year in the mines of the Republic. It can receive nothing across its borders and it can export nothing across its borders without its passing through the Republic; so it is quite clear that its present and its future is inextricably linked with that of the Republic. We can and we must do more for it, but we should be fooling ourselves if we believed that it could ever be made entirely independent of the great and wealthy country which surrounds it.
We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, about water supplies, the Ox-bow Scheme, of Basutoland. That is something which I hope will come eventually to fruition, but even if it does it can contribute, so I am told, no more than three quarters of a million pounds annual revenue to meet a deficit of something between £2 and £3 million annually, so, valuable though it will be, it will be far from solving the economic problem of Basutoland. Agriculturally far more can be done than is being done at the present time although, again, credit should be given, particularly to the Agricultural Department there for their farm institute and their very realistic forms of demonstration farms. But there can be no very great improvement until there is far-reaching reform of land ownership, which strikes at the
656
heart of the whole tribal system but which will eventually enable the cultivators of the soil to have some form of title to the soil itself, so that they can make permanent improvements and raise money on it for the modern types of farming which they have to practise. Of course, once more, as the Morse Commission pointed out, there must be more roads opening up the interior of the country, allowing the agricultural produce to be transported out.
Then there is the third Protectorate of Swaziland, which, in many ways, is a far more hopeful territory. Economically it is viable. It has rich mineral resources, water, and access to the rest of Africa through Portuguese East Africa without having to touch the Republic at all. It has the pulp mills, again a C.D.C. venture, it has private enterprise in sugar and citrus, and canning factories, and it does have a favourable balance of payments. So there, at least, there is a country which, on the economic front, has a good future before it. But still there is a very long way for us to go before we can point to it with pride as an example of what a British Protectorate can and should be, or with pride because it is what a country living on the edge of the Republic of South Africa can and should be.
In 1962, for instance—and I return once more to education because without education you cannot expect any country or its people to advance—only 600 children out of the whole primary schools of the Territory reached secondary standard, and only thirteen secondary school children gained their G.C.E. "O" level in one subject. That is not the way to build up a class of people who are going to take over the running of their country, whether it is the political, commercial or economic running of the country. Unless we are prepared in an imaginative way to devote far more resources to the education of the children of all these territories we can make no real and lasting progress towards their economic wellbeing and political advancement.
I would suggest that, not only here but in all these Territories, we should give more serious thought to the less conventional methods of education. We have heard talk in this country of a "university of the air". I think we

657
should have "schools of the air" in those Territories. Whether it could be done with closed-circuit television, I do not know. Even without the expense of television but with relatively inexpensive single-channel broadcasting, and cheap radio sets in the schools to receive the one wave-length, we can at least temporarily overcome this appalling shortage of trained teachers and make sure that it will be not 600 but 6,000 children who have been to primary schools and reached secondary school level, and not 13, but 1,300 who at the end of their secondary schooling can achieve G.C.E. standard. It is no good pottering along in the old ways when we have these urgent problems facing us which will make a failure of any other efforts that we put into these Territories.
But, my Lords, the basic problem in Swaziland on the political front is not a struggle between the Europeans and the Africans—and I am proud to say that in the other High Commission Territories as well it is not that struggle—but, above all, it is the struggle between what one can call the traditionalists, the tribal chiefs and their supporters, and the progressives, the people who want to break away from the tribal influence and approach more closely to what we call Western democracy. That is where the real struggle lies, and that is where the difficulties are going to arise in the very near future.
As your Lordships know, a Constitution has been proposed for Swaziland. It is not too difficult to find fault with that Constitution; many people have. But on balance, I believe it is a good Constitution and should be given a chance of succeeding. But it is going to have a great deal of opposition in Swaziland, and, in fact, is already subject to a great deal of opposition there. That opposition is not entirely spontaneous from within the Territory itself. A lot of the opposition comes from outside, from the Republic of South Africa, and it is not hard to understand why. Clearly, it will be of no assistance to Dr. Verwoerd and his Government if it is shown that on his own borders there is an economically and politically successful example of non-racialism. It will make his whole effort towards Bantustan infinitely more difficult. And it is absolutely true to say that a great deal of support for the opposition to the
658
present Constitution proposed by Her Majesty's Government, although coming from the traditionalists of Swaziland, has received, if not inspiration, at any rate encouragement, and help, from outside.
I will read the final paragraph of a document which came into my possession while I was out there, a document prepared by a prominent and extremely able lawyer in Pretoria for the traditionalist group in Swaziland advising them as to how best they can counter the present proposals of the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Government. I do not blame the traditionalists and King Sobhuza's group for going to get this advice; I think they are quite entitled to do so. But it is right that we should know that they have done this; and it is right that Her Majesty's Government and the country here should know the influence which is coming from the Republic of South Africa in these matters. The advice in this document is how to act in the question of this new proposed Constitution, and the final paragraph reads thus:
"The time of the proclamation of the Constitution is the right time for the King to launch his political party, making full use of the degrading agreement which the Secretary required him to sign and protesting strongly against the Constitution. The political party, which must have been fully prepared and made ready beforehand must then immediately swing into action in a nationwide campaign. It seems undoubtedly clear that such a political movement launched at the psychologically right moment would gain tremendous momentum and would at once become the most powerful force in the land. Not only would the machine of the Constitution then be used to the advantage of the King's movement, but by demanding self-government and independence as soon as possible much of the wind will be taken out of the sails of other political parties. On top of that it will not then be a question of going cap in hand to the Socialist Government"—
In parenthesis, I may say it is assumed by this time there will be a Socialist Government in this country—
"to beg for favours for the traditional Swazi; to the contrary, the King's men will then go to London as the strongest political force in Swaziland to call for the removal of all colonial rule in Swaziland, which is one of the principles of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom."
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether that is a public document?
LORD WALSTON: It is not a public document, though parts of it have been published in some of the Johannesburgh newspapers.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: That part?
LORD WALSTON: I do not know whether or not that part has been published. But I think it is right, as I say, that we should realise, when we are dealing with this difficult and important question, that we are not dealing solely with the people of the country itself, but that (I am not for a moment complaining about it) there are neighbouring countries which are interested in what goes on there and trying to exert their influence and right to achieve a result they wish.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord goes on may I interrupt him for a moment? Has he any justification whatsoever for these wild accusations against the South African Government? From what I know—which I think is possibly more than the noble Lord knows—what he says to be the policy of the South African Government in relation to Swaziland is utterly wrong.
LORD WALSTON: I do not know that I was actually saying what the South African Republic policy is towards Swaziland. I said that they were interested in it, and that I would assume it would be unfortunate for their policy of Bantustan if non-racialism were to succeed on their borders. That, I think, has been said by some of them, certainly in private if not in public. And of course, it is a logical and reasonable conclusion to draw; in exactly the same way as, when we were trying to show that apartheid does not work and that non-racialism does work, it would be bad for our argument if apartheid were proved to work—though it has not been proved to work so far.
LORD MILVERTON: May I interrupt—
LORD WALSTON: I believe that the noble Lord is going to speak later, so I should like to sum up my points, if I may, so far as the Protectorates are concerned, and say that we have reason for pride in knowing that the relationship between Africans and Europeans
660
is good and that there is practically none of the racial antagonism which is found not far away across various borders; that the standard of our officials there is first-class and that they are, almost without exception, able and devoted men; that the main struggle, certainly for the future, is between the traditionalists and the progressives; that the main problem at the moment is economic in its widest sense—it is money; and that we should be full of shame when we see the standard of living, the actual starvation, the conditions of the sick, the educational facilities, as well as the purely economic investment that has taken place, and is taking place, in these territories under our protection. I am afraid that I am detaining your Lordships for a long time, but there is a wide area to cover, quite apart from the interruptions, which I welcome.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, as the noble Lord welcomes interruptions, would he mind my asking him (I came here to be educated) how we are to know about these private conversations, and about published, though not public, documents which he has been quoting to us, because we have no knowledge of them.
LORD WALSTON: The noble Lord now has knowledge. How else can one have knowledge unless somebody puts them forward?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Would the noble Lord place that document in the Library?
LORD WALSTON: I am perfectly prepared to show it to the noble Lord or to any other noble Lords who are interested.
Perhaps I may now leave the High Commission Territories temporarily and turn to the Federation. Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia have emerged from their struggle for independence with a remarkable absence of bitterness. Credit for this must go, and should go, to Her Majesty's Government and to the officials on the spot, as well as to the African leaders themselves. I believe that the African—European relationship in those two territories is hopeful in the extreme. The large-scale industrialists are prepared to sink more

661
money into those countries; the small-scale businessmen, almost without exception, are prepared to stay. The majority of European agriculturalists (I know that there are not very many of them) are also prepared to stay and make a go of it. The European civil servants—I am not talking about the Federal civil servants but about the Territorial civil servants—even though some of them are leaving, are co-operating with the African Ministers. So that, in general, the prospects there are good from the point of view of the relationship between African and European and, also, with certain serious reservations, on the economic front.
I would confirm very strongly what the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, told us last time we debated this matter: that it is entirely misleading to talk about a breakdown of law and order in either of these two Territories. There have been incidents—of course there have. There are incidents in Southern Rhodesia, too. But do not let us exaggerate the importance of them, and do not let us forget the causes of them. Let us give credit to Mr. Kaunda and to Dr. Banda for the most responsible leadership that they are exercising over their own people, exhorting them to work hard, making them realise that independence does not mean riches brought upon a golden platter, but hard work and tightening of the belt.
But let us not also forget that the political leaders of both these two territories are going to be faced with serious difficulties in the future—Nyasaland more than Northern Rhodesia because it is in a far weaker economic position. It has virtually no natural resources other than agriculture, and already it starts life with an over-expenditure of something like £5 million a year. If we let that go on, if we wash our hands and say, "It is all yours; you have got the independence to carry on", what is going to become the outcome of that? The outcome is going to be economic stagnation or falling off and increased unemployment. And let me remind your Lordships that in the past six years in Nyasaland, while the population rose by 20 per cent. employment remained absolutely static; and that in Northern Rhodesia the population rose by 24 per cent. while employment declined by 3 per cent. So it is manifest that there
662
is a growing number already and, without increased aid from outside, there will be an increasing number of unemployed.
Unemployment there is different from unemployment in this country, because there is no unemployment insurance; there is no dole; and in many cases there are no tribal areas to return to even for a subsistence life. Therefore, you are creating a group mainly of young men, discontented men, violent men, hungry men, desperate men. What better group could an opposition politician in an emerging African country wish for if he were anxious to stir up trouble and throw out the present responsible Government? Unless we in this country realise that our responsibilities even after independence are continuing, that is what is going to emerge in this area of Africa; and whether or not we say, "You are responsible for it" we shall be involved in the chaos which will ensue.
Finally, Southern Rhodesia. That, I believe, is the saddest country of all with the most serious position. The political situation there is deteriorating rapidly. The situation economically is receding; it would be too much to say that there is a slump, but there is growing unemployment. En Bulawayo there are now thousands out of work, and there is no official relief, though the municipality has been able to find enough money to enable the 800 poorest families who have been out of work longest to receive 17s. 6d. per month with which to buy food. That is the 800 poorest, and there are many who are nearly as poor but who receive nothing. That is not helpful for a stable country.
The majority of the Europeans are completely disillusioned with this country, with Her Majesty's Government and, I am afraid, with the Commonwealth also. What of the African leaders? I emphasise the word "leaders" because there are many people who say that the ordinary Africans are happy and contented and do not much mind. But let us not fool ourselves. A political leader does not have to work hard to stir up a feeling of national resentment in a situation of this sort, even though it may be that the ordinary African does not mind at the present time. The African leaders are losing such patience as they

663
ever had, and possibly more sinister than that, are split among themselves, so that even if it were possible to get one of the leaders to agree to a reasonable solution, the others would denounce him as being the stooge of the imperialists. This cannot be allowed to go on; it has gone on far too long. We all know that proposals which would have been accepted, had they been put forward, five years ago are now turned down out of hand. The longer we delay taking a firm and unequivocal line, the harder it will be to arrive at any settlement.
We have heard in the last week a statement, again from the Prime Minister, which we on this side of the House took as meaning that Her Majesty's Government refused to give independence to Southern Rhodesia unless there were majority rule. I do not know whether or not we interpreted that aright. Certainly, the Minister of Justice in Southern Rhodesia, Mr. Dupont, put a different interpretation upon it. Addressing the Rhodesia National Affairs Association, he said that some disquiet had been expressed at the British Prime Minister's statement that the British Government accepted in principle that the majority should rule and the minority, whether white or black, should be protected. In some quarters this had been construed as a categorical statement that the British Government favoured black rule. Mr. Dupont goes on to say:
"I entirely disagree. I think it was a typical diplomatic, non-committal reply."
I hope that we shall have from one or other of the noble Lords who is going to answer in this debate a reply which will be neither non-committal nor diplomatic, but will be absolutely forthright and leave no ground whatsoever for any misunderstanding on any side at all. Until we have some firm statement from Her Majesty's Government, we can make no progress of any kind in this vexed problem. I would suggest, first of all, that we must have this firm statement in which we state categorically that there will be no independence until there be majority rule. Then a constitutional conference should be called in London to which the Europeans and the Africans should be invited, and at that constitutional conference we should insist upon
664
repeal of the Land Apportionment Act and there should be legislation against racial discrimination; and from then on we should work out with the Europeans and Africans of Southern Rhodesia the timetable for this move.
I fully understand the fears of the Europeans out there. I should have exactly the same fears if I were there myself. I fully sympathise with men—some of them have gone out there, some have been born out there—who have made their lives there and have created wealth for themselves and for the country, and who, in the main, I believe, have looked after their employees well and have raised the standard of living of the Africans around them. I fully sympathise with their situation. But it is no good looking at this from that point of view. We must look at it from the realistic point of view.
What are the alternatives facing Southern Rhodesia to-day? The alternatives are to retain by force—and force is being used to-day—white domination in the face of growing African subversion, terrorism and violence, antagonism and bitterness; or we can accept the fact that sooner or later Southern Rhodesia will have a majority Government, and the majority will be African. The question then comes down to what "sooner or later" means, and that is purely a matter for hard, tough negotiation. But it is not going to get any easier by delaying it and putting it off. Until Her Majesty's Government make that very clear we can make no progress. We shall simply be slipping further and further down into this morass of bitterness and violence.
My Lords, I have spoken long, too long, but I will just say one more thing. I believe that the future of the peace of Africa rests upon the solutions that emerge from these Territories about which we have been talking. In some of them we have direct responsibility and in others indirect responsibility; but, even in those in which our responsibility and our influence are indirect and very remote, I like to believe that the moral influence of this country is still great enough to bring about a right and just solution. But we must do more than that. The troubles which we are experiencing to-day in that area stem from lack of foresight, lack of thought, lack

665
of right action, and frequently lack of courage, on the part of people in the years gone by.
If we exhibit deficiencies of these kinds we shall be storing up trouble not only for ourselves but perhaps for a coming generation. The trouble will be the fight between the "haves" and the "have-nots", the rich and the poor—all of them Africans by then—in these areas. We can do a service to ourselves by solving to-day's problems, and to coming generations by providing the educational and economic aid which will enable those countries which have achieved their independence to go forward with their economic progress in order to raise the standard of living of their peoples and to make possible stable and responsible government rule instead of rule by extremists and men of violence. Do not let us lose sight of our moral responsibilities because we are so obsessed with the problems of the moment. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.43 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, suggested that he has spoken too long. I am sure that all of us who have had the good fortune to listen to his extraordinarily well-informed speech on this part of Africa will thoroughly disagree with that statement. I feel that the whole House is very much in the debt of the noble Lord, not only for initiating this debate but for the great ray of illumination he has cast on it and on the problems facing this part of the world. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not speak at quite such length, or if I speak rather more briefly than is customary for someone opening on the Government side. But I shall do so only because a good deal of the ground covered by this afternoon's debate was covered by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, in his speech when replying to the Address on November 14. I hope that your Lordships will not think that I am showing the House any discourtesy by adopting this course.
I should like to begin what I have to say by following Lord Walston in talking, first of all, about Central Africa, and then at the end I shall say a brief word about the Territories. Before I go into any detailed analysis of the situation in Central Africa, I would say
666
a word about the background, as I see it, of the situation with which we are faced to-day. As your Lordships will appreciate, Her Majesty's Government had hoped and believed—and my feeling is that many in this House shared the Government's hopes—that Central Africa's future lay in a different direction; that is to say, in the direction of federation—the Federation which came into being with such high hopes and expectations in 1953. To-day, we know that those hopes and expectations were frustrated, and that the Federation is now in the process of dissolution. It will serve no purpose this afternoon for me to go into the causes of this dissolution. I will say merely that with the break-up of the Federation an experiment in racial co-operation came to nothing; and, in my view, Central Africa, and indeed the whole world, is the poorer for it.
One hears it said that the Government are responsible for the dissolution of the Federation. While, of course, it is true that the actual legal responsibilities for this step rest with Her Majesty's Government, the cause of the break-up was due to the fact that two of the three Territories were not prepared to remain within the Federation. That is why this step has had to take place. I think that perhaps noble Lords will wish me to go in a little more detail into the actual procedure and progress of dissolution, and to give an assessment of the prospects for a successful completion of the tasks of the respective Committees charged with working out the detailed arrangements for the transfer of the Federal functions to the Territories. This part of the dissolution is dealt with by what is known as Committee A; and, equally important, the future of inter-Territorial co-operation in the various fields is being dealt with by what is known as Committee B.
This machinery set up for bringing about the orderly transfer of these functions and the orderly break-up of the Federation results from the Conference held at Victoria Falls earlier this year. I am sure that all noble Lords join me in paying a tribute to the infinite skill with which that Conference, presided over by my right honourable friend the present Foreign Secretary, was conducted.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: As noble Lords will know, the target date for final dissolution is December 31 this year. Although the matters on which these two Committees have been working are very numerous, as well as extremely complex, progress has, on the whole, been both smooth and rapid. An immense amount has been achieved, but not altogether surprisingly. As those working on these difficult tasks reach the culmination of their work, certain major issues emerge which make heavy demands on the patience, foresight, and indeed on the capacity for compromise, not only on the part of those serving on the Committees but on the part of the Governments which they represent.
The House will not expect me at this crucial stage, when the most difficult stage of the discussions is being reached, to anticipate the final outcome, but I will say that great progress has been made. In this progress one of the key achievements of the Committees has been the reaching of an agreement on the future of the Federal public service. Noble Lords may well be aware that reference was made to it during the debate on the Address on November 14, and the terms of compensation for members of the Federal Service have recently been the subject of considerable interest in this country. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may wish to say something on this when winding up this debate. I will content myself with saying that it seems to me that the basic cause of misunderstanding which has arisen over the terms of compensation is due to the fact that the terms of service for the Federal Service and for Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service are basically different and contain basically different terms of compensation. Since the Federal Service was from its very beginning a local service, with no connection with any British service, it is not possible to compare the respective terms of compensation, because it is in no way comparing like with like. As I have said, it may well be that the Lord Chancellor will wish to say more on this later this afternoon.
In the field of future inter-Territorial co-operation, it has been very encouraging to record agreement of the Northern and Southern Rhodesia Governments
668
that the great Kariba project should continue and be further developed as a unity under their joint ownership and control. Although no announcement—I think I am right in saying—has yet been made, there are good grounds for belief that the three Territorial Governments will agree to the continuance of the Central African Airways as a jointly owned and operated enterprise. This, again, we find a really encouraging, heartening demonstration of the will to co-operate and recognition by the Territories of their interdependence; and this, I am sure, is something that bodes well for the future of this part of Africa. The future of the Rhodesian Railways is also in the final stages of consideration between the Northern and the Southern Rhodesian Governments, and here again it is hoped that a result can be achieved which will be of mutual benefit to these two adjoining Territories.
It is the intention of the three Territories to establish separate national currencies. That this will be carried out in an orderly and responsible manner is ensured by their agreement to maintain for a transitional period after the dissolution the existing legislation on currency, banking and exchange control, and the authority and functions of the Central Bank.
A further important matter on which there has been agreement between the Governments concerns the arrangements to be made in respect of citizenship. The Government of Southern Rhodesia intend to introduce before dissolution a Bill which will confer Southern Rhodesian citizenship on those Federal citizens who can be regarded as belonging to Southern Rhodesia. The Governments of the Northern Territories—Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland—will not enact citizenship laws at this stage, but Her Majesty's Government will make provision by Order in Council for all Federal citizens who do not become citizens of Southern Rhodesia to become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, at any rate until such time as the Northern Territorial Governments pass their own citizenship legislation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, could the noble Duke say what will be the position then under British law?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Marquess's question is that we must wait and see what is the stage of these Northern Territories' legislation on citizenship. But I am sure the noble Marquess will be aware of the announcement of legislation to bring changes into our own citizenship laws to enable and to make it easier for those who have been citizens of this country in the past and have changed their citizenship, to resume citizenship of this country. Though I should not wish to say that this is entirely relevant, it does bear on this problem. I feel sure that noble Lords will be pleased to learn that the continued British nationality of former Federal citizens is thus assured. While, as I have already said to the House, the dissolution machinery has worked with speed and efficiency, and we owe those people who have worked so hard in Salisbury in recent weeks a very great debt, I am not able to describe this afternoon the final pattern of dissolution.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, could the noble Duke say what happens about Kariba? He was going through three or four of these—
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I made some reference to Kariba, and said that it would continue as a joint venture between Northern and Southern Rhodesia.
The combined efforts of our own Government and the other Governments have now reached the stage where the provisions of the final Order in Council to dissolve the Federation are beginning to be framed, and I hope it will not be too long before the whole pattern of the provisions can be laid before your Lordships for your approval. I am sorry that this is in a way an interim review, but I hope that before long the whole picture will be presented to this House.
With the final dissolution of the Federation immediately ahead of us, each of the three Territories is faced, of course, with a new situation. In the case of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia I am happy to say, and to agree with the noble Lord who is also my friend, Lord Walston, that the future seems
670
assured. Nyasaland enjoys internal self-government at the moment under its present Constitution, which came into force in May of this year, and at that time Dr. Banda's Government became fully responsible for Nyasaland's internal affairs, with certain exceptions. In addition to the retention by the Governor of responsibility for law and order, including the operational control of the police, special transitional powers were retained in respect of finance and the public service. These arrangements were agreed at the Constitutional Conference at the end of 1961 and recognised the special local problems in the Territory. The Governor's powers over the overseas element in the public service lapsed, however, on November 1 last, and the Public Service Commission is now fully executive. With the dissolution of the Federation further responsibilities are being transferred progressively to the Nyasaland Government, and when dissolution is finally effected the Nyasaland Government will have acquired responsibility for health, railways, prisons, post, telecommunications, higher education and other ex-Federal functions. The Federal responsibility for defence and external affairs in respect of Nyasaland will, from the date of dissolution, rest with Her Majesty's Government, of course until such time as Nyasaland achieves full independence.
In September this year discussions were held with Dr. Banda about the next constitutional steps and it was agreed that the United Kingdom would grant Nyasaland independence on July 6, 1964. The details of the Independence Constitution are at present being worked out in Nyasaland, and will shortly be submitted by the Governor to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, for Her Majesty's Government's agreement. Meanwhile it has been agreed that the Legislature should be re-named the National Assembly and enlarged from the present 29 members to 55. Of these, 50 are to be elected on a general roll on the basis of universal adult suffrage; the remaining 5 seats will be elected by a special roll to represent minorities in the Territory. The details of franchise for this roll have not yet been finally decided. The Bill of Rights which was introduced

671
with the present self-governing Constitution will be retained in the final Independence Constitution. The Constitution will be in the form of a Monarchy, and Dr. Banda—I know noble Lords on all sides of the House will be delighted to hear this—has expressed a wish to join the Commonwealth when on July 6 the Territory achieves final and full independence.
Now, I should like to turn to Northern Rhodesia. Shortly after the Northern Rhodesia Coalition between U.N.I.P. and A.N.C. assumed office in December, 1962, they proposed the introduction of a new Constitution on a universal suffrage basis. After considering this request, the then First Secretary of State, the present Foreign Secretary, suggested that the two political Parties of the Coalition should first decide precisely what kind of Constitution they had in mind. Arrangements were made for a Ministerial Working Party to consider this question under the chairmanship of the Solicitor-General. This met during the summer in Lusaka and in due course produced proposals which, generally speaking, envisaged that the new Constitution should provide a more or less conventional form of internal self-government. We have been through this procedure of bringing countries to independence so often that there is now very largely a set pattern by which countries proceed through internal self-government to final independence, and the Constitution for Northern Rhodesia is following very much the lines of what is now a traditional pattern.
The present Foreign Secretary then asked the Governor to discuss these proposals with the three leaders of the three political Parties: That is, Mr. Kaunda of the United National Independence Party, Mr. Nkumbula of the African National Congress and Mr. Roberts of the National Progress Party. These discussions between the Governor and the Party leaders resulted, I am happy to say, in a very substantial measure of agreement. Naturally, in the course of the negotiations, each of the leaders had to compromise over various features of the new Constitution, but, despite their different reservations, the House will be glad to know that all three Parties were agreed that it was both desirable and, indeed, urg-
672
ent that the Territory should proceed to internal self-government at the earliest possible date. The principles to be embodied in the new Constitution have now been accepted by all three Party leaders, and this achievement is very largely due to the skill and patience of the Governor. I know that Members of this House on all sides would wish to join with me in expressing our warmest admiration and appreciation for the work done by Sir Evelyn Home in bringing these negotiations to a successful conclusion.
The new Constitution is now in an advanced stage of preparation, and we can expect developments at an early date. It is intended to bring it into force for a General Election towards the end of January, 1964. Its features were announced both in the Territory and in this country on November 5, and those noble Lords who are interested in this subject will, I know, have made themselves acquainted with these details. It will be a self-governing Constitution, as I say, of more or less the standard pattern. The Governor will retain the usual powers in respect of defence and external affairs, and will be required to reserve for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure any Bill which, in his view, is inconsistent with any obligation imposed on Her Majesty by any treaty, convention or agreement with any country or international organisation, or is likely to prejudice the Royal Prerogative. These are customary terms, and there is nothing unusual in them. The Governor will also retain ultimate responsibility for public order and for the police force, but he may delegate such responsibilities subject to the approval of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The present Executive Council will be replaced by a Cabinet which will consist of a Prime Minister and not more than 13 other Ministers, to whom the Governor will assign portfolios on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Legislature will be enlarged to a total of 75 members, of whom 65 will be elected in main roll constituencies and 10 in reserved roll constituencies. The electorate of the main roll constituencies will be African, and that of the reserved roll constituencies will be European. Asian and coloured persons will opt on which roll they wish to vote. Members

673
of any race, so long as they possess the qualification to be a voter, will be eligible to stand as a candidate in all constituencies. Personal liberty and minority rights will be safeguarded by a Bill of Rights and a Constitutional Council with powers to delay legislation inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. The Territory will have its own High Court and Court of Appeal, with the Chief Justice presiding over the latter. Special care is being taken of the position of the Barotse Native Government, and it has been agreed to carry forward into the new Constitution those provisions which safeguard the position of Barotseland in the existing Constitution.
Over the third Territory, Southern Rhodesia, there hangs a question mark. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, spoke, I thought, with all respect, too depressingly of the future of this Territory. However, I fancy that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may again wish to say something on this on winding up the debate. I shall content myself with saying merely this: important—and, of course, it is vitally important—as it is for Southern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesians to find a satisfactory solution to the problems posed by its constitutional position, the consequences of the solution of these problems spread far wider than Southern Rhodesia itself; and I think it only right to say that unless all those concerned with this problem show wisdom—and more than wisdom: forbearance—a situation may well arise which could gravely upset existing relationships within the Commonwealth.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, could the noble Duke make clear one thing which was not clear from the speech of the noble Lord who introduced the Motion? At the moment, and until something else is agreed, are we right in taking it that the existing Constitution of Southern Rhodesia, which was agreed by all Parties and introduced only a year ago, stands?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Certainly, my Lords. The existing Constitution of Southern Rhodesia stands, and will stand until steps are taken to alter it. It certainly exists at this moment—and, indeed, I think at this very moment the Southern Rhodesian Parliament
674
is sitting under the terms of that Constitution.
So much for the Territories of Central Africa. I should now like to make a few brief remarks—and I promise your Lordships that they will be brief—about the High Commission Territories. If I may, I would pay a particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for the extraordinarily well-informed speech he made on these little-known Territories. We in this country tend to know far too little about the High Commission Territories, but we certainly know a great deal more as a result of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and I am better qualified to be a Minister than I was before I had the privilege of listening to him this afternoon.
I would say only a word or two on their economic problems, because the constitutional position was fully covered by my noble friend and kinsman Lord Lansdowne when replying in the debate on the Address on November 14. Now all three Territories have before them development plans, and these development plans run for the period 1963 to 1966. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, had some critical things to say about how little was being done in the field of welfare in its widest sense—the field of health and education. I should like to reassure him that very high among the priorities of these development plans are ideas to meet educational and hospital needs in those Territories. They are a first charge on these development plans. There are substantial plans for secondary education, including schools at Gaberones. There is also a new hospital at Gaberones, and we are to make a major contribution towards the cost of the university at Roma, in Basutoland. The noble Lord may not think we are doing enough, but I should like to say that we are conscious, as he is, of the needs of these particular Territories, and the particular faults he found are being looked at. They are ones of which we are conscious and which we are doing what we can to meet.
But, of course, as in so many development plans, the cost of development so sorely needed in all three Territories is greater than the funds immediately available to meet them. Indeed, in my limited experience in my office I have never come across a development plan

675
which had sufficient funds to meet the plan which was set out. The basic source of finance for all three plans will be C.D. and W. grants, and it is right that it should be so, as we are responsible for the welfare and future of these Territories. But it is hoped that additional assistance for these plans may be found from such sources as the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development, which has already provided a loan of £1½ million for a hydroelectric scheme in Swaziland. Perhaps other sources might be the International Development Association and the United Nations Special Fund. The needs of these Territories are all legitimate charges on the resources at the disposal of these international bodies.
There is also a possible source of loan capital from the commercial banks. We hope very much that they will be interested in these Territories; while such organisations as the W.H.O. and the United Nations Children's Fund—and, indeed, Oxfam and Freedom from Hunger—which have given assistance to these Territories in the past, will not, we hope, lose interest in them in the future. Finally, certain developments for which expenditure is required are likely to be loan-worthy; so I say that, although at the moment I cannot give to the House exactly where the money is to be found for these very necessary developments, I am reasonably optimistic that these plans will be brought to successful fruition, to the benefit of all three Territories.
If I might, I will now give a little background, and I hope that your Lordships will not think it too gloomy. It will be appreciated that both Basutoland and Bechuanaland have little in the way of natural resources and the soil of Basutoland is badly eroded, and other than ample water and some diamonds there is little for the indigenous population to develop. As a result some 45 per cent. of the adult male population works in the Republic of South Africa, and this labour force brings into Basutoland a very considerable inflow of both cash and goods. Those who remain in the Territory are mainly engaged in farming. The principle exports are cattle, grain, wool and mohair and they are sold almost entirely to South Africa.
676
Bechuanaland, as the noble Lord has said, is a sparsely inhabited country, being largely desert, and suitable chiefly for cattle raising, and dependent, again as the noble Lord has said, on sufficient water supplies; and this is something of which those responsible for the development of the Territory are conscious. The cattle industry is far and away the most important economic activity, but there is some farming and some mining. I do not wish to raise hopes on this matter, but from surveys now taking place there is ground for cautious optimism—and I emphasise the word "cautious"—in the mining field. Again there is a very substantial section of the adult male population, some 25 per cent., working at any one time in the Republic; and, again, the cash that they can send to their homes makes a substantial contribution to the economy of the Territory. Here the most important industry is beef—they export some £2 million of beef a year—and once more the Republic is the most important market.
As the noble Lord opposite has said, Swaziland is the most prosperous of the three Territories and has enjoyed a reasonably rapid growth recently in the fields of farming, forestry and mining. There is iron ore, coal, asbestos and plenty of water in the country. A railway is to be constructed to transport iron ore from Laurenço Marques for ultimate export to Japan, and a trans-Swazi highway is under construction to assist industry generally. Asbestos is the largest exportable product, followed by sugar, and in both these products Britain's industry plays a substantial part. I should like at this point to pay tribute to British industry. A great deal is being done; those responsible deserve every credit, and I should like it to go on record that we pay this tribute. There are substantial agricultural exports and, with the exception of asbestos, which is exported to this country, they go largely to South Africa.
This is a very brief review of the economic situation of the Territories; and I hope I have said enough for noble Lords to appreciate that, with the exception of Swaziland, really promising prospects for rapid economic growth are not great, through no fault of those in the country but because of the

677
limited physical resources there. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government are aware of our responsibility in these Territories, and are determined that they shall not be the Cinderellas of our colonial possessions. We intend to put them on the map and see that they enjoy with the rest of the world increasing good fortune and increasingly higher material standards of living.
I would end with a very brief peroration. British colonial rule in Africa is drawing to a close. Kenya and Zanzibar achieve independence next month; and then there will remain only the Territories about which to-day's debate is being held and which are still under ultimate British authority. As, I am sure, are all noble Lords, I am deeply proud of the British record over the years as a colonial Power. I have no doubt in the months and years to come that the final chapters of British rule in Africa will be written. When those chapters are written one thing is certain. Such arguments as we may have in this House and elsewhere as to the way these final acts of bringing independence to Africa are conducted will be concerned with the timing rather than the principle. I can recall, on the occasion of the first speech I made as, a member of the Government in this House, a most striking phrase was used by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who I am pleased to see will be speaking this afternoon. He said, on this subject:
"The arguments about bringing independence to African countries are concerned with pace and not with principle."
This is a phrase that I have kept with me ever since, and I regret to tell the noble Lord that I have used it as my own on some occasions. But this is still true; and I find it reassuring that noble Lords on all sides of the House believe in the principle of self-rule and independence for all the African peoples, just as we believe in it for elsewhere in the world.

THE BUCHANAN REPORT: TRAFFIC IN TOWNS
4.16 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, perhaps this would be a convenient moment for
678
me to make a statement which is now being made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport in another place about Professor Buchanan's Report, Traffic in Towns, and the Report of Sir Geoffrey Crowther's Steering Group. The Reports have been available in the Printed Paper Office since 2.30 p.m. The statement is as follows:
"Everyone will need time to consider these Reports which have taken three years. We are all greatly indebted to the authors for their original and stimulating studies. They try to show what will happen in our towns when nearly every family owns a car. They examine ways of re-shaping towns over the next 50 years so that we can enjoy the benefits of the car and also civilised urban living.
"Cars are a boon. But they have now started to choke movement and, indeed, to threaten the quality of urban life. Buchanan offers two main ideas for replanning towns. First, main traffic should be canalised into a 'primary road network'. Here traffic takes precedence. Second, the rest of the town should be planned as 'environmental areas'. Here the quality of living comes first. So planning of traffic and planning of land use must go together. This would make it possible in the smaller towns—at a cost—to provide for the use of cars to whatever extent their owners are likely to want. But in the large towns, Buchanan says, this is just not physically possible, however much money is spent. He therefore stresses the importance of public transport.
"We accept Buchanan's basic approach that a balance must be struck between the growing needs of traffic and the quality of urban life. Our long-term planning will be shaped accordingly.
"The Government are tackling the immediate problem in four main ways.
"First, transport surveys. The Buchanan Report lays down the principles; the next step is to translate them into practice in each area. We need to know, especially in the conurbations, the future demands for transport, its relation to land use, and the right balance between public and private transport. For this purpose we must have comprehensive transport

679
surveys of an entirely new kind. Government, local authorities and public transport operators must be in this together. Such a survey is well under way in London. Other surveys are in progress in Merseyside and Tyneside, and will soon begin in the conurbations of Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham and Tees-side.
"Second, local government. Each area has its own distinctive problems and will have to make its own decisions about traffic and the quality of urban life. Local authorities will need help and guidance. They will need strengthening. The organisation of local government—already well advanced in London, and in hand for the rest of the country—will help to produce a structure better able to cope with major traffic and planning problems. To guide and advise local authorities the Government have created an Urban Planning Group.
"Third, increased resources. Spending on urban roads is rapidly increasing. This year it is £50 mililon. It will rise to £140 million a year by 1970.
"Fourth, public transport. Public transport must offer an acceptable alternative to the private car, especially for travel to and from work. Outside London this is predominantly a bus problem. But in some areas suburban rail services play an important rôle, and that is why the Beeching Plan, in the main, avoided suburban services in the list of closure proposals. But even those that are in the list cannot be closed without my consent. Before I reach a decision on any of them I shall secure the views of the local authorities and others concerned with the area transport surveys. I am sure that, with these Reports, we shall now be able to evolve a system of public transport by road and rail in our cities which will meet the needs of the travelling public.
"Towns and cities all over the world are facing the problem of rapidly increasing car ownership. There is no simple solution. As Buchanan says:
'it is … a social situation requiring to be dealt with by policies patiently applied ever a period and revised from time to time in the light of events'.
These are wise words and we should do well to keep them in mind."
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for giving us the statement, and we are glad to know that the Report is in the Printed Paper Office. I have yet not had a chance of looking at it at all. Obviously, the breadth and area covered by the statement just made means that we must have a good study of it, and I will not comment on it now. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth has something to say.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I ask a question on paragraph 6 of the statement, dealing with surveys of future demands for transport, where all the so-called conurbations are mentioned by name except one? In those that it mentions, surveys of future demands are either in progress or will begin soon. The only one left out is Leeds and Bradford. I admit that in that area there are some very good roads at the present time, but surely a survey ought at least to begin on future traffic needs in the Leeds-Bradford conurbation? Why is this alone left out of paragraph 6?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, as the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition said, this Report will need careful study. Any hasty comment would be quite out of place. But I should like to make the plea to Her Majesty's Government that, in the present condition of our economy, before we enter into a welter of restrictions and regimentation, we should take into consideration the great motor industry of this country, which is doing a big job in our export market and contributing 27 per cent. of the pay packets earned by our working population. If that can be duly weighed in some newfound, rather restricted, minds, I think that the Government will serve the people well.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, of course, the noble Earl who leads the Opposition is perfectly right. We require to give a good deal more study to this matter. Just how easily it is to become misled is shown by the question of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. The reason why Leeds is not mentioned in the statement is because Professor Buchanan carried out a special study of this area,

681
as the noble Lord will see when he comes to read the Report.
I will try briefly to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the matter he raised. The idea is not to produce regimentation and restraint, but to learn how to live with the motor car, which so many people wish to be part of their lives. I should not be surprised if in years to come, some form of limitation may have to be considered, from the very difficulty of trying to get a quart into a pint pot; but as a matter of principle I can certainly reassure noble Lords. I feel that, as time goes on, we shall hear and see a good deal more of this Report, and therefore for the moment I, too, will say nothing more.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition that this Report needs thinking about further. We have to take into account the needs and legitimate interests of the motor-manufacturing industry and the desire of people to own cars. May we take it from the statement of the Government that they are going to consider the fact that there must be a limit to the number of private cars that can enter the central areas of London, Birmingham, Manchester and other big cities, otherwise we shall be led in to enormous expenditure on highway improvements in areas where land is expensive?
May I ask whether the Government reject out of hand (I take it that they do not) the idea that it may be necessary to put on private car owners the onus of showing good cause why they should drive in the centre of London and other cities, or whether they have to prove a case? Public transport must also be taken into account, including the strain on bus drivers driving in difficult conditions, which makes difficult recruitment to the public service. May we take it that these considerations are actively in the minds of the Government at this time?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that I can say, yes; these questions are under consideration, and they will have to be a good deal further considered. Because when we refer to "a good and efficient public transport system," we mean that it must be all-embracing, including the working conditions of
682
drivers and of everybody else concerned in running it. I hesitate to come out very strongly on what the noble Lord said about limitation and restrictions, because in many cases I think that there is a good deal more to be done yet, by means of efficient and well-carried-out parking policies and transport engineering, in the use of existing roads. But, as I said in my statement, it is not thought that this will do all the work, however much money is spent upon it, and therefore it would seem a reasonable forecast that at some stage some consideration will have to be given to some kind of limitation.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I say that many noble Lords on this side entirely agree with what was said by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, that it will be more convenient to debate this matter at a later date, after we have made the requisite studies. I should not have intervened at all but for the statements made and questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Do the Government agree that there is no reason whatever why the interests of the motor-manufacturing industry should be considered as over-riding all the interests of those who live in such cities as London and the amenities and convenience of their lives? When the Government say that they are studying the long-term plans involved in accepting many of the proposals in this Report, may I also express the hope that they are considering some of their short-term plans and the stopping of their more ridiculous proposals regarding Piccadilly Circus?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I feel that I can reassure my noble friend on what he has just said, because I do not think anything that I said could be taken to indicate that the interests of the motor industry would be regarded as overriding anyone else's interests. Surely what I said before, that this is an attempt to learn to live comfortably together with the motor in what is going to be a motor age, is the very spirit of the thing that prompted my right honourable friend to commission this Report. Therefore, I should have thought my noble friend need have no worry. I think he can safely leave it to the Government to start on short-term

683
and long-term plans in this matter. However ridiculous he may regard the situation, we have not finished with it yet.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I greatly welcome my noble friend's statement that the Minister does not propose to allow the closing down of any suburban line without full consultation with the local authorities, and I hope that this will apply to the commuter feeding lines in Sussex which are under contemplated closure. I do not expect a reply.

THE HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRY
4.31 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a statement about horticulture similar to that which my right honourable friend has made in another place. If I may, I shall use his own words:
"It is the continuing policy of Her Majesty's Government, as it has been for many years, to promote the wellbeing of the horticultural industry, as it is for agriculture. To this end the Government consider that all practical steps should be taken to bring our horticultural production and marketing to a higher state of competitive efficiency; and we propose to offer substantial aid to the industry to reduce costs of production and improve marketing. The effect of this should be to strengthen the competitive position of the industry and thereby to reduce its dependence on the tariff, which has been the principal means of support. It should thus create conditions in which reconsideration of the tariff would be possible.
"Our proposals, which are embodied in the Agriculture and Horticulture Bill presented yesterday, include grants towards the cost of a wide range of production equipment (including replacement of glasshouses) for existing viable holdings, towards the reorganisation of such holdings, and towards the establishment of marketing co-operatives. Arrangements are also proposed to provide guaranteed credit facilities for horticultural producers.
"In addition to the grant-aid already available to growers and co-operatives
684
towards equipment for the better marketing of horticultural produce, we propose to offer grants towards the cost of redevelopment of a number of wholesale horticultural markets throughout the country. We are also seeking powers to require the grading to prescribed standards of certain horticultural produce passing through wholesale channels of trade.
"Introduction of these substantial forms of assistance will enable the Government to consider making changes in the tariff on horticultural items, where these would be in the national interest. The timing of any such changes would, however, be of great importance.
"Some products are in a favourable position to withstand competition from imports because, for example, their perishability, or their bulk in relation to their value, afford a high degree of natural protection. For these, early reductions in import duties could be made without damage to the industry.
"Other products are at present more sensitive to overseas competition and enjoy a significant level of tariff protection during the home season. For these, we shall feel free to bind the duties at their current levels if we consider this to be in the national interest. There will, however, have to be a period of some four years before any reduction in the tariff on these sensitive items could be considered. This should give the industry time to benefit from the assistance offered, and thereby enable it the better to withstand any normal competition from imports. After this standstill period the Government will be free to make reductions in the duties on sensitive items if they consider this to be in the national interest.
"We recognise that the specific duties on a number of horticultural products have not only offered protection against normal competition from imports, but have also been a safeguard against abnormal competition from imports at unrealistically low prices arising from surpluses of varying degrees, It is likely that such surpluses will reappear from time to time, so means to prevent them from

685
undermining our market will continue to be necessary. We consider that such means would best be devised in consultation with other countries.
"In considering possible tariff reductions and safeguards against abnormal competition, the Government will, of course, take the views of the industry fully into account. It is also our intention that there should be periodic examinations, in consultation with the Farmers' Unions, of developments within the industry, including the evidence available on such matters as costs of production and the trends in prices and imports, and the progress made towards achieving a higher degree of competitive efficiency."
My Lords, that is the statement.
4.36 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I do not intend to delay your Lordships from the main debate for more than a moment. This is another important statement, and it seems to me to be a forerunner of the Agriculture and Horticulture Bill introduced in another place yesterday. The statement will be welcomed by the whole of the horticultural industry. Horticulture has had a rather bad time in the years which have passed, and it is high time that some action should be taken. We approve of the action which the Government are now taking in order to put that industry on a good footing. There are four important proposals half way through the statement, but I will not comment on those at the present time. At the end of the statement, in regard to the sensitive items, the period of four years was mentioned. Is that a fixed time, or is it simply an estimate of what may happen? I welcome the consultation with the National Farmers' Union, but I hope that consultation will also take place with other interests in connection with horticulture. Generally, we welcome the fact that the Government are now taking steps to put the industry on a proper footing.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, we, too, from these Benches would like to welcome this statement as an earnest of the Government's good intentions. Agriculture is a difficult enough problem, but horticulture is even more so, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said,
686
it has had a bad time recently. It seems to me, looking at what is in the statement, that the emphasis the Government have put is on the right lines. There are three points that I should like to emphasise, and the first is in connection with the grading of prescribed standards to conform. Here I hope that the Government will look towards the E.E.C, standards, because it seems to me that this is important. The next point is that I hope the Government will remember that the key to full agricultural and horticultural production is to make a long-term plan as to what exactly we want to grow in this country and what we want to import.
I notice that the statement says:
"We consider that such means would best be devised in consultation with other countries."
That seems to me to be very encouraging, and I welcome it very much. As your Lordships know, on these Benches we also feel strongly that some kind or Horticulture Commission should be set up to look at this matter from an overall point of view. We consider this should be done so far as meat, cereals and agriculture are concerned. Nevertheless, this is a most welcome statement to us on these Benches, as well as to noble Lords on my left.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I will not delay your Lordships for more than a minute. I am sorry to butt in, but I feel rather strongly about this subject. I approve entirely the statement made by the noble Lord, but he has talked of grading. I do not object to grading—it is very nice to see tomatoes and cucumbers looking all the same shape and size—but what is much more important is whether the tomatoes taste right. My late lamented father, who was no fool—if he will forgive my speaking so—when he judged flower shows and vegetable shows in Scotland always said, "Anybody can judge a chrysanthemum, or whatever it may he. You have just to look at the thing. But what matters with carrots and things like that is whether they taste right. The judges ought to taste the things. "I wish that, in grading, those who grade would also pay some attention to the soil and manures used, whether genuine manures or fertilisers, which are responsible for making these beautiful things grow.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am most grateful for the welcome that this statement has been given. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked me precisely what the four years' period meant. All it means, as the statement said, is that at the end of four years we shall consider ourselves free to review tariffs. But before the four years, those tariffs on sensitive products will not be altered, and foreign suppliers will be awars of that. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who asked that grading standards should conform as far as possible to the E.E.C. standards. I am not sure that we think that is absolutely necessary. We must find our own system of grading, one which suits this country, and we hope that it would be a high standard and also a dependable standard. My own fear, from what I have seen of the grading that goes on—the rather haphazard grading that is sometimes called grading in some parts of this country—is that a given grade can vary from one month to another according to what the supply of that product is. But, of course, that is not true grading in our sense.
I have also hoisted in the thought of my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn, and we will naturally take into account his views. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, also said that he hoped that these proposals were made with a view to the long-term interests of the horticultural industry, and I can assure him that that is exactly what is in our minds. We are looking to see how we can best serve the long-term interests and competitiveness of the horticultural industry.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this is an industry which has shown a remarkable inability to help itself in the matter of marketing. We have seen the Tomato Marketing Board fold up after the expenditure of quite a lot of public money in order to establish it. That was a self-help organisation. All I would say, while welcoming this attempt to give the horticultural industry further aid, is that the Government should always remember that perhaps if the industry will not help itself it ought to be subject to some of the winds of competition.

CENTRAL AFRICA AND THE HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES
4.43 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, no one, I am sure, in this House will complain that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, should at this juncture have tabled a Motion on the Central African Federation and the High Commission Territories, and that he should have dealt with it as fully as he did. Not only has the noble Lord himself, as I understand it, just returned from that part of the world, which makes what he has to say especially valuable, but, in addition, he speaks with a high degree of sincerity which always makes us listen to what he says with sympathy and interest. I am not going to follow him, if he will forgive me, into the subject of the Union of South Africa, for though what he said was obviously the result of much careful thought and, I think, was also thought-provoking to us who listened to him, he actually, as my noble relative the Duke of Devonshire said, went a little outside the strict ambit of his own Motion.
Nor do I want to follow the noble Duke in what he said about the dissolution of the Federation; for some of the aspects of this are, I believe, going to be dealt with in due course by my noble friend Lord Colyton. Neither finally, do I propose to speak of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, though I would say that the rather rosy accounts which the noble Duke and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, gave of the freedom of opinion at present existing in these two Territories have not, I am afraid, by any means been borne out by reports that I have received, not, perhaps, from official, but from pretty reliable, sources of information.
Of the High Commission Territories, I should like to say just this, and it relates to Swaziland. There has been, I believe, a strong impression in that country—Lord Walston probably knows something about it—that Her Majesty's Government are preparing, without consultation, or without adequate consultation, to impose upon the Paramount Chief Sobhuza a new Constitution by Order in Council, without any advance discussion with him and his chief advisers—a Constitution which, rightly or

689
wrongly, is likely to be strongly opposed by them. I do not know whether that is true or not, but I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will say that that impression is not correct, and that, following on consultation with the representatives of the Paramount Chief, a revised Constitution may emerge, which is truly acceptable both to the Chief himself and to the people of Swaziland. They are among the most loyal of the—I was going to say "subjects"—members of the British Commonwealth and Empire, and it would be a thousand pities if, against their wishes, and because we thought something was good for them which they did not think was good, we imposed a Constitution on them which blunted in any way the loyalty which they have.
And now I should like to come to Southern Rhodesia, the other area of which I wish to speak; and on this I shall, if I may, have rather more to say. Southern Rhodesia, though it is not so large as many other States, even in Africa, yet has, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said—for reasons with which we are all familiar—come to occupy a very central position in international politics: for it is the cockpit in which is being fought out in Central Africa the struggle between progress towards what we regard as free institutions, towards the establishment of those principles of toleration and justice which are the very basis of Western civilisation, and on the other side, a rapid relapse into one of those primitive dictatorships, such as we have seen cocking up their heads in other parts of Africa.
The present Prime Minister, in a remarkable speech which he delivered to the Royal Commonwealth Society in June of this year—a speech to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has already referred—defined the ideas which have always governed British colonial policy in these words:
"Respect for the individual, each individual being deemed to have not only rights but duties in the community, and government freely expressed through the will of the community expressed in free elections."
I think that is a very fine definition of a very fine ideal—a definition to which I think we should every one of us subscribe. But do the Government, in the light of what has happened already in Ghana, the Congo and elsewhere in
690
Central Africa, really think that that, or anything like it, is what the peoples of Africa, black or white, are going to get, at the present stage of their development, if we hand over their countries, now, or even in five years' time, to African majority government? No one, I think, who knows Africa, and the people of Africa, can really believe that. Of course, for a nation so politically mature as, say, our own country, I imagine that very few of us would dispute that Parliamentary democracy is probably the best or, at any rate, the least bad system of government that has yet been devised by the wit of man. But it is also, as we all know, by far the most difficult to operate. It requires patience, and it requires tolerance of the views of others, of a very high order. It has taken us, as your Lordships know, upwards of 700 years of political experience before we reached our present stage of political evolution; and even now we may well sometimes doubt whether we work the system absolutely perfectly. And, my Lords, there are many countries of Europe which have uttterly failed to make a success of Parliamentary democracy and which have reverted during recent years to some system of open or concealed dictatorship. In such circumstances as that, to try to impose—for that is what we are doing—Parliamentary democracy on the still very primitive peoples of Central Africa must appear to many of us, I at any rate feel, if not insane, at least highly irresponsible.
In the case of Southern Rhodesia, in particular, such action is, I feel, even more reprehensible; for, there, there are upwards of 300,000 of our own people, who really have the inherited experience which renders them capable of working a Parliamentary system. Yet we are proposing to take the control from them and put them under the rule of a majority of Africans, the greater part of whom, whatever their other virtues—and I am not saying that they have not many virtues—cannot either read or write, and have not the slightest notion of what Parliamentary democracy means. No doubt even the Secretary of State for the Commonwealth and for Colonial Affairs himself, who is the responsible Minister and who presumably is responsible for this proposal, may well think that it is rather too much to expect the British

691
people to swallow; and so he has evolved, or the Government have evolved, within the last few days an ingenious dodge—that of calling in the aid of the British Commonwealth. That sounds extremely fine; but whatever the other merits of the British Commonwealth, I should like your Lordships to consider for a moment what, in this particular connection, the proposal really means.
The British Commonwealth is not what it was twenty years ago; and, if we are frank with ourselves, we must face that fact. It consists nowadays of a majority of members of African or Asian race who are bitterly opposed to Southern Rhodesia and all that Southern Rhodesia stands for. One, indeed, of these countries, although a member of the Commonwealth, has already offered its territory for training an army to invade Rhodesia by force of arms; and many of the others no doubt hold very much the same views. Even the white members of the Commonwealth, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, are too far away from Rhodesia to care very much one way or the other what happens to that country. They have their own problems—very serious ones in the Pacific—which principally occupy their minds.
My Lords, what the Commonwealth Secretary and the Government have it, in fact, in mind to do, however they may wrap it up, is, apparently, to hand over the whole of Southern Rhodesia's future to a jury which they already know is packed against her. Who are to be her judges, the arbiters of her destiny? President Nkrumah, Mr. Kenyatta, Archbishop Makarios—men like that. Those are the people who are going to decide. That is what the Government plan really means. That is what the Government are doing, or proposing to do, or contemplating doing, to the Rhodesian people, who have always been the loyalest of the loyal; who have stood by us in our own extremity in two world wars, and again as recently as Suez, but who are now stigmatised in this country as "settlers"—as if they were, as it were, the locusts and palmer worms of this world.
But, my Lords, who are these "settlers" who are, in my view, being so irresponsibly betrayed, and who are, to be dragooned into submission? What
692
sort of people are they? I wish you could see them, as I have often seen them. Not racial extremists—hard, hitter, savagely biased—but just like ourselves: ordinary, decent English people, with the same ideas of tolerance, freedom and justice as we have; people of an older generation who have spent their whole lives building up their country; young husbands and wives with little children, living, often, away in remote homesteads, miles from any other white man, the husband away all day on the farm, the wife and the little children alone in the homestead: simple people, trying to farm the land and make it more fruitful. And what is the crime they and their leaders are supposed to be committing? What is this retrograde Constitution to which they are accused of so rigidly adhering? It is not a Constitution of their own creation; it is a Constitution that was the creation of Mr. Sandys himself; a Constitution which they agreed to accept at his especial behest and which was the subject, as they understood it, of a solemn agreement between him and them, only one year ago.
My Lords, we used to throw up our hands in shame and horror at the Kaiser's "scrap of paper", torn up in 1914. But that was the Law of the Medes and Persians compared with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations' scraps of paper. If they last a year, they have done pretty well. On such rotten foundations as that, I firmly believe, the good name and fame of our country can never survive. That is what many of us feel. And we feel this, too. Even if the Government take the view that they must, for reasons of expediency, embark on what many of us feel to be a policy of shame, let them at least shoulder their own responsibilities. Do not let them shelter behind this packed jury which they are calling in to do what I can describe only as their dirty work". That, to me at any rate, is the final humiliation.
And, finally, why, my Lords, is all this necessary at all? Why cannot we, in spite of what the Prime Minister has said, leave the destiny of Southern Rhodesia to the Rhodesians themselves? In the present temper of the world, no Government, even a reactionary Government, could hold back from a policy of

693
healthy advance; and that is certainly true of Southern Rhodesia. Why cannot we let them, who know the country and who know the Africans, decide what is a safe pace to go? By trying to force them to go faster than they feel is safe, we are, in fact, I believe, not accelerating but slowing up the rate of advance. For as we push them one way, their instinct, as one can well understand, is to pull back the other way, in order to maintain some sense of balance. If we could only leave them to regulate the pace, I believe that they would go—and I am not the only one to think so—very much faster. I believe, too, that a situation of that kind could not but create confidence and increase the investment in Rhodesia which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, so rightly said was vitally important for its future progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, is himself, as we all know, a moderate and kindly man, and he has made this afternoon, as one would expect, a moderate and kindly speech. With what he said about the importance of more education, more investment and so on, we shall all of us, I think—certainly I do—entirely agree. But he went out to Rhodesia only as a visitor; he was out there, as I understand it, for only a few weeks. How then can he be so certain as he has shown himself to-day about what is the right thing to do? I am pretty sure that very few people who know the Central Africans, and who have lived among them, would think it either wise or safe to hand over all the reins of Government to an African majority now, or even in five years—the period, I believe, that the Government have in mind. They simply are not ready for it. It would mean only an early reversion to single-Party Government and, very soon, to an African dictatorship, which I am sure Lord Walston would regret just as much as anyone else.
My Lords, I do not think that I have painted too dark a picture—I hope I have not; and, that being so, I beg the Government to think again before they pursue further the disastrous course on which they seem to have embarked. If they will not think again, if they insist on going ahead at the pace they seem now to have in contemplation, there will be some of us, at any rate, who would not blame the loyal Rhodesians if they felt that they could trust Britain no
694
longer and that they must take their destiny into their own hands.
I am afraid that in what I have said to your Lordships this afternoon I have spoken very strongly—some of you may feel too strongly. But I feel very strongly, and there are some occasions when it is no use mincing one's words. I entreat the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who I understand is to reply to this debate this evening, at any rate to make it clear that the Government intend to go no further with their ill-considered scheme for calling in the Commonwealth, with all the implications that I have described. If Ministers are not willing to do even that, I am afraid that I am likely to have no option but to put down another Motion, asking your Lordships to refuse your approval to this ill-conceived proposal, and to push that Motion to a Division. If the Division goes against the Motion, there is, of course, no more that I could do; but at any rate I should have done what I could to save this country from further shame, where there has already been so much.
5.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Marquess because he makes such a strong case; when you agree with him you find fresh reasons for agreement and when you disagree with him, as I fear I do, you find yourself even more strongly in disagreement. But I am grateful both to him and to the noble Duke for the handsome tribute they paid to the well-informed speech of my noble friend Lord Walston. My noble friend spent five weeks travelling round the Federation and Southern Africa and he came back to give us his own impressions of this first-hand experience of those parts of Africa. I know that your Lordships, even when you disagree with the views that are expressed by other noble Lords—and noble Lords opposite are bound to disagree with most views expressed from this side of the House—always listen with respect and interest to an opinion that is based on first-hand experience.
I should like to make two comments, if I might, on the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. First of all, I am glad that he will give us an opportunity of debating the position of

695
Southern Rhodesia on a later occasion. This is a matter of such importance that it certainly should not be brought in this afternoon on a side wind. The second thing is this. I have always regarded him as one of the stoutest champions of the Commonwealth. He has been both Commonwealth and Colonial Secretary, and I suppose that for as many years as any noble Lord in this House I have listened with much sympathy and agreement to the speeches the noble Marquess has made on the subject of the Commonwealth.
I am quite convinced that if that policy he has described, of leaving the pace of constitutional advance in Southern Rhodesia to the Southern Rhodesian Government without any persuasion or influence from outside, were followed, the consequences would be a civil war in Southern Rhodesia, a race war that would be very difficult to localise because help would come in to both sides from outside. I am quite convinced that if there were a war of this kind in Southern Rhodesia it would be the end of the Commonwealth in its present form, because a number of the new Commonwealth countries would wish to break off from the rest of the Commonwealth.
The other thing is that I thought that one of his remarks was really an incitement to Southern Rhodesia to "go it alone", and I must say I was surprised by that because in the Press this morning Sir Edgar Whitehead was reported as having made a speech yesterday in the Assembly in Southern Rhodesia urging the Government not to take the irresponsible course of taking independence into its own hands and without the ordinary legal sanctions.
I would also thank the noble Duke, if I might, for having given us a progress report on what the two Committees to which he referred have been doing about the winding-up of the Federation, which of course has to be completed by the end of next month. I asked him if he would do that and I am most grateful to him for doing so. I should like to say something about the working of the Committee which is dealing with the transfer of Federal functions and powers to the Territories, because that concerns us in this House much more closely on account of the fact that its recommenda-
696
tions will require the consent of Parliament. We have a responsibility in this House and in another place for approving or disapproving the orders which will embody the recommendations made by these Committees, provided of course that they are accepted by the Governments concerned. When presenting these orders, the Government will have to satisfy us that we are being asked to do something we can conscientiously approve. There are several matters about which I and my noble friends will need a great deal of reassurance from the Government if we are to be satisfied.
I should like to mention these matters. The first is this—and it was not dealt with by the noble Duke; I hope it will be dealt with by the noble and learned Lord who will wind up, as it is eminently a legal matter which he is qualified to deal with. It relates to discriminatory provisions in the Federal law. It has been said—and I do not know how reliable the authority is; that is why I am asking the question—that when Federal functions and personnel are transferred to Southern Rhodesia the discriminatory provisions relating to them in the Federal law will apply in that country; furthermore, that these provisions will not be subject to review by the council set up by the present Constitution of Southern Rhodesia to prevent discriminatory legislation there. I know that no one would wish to see more discrimination in Southern Rhodesia, especially at the present time. Nor, of course, does this appear to be in any way the intention of the Government of Southern Rhodesia, and what I am asking for is information, reassurance, on this point.
To take my second query, I am very apprehensive about the transfer to Southern Rhodesia of the bulk of the Royal Rhodesian Air Force, the Federal air force; and of course this apprehensiveness, as your Lordships are aware, has been expressed by the majority of countries in the United Nations. Indeed, we had to exercise our Veto in the Security Council because the majority of the countries there wished to pass a resolution against the transfer of these forces to Southern Rhodesia.
Now I want to ask the Government, in relation to these forces, are they satisfied that Southern Rhodesia can pay for

697
such an expensive force? I and other noble Lords who have visited Africa have seen something of prestige armed forces in African countries. Such prestige armed forces have a crippling effect on public expenditure in other directions, such as the social services. I only hope that we have given Southern Rhodesia no encouragement to saddle themselves with armed forces they cannot really afford. Perhaps the Government are thinking of sharing the cost of maintaining these squadrons with the Southern Rhodesian Government. I should like to know whether that is the case. There would, of course, be an argument for that if they were to be available for the defence of British territories in ether parts of Africa.
If this is the case—if there is any agreement about the use of these forces for Commonwealth defence—I cannot help thinking that the Government are taking a short-sighted view of the organisation of Commonwealth defence in Africa. We have never hitherto been allowed defence facilities in any British Colony in Africa after it has become independent, and Southern Rhodesia is on the way to independence. I think everyone would agree to that. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, would like it to move rather slowly, unless it moves rather abruptly; but I think the difference is one of timing rather than of principle. Surely, if we depend on Southern Rhodesia for air defence, then we are likely to let ourselves in for the same terrible mistake that we made in Kenya, where we spent millions on building up an Army and Air Force base, and now that Kenya has become independent we have had to give up this base and the use of these facilities.
Another reason for my dissatisfaction and alarm at the prospect of these squadrons passing into the control of Southern Rhodesia is this. We shall be giving Southern Rhodesia the most powerful air force in Africa after South Africa. I believe that the Canberra squadrons of this air force are more powerful, because they carry a more powerful armament, than any of the squadrons of the South African Air Force. And, by doing this, we are bound to increase tension between the independent African countries and the area of Africa still under European
698
control, and to stimulate an arms race between these two areas. I greatly hope that this is a matter that will be reconsidered before it is brought before Parliament in the shape of an Order for our approval. Why should not some of these squadrons, at any rate, be put into our own strategic reserve? That, surely, would be far better for the economy of Southern Rhodesia and would take a much longer view of the prospect of stability in Africa and the avoidance of armed conflict and an arms race between the two blocs, white and black, that face one another at the moment in Southern Africa.
The third matter in relation to the winding up of the Federation about which I am still far from satisfied, in spite of what the noble Duke has said, is the Government's treatment of the Federal public service. We shall hear much more about that, I am glad to say, from the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, who has great knowledge of this problem. The noble Duke said—and we would entirely agree with him—that the terms of service of public servants of the Federal Government are quite different from the terms of service of members of the Overseas Civil Service, and you cannot compare the two because it would not be comparing like with like. We would entirely accept that argument—there is no difference whatever between us on that score. But although there are differences between these two types of public servants, there are also similarities, and I should like to point out two similarities. One is that if a man loses a job as the result of Government policy, he loses the job whether he is an overseas civil servant or a member of the Federal public service; and the other is that if this does happen, then there is a moral obligation upon Her Majesty's Government either to find comparable alternative employment or to compensate this man for the loss of his job. Those seem to me to be two obvious and striking similarities, whatever the important differences are, between the members of these two services.
There are two pledges which the Government have given. Perhaps I might be allowed to remind the House and the Government of these pledges. The Government have given these in

699
relation to the Federal public service. Mr. Butler said in another place:
"The Federal public service is the main human problem posed by the dissolution of the Federation. We shall be judged by how we solve it. There are 35,000 Federal public servants—African, Asian and European, and their future lies in our hands."
That suggests to me that the Government accept moral responsibility for the future of these men. The other statement was one made by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, in reply to a debate we had in this House on the Bill to wind up the Federation. What the noble and learned Lord said in July was this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 252 (No. 122), col. 905]:
"The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, raised the point that … no civil servant should be worse off as a result of the dissolution of the Federation.… Her Majesty's Government recognise the importance of the second point—namely, that no civil servant shall be worse off."
Perhaps that is not such a strong acceptance of obligation as that of the Foreign Secretary, but it seems to me to accept the obligation.
Now what is the position? May I ask your Lordships to study what the Government are proposing to do in relation to these public servants, because I think it is for every noble Lord to judge for himself whether the proposals are fair or not. I have done so for my part, and I cannot really see how the two pledges to which I have referred can be honoured by the present arrangements. What are these arrangements? The Government want these Federal officers to go into the Territorial services as a comparable alternative form of employment. So do we all; so do the people in the Federation. That, obviously, is a most desirable thing to do. At the same time, I do not think anyone can really maintain that a European officer will not be worse off in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland and an African officer in Rhodesia, than they are in their present employment. After all, it is precisely the Africanisation policy in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland that has led to compensation schemes for expatriate officers in those Territories.
I am not contending for compensation for loss of career on the same lines as that which is offered to expatriate officers
700
of the Overseas Civil Service, who have the choice to retire, if they wish to do so, when a Government becomes independent. That is not what these officers are themselves asking for. The fact that there is no compensation scheme—I am not asking for it—is leading to exactly what a lot of us fear: namely, that many young doctors and engineers are leaving the Federal public service and not going into the Territorial services because there is no compensation, and they have got to get jobs elsewhere while they are young enough to take them. That seems to me to be not only a lamentable result in itself, but an answer to the argument of some people that if a compensation scheme were provided the officers would retire and not go into the Territorial services.
Where there is a very strong case for compensation is when a man is not offered a job, when he is not wanted in any of the Territorial services; that is to say, when he is redundant. I believe there are about 3,000 officers who are very likely to be in this position, half of them African, half of them European —3,000 out of the 35,000 employees of the Federal public service. What is to happen to a man of that kind when he is forced to retire prematurely because a job in the area cannot be found for him by the Territorial Governments? What happens is this. He gets his retirement pension and also one-third of that annual pension as an element of compensation—which shows that the Government accept the principle that there must be some compensation. But this one-third of a retirement pension is entirely inadequate, and I should like to explain why.
The Federal public service is a very young service because it dates from only 1953, so the retirement pension even of senior officers is extremely small. To give one example, an officer with eight years' service earning £1,500 will receive an annual pension of £200 a year, and if he is one of those who are turned down by the Territorial Government he will get a bonus of £66 a year, a third of his basic pension. He could commute that for about £400, whereas an expatriate officer in the Colonial Service in that position would get a lump sum of £5,000 or £6,000. I think your Lordships will agree that the payment of one-third of

701
annual pension as total compensation for redundant officers is really derisory and unworthy of Her Majesty's Government. The average payment for a redundant officer in respect of this element of compensation would be less than £66 a year because the average pension is less than £200; it is about £120. So the sum the average man would get is even more derisory,
One word more about pensions. I hope the Government will give us a little more information about pensions than the information we have at the moment, because we should like to know what they have in mind. We want to know what arrangements are going to be made about the security of the pension fund, about the currency in which the pensions will be paid, and about the making of pension increases to match increases in the cost of living. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord who is to wind up the debate can tell us something about that.
The noble Duke said something about citizenship. I welcomed what he said, and I think everyone will agree with it. He did not, however, deal with the really big problem which many of these officers are going to face before very long. Most of these officers will take up posts in the Territorial services; these Territories will become independent, and when they do so they will have their own citizenship. They do not like dual citizenship and clearly will not employ foreigners. So these men are going to be faced with the alternative of giving up their British citizenship or leaving their jobs. I dare say that quite a number of them will take on local citizenship, but in regard to those of them who, owing to changed circumstances in the Territory where they are working, or owing to family connections, want at that time to retire with British citizenship, are we prepared to make our law about citizenship such that they would immediately be eligible? I believe that the Government are considering a Bill to make the acquisition of British citizenship possible without the normal residential qualification of five years. I think this would be very useful; it would exactly suit the position of these men and a lot of other people in other parts of the Commonwealth.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I should like to confirm what the noble Earl says. Legislation is planned
702
to take place this Session—I cannot give the actual chapter and verse—to meet the situation outlined by the noble Earl in which people serving in these Territories have been compelled to give up their British nationality. It will be made easier than it is now for them to resume their previous British nationality. I do not at the moment want to say how much easier, but it will be very considerably easier for them to take this step.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The important thing is that there should not be a residential qualification of five years, because these wretched men cannot wait around for five years for British nationality.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I can give that undertaking.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am very grateful indeed for that very reassuring statement. I will say one simple thing, with which every noble Lord will agree, in relation to this whole problem of pensions and compensation for the public servants of the Federation. The honour of the British Government and of Parliament is at stake in giving those public servants a fair deal. Therefore, I sincerely hope that every noble Lord will acquaint himself with the facts of the situation and will judge whether or not the proposals for the future of these officers which have been made by Her Majesty's Government and by the Committee of officials which has been dealing with the matter, are such as to give these men a fair deal.
I said something about the High Commission Territories, to which the Minister of State referred at some length (and I was very grateful for what he said) during the debate on the Address, and I will not weary the House by repetition. There are only three fresh points I should like to make. The first is this. The strongest card in Dr. Verwoerd's bid for integration of the Territories with South Africa is surely economic.
"Britain"—
he said, if I may quote a speech he made in Pretoria on September 3—
"might be the guide to their political freedom, but she is powerless in respect of their eventual economic freedom."
We still have to prove ourselves right and to prove Dr. Verwoerd wrong in

703
relation to the latter part of this statement. Political independence for these Territories will be meaningless so long as their people are totally dependent on South Africa for their livelihoods. I am very glad that the noble Duke said something about what the Government are doing in relation to economic development. I agree entirely with Lord Walston about the paramount importance of economic development for the future of these three Territories.
I should like to draw attention to one further matter. I do not ask for an answer to this question now, because clearly it could not be given without prior notice; but I do ask the Government to give it immediate consideration. The noble Duke spoke of sugar in Swaziland and mentioned it, I think, as the most important cash crop.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: After asbestos.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Asbestos is not a crop. I agree about asbestos, but it is a mineral rather than a crop. But sugar being the most important cash crop, will the Government consider admitting Swaziland to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement when the present Agreement expires in 1965? This, of course, is vastly important to the marketing of Swaziland sugar.
My first point is the one with which I think all noble Lords on both sides of the House would agree: the vital importance of speeding up the economic development of these Territories. My second point is this. We ought to have an Extradition Treaty with South Africa modelled, presumably, on the Treaties we have with other foreign countries. Our decision to protect refugees from South Africa in the High Commission Territories is, of course, a political decision, and this means less security for the refugees than with a Treaty, and might also cause misunderstanding and difference of opinion with South Africa. I think that both of these difficulties would be overcome by a Treaty. I hope the Treaty would protect all refugees, including those in transit who are going to other countries, without their being asked for what purpose they are going—but, of course, on the understanding that they refrain from political activity
704
while they are actually on the soil of the Territory. I should like to know from the Government what they are contemplating about an Extradition Treaty, what the contents would be, and whether they are aware of the urgency of concluding such a Treaty with the Government of South Africa.
My third point is one that has often been made—and not only from these Benches; about the post of High Commissioner for the three Territories which is now combined with that of Ambassador to South Africa. My Lords, as the Territories become more politically conscious—and, of course, this is going on the whole time—so their distrust of this country is bound to increase; because their senior administrator is also accredited to the Government of South Africa. It is difficult, if not impossible, for them to believe that a man who must be on the best possible terms with the South African Government will also put their interests first. I am sure that there are remarkable individuals, like the late Ambassador and High Commissioner, who are able to wear these two hats; but I think that it happens only very rarely. And, even if it does happen, one cannot expect people to believe that it happens; and it is the belief that is the important thing.
My Lords, the resident Commissioners in the three Territories have recently been stepped up in authority, and they can communicate directly with the Colonial Office. I should have thought there was no reason at all why these resident Commissioners should not also deal with the South African Government, which is their immediate neighbour. I therefore hope that this post could either be abolished—which I feel would be the most satisfactory course—or, at any rate, removed from its present position as part of the mandate of the Ambassador to South Africa.
I do not want to detain your Lordships long, because we have a large number of speeches this evening, but I should like to have a final word about Southern Rhodesia. It is on a very specific point that I would ask the Government for enlightenment. Could the noble and learned Lord, when he winds up (perhaps the noble Duke will convey this question to him), clarify

705
the vague and ambiguous statement made in another place by the Secretary of State last Friday, about the part that the Government want the Commonwealth to play in the constitutional future of Southern Rhodesia? The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, seemed to think that the Government expect the Commonwealth to be a sort of jury to decide about Southern Rhodesia's independence. I cannot believe that the Government have in mind anything of the kind, though it is not for me to say that. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord who winds up the debate will make the position of the Government quite clear in relation to the interpretation by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, of what Mr. Sandys said. Nevertheless, the fact that Lord Salisbury interpreted in that way what the Secretary of State said, and the fact that it has been interpreted in other ways by other people, shows that at least what I am saying is true; namely, that the statement was vague and ambiguous.
I am glad that the Secretary of State said that there would be full consultation with the Commonwealth. That is something on which we all agree. But what form will this consultation take? A matter of such importance would justify a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, if the other Commonwealth countries wanted it, or at least a Commonwealth Foreign Ministers' meeting. I would ask: is it the intention of the Government to invite Commonwealth countries to attend a ministerial meeting in connection with Southern Rhodesia?
One of the main difficulties in Southern Rhodesia is that the Government of Southern Rhodesia finds it very difficult to make its own supporters realise how far they are out of step with the rest of the Commonwealth. I am sure that, whatever else the Government do, every effort should be made to bring to the notice of Southern Rhodesia the views of their Commonwealth partners. What has puzzled Southern Rhodesia is the statement of the Secretary of State that he would like something more than consultation. This, obviously, is not the "jury system" point made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in his interpretation of this statement; but it might be something
706
else. What does "something more than consultation" really mean? If it means that other Commonwealth countries could be asked to mediate, or to take part in negotiations for independence, as the noble Marquess seemed to suppose, that would be quite improper without the consent of the Southern Rhodesian Government. In my view, we are entitled to be told either that Mr. Sandys meant nothing when he said that the Commonwealth would be expected to give "something more than consultation"; or, if he meant something, what that something really is, because it has already given rise to an enormous amount of misunderstanding. My Lords, that is all I have to say. I apologise for detaining noble Lords, because the time is getting on, but I should be very much obliged if some, at least, of those questions could be answered by the Government.
5.37 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while I am bound to disagree somewhat with some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, I join in thanking him for initiating this debate, and in praising the reasonable moderation of his speech. For brevity's sake, I shall devote myself almost entirely to one only of these parts of the world—namely, Basutoland. In that connection I declare an interest, for members of my family have been merchants there for nearly a hundred years. I may also say that we have been very great friends with the Paramount Chief and with members of all Parties in that country. I do not intend to talk about South Africa because, as I think one of the Front Bench Members said, it is probably not wholly relevant. But in so far as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, set the scene in which the Territories of his Motion are established, and made one or two remarks, I want, if I may, most briefly, to call attention to the most misguided or perhaps the least well-informed of his remarks.
There is, for example, the idea of Lord Walston that the Transkei is not big enough to hold all the Africans; that the proposal to give it a kind of nursery Government, or the initial stages of self-government, similar to that we have had in Basutoland for the past five years, must be a mistake or must be criticised or even suspect, because the territory is

707
not big enough. My Lords, that is like saying that if you cannot put a quart into a pint pot, do not put any in at all. It is a most ridiculous argument. If, to persons who hitherto had very small opportunities for consultation and no political power, it is a good thing to give the beginnings of political power in a certain area, it cannot be said that that is a bad thing to do because the area is not big enough to take all of them.
Then the noble Lord said, as to the Transkei territory, that the election held there a few days ago was being rigged. Those are his words; I made a note of them—"being rigged". I should like to give him the opportunity of telling the House what evidence he has for saying that, if he would care to take it.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it is extremely good of the noble Lord to offer me that opportunity. I should like to take it, but I do not think the House would appreciate this, because it would take me at least ten minutes to describe the present system of elections in the Transkei. So I must refuse in deference to the time and convenience of the House.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: The House will judge whether that is a satisfactory answer. I cannot myself think that it is. That election is no more being rigged than any other election operated by decent, honest civil servants in the European tradition of conducting elections for any of the colonial territories throughout the world. It is quite wrong to suggest that it is, and it is an insult to the civil service of a friendly country, with which we have had lifelong and, indeed, centuries of association. At least, that is the view I take of it.
The Prime Minister was quoted by the noble Lord as saying that racialism was the one besetting sin in the world and the one thing that might cause great trouble for all of mankind. I subscribe to that. But I wonder whether it really tends to diminish the amount of racial feeling to have those persons who are slowly and gradually, and sometimes too quickly, being brought forward to self-government and to various forms of government constantly reminded how slowly we are going when, in fact, we are really going extremely fast. I won-
708
der whether that does not contribute to the very racialism which many of us would deplore.
Turning now to Basutoland, I will, most briefly and for the record, venture to tell your Lordships about it. Some of what I say will have been said already, but other parts will not, and it will not fit in unless I say it. There are nearly one million Basuto inhabitants in this country, and there are 2,000 whites—splendid fellows, too, all of them. The country is 50 per cent. bigger than Wales—that gives an idea of its size—and one-third of it is mountainous. It is an enclave in the middle of South Africa, just as Rutland is in the middle of England. Its frontier is about 500 miles long. That has a certain importance, partly because such a long frontier is quite indefensible and partly because it is in terrain which would make defence very, very difficult, in a land where such defence could not be afforded. It is partly for that reason and partly for others that there is a common customs zollverein between South Africa and Basutoland. This is a very sensible administrative arrangement. Incidentally it brings in over £1 million sterling to the Basutoland revenue, which it sorely needs. It is also impossible to guard that frontier from the point of view of persons running over it for asylum. Whether they seek to leave South Africa to run away from justice or from what they deem to be injustice, it is nevertheless true that they can run over this frontier without let or hindrance whenever they like, and it is almost impossible to catch them—perhaps, sometimes, even to see them.
Now this adds weight to the plea which has already been made to-day in the House that we should be extremely careful what rules we make as between South Africa and Basutoland in respect of the tradition—the good British tradition—of asylum. All of us, I am sure, will want to feel that the old British tradition of offering asylum to persons who suffer political persecution should not be too severely breached. But, on the other hand, if, along this indefensible and undefended frontier, you are going to say that all can come, that all can be welcome and that all can do what they please when they arrive, then you are indeed going to make life quite impossible for the Basuto people, because they know better than most of us how dependent

709
they are on the great country which surrounds them, South Africa.
My Lords, Basutoland has only its labour, to which reference has already been made, its wool and its mohair, a few cattle and its scenery, to gain it the importation of money—in the one case to export and in the other case to exploit. I think the noble Duke spoke of grains being exported. On balance, my Lords, there is no grain export from Basutoland. Some years we have to import it because we do not grow enough food to live on there. That is the desperate plight in which this country finds itself. At this moment, the United Kingdom pays a subvention of £1·6 million, and helps in other ways through the various Colonial funds.
Now I should like to praise the Basuto people—an intelligent, a patient and a charming people—and to praise their leaders, including the Paramount Chief, descendant of a royal house of long standing and one who has been in treaty and in friendly relationships with Her Majesty's Government for a hundred years or more. They now have, and have had for the last five years, the Basutoland National Council, constructed on almost exactly the same model as the Transkei Council which is now to be constructed. It has operated well, and has provided a very good opportunity for learning the elements of responsibility, both for members and for those senior members who have sat on the Executive Committee and who are, in a sense, budding Ministers in a budding Cabinet. The latest evidence of the wisdom and sense of the Basuto statesmen and politicians is to be seen in the Constitutional Report, which I regret to say has not yet been published here in Britain. That is no criticism; I do not know that there has been time: but when your Lordships find yourselves able to read that Report I am sure you will be impressed with the very good sense of the people who sat round the table to make it. They represent all the political Parties in Basutoland. They were entirely alone, save for one European lawyer who advised them and a European who acted as an independent chairman. It is a Report in which they unanimously ask for independence. They talk about a pre-independence period of a year, at the end of which there should
710
be an election on a general suffrage, after which independence should follow within a year.
Now I want, most frankly and in the most friendly way, to comment upon these proposals. Her Majesty's Government have already replied in advance of the debate which is to take place in the Council in Basutoland, that, during the period of pre-independence, however short or long it may be, Her Majesty's Government must have responsibility for law and order and foreign affairs. I am bound to say to my Basutoland friends that I agree with Her Majesty's Government; that must be realised and must be understood. It must be appreciated that these people, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said in another connection, are without, of necessity, the 700 years of experience of political life that we have had in this country. These people are now approaching only the second election they have ever had, and only the first one that they will have had on general suffrage.
It is inevitable that all three Parties are proclaiming that they must have independence; and each of them is saying that they must have it now. Or, if they are to have it the next year, somebody else will say: "We must have it before that." The bidding is: when is independence to come. No one doubts it will come; the question is when. Whatever they say, they will not regard what I say as criticism of them—friends of mine as they are—because they know perfectly well that that is what they are doing in advance of their forthcoming election. Every one of them, in his heart, knows that the power to keep order cannot really be shared; that condominium does not work; and that while Her Majesty's Government are responsible they must retain responsibility for foreign affairs, the power of internal order and the supervision of finances.
Then these gentlemen will come here in the Spring to a conference with Her Majesty's Government when a Constitution will be set; and that Constitution will, no doubt, give them the "One man, one vote", which in this particular country is the most desirable formula; because there are, as I have said, some 800,000 Basutos and only 2,000 Whites. It is quite immaterial whether or not you have multi-racial government in Basutoland because the numbers are as

711
they are. The racial problem does not arise when the numbers are like that; it arises only where the numbers are far more equal and power is more likely to be divided and contested.
The Basutos know also that they must acquire economic independence before they can enjoy real political independence. They are wiser in this respect than some noble Lords here on the other side who seem to think that there is such a thing as real independence without economic independence. I thought I discerned that thought in the minds of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and of the noble Earl in relation to Nyasaland. I do not myself see how you can enjoy real independence if you are not financially free. The Basutos realise this; and therefore in their hearts they must know that it will take some time before they can become economically free. Therefore, with justice and with propriety and good sense, they ask for political freedom.
In what way is it possible that we can help them? It has been said in various parts of the House: "Let us set an example", "Let us not be out-bid by the Republic", and so on, but see "how we can help Basutoland". I have tried myself in my own business there; others have tried; but until and unless we have a great development in roads, electricity and other fundamental provisions, which no private persons can produce, it does not seem possible to establish even the most elementary manufacturing businesses there.
Basutoland, however, is endowed with the largest supply and the richest supply of pure water; and it occurs at high level so that it has a big fall. It has, therefore, all the potentials of a hydroelectric scheme of great importance, not to itself alone, but to the whole Continent of South Africa. It is called the Ox-Bow Scheme, and it is known to the Government here and to the South African Government, and to engineers who are interested in these kinds of schemes. It has been well surveyed; it is at an advanced stage now, and it is ready for the first step to be taken. This first step will cost perhaps £2.1 million. That first step would supply enough water and electric power for the whole of Basutoland. The whole scheme would cost £11 million or £12
712
million; and that scheme would provide enormous supplies of beautiful water and a great surplus of electric power which could be sold to South Africa.
It has been said by the Government (a Government speaker said it in answer to me the other day in this House) that there was no sign yet that South Africa wanted this water and this electricity. But it is wanting water and electricity all the time. It is one of the driest countries in the world. Water is the only thing it lacks; it has every other gift but not water. And it is needing more electricity all the time and is building stations fired by oil or coal all the time. If its need is a new supply of beautiful—not brackish—water and of electricity at competitive prices it is one of those bets that anyone who has ten or twelve million pounds to spare ought to invest in. Since I do not have this, and usually most of us have not, then we must ask Her Majesty's Government to see to this. They could start this £2 million scheme and then in two or three years' time follow with the £12 million. They would then have provided the Basutoland people with a way of earning perhaps three-quarters of a million to £1 million. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, said that it would be "only" three-quarters of a million, as if that was an insignificant or not very important sum. But it is important; it is half the deficit. We are getting somewhere if we enrich ourselves with water and power in the land and at the same time pay off half the deficit. This is some way towards economic independence, and then we might be able to attract industry.
My Lords, this is not an idle dream; it is the only way, it seems to me, that Her Majesty's Government can honourably discharge themselves from their obligation to Basutoland, which now goes back 100 years. The right way is to start her off in a manner in which she can pay her way. I might add that the Basutoland Mountains are within 350 miles of Johannesburg; they are within 200 miles of the new Orange Free State mining development; they are within 400 miles of East London, where considerable economic development is going on and where new factories are being built all the time. I was at the opening the other day of a £2 million factory

713
in East London; this will be a great user of electricity and water. I am certain that this scheme is a practicable proposition—far more practicable than pouring water down some other less useful sinks.
I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will do two things: it is a repetition of the Question I asked the other day; but more emphatically made because now I am not subject to the limitations of a Parliamentary Question. Will Her Majesty's Government give the Basutoland people this £2 million investment, or lend it to them, through the Colonial Development Fund or in some way or another, so that this water scheme can be started? Secondly, will they start conversations with the Government of South Africa about the ultimate use of water and power which might become available after three or four years; and will they promise the Basutos that they will give them all possible diplomatic help in this matter of bringing South Africa into sympathy with this scheme?
In the Report to which I have made reference, there is one paragraph which I want to leave in your Lordships' minds, if I may. May I remind you that this is the unanimous Report of a Committee of twelve Basutos, unaccustomed, save in the last four or five years, to public life, not inhibited from saying what is in their minds, and not subject at all to the same kind of prejudices as we are in this House and in this Parliament and in this country. This is what they say:
"We are willing to trade in friendliness with our neighbours. It is the Basutos' desire to live and let live."
Instead of exacerbating feelings between Africans and Europeans, instead of causing more racial unrest and more racial hatred, by making bitter speeches on these matters, as some do from time to time, may we not take the lesson from them, that it is not a bad thing for man "to live and let live"?
6.2 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord who initiated this debate for the fact that I was unable to be present during the early stage of the debate and therefore did not hear the whole of his speech. However, I heard the latter part, dealing with
714
Southern Rhodesia, and I was informed of some of his other lines of argument. I understand that he was very pessimistic about the general economic situation of Southern Rhodesia, and I would comment on his speech in this way. I would draw his attention to the Newsletter of the High Commissioner of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland of November 8, in which the seven headlines of the first seven items are as follows:
"£500.000 tobacco factory for Salisbury;"
"Top publishing firm to open in S. Rhodesia"—
referring to Messrs. Longman's—
"£4 million lowveld sugar expansion;"
"Record profit for Central African Airways;"
"Southern Rhodesia electricity sales boom;"
"Record year for many S.R. industries;"
"Work to start on Southern Rhodesia branch line"—
that is in the Triangle and Hippo Valley.
I do not propose to follow the noble Lord otherwise in my speech. Indeed, I had not intended to speak at all to-day, having spoken at some length in the debate on the Queen's Speech on the subject of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I had intended just to ask whether I might have answers to a number of the questions which I put to my noble friend Lord Lansdowne on November 14 and which remained unanswered. I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be able to give me the answers to some of them to-day. However, the extraordinary and, to my mind, disastrous suggestion made in another place by the Commonwealth and Colonial Secretary on the day following our debate, that the whole Commonwealth would have to be consulted in regard to the question of Southern Rhodesia's independence, and might perhaps be brought even more positively into this problem, together with the apparent total lack of success which the delegation of Federal public servants have achieved during their stay this past week in London, compel me to speak at greater length.
The date for the final and tragic dissolution of the Federation is now little more than four weeks ahead, and a number of vitally important questions still remain unsettled. I understand that

715
Committee A is making very slow progress and I urge Her Majesty's Government, and, indeed, all the other Governments concerned, to insist that this work should be accelerated. The questions which I put to my noble friend the other day, and to which I think Parliament is entitled to have an answer before a final decision is taken, concerned the flatter of the public debt and the replacement of existing Federal guarantees; the association of Her Majesty's Government with such guarantees, together with the guarantees of the funds raised for the construction of Kariba; the arrangements for the Rhodesia Railways and Central African Airways, on which I understand some progress has been made; the question of continued co-operation in vital health schemes, such as malaria and tsetse control; the continuation of the right of appeal to the Privy Council and the establishment of a joint Court of Appeal for the three Territories. I very much hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to give me some information on these topics this evening.
I now turn to the question of the claims of the Federal public servants, a delegation of whom have interviewed a number of Members of Parliament of both Houses during the past week and who, I understand, have also had an interview with the noble Duke. I myself have seen the delegation and, having heard their case explained to me in greater detail, I must confess that I feel the way in which they have been treated is little short of scandalous. One is left with the feeling that Her Majesty's Government and the three Territorial Governments were mainly concerned to extricate themselves from this affair as cheaply as possible. The civil servants were never permitted to negotiate, as had been promised, and in fact were asked to give evidence only before the sub-committee. Moreover, the way in which the matter was handled subsequently by Committee A is causing great resentment among the civil servants. I understand that as many as 1,000 civil servants have refused to continue in Territorial service, so that in fact the niggardly treatment which is being offered is having the exactly opposite effect to what was intended.
Shortly before I came to the House this afternoon, I had some fresh infor
716
mation on the subject. It seems that, of 1,400 permanent teachers in Southern Rhodesia, only 134 have taken permanent transfers; 177 have taken provisional transfers, and the other 1,100 are still waiting to make up their minds when they see what the delegation of public servants bring back with them from London after their visit. I also understand that in the Harare Native Hospital, which some of us know, half the doctors have said that they cannot accept the treatment they have received and that they intend to leave. I regard all this as extremely serious. It was inevitable, in Northern Rhodesia in any case, that the greatest encouragement would be needed in order to persuade officers to go on serving. I also feel that, despite what my noble friend said this afternoon, Her Majesty's Government have a primary responsibility in this matter. It was we who set up the Federation in 1953, and the break-up of the Federation is now being brought about by a sovereign act of the British Parliament. I suggest that we cannot, and should not, shirk our responsibilities.
I hesitate to add to the quotations that have already been given to your Lordships, but Mr. Butler also gave the Federal civil servants an assurance that they would be "equitably and generously treated." This, as I shall seek to show, has not occurred. It does not appear to be generally appreciated that two-thirds of the Federal civil servants were recruited after federation—in other words, as the noble Earl opposite said, they have less than ten years' service. It also does not appear to be realised that, of the 35,000 civil servants, 20,000 are Africans; and, as the noble Earl said, of the 3,000 who are expected to become redundant, half are Africans.
When my noble friend Lord Lansdowne replied to me on November 14, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 253 (No. 3), col. 197] that officers
"will receive compensation for the abolition of their office."
In fact, what they are to receive is only what they are entitled to receive under their existing regulations, whereby an officer who was dismissed by reason of the abolition of his office received his earned pension plus an additional one-third, to be paid at the Governor-General's discretion. In every case, in fact, where an officer in the past was

717
so dismissed he received his third, and I understand the Federal Government's representative on the Committee took the view very strongly that the third should be automatically payable. Under the new arrangements, as has already been pointed out, any officer who refuses Territorial appointment will be denied his additional third.
There is a further point, also of the greatest importance. The provision of this additional third provided under the regulations was perhaps appropriate compensation for the abolition of an individual civil servant's office, because that is a thing which normally occurs when a fairly senior man is perhaps creating a bottleneck and it is thought he should retire. By that time he would probably have earned enough pension so that his additional third would have been of some real value to enable him to retire in reasonable comfort. But most of the civil servants with whom we are now dealing have served only about nine to ten years, so their pension and their additional third are very small indeed. One set of figures was given by the noble Earl, and I have another set. In the case of a man earning £900 a year, he would receive a pension of £120, plus an additional third of £40 a year. The 20,000 Africans concerned in this are, of course, much worse off. Under this scheme, these Africans wilt not receive more than an average of £2 10s. a month.
My noble friend Lord Lansdowne also said that the Governments concerned considered that the settlement provided equitable treatment for the individual officers. As I understand it, it is not accurate to say that the Federal Government think that this agreement provides equitable treatment for all civil servants. The Federal Government at the time considered that this was the best deal they could get. They had previously put in a strong dissenting report on the question of the additional third. In fact, when the Federal Minister for the Public Service made a statement on the subject on September 18, he specifically said that provisions in regard to the third, and especially the lack of freedom of choice involved, did not fully meet the views of the Federal Government.
Then my noble friend went on to say that the settlement sought to secure that as many Federal officers as possible should be able to continue their careers
718
in one or other of the three Territories and thus avoid a disruption of the public services. But it is not so much a matter of being able to continue as being forced to continue through the unwarrantable denial of the additional third to those who do not wish to do so. As I have already said, this has had the effect of driving out a large number of technical and specialist officers who are best qualified and best able to find work elsewhere, and, unfortunately, whom it will be the most difficult to replace.
Then, again, I am afraid I cannot accept the reply of my noble friend, Lord Lansdowne, to my question as to the Federal civil servants' perfectly proper demand for equal treatment under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1962, and the Overseas Regulations made under it. He said that members of the Southern Rhodesian and Federal public services would not be eligible under this Act, which your Lordships will remember was passed about a year ago, as they were not members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service; that they were selected for appointment by their own Governments and not by or on behalf of the Secretary of State. This argument seems to me to be completely untenable, since under the 1962 Act the benefits were specifically extended to include members of the Sudan Political Service, who were in the same position.
I suppose it can be argued that Southern Rhodesia, with her forty years of full self-government, can reasonably be called upon to accept the responsibility for cost of living increases; but this certainly does not hold good for the Federal public servants. As I said the other day, there is, in fact, no Government to make such increases, and there will be no funds from which the increases can be made. Moreover, the fact that it was the British Government who strongly urged them to go out and take up these posts, after Federation came into effect, seems to me again to involve a responsibility on the part of our Government. The fact that many civil servants will have the opportunity to take employment with the Territories does not mean in this matter of pensions increases that those Territories will look after what might be called the Federal element in their pension; in fact, it is most unlikely that

719
they will do so. So I would beg the Government to look again at this matter.
Finally, with regard to the matter of the Federal public service, my noble friend Lord Lansdowne said, or perhaps implied, that it was impossible to reopen the agreement which had been reached. My Lords, of the delegation's main points two do not involve reopening the agreement. There is, first, the question of security for pensions, and, in particular, the question of a sterling basis of calculation, with a pension fund to be administered from London by, for example, the Crown Agents, and placed in the Bank of England. The Federal civil servants are all the more apprehensive about this aspect of their pensions because they recently learned of the imposition of a tax in Ghana on ex-civil servants' pensions. Then, again, the application of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1962, was also not involved in the agreement.
Further, there is the question of compensation for redundant officers which formed no part of the agreement. The statement made by the five Governments made it plain that "sympathetic consideration" was to be given to cases of hardship. The civil servants feel strongly that the only proper method of giving treatment in cases of hardship is to make it a generally applicable compensation scheme. This I understand is supported by the Federal Government, and also now by the Southern Rhodesian Government. I would most earnestly urge the Government to reconsider carefully the position of the Federal civil servants and to devise some means for meeting their very real and justifiable anxieties, and, if necessary, undertake the full financial cost of doing so.
I now turn to Southern Rhodesia. The Commonwealth Secretary, as has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Salisbury and others this afternoon, said in another place on November 15 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 684 (No. 4), col. 586]:
"We are asked by the Government of Southern Rhodesia, what are your terms for independence? What are the changes which would satisfy you? Our answer is that this is not just a matter of satisfying us."
720
Then he went on to say that the question of Southern Rhodesia's independence was one which acutely interested the whole Commonwealth, and that the whole Commonwealth would have to be consulted. He also said that he was wondering whether we might not go further than that, and whether it might not be possible for members of the Commonwealth to help in a more positive way in the task of finding a generally acceptable solution. He was evidently aware of the very serious implications of what he was saying, for he then went on to say that these were what one might call dangerous thoughts.
My Lords, I cannot imagine a more extraordinary and, to my mind, shocking suggestion for a Minister of the Crown to throw out at the end of a debate on a Friday afternoon. He was, in fact, going back on the entire doctrine on which we have been working for years—namely, that the question of independence of any British overseas territory, by precept, practice and ethics, was one for settlement between Her Majesty's Government and the Territory concerned, and for them alone. It was only a few weeks ago that Mr. Sandys turned down, and quite rightly in my opinion, the suggestion that the Commonwealth should be brought in in some capacity to participate in finding a solution for the question of British Guiana. In the case of Southern Rhodesia, the proposal is far more dangerous and, to my mind, inequitable. Among the members of the Commonwealth whom it is proposed to consult, there are ten who have consistently voted against Southern Rhodesia at the United Nations and who cannot, as my noble friend said, by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as capable of giving an impartial view on Southern Rhodesia's future. Five of them are pan-African nationalist States where non-Africans in practice enjoy the status of only second-class citizens. Four of them are Far Eastern nationalist members of the Afro-Asian bloc, and the last is Cyprus.
Finally, and above all, how can we possibly expect to get a disinterested opinion on the proper democratic mode of advancement for Southern Rhodesia, with its history of responsible Parliamentary Government for forty years,

721
from men like Dr. Nkrumah of Ghana and others who, in their brief term of power, have already established one-Party dictatorships, or indeed from such bitter opponents of so-called "colonialism", or "neo-colonialism", as Mr. Nehru and President Makarios. The result, of course, would be a foregone conclusion.
There is another, I think, even more dangerous aspect of this matter. It seems to me that. Mr. Sandys' proposals constitute almost a direct invitation to the Southern Rhodesian leaders to take the law into their own hands. I cannot imagine anything more provocative than what was said, and if they were to do so now no one could blame them. Quite apart from anything else, there is no constitutional basis for Mr. Sandys' proposals, and if the constitutional proprieties are violated by Her Majesty's Government they can hardly be surprised if Southern Rhodesia in turn does not adhere to the strict letter of the law. The Southern Rhodesian Government has rejected Mr. Sandys' proposals, and has suggested that Mr. Sandys did not really intend to go so far—in other words, he did not really mean what he said. If this is the case, I agree with the noble Earl and others who have said this afternoon that we should like made clear to us this evening what was intended on that Friday afternoon, and I hope it will be that these, as I regard them, dangerous and quite unworkable proposals will be dropped.
I must admit that I find Mr. Sandys' attitude towards Southern Rhodesia all the more difficult to understand, inasmuch as the present Constitution was virtually his own. It has been in operation for only one year, and if the African political Parties were to collaborate with it, as they first said they would, it might well lead to an African majority within ten years or even less. This seems to me to be an essentially reasonable rate of progress if the very high standards of living—and here I venture to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Walston—of Africans and Europeans alike in Southern Rhodesia are to be maintained, and if an orderly progress towards a true Parliamentary democracy and not a one-Party tyranny is to be achieved.
There are, in my judgment, certain amendments to the Constitution which
722
could well be made without interfering with this progress. There are also other changes which I should like to see, such as the repeal of the Land Apportionment Act. This might well require ratification at a further election in Southern Rhodesia, but I think these matters are matters for the Southern Rhodesians themselves to decide, and I hope that Mr. Sandys will now revert to the calm and ordered negotiations on this subject which were being pursued by his predecessor. I hope that these negotiations will have as their object the very early attainment of independence by Southern Rhodesia, certainly no later than for either of the other two Territories. Only in this way can the Government dissipate the widespread anxiety and bewilderment which the recent proposals have created in the minds of many people, both in Southern Rhodesia and in this country, and the serious threat to the peaceful and orderly development of that Territory.
6.25 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I rise with confused regrets over the fact that the Federation is ending, and with an awareness that in considering these matters one needs more than ever a dynamic moderation. In listening to the speeches from the other side, one is aware of the great strength of the points made, but also aware that we are considerably back to the same mood as when the Federation was first mooted. One cannot help feeling, with all due humility, that it is much later in time after these ten years than the noble Marquess thinks. Though it is a matter of words to say that one must move with the times, I think a great deal has happened in these ten years to prove further that African nationalism is such a powerful force, whether or not one likes it entirely in current detail, that one must go with it for the sake of the peace of the world, if for nothing else.
Somebody like myself would, in the words of the noble Marquess, be described as only a visitor, though I have been twice a visitor. I well understand the point about denigration and not running down one's own people. But there is a very strong sense there which I perceived, that our own people on the spot are isolated from the outside world and do not read, for instance, what the London Times or the New Statesman or

723
the New York papers say. I think that with the pressure of world opinion it must be very easy to become introspective, fidgety and sometimes very obsessional. Yet one cannot help realising that these are the people on the spot, and in one sense they really know, in the sense in which we in this Island far away do not. The very mood of the place is so entirely different.
But I think that Southern Rhodesia, becoming more and more isolated, must not forget that she is out of tune with the main movement of the African continent. Against the advantages of being on the spot are the advantages of the traditional British eye from afar. I am sure the noble Marquess must have been impressed this morning in reading in The Times what Sir Edgar Whitehead said yesterday in the Southern Rhodesian Assembly, and I cannot resist the point that I think it is dangerous to half encourage the Southern Rhodesians at a given point to act somewhat independently, which I gather is what the noble Marquess said.
Mr. Jan Smith of the Ministry of the Treasury said yesterday of the Africans:
"They will go on and on demanding until they have the whole cake and every single crumb of the cake."
This is not a very successful political angle and obviously encourages the conflict between the races, and it is certainly not the idea of partnership with which Federation was originally conceived. I know the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned this speech; but if I may quote from it, he said:
"Southern Rhodesia is one of the few places left in the world where Europeans hold the balance of power, and there are many States conducting crusades against this type of rule. Southern Rhodesia's protection against this pressure is the British Government."
He went on:
"Britain still enjoys tremendous respect and its protection is vital to the colony."
When I was last in the Federation two or three years ago I remember his saying—and I recall writing it down at the time:
"I put safety in the future of Southern Rhodesia before any other consideration in the world."
All I want very briefly to say, therefore, is that this idea of safety in the future
724
of Southern Rhodesia or, for that matter, in the future of the world, is related to this idea of moving on in a new way and accepting the African in a new way.
Considering the tone of speeches at the time the Federation was mooted, and without going back to that time, I think it is true to say that one was right to be aware of the fact of African opinion, however inarticulate, then; and one is right to realise now just how much has happened in the ten years. I understand the idea of being fidgety and introspective. It struck me that it is not the old settler who is so fidgety as many people who possibly were in North London, Leeds or Aberdeen in 1946 and are now in a suburb of Salisbury or Bulawayo, and that these people do feel terribly let down; but they are also very ignorant of the trends. With this diminishing citadel—and it is a diminishing citadel—it is particularly frightening to see an acceleration and a further crystallising of the citadel attitude; it is becoming even more vocal and more obsessional.
On one final point relating to the Union, and speaking as somebody with an Afrikaner wife, it seems to me slightly ironical that when the Federation was first mooted it was often said that, by partnership and so forth, it would be a bulwark against the Union. It strikes me, however, that the Union might now be thinking that Southern Rhodesia can now be, possibly is, and might go on, wrongly, being a wall against the host of Africans to the North. This irony does strike one. My Lords, my only plea is that we do understand the tide and do learn to move with it.
6.33 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Duke is not in his place, because I believe that it will be a source of gratification to him to think, as I should have reminded him, and as I am reminding your Lordships' House, that perhaps the most important principle in British colonial policy was stated by a Duke of Devonshire in 1923, when he said that
"His Majesty's Government think it necessary definitely to record their considered opinion that the interests of African natives must be paramount; and if and when those interests of the immigrant races should conflict, the former should prevail."

725
That is the statement, made for the first time officially in 1923, which has become, I think, the cornerstone of British policy and accepted on all sides of both Houses.
The white population of Northern Rhodesia is 3 pet cent. of the total, and the white population of Southern Rhodesia is only 5·7 per cent, of the total. Perhaps Her Majesty's Government can tell us what percentage of European population a Territory must have to be entitled to an African Government or, alternatively, to a white Government. For Northern Rhodesia, with 3 per cent., has an African Government, and Southern Rhodesia, with 5·7 per cent., has a white one. It would be interesting to know whether there is any point of principle here which guides Her Majesty's Government.
The economic picture of Southern Rhodesia is at the present time of a privileged white class—many of whom, by the way, have gone to Southern Rhodesia in order to avoid taxation—and an impoverished African and farming class. Mr. Sandys, speaking in another place, expressed sympathy with the Europeans of Southern Rhodesia who, he said, might feel, and did feel, a justifiable pride in the agricultural achievements and rising standards of education and social service which are provided for all races; and again expressed sympathy with them in their fear that these advantages and this progress might be endangered if they fell into irresponsible hands. Not all Europeans share this view. In 1961, the Roman Catholic hierarchy, all of them Europeans, said this of the conditions of Southern Rhodesia.
"Wages are inadequate, housing conditions in many instances are unworthy of human beings, and terms of employment are such that husbands are separated for long periods from their wives.
"Such a state of affairs cries to heaven for vengeance and even in the natural order can only breed crime and chaos.
"Need we wonder if men are incited to subversive activity when there is such obvious disparity in the quality of land occupied by the two major racial groups in the country?"
This view of the present situation in Southern Rhodesia is borne out by an official publication of the Federal Government. For example, the National Accounts of the Federal Government of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. 1954–1962, published in Salisbury at the beginning of this year, show that of the 612,000 wage-
726
earners counted in the 1961 census, no fewer than 80,000 received wages of less than £2 10s. per month, and, of these, no fewer than 24,000 had a cash income of less than 30s. per month. Only 17,800 wage earners had an income of over £20 a month, or £5 a week.
My Lords, Mr. Sandys spoke, as I have already said, of the pride of the Europeans in their "agricultural achievements." The Monthly Digest of Statistics for July, 1963, published by the Central Statistical Office in Salisbury, shows that the total area under crops in the European farms amounted only to just over one million acres. Yet 37 million acres are reserved for European occupation. A Committee set up in 1957 by the legislature of Southern Rhodesia found that the percentage of European land under crops at that time was "deplorably low".
But, my Lords, far more serious, to my mind, than these figures applied to European agriculture, are the figures for African agriculture; for the assistance and improvement of African agriculture is a touchstone by which any scheme for improvement in African conditions can be tested. In Southern Rhodesia, while the European tobacco output has increased from 150 million lb. to around 216 million lb., African production has increased only from 48,000 lb. in 1958 to 54,000 lb. in 1962. There has been hardly any increase of cattle, sheep, goats or pigs by either Europeans or African farms. In 1958, the European production of maize amounted to 3½ million bags. By 1962, it had increased to 5½ million bags. In 1958, the African output was 536,000 bags and in 1962, 539,000 bags. That seems to indicate very clearly that, whatever may have happened to European agriculture, African agriculture in Southern Rhodesia has stagnated.
The Secretary of State, at the same time as he made those other remarks about agriculture, spoke of the Europeans' justifiable pride, as I have mentioned, at the
"rising standards of education … which they provide for all races".
The British Government provided much of the finance to set up the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and to provide university training for the Federation as a whole. The population of the Federation is 9½ million, of whom

727
only 310,000 are Europeans. Yet at the University College in 1962 there were 241 European graduates and only 74 African students from the whole of the 9,150,000 African population of the Federation. Southern Rhodesia has an African population of around 3,700,000; yet the latest statistics show that the 1963 enrolment in secondary schools was only 7,045. My Lords, are these figures in any way consistent with rising agricultural achievements for the African population, or with rising standards of education?
In another place the Secretary of State said with regard to the Southern Rhodesian franchise that as more and more Africans came out of the schools and the general level of earnings rose, the proportion of Africans on the electoral roll would increase all the time; and he estimated that without any change this process would produce a majority on the electoral roll in ten to twelve years. This figure was quoted also by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton. But can the Government tell us on what basis they have reached this estimate? The trend of franchise policy in Southern Rhodesia has been to reduce, rather than increase, the proportion of Africans entitled to vote as compared with Europeans. In 1961 the electorate for the 30 seats of the then Southern Rhodesian Legislature consisted of 77,500 Europeans and 4,500 Africans. In July, 1962, the European electorate had increased to 86,816 and the African electorate had declined to 2,562 owing to the higher qualifications required for the new "A" Roll. Presumably the Government consider that under the present franchise arrangements there will be "in ten to twelve years" a majority of Africans on the "A" Roll, which elects 50 out of the present 65 members of the Legislature. Can the Government explain the basis of this prediction, or can they give any figures upon which it is based?
There are three alternative qualifications for enrolment on the roll. First an income of not less than £720 a year for two years preceding the date of enrolment or, alternatively, the ownership of landed property of not less value than £1,500. Since African farmlands are held under a family system, it is hard to see how many of the 2 million
728
Africans living on the African farmlands can qualify through property ownership. According to the National Accounts in 1961, there were only 400 Africans earning wages or salaries amounting to £720 a year or above. So far as the professional classes are concerned, are the Government in a position to give information as to the number of self-employed Africans earning sufficient to qualify under this head? There are only ten African doctors, two African barristers and one African solicitor in Southern Rhodesia.
Secondly (I am still dealing with the qualifications for having a vote, for enrolment), a voter can be qualified if he has an income of not less than £480 or landed property of £1,000 and has completed primary school education. The latest figures show that there are only 1,000 wage earners who qualify with this income. Further, those who complete primary education are only a fraction of those who begin it. The 1962 figures show over 100,000 children enrolled in each of the sub-standard forms but only 15,000 in the final primary school forms. What figures have the Government as to the number of children completing their primary education? Thirdly, an elector is qualified if he has had an income of £300 a year for two years and has completed four years' secondary education. There are 6,100 wage-earners in all among the African population who in September, 1961, earned wages or salaries at the rate of £300 a year. In the fourth year at secondary schools, however, there were in 1961 only 364 pupils.
I would ask, therefore: can the Government state in what category they expect the increase in the number of qualified African voters? For example, do they anticipate a great increase in those who complete four years of secondary schooling, and what evidence have they to suggest that this is likely to occur? Do they suggest that there will be a considerable increase in Africans earning over £40 a month? Can the Government state whether they predict any rise in the number of European electors? At present, the European electorate represents only 40 per cent. of the European population, while the electorate in Britain equals 70 per cent. of the population. My Lords, we owe a duty to the inhabitants of Southern

729
Rhodesia, black or white. Can we flatter ourselves that we are performing our duty?
6.46 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I find myself in the position of being able to make a very brief contribution to this debate, because many of the things that I should have liked to deal with I have heard dealt with by previous speakers, very much better than I could hope to do, and I do not wish to detain your Lordships by saying the same thing over again, with much less force than you heard it originally. I would start by saying that I agree with every word that was uttered by the noble Marquess, and I listened to his speech with deep appreciation. I felt the same also about the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Colyton. I do not propose, therefore, to touch on any of the subjects with which they dealt so comprehensively, with the exception, in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, that I should like to add one or two words about the position of the Federal Civil Service. Before doing so, however, I should like to make one or two comments on other speeches that have been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, drew what I thought was a very biased picture in relation to South Africa. I do not propose to follow him into what is a somewhat irrelevant field; indeed, it would take too long to go properly into that picture. But when he was challenged by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, about the amount the South African Government has done for the African, which compares very favourably with what has been done in similar circumstances by any other Government this world has ever seen, I thought Lord Walston's reply was a little unworthy. His comment was that this only showed how ashamed we ought to be that the the High Commission Territories, in proximity to and some of it included in South Africa, should be so backward relatively. It seemed to me a rather unfair (to use a mild adjective) deduction to make. If we talk, as the noble Lord did, about "shop windows", why select that sort of perverted argument and say that it reflects shame on us because we have not equalled the achievements of South Africa in regard to African welfare? Why not look at other shop windows?
730
Look at the countries in Africa which have not had the disadvantage apparently of a British presence. Why not look at the shop window of the Congo or Abyssinia (to mention countries where Africans have had a free rein), and see exactly what they did with it?
I do not intend to say anything more about the High Commission Territories, except in relation to Swaziland. I tried to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Walston, although I did not wish to interrupt his argument but I think that in spite of his recent visit he was wrong in suggesting South African influence in stirring up trouble in Swaziland, because I thought it was well known that the policy of the South African Government in relation to Swaziland, in particular, and the other High Commission territories was this: if and when they were handed over to them for control, as was originally envisaged by the British Government of a generation ago, they were to be made African reserves. I can vouch for that myself, because in a personal conversation I had with Dr. Malan I asked him, "Well, what would you do if you had Swaziland?" He said, "I should immediately expropriate the small minority of Europeans who are building up another racial problem there. I should pay them fair and ample compensation, and I should reserve all of Swaziland for the Africans." I mention that merely to show that, while I am not trying to defend or go into the question of the general policy of South Africa, I do like to see just and fair views expressed, and when one talks of the defects of other countries one ought, in fairness, to mention some of the good things about them.
I should like to have the temerity to differ from the noble Duke when he said that there is a basic difference between the Overseas Service and the Federal Service. There is a geographical difference in that the Overseas Service covers the world, but morally in both cases men who joined those services did so with the prospect—I should like to say, the promise—of a career with security and a pension, and they knew, or thought they knew, from past experience, that if anything disturbed that career through the action of those who engaged them, they would receive compensation and fair treatment. So I suggest that the principles which were used

731
in paying compensation and pension to the Overseas Service in similar circumstances are still, or should be, valid, morally interbound with the British Government, owing to their connection with the Federation and the circumstances in which it was formed and in which it is going to be dissolved.
I found myself in considerable agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and with what he said in regard to the Federal Civil Service—or should I say "Civil Services"? — except that, strangely enough, I would go further than he did. He said that he was not claiming that they ought to get compensation for loss of a career. I personally think that that is one of the moral obligations in which the British Government should participate, at least. I think that concludes the comments which I wish to make on other speeches. In regard to the moral obligation of the United Kingdom Government, it seems to me so clear that it exists that I feel that the proper answer must have eluded me, and I hope sincerely that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will, in replying to this debate, endeavour to make it clear to people like myself who cannot understand how anybody cannot see this moral responsibility.
The figures have been given to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, and I do not wish to repeat them again; but they are staggering. It is again inevitably a young Service, and you have young married men with children, and with a house carrying perhaps a heavy mortgage and so forth, turned out now with a pension of £200 a year and so on, and the bulk of them, the Europeans, having been recruited from this country, are not even being given repatriation expenses. I suggest that it is quite unheard of in dealing with a situation of this kind.
I am not suggesting that the British Government should shoulder the whole expense. It may possibly be that the Territorial Governments have been most reluctant to incur any of this expense, but I suggest that pressure should have been brought to bear upon them. I am told that the Committee—I think it is Committee A—was not indisposed to have this question re-examined if pressure was brought on them from the right quarters. It surely is reasonable, too, to
732
ask about the pension funds. Obviously, up to date they are not adequate to deal with this responsibility. There are £17 million in these funds, and at the present moment there is considerable squabbling, so to speak, among the Territorial Governments as to sharing this between them. But it seems that the Territorial Governments are claiming participation in all the assets of the dying Federation, but none of the liabilities. This liability to the staff which has served the Federation so well is a pressing one. I am well aware that the fact that you have served the Federation is not perhaps a recommendation in the eyes of some, at least, of the Territorial Governments; but surely that should not influence anybody in this connection.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships by again quoting what has been quoted two or three times by other speakers—namely, the solemn assurances of Mr. Butler that this was an extremely serious question and by this we should be judged. We are now told that this is considered to be a fair and balanced settlement. All that I can say is that, coming from the source that it does, and if that statement is made so seriously as that, then there must be something which has escaped my attention which I ought to have known and which I ought to have seen. I cannot believe that any fair person in examining this question would come to that conclusion. I personally feel that this is not an appeal solely for Europeans. I emphasise that, as other speakers have done. There are several thousand Africans involved in this, too, whose pittance under these terms is even more pitiable than the others. I sincerely hope that we shall get this question re-examined, at a time when this country is so generously pouring out millions in various causes all over the world. Occasionally we should consider how much we owe to our own people who have served us so well.
7.1 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I hope to confine my remarks within five minutes, because this matter has already been so fully discussed to-day. The crux of the debate has been the deadlock which faces us in Southern Rhodesia, and I cannot feel that that dilemma can be dealt with either on the lines

733
recommended by protagonists on the other side of the House or on the lines suggested by some of my noble friends on this side of the House. The constitutional position of Southern Rhodesia is that ever since 1923 we have been debarred from interfering in Southern Rhodesia's domestic affairs; and at the present time, apart from the constitutional position, we lack the power to do it. Therefore, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that when he says we should insist on certain reforms—reforms which I should very much like to see carried out—he is really asking of Her Majesty's Government something which they have no right to do and, indeed, lack the power to do.
I would say to my noble friends on these Benches that I cannot support them when they ask that independence should be given to Southern Rhodesia under the present Constitution. It seems to me that the position of Her Majesty's Government was made absolutely plain in another place by the Prime Minister, quoting a carefully considered speech last summer. He was asked by the Leader of the Opposition [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 684 (No. 1), col. 53]:
"Will the right honourable gentleman now give a pledge that there will not be independence until there is a democratic Constitution?"
And the Prime Minister replied:
"I thought that implicit in what I said. In fact I did say that we accept the principle that majorities should rule."
That seems to be an absolutely clear statement of the Government's position, and I have no doubt whatever that they will stand firmly by the principle which they have laid down.
I confess to having been surprised and a little shocked at what my noble friend Lord Salisbury said this afternoon. I thought that his sentence could only be taken to mean that he was encouraging Southern Rhodesia to indulge in another "Boston Tea Party". I hope that the Government of Southern Rhodesia will rather pay heed to the wiser words (if I may say so) of Sir Edgar Whitehead in the Southern Rhodesian Legislature yesterday. He then indicated quite plainly that such an act on the part of the present Government in Southern Rhodesia would be not only wrong but unwise, and would not even command the support of a large number of
734
the people of Southern Rhodesia. He went on to suggest the calling of a conference in Southern Rhodesia in order to find a way out of the deadlock. When a conference of that kind has been called, and when something has been done to meet the conditions that have been laid down by the British Prime Minister, we may see a solution to the deadlock which is at present so difficult.
I cannot feel that Mr. Sandys' suggestion of bringing in the Commonwealth can be helpful to any of the parties. It would be deeply embarrassing to the countries of the Commonwealth, and in any case it has been made perfectly plain by Southern Rhodesia that the proposal is unacceptable to her. I therefore hope that it will be made plain that what Mr. Sandys himself spoke of as the expression of dangerous ideas will be admitted to have been a ballon d'essai which has not gone up very well, and that we shall hear no more about a suggestion which I think is constitutionally wrong, politically unwise and generally unacceptable.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD MOLSON: I think I have consistently supported Her Majesty's Government in their handling of this long and difficult affair in Southern Rhodesia. I am therefore going to make an appeal to them tonight on something on which I feel they are wrong. I do not want to go into detail; there is no time to do so—indeed, I cannot think that a matter like the pensions of the Federal servants can conveniently be dealt with in speeches in a debate. At the same time, I feel strongly that the settlement which is being imposed on them is not fair and is not just; and I cannot think that it ought to be left there. I know that my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire has received the deputation which is over here at the present time, and I hope that he will not take it as any reflection on him if I make now an appeal to Her Majesty's Government that Mr. Sandys himself should see that deputation before they go back to Central Africa. My noble friend is a most just-minded and humane person, but in the last resort the responsibility rests upon the Secretary of State, and it is he who ought to see this deputation.
The present Foreign Secretary, when he was responsible for handling this

735
matter, used words which have been quoted by my noble friend Lord Milverton. He considered at that time that his honour was at stake. His honour must be upheld by Her Majesty's Government, and I feel that the honour of this country also is involved at the same time. I therefore appeal to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to say that Mr. Sandys will at any rate receive this deputation and hear what they have to say. I believe that some other method of arriving at a fair settlement ought to be reached, rather than a discussion between the three or four Governments concerned, with the result being imposed upon those who, through no fault of their own, are being deprived of their careers and their livelihood.
7.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the task of a winder-up from these Benches at this hour, after such a debate, is simplified because it would be quite impossible to do justice to the speeches that have been made within a time that would be acceptable to your Lordships. I should like to say, however, that I congratulate my noble friend Lord Walston on his Motion. Some of us had doubts whether it was wise for it to embrace both the High Commission Territories and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, but I think that, as things have turned out, he was fully justified, and the result has been a debate that has thrown some light on all these intractable, interrelated, interlocking problems concerning the Southern half of Africa. Of course, as we all know, what differentiates Central and Southern Africa from the rest of the continent is the extent of white settlement and the immigrant communities. That, above all, in Central and Southern Africa is what has caused so many political difficulties. So, my Lords, I think we can be fully satisfied that the points have been brought out and well ventilated.
If I may dispose, first, of the question of the Federal civil servants, I think I can say, speaking for myself and I suspect for most of your Lordships as well, that we feel deep uneasiness at what has been said over the settlement that is proposed by the Government for those officers. We think that the matter really cannot be left where it is, and
736
we hope very much that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to say that the matter is not closed, because it seems, on all the evidence that has come out about this complicated question, that justice has not been done as it should have been.
My Lords, on the High Commission Territories I think my noble friends were fully justified in drawing attention to the position of these three Protectorates. It is a fact that they are outposts of our colonial system, set in the midst of a country which has departed into a system of rule of native majorities which is utterly repugnant to nearly everybody in this country, and to nearly everybody in the rest of the world. It is therefore all the more important that what we have to show in those Territories should be the best of our colonial system. I think everyone would agree that what we have done for those Territories up to now falls far short of what we should have liked to do—economically, politically, socially, and in almost every other respect. There is, perhaps, still time. I think Mr. Sandys said in another place that the expenditure on those Territories was going to be increased by 50 per cents within the next few years.
We hope that that pledge, if it was a pledge—I am not quite sure how definitely it was phrased—will in fact be honoured, and that the next few years will see a great acceleration in the spending for the development of these most under-developed countries.
The other aspect of those Territories is that they present an asylum for fleeing people from the régime in South Africa, and we must, above all things, maintain those asylums for political refugees. When they are allowed into the Protectorates they will, of course, want to pursue political activities, and I think we must accept that it is the right of any citizen to conduct political activities even if it is contrary to the current régime in the neighbouring countries. We should not, I think, be too careful of the susceptibilities of the South Africans. After all, the situation is not going to get any better in South Africa, and it is quite possible that the longer the apartheid régime is imposed on the population in South Africa, the worse the consequences will be; and those consequences will affect not only

737
those within the borders of South Africa but the Protectorates on its frontiers.
My Lords, turning to Southern Rhodesia there seems a certain amount of uncertainty about the interpretation of various phrases used, some by our Prime Minister, some by the Secretary of State. Different politicians have interpreted them in different ways. The political constitutional system in Southern Rhodesia, it is true, was the result of Mr. Sandys visit there a year and a half ago, but no one could say that that is Parliamentary democracy as we know it, when 99 per cent. of the population have a very small share of the voting power. To say that that is interference in the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia seems to me mistaken. It is in fact a matter for negotiation, because the Southern Rhodesians want independence, and independence can be given only by this sovereign Parliament; and it is perfectly within the rights of this Parliament to say under what conditions it will concede independence to Southern Rhodesia. It is, of course, entirely in tune with the prevailing opinion in this country and in the world that the Constitution should be altered so as to reflect more accurately the balance of the population in that country.
As to the present situation in Southern Rhodesia, I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, quoted from the Federal News Letter some encouraging reports of economic activity and investment in the country. But those very telling figures that my noble friend Lord Faringdon quoted not long ago surely show that it is completely false, completely fallacious, to maintain that Southern Rhodesia is in an economically healthy position. The country may perhaps be climbing out of the depression, but only a year ago, when I was there, there was deep gloom in the whole country. It may be that the tide has turned and confidence is returning, but I suspect that, whatever happens in the investment field, the welfare of the African majority is not going to improve very greatly. I think Her Majesty's Government have this responsibility before them in dealing with the question of Southern Rhodesia.
My right honourable friend Mr. Wilson in another place mentioned the question of a Prime Ministers' Conference, in order to sound opinion in the
738
Commonwealth on the subject of Southern Rhodesia. That seems an entirely right course of action to take when there is a matter so delicate, involving so many burning racial questions, about which nations all over the world, the emerging nations, feel most intensely. I think the matter can be summed up in the words of Mr. Sandys on November 15—not the words that have been quoted extensively this afternoon, but those in the closing paragraph of his speech, when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 684 (No. 4), col. 586]:
"Somehow, we must together devise an honourable solution which will be fair to all."
That I commend to Her Majesty's Government as the principle on which to proceed; and, interpreted correctly. "fair to all" shows the line that we think they ought to take.
7.21 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, after I had listened to the lengthy review of the position in Southern Africa given by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, at the beginning of the debate, and had heard the speech of my noble friend the Minister of State, I felt at that moment that my task in winding up this debate might prove to be rather a light one. But in fact, of course, it is not; and if I were to reply to every point that has been raised in the course of this discussion I should detain your Lordships for a very considerable time—indeed, I think a longer time than your Lordships would desire. I therefore propose, if your Lordships would permit me, to deal with what I think are the main issues which have been raised in the course of this debate.
I should like, first of all, to say something about the position of the Federal public servants, to whom reference was made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, and my noble friend Lord Milverton. I suppose any settlement of a difficult problem may lead to some thinking that the settlement is unfair and unjust, and that it should be better; but what I should like to say, and to say at the outset, is this: that all the Governments concerned have been intent on reaching a settlement which gave fair and equitable treatment to the

739
individual officers affected by the disappearance of the Federation, while at the same time providing that as many Federal civil servants as possible should be able to continue their careers in one or other of the Territories, helping to secure the orderly transfer of functions to the Territorial Governments and to avoid any serious disruption of services to the public.
My noble friend Lord Lansdowne has already described to your Lordships in the debate on the Address the essentials of the arrangements which have been approved by the three Territorial Governments, the Federal Government and the British Government. I do not think your Lordships would desire me to repeat them; but, in addition to the arrangements which have been made, all the Governments concerned have agreed to consider sympathetically cases of hardship which might arise among officers to whom no further offer of employment is made.
The machinery for dealing with applications for extra assistance on grounds of hardship is now being considered in Salisbury; and, in addition, to secure the terminal benefits and pensions of these officers for the future it has been agreed that a new fund, to be vested in independent trustees, shall be established to continue the present Federal pension fund, and that a pensions authority should be set up to administer the pensions and terminal benefits in accordance with the agreed arrangements. The British Government and the three Territorial Governments have agreed to share fairly in making good any deficit in the fund to the extent necessary for honouring the terminal benefits, and the Territorial Governments will also enter into a public officers' agreement, with which the British Government will be associated, whereby they will provide mutual assurances to each other to carry out the obligations which they have accepted towards the former Federal public servants.
My Lords, no one listening to this debate could fail to be aware that the settlement agreed by all the Governments has been subjected to two main criticisms. The first is that the former Federal public servants should be afforded lump-sum compensation for loss of career com-
740
parable to that available to members of Her Majesty's Oversea Service; and it has been suggested that a responsibility rests on the British Government to afford such compensation. That, I think, was the main theme of the speech made by my noble friend Lord Milverton. On that point I would just say this: that the British Government are, of course, under no commitment to pay such compensation for loss of career except to members of Her Majesty's Oversea Service, for whom they accept responsibility. Federal civil servants were not appointed by the British Government and were not employed by them, and I must say that I doubt very much whether many would accede to the view that, in those circumstances, there is, if not a legal obligation, at least a moral one. The Federal public service has from the first been recruited on local terms as a locally based service, and it contains no officers with overseas status. This is the basis of the agreed settlement, and it would not have been right, in the circumstances, to introduce any distinction between individual officers, so far as their terminal benefits were concerned, on grounds of race, origin or country of recruitment.
The second question which has been raised is whether it is right to differentiate, for compensation purposes, between officers to whom no employment can be offered and those who do not wish to continue service with any Territorial Government. It has been suggested that this involves some coercion of an officer into Territorial service. As I have said, it has been clearly accepted that no officer should be compelled into Territorial service. It is, however, a different question whether any claims to recompense should arise if an officer can in fact be offered continued employment by a Territory (it may be in his existing post) in conditions comparable to those he enjoyed under the Federal service. It was for each Territorial Government to settle its terms of employment; and the Government agreed that these terms should provide a considerable area in which comparable conditions of employment should be available. In the circumstances, it has been thought right to distinguish between an officer who declines such an appointment and an officer who becomes generally redundant because of dissolution.

741
My Lords, I am not in a position to say any more upon that subject this evening. I shall, of course, draw my right honourable friend's attention to the observations that have been made in the course of this debate, and in particular to the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, made: that he might find it possible to receive this deputation. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is also aware, one of the points of having a Secretary of State assisted by Ministers of State is that Ministers of State should have the responsibility, as indeed they have the ability, to take some of the load off the Secretary of State's shoulders.
Another question was raised by (I think it was) the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on the question of defence. I shall not, if he will forgive me, deal with that matter at any great length. It was agreed that, on dissolution, the Armed Forces would pass to the control, on the one part, of the British Government in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and, on the other, to the Southern Rhodesians. Each Territory will be financially responsible for the forces appertaining to it; except that the cost of maintaining the defence headquarters for Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland will be met by the British Government. Any request from Southern Rhodesia for financial assistance towards the cost of maintaining her defence forces, as for any other people, will fall to be considered by Her Majesty's Government in the general context of Southern Rhodesia's possible need for assistance having regard to the Territory's economic position as a whole in the light, among other factors, of the apportionment of assets and liabilities of the Federation.
Then the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me a question about the application of Federal law within Southern Rhodesia and the other Territories. After dissolution, Federal law which now operates throughout the Federation will, if the normal course is pursued, continue to operate in the respective parts of the Territories. As the noble Earl realises, that is the usual provision made on the granting of independence: the existing law at the time of the granting should remain the law within that territory. The noble Earl put the question: "Would that law, the existing Federation law, be subject to the safeguards
742
against discrimination contained in the Southern Rhodesian Constitution?" That is a somewhat complex question, but, so far as I can see, the answer to that, on the terms of the present Constitution, would be in the negative; because the Constitution Council is charged with the responsibility of reporting on Bills which come before the Southern Rhodesian Parliament, and reporting also, of course, on the laws which were in force at the time of the bringing into operation of that Constitution.
That steps should be taken to ensure that Federal legislation is brought within the purview of the various safeguards and Constitutions of the three Territories is, I would think, another matter; and that will require consideration by the Governments concerned. Her Majesty's Government's view is that the Territories themselves should take the initiative in the matter. In the case of Southern Rhodesia, I believe the question is currently being examined in the Southern Rhodesian Legislature and one will await the outcome with interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, was praised by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, for his moderate and kindly speech, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, asked me for a non-diplomatic and forthright reply. My reply, so far as the rest of it is concerned, may be somewhat forthright; whether it is non-diplomatic will be for your Lordships to judge. But I do not think anyone could describe the speech made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, as either moderate or kindly. He thought it right to use very strong language indeed. I know he feels very strongly on this subject, but the fact that one feels strongly on one's subject does not really justify the use of strong language unless that language is warranted by the facts.
As I shall seek to show, that strong language was not warranted in relation to the matter to which the noble Marquess referred. I gathered from his speech that it was his view that we should give independence to Southern Rhodesia with the present constitutional arrangements unchanged, and that we should then sit back and watch the Southern Rhodesian Government make such advances that, in the opinion of

743
that Government, could safely be made. If that is his view I am sure he will admit that there are many who are, with equal sincerity, opposed to it; and opposed to it not on account of any self-interest; not on account of disregard of obligations owed to people from this country who have made their homes and their lives in Southern Rhodesia; but because to take that course would, in their view, be doing a very great disservice to all the peoples of that territory.
The noble Marquess rightly said that Southern Rhodesia occupies a central position on the international stage. He may think—I do not myself think that many would share his views—that it would encourage investment in Southern Rhodesia, promote stability and growth, if Southern Rhodesia became independent and at the same time friendless, or almost friendless, among the States of the world. Does the noble Marquess really think that it would be acceptable to the world at large if Southern Rhodesia were given independence under the present constitutional arrangements? How many friends would Southern Rhodesia have in Africa? He made a reference to Ghana. Does the noble Marquess think that all the members of the older Commonwealth would agree with the course he proposes?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I would only say that in all our history our Colonies have been our affair, and ours alone. This is the first occasion where a chance has been made, and made, in my opinion, not on principle but on expediency.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, no doubt that is the noble Marquess's opinion. I think I would say it is as hard to justify as it is hard to justify some of his other observations to which I will now turn. I was saying: how many friends does he think Southern Rhodesia would have if the course he suggested were followed? He talked of betrayal of the settlers—using that as a loaded word—and of their being dragooned into submission. In my submission to your Lordships, there is no ground for statements like that. The noble Marquess has, I fear, failed to appreciate what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and his
744
colleagues are trying to achieve—and to achieve, not by imposing anything, not by dragooning people into submission, but by securing agreement that Southern Rhodesia should become independent in circumstances which would allow her to take her place as a member of the Commonwealth and to enjoy close and friendly relations with other newly independent African territories. That is the way to secure political stability and the prospect of economic growth.
It will indeed be difficult to achieve agreement; the debate in this House at least has indicated that. The speech the noble Marquess has made to-day has, I fear, made the achievement of that task more difficult than it was before. He spoke of my right honourable friend's remarks about the Commonwealth as an "ingenious dodge". Those were his words; and he said it was proposed to hand over Southern Rhodesia to a jury already packed against them. In that, he was no doubt echoing what was said in Salisbury yesterday, when it was said that other Commonwealth Governments were to be asked to sit in judgment on Southern Rhodesia. My Lords, let me say as clearly as I can that there is no truth in any of these allegations; and the fact that they have been made reveals a complete misconception.
I would, if I might, even at this late hour, remind your Lordships of the words used by my right honourable friend. He said on November 15 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 684 (No. 4), col. 586]:
"We are asked by the Government of Southern Rhodesia, what are your terms for independence? What are the changes which would satisfy you? Our answer is that this is not just a matter of satisfying us. The question of Southern Rhodesia's independence is one in which the whole Commonwealth is acutely interested. Great principles and deep emotions are involved. If we were to give independence to Southern Rhodesia on terms which were unacceptable to our fellow members we would be likely to cause grievous injury to the unity of the Commonwealth, and to the image it presents to the world. It is clear, therefore, that the whole Commonwealth will have to be consulted. I am wondering whether we might not go further than that. Might it not perhaps be possible for other members of the Commonwealth to help in a more positive way in the task"—
I ask your Lordships to mark these words—
"of finding a generally acceptable solution …?"

745
My right honourable friend went on to say:
"These are what one might call dangerous thoughts, but I thought that I might mention to the House this afternoon how my mind was moving. I should like not to be pressed to say anything more precise at this juncture."
And it is on that passage of my right honourable friend's speech that it has been thought fit to suggest that the proposal is to bring Southern Rhodesia before a jury which would be packed against it: to bring Southern Rhodesia on trial before members of the Commonwealth.
My Lords, all my right honourable friend did was to put forward the idea that other members of the Commonwealth might be able to play a part to help in the task
"of finding a generally acceptable solution."
I can find nothing constitutionally improper, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, or in any way constitutionally wrong, in putting forward that suggestion. I should have thought that all your Lordships would welcome any assistance that Southern Rhodesia and this country might be able to obtain in finding a generally acceptable solution—not an imposed one; not one forced on people, but accepted—a solution which will produce the results that I have already indicated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble and learned Lord again. I would say just this. I do not believe that there is any likelihood of the "generally acceptable solution", of which the Secretary of State speaks, being achieved at the present stage. In this circumstance, the other members of the Commonwealth being almost all—or, at least, a great majority of them—in favour of a course which is totally unacceptable to Southern Rhodesia, the fact that they have been called into consultation will mean that increased pressure is made on that Government to agree to a solution which they believe to be wrong and dangerous.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Marquess may be right. I do not know: only the future can show. I am not saying that I do not think one would be able to arrive at a generally acceptable solution. I
746
will go this far with him. I think that that will be very difficult indeed to achieve, but I cannot help feeling that my right honourable friend's suggestion was at least a useful one for consideration. The noble Marquess thinks that it will not help to promote agreement. Others may take a different view. But on one particular point I am sure that the noble Marquess and I are in complete agreement: that it will be a very difficult task indeed to find, if it is possible of achievement at all, a solution which is acceptable to Southern Rhodesia and ourselves and also to the rest of the world.
Having said that, I am sure that it is right to try, and to go on trying, to get it. There were times when some of your Lordships were most pessimistic about securing an amicable dissolution of the Federation. There were moments of great difficulty with regard to that. But in the end, through the co-operation of all the Governments concerned and the work done by my right honourable friend the present Foreign Secretary, we have surmounted those difficulties, and I believe that this ought to give us some degree of hope for the future.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord one question, because I think that the answer to this question may clear up the misunderstanding that has arisen in this House this afternoon and in Southern Rhodesia? Does the Secretary of State intend to use any other method, other than consultation with the other Commonwealth countries, to secure a generally acceptable solution?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should not like to exclude the possibility that he may think of some other methods than the one he suggested. All I can say is that I know that the idea of bringing (if you would like to put it in this way) Southern Rhodesia for trial at the bar before the whole of the Commonwealth countries never entered his mind. That was never in his mind at all. And it is because that has been misunderstood that I believe a great deal of strong language has been used to-day.
I must say that I think this was unfortunate. I do not remember hearing an attack of this kind made in the short time I have been in this House or, indeed, in another place, and I thought it

747
was particularly unfortunate when the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, both used language which, to my mind, could only be taken as an invitation to the people of Southern Rhodesia to take the law into their own hands. I cannot think of anything which is likely to be more disastrous to the interests of all the people who live in that Territory. I think it was most unfortunate and I hope that little attention will in fact be paid to it.
That is really all I want to say about that, and, if I may, I would conclude with this observation. I think that all noble Lords are fully aware of the intractability of the problem. Even though we may disagree as to what is the right method of approach, as to the best way of handling the situation, not in our own self-interest but in the interests of the peoples for whom we still are responsible, if we can agree that we are all working to secure the same end, then I cannot help but feel that some of the bitterness would go out of our debates upon this subject and some of the language which we have heard to-day would not be used.
In many respects, this has been a useful debate. It has enabled your Lordships to weigh the problems which beset us in Southern Africa. I have not endeavoured to disguise these problems, to underestimate or to overestimate the chances of a solution. It is, I repeat, the policy of Her Majesty's Government to strive to ensure a stable, prosperous and peaceful future for those Territories in Africa which remain our responsibility. There is no simple way through the difficulties; but with sympathy, with understanding and, above all, I would
748
say, with the co-operation of all the peoples who live there and whose only home is there, I hope that we can avoid the pitfalls which surround us and carry out our responsibilities in a manner befitting our colonial record.
7.48 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it has been a long debate but I do not think that any of your Lordships will feel that he has wasted his time in taking part in or listening to the debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Duke for his comments on the Protectorates and his promise of sympathetic consideration of their case. I would point out that the amount of money involved is a small one: £5 million would make the whole difference, and that is no great sum.
I am grateful, as I am sure are all your Lordships, to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the thorough manner in which he dealt with the very serious problem of Southern Rhodesia and I think that the debate was worth while for that reason alone. I must confess that I was shocked at what the noble Marquess Lord Salisbury had to say: that somebody with his long record of public service should utter words which can only be taken as incitement to the Europeans of Southern Rhodesia to act disloyally to the Crown. I do not believe that on reflection he will feel that it was what he wanted to say. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and to those who have listened, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at nine minutes before eight o'clock.