Sitting of 11 February 1964

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

    Constitution (Referendum)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the referendum recently held on the proposed Constitution for Swaziland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): There was no ballot paper putting precise questions. Voters were asked to choose between pictures of a lion and a reindeer. The result was an overwhelming majority of voters for the lion. I interpret this result as a clear demonstration of confidence in the person and the office of the Ngwenyama, about which we had no doubt. The Ngwenyama-in-Council, has, since the referendum, advised the Swazis to register for the elections under the new Constitution.
    Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the method he has described is the usual one of conducting voting in Africa, and has been done under British jurisdiction? Is he aware that of a total male population of 125,000 in Swaziland, 122,000 voted against his right hon. Friend's constitutional proposals and only 154 voted for them? Would he, therefore, ask his right hon. Friend to alter these proposals?
    Mr. Fisher: The voting was very large, as hon. Friend says, but as the Swazi National Council has itself said that this referendum was not meant to fight the new Constitution I hope, if I may say so, that my hon. Friend does not intend
    188
    to be more royal than the king—literally. Now that the Ngwenyama has agreed to contest the elections under our system in the new Constitution, questions about the referendum are, with respect, a little academic.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the hon. Member aware that despite his rather colourful way of describing the referendum, we on this side support his interpretation, and hope that he will proceed in carrying through the constitutional changes proposed?

  NYASALAND

    Constitution
    Mr. Berkeleyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in the light of the consultations which he has had with the Government of Nyasaland, he will now take steps to amend the Nyasaland Constitution to provide only for a common roll on which all can vote.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Since so few Europeans availed themselves of their right to register on the special European roll, it has been decided by general agreement that the special roll seats should be reduced from five to three. Europeans who do not wish to register on the special roll will be permitted to register on the general roll.
    Mr. Berkeley: I welcome this freedom of choice for the Europeans, but would not my right hon. Friend agree that the introduction of a purely racial roll into Nyasaland at this stage is a somewhat retrograde step? How long does he think that it is likely to last, and can he explain to the House why 814 Europeans should be represented in this way in Nyasaland when 60,000 Europeans are not so represented in Kenya?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think that there is any connection between Nyasaland and Kenya. As for the other matters, the original arrangements were made by agreement, and the amendment that is now proposed has also been generally agreed. I think that it is not a bad sign for the future that they are developing their institutions in this way.

  BRITISH GUIANA

    Financial Situation
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that a White Paper was laid in the British Guiana Legislature on 27th January, taking issue with his statement at the Constitutional Conference that British Guiana was insolvent; if he is satisfied that no change will be necessary in his announced plans for British Guiana; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sandys: My statement was in accord with the assessment of Ministers of the British Guiana Government who informed the Colonial Office in October that they expected there would be a deficit on their recurrent budget for both the calendar years 1963 and 1964, and that they would probably need to ask the British Government for assistance in bridging the gap.
    This information confirmed a separate assessment by an independent expert who was asked to report upon the financial situation in British Guiana.
    However, in December the British Guiana Government found that owing to a shortfall in planned expenditure the expected deficit had not materialised. At the same time, the British Guiana Government have revised, in an upward direction, their previous estimate of revenue receipts for 1964. This has enabled them to present a balanced budget. It now also seems likely that the strain on British Guiana's resources in 1964 will be somewhat eased by the fact that their development programme has also fallen behind schedule.
    This slight improvement in the Budgetary position does not of course affect our general plans for British Guiana.
    Mr. Brockway: Does the right hon. Gentleman really insist that it is only a slight improvement? Is it not regrettable that a statement should have been made which will affect the investment situation in British Guiana, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman now correct this in a generous way so as to increase the possibilities of investment in the territory? Also, may I ask him to answer the second part of my Question about whether a change will be neces
    190
    sary in the announced plans for British Guiana?
    Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Gentleman will look at my reply, he will see that I did answer the second part of his Question. The statement I made was, as I have already explained to the House, based on in formation given by Dr. Jagan and by his Finance Minister, and corroborated by an independent expert—
    Mr. Brockway: Mr. Jacobs?
    Mr. Sandys: Yes, Mr. Jacobs. My statement at the conference was not challenged at the time by any of the Ministers of other representatives from British Guiana. What I have tried to do is to give the House the plain facts. It is not for me to make propaganda for investment, or to try to discourage people front investing. People must judge from the facts.
    Miss Vickers: Is it not a fact that the Estimates were cut by over 5 million dollars and certain posts have not been filled, which has helped to make the situation easier at the present time, and that is the reason why the Government's predictions were rather different from what happened?
    Mr. Sandys: As I said, expenditure did not cone up to what had been planned.

  ADEN

    Detained Persons
    Mr. Laughlinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the persons now detained in Aden are members of the Aden Trades Union Congress or leading officials of individual trades unions; how many are known to be leading Members of the People's Socialist Party of Aden; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Oramasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many members of the executive council of the Aden Trades Union Congress are now in detention in Aden.
    Mr. Sandys: The answer is "None".
    Mr. Loughlin: If the Minister had answered the Question yesterday, the Answer would have been "Some". Is it not a bit slick to answer a Question of this kind in that way, when the latter

    191
    part of it asks the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement? Is the Minister aware that everyone on both sides of the House, I think, will be glad to know that, at long last, after two months, British subjects are being released from gaol in Aden? Having regard to their release, can it now be assumed that there is no guilt attached to these people and, if so, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider some form of compensation to those who have been detained?
    Mr. Sandys: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did at some stage in his long supplementary question express pleasure that these people had been released. At the beginning, I thought that he was disappointed by my Answer—
    Mr. Loughlin: Really.
    Mr. Sandys:—or, at least, disappointed that I had not the opportunity to give him an answer yesterday.
    As regards guilt, there has never been any suggestion that detention under emergency regulations involves guilt. As for compensation, it is not usual to pay compensation in these circumstances.
    Mr. Oram: Can the Minister say whether, at the murder trial which will arise out of the bomb incident at the airport, any evidence will be submitted that either the Aden T.U.C. or the P.S.P. was in any way collectively involved? If that is not so, is it not clear that the mass arrests have turned out to be a colossal mistake calculated to do damage to trade union organisation in Aden and liable to be detrimental to a rapid and fair solution of Aden's constitutional problems?
    Mr. Sandys: I certainly do not endorse the right hon. Gentleman's last allegations. His first question was most extraordinary—to ask me in advance what evidence would be produced at a murder trial. I am sure that, on reflection, he will not expect me to answer that.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Does not the Secretary of State feel that he was a little less than fair to the House in the form of his Answer? Would it not have been better to tell the House that the detainees referred to in the Ques
    192
    tion were released yesterday, a fact that we all welcome? Is he now saying that the Government abandon the charges of conspiracy which were made by Ministers in this House? Further, will the right hon. Gentleman use the release of these detainees to try to make a start on a new chapter in Aden and make effective constitutional progress with a new franchise and new elections?
    Mr. Sandys: That is a much wider question. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, indeed—it was your wish that Ministers should reply with brevity and accuracy, and that is what I did.
    Mr. Manuel: What a get-out.

    State of Emergency (Inquiry)
    Mr. Loughlinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will appoint a judicial inquiry into the present state of emergency in Aden and the Protectorates, and into the operation of Federation in that territory as at present constituted.
    Mr. Sandys: No, Sir.
    Mr. Loughlin: How long is the state of emergency likely to last, and is it possible that some other people will be detained within a short time? Does not the Secretary of State recognise that some really serious problems arise out of the present Federation and possible subsequent independence, about which he knows my views, and will he try to avoid some of the mistakes we have made in the past in connection with federations by sending out a judicial inquiry so that, at the appropriate time. we may be able to institute federation in this part of the world and, possibly, independence emerging in a propor way?
    Mr. Sandys: I should like to study the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I cannot see that a judicial inquiry into the present state of emergency in Aden—
    Mr. Loughlin: And the Federation. Read the Question.
    Mr. Sandys:—and the Protectorates—
    Mr. Loughlin: And the Federation.
    Mr. Sandys: No, it does not mention the Federation.
    Mr. Loughlin: Yes, it does.
    Mr. Sandys: It refers to the operation of Federation in the territory. I cannot see that this is a suitable subject for inquiry of that kind; it is a matter for Government policy and for the House of Commons, not for roaming investigations.
    Mr. Loughlin: The Minister is very "smart-Aleck" today. Why?

  HONG KONG

    Water Supply
    Dr. Brayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements the Hong Kong Government have made to obtain a piped supply of fresh river water to augment the Colony's water supply; and for how many hours per day the water supply is expected to be available to the public during the next dry season.
    Mr. Fisher: The Chinese Government have recently indicated their intention to undertake a scheme for bringing water from the East River to their reservoir at Shum Chun. This will make increased supplies from the reservoir available to Hong Kong. Technical discussions are now taking place.
    It is not yet possible to give any forecast of the hours of supply during the next dry season.
    Dr. Bray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great inconvenience which has been caused to the people of Hong Kong by the restriction of water supply? Will he treat this as a matter of the utmost urgency and make sure that the increased supply is available by the next dry season?
    Mr. Fisher: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter. It has been a very serious problem and supplies have been very restricted, as he knows, due to the low rainfall, but the Hong Kong Government are taking very urgent action both in the short term and in the long term, by constructing new reservoirs and so on, and I hope that the situation may soon be eased.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that all sections of the population of Hong Kong have faced
    194
    this difficulty with great cheerfulness, discipline and courage, and will he do his best to see that their plight is remedied as soon as possible?
    Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What he says is perfectly true. I must be frank with the House and say that the supplies from the source I mentioned in my Answer are not, I regret to say, likely to be available by the beginning of the next dry season.

    Chinese (Migration to the United Kingdom)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies approximately how many of Chinese race have left Hong Kong for immigration to the United Kingdom during each of the past five years; what arrangements exist in Hong Kong for the assistance, guidance and control of such immigrants; and whether they must possess a valid Commonwealth passport to enable them to emigrate from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom or any Commonwealth countries willing for them to enter.
    Mr. Fisher: As the reply to the first part of the Question involves a tabular statement I am circulating it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The Hong Kong Government provides information and advice for all persons wishing to go to the United Kingdom to take up work. It exercises control in so far as this is necessary to meet British immigration requirements.
    If the intending emigrant is a British subject he requires a British passport: if he is an alien Chinese he requires a Hong Kong Certificate of Identity guaranteeing re-entry into Hong Kong.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the information state how many of these are British Chinese and how many are non-British Chinese? Can he also say how many are coming to this country to open restaurants, as some have done in my constituency? Does the statement also include information regarding the numbers of those refused entry?
    Mr. Fisher: The information certainly breaks the figures down to specify British and alien Chinese. That is why the statement is rather long. I do not think I have figures of those coming to restaurants in this country but I will

    195
    ascertain them from the Governor and let the hon. Gentleman know later. Broadly speaking, the figures, excluding students, in the past five years seem to have varied between 1,000 and 2,000 a year. In addition there have been about 2,000 students.
    Following are the figures:
    Excluding Students, the number of Chinese who have left Hong Kong to take up work in the United Kingdom are:

    Year

    British Chinese

    Alien Chinese

    Total

    1959

    892

    58

    950

    1960

    1,241

    67

    1,308

    1961

    1,866

    201

    2,067

    1962

    1,747

    227

    1,974

    1963

    780

    219

    999

    Excluding students, the numbers in the past 5 years seem to vary between about 1,000 and 2,000 per annum. The total in the 5 years is about 7,000 or so. In addition there have been about 2,000 students in the last 5 years.

    Land
    Dr. Brayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much land has been released for sale for development in Hong Kong for the latest convenient period compared with the comparable period last year; and what has been the movement in the average price obtained for leases.
    Mr. Fisher: 4·2 million sq. ft. were sold for private development by public auction and tender in 1963, compared with 4·4 million sq. ft. in 1962.
    Prices varied greatly with the locality and the type of development. In general prices in 1963 remained at or below the 1962 level, but there was an upswing in the demand and proce for industrial land at the end of 1963.
    Dr. Bray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the rate at which the Government release the supply of land undoubtedly determines the price of development? The supply of land is extremely scarce and it is disturbing to see that the volume released has fallen. Should not the Hong Kong Government be initiating more ambitious development schemes?
    Mr. Fisher: I do not think that there is any particular significance in the figures. The land is allocated for housing, and so on, which the hon. Gentleman no doubt has in mind, as and
    196
    when it becomes available. There has been no recent reduction in Government housing schemes. Indeed, they are really being increased.

  MALTA

    Constitution (Talks)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has made to the suggestion by the Prime Minister of Malta that he should arbitrate on constitutional matters in dispute between the political parties in the legislature.
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to hold a Genera] Election or a referendum in Malta.
    Mr. Sandys: I am in the course of having talks in London with the Prime Minister of Malta about constitutional and other related matters. I will inform the House as soon as possible of oar conclusions.
    Mr. Brockway: I appreciate the position of the right hon. Gentleman but ultimately there will be a decision in favour either of a referendum or an election. Will he secure that in the event there is not the spiritual intimidation of the Maltese people which was practised by the hierarchy at the last election and which is so contrary to the spirit of the Pope?
    Mr. Sandys: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not want me to anticipate the substance of my discussions.
    Mr. Bottomley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that last July he announced that Malta was to get independence by 31st May this year? Surely this means introducing a constitution and holding either a referendum or an election within a very short time. Will he see to it that he speeds these things up and ensures that, under the Constitution, fair elections are held?
    Mr. Sandys: I am only too well aware of all these things.

    Development Plan
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what further financial assistance he proposes to give to

    197
    Malta to assist with the development plan and to absorb the increasing numbers being discharged by the defence forces.
    Mr. Sandys: The Government of Malta have recently drawn up a development plan for the years 1964 to 1969. This is now being studied.
    Mr. Wall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, although industrialisation of Malta is proceeding satisfactorily, the number of jobs created will not equal the number of people discharged by Her Majesty's Forces? Could he say whether the British Government will contribute generously to the five-year plan he has just mentioned?
    Mr. Sandys: Financial talks with the Government of Malta are due to begin shortly.

    Broadcasting (Political Speeches)
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what broadcasting facilities exist in Malta; what authority controls the broadcasting of political speeches; and if he will take steps to ensure fair treatment between the political parties in this respect.
    Mr. Sandys: There are sound and television services which are controlled by the Malta Broadcasting Authority. This matter is governed by a law of the Malta Parliament, which requires impartiality to be observed on matters of political controversy.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Maltese Labour Party does not receive equality of treatment? Would he take steps to see that it has a fair opportunity to present its case?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think I would like to go into that controversy in reply to a supplementary question, however. There are quite a number of arguments on both sides.

  CARIBBEAN

    Air Services (Regulations)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in view of the concern expressed by the Premiers of Barbados and British Guiana, supported
    198
    by other Caribbean Commonwealth countries, that Regulations affecting their air services have been made without previous consultation with the territorial Governments, what consultations he is now having with these Governments.
    Mr. Fisher: The Regulations, made by the Minister of Aviation under the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, do not affect the current air services of British Guiana or Barbados. No representations Lave been received from the Premier of British Guiana. A full explanation of the effect of these Regulations has been sent to Barbados.
    Mr. Chapman: Does this mean that, when the recent Caribbean summit conference passed a resolution protesting about the Regulations being made without consultation with Barbados and British Guiana, all the leaders in the Caribbean—representing Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados and British Guiana—were wholly misinformed on this matter? If that is so, is this not a blunder for which an apology is due?
    Mr. Fisher: They must have been misinformed. The truth is that Barbados has no airline and that British Guiana certainly has not an airline capable of operating into the United Kingdom, so can only assume that the four countries concerned, when they discussed this in Kingston, must have been under a misconception about the Regulations.
    Mr. Bottomley: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been wiser to have held consultations initially so that there could be no misunderstanding? Will he assure us that there will be no attempt by the vested interests to corner the markets which may be damaging to these territories?
    Mr. Fisher: The Colonial Governments were notified in advance about these Regulations. It was not intended to consult because the Act of Parliament under which they were made was passed after full consultation with the Governments of the dependent territories. There was, therefore, no question of consultation about the Regulations.
    Mr. Chapman: Let us get this clear. The complaint is that the Regulations become effective in dependent territories, thus limiting the landings of commercial

    199
    airliners in those territories. If that is so, should not the Government have consulted Barbados about the type of plane and airline to be allowed to land there? Should not consultations have been held before the Regulations were made?
    Mr. Fisher: I do not think so. The former Regulations took care of all Commonwealth and foreign countries. They excepted Colonial Territories. The new Regulations bring them into line. This was done because there was evasion of Regulations passed by this House, so my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation had to act.

    Federation (Economic Survey)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has accepted the main findings of Dr. Carleen O'Loughlin's economic survey of the proposed new Eastern Caribbean Federation, particularly in respect of capital needs; and what offers of new capital assistance he has made in consequence of this survey.
    Mr. Fisher: The British Government accept Dr. O'Loughlin's Report as a useful examination of what these territories might need to make them self-supporting. We hope shortly to be in a position to discuss with the Governments concerned how far the British Government may be able to help them if they wish to implement the findings of the survey.
    Mr. Chapman: Can the hon. Gentleman clear up the position? Is it in respect of the annual financial assistance or the capital assistance that there is at present disagreement between Her Majesty's Government and these territories on the road towards federation? Secondly, if, as we understand Dr. O'Loughlin's Report, something like £100 million in capital will be needed to put this area on its feet within 10 or 12 years, what sort of figure is the British Government offering towards that total?
    Mr. Fisher: There are two reasons why this is being held up. The hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that it is capital rather than recurrent expenditure that is the difficulty. The main reasons are that there is still a difference of opinion between the various islands on
    200
    the question of federation and the powers which ought to be entrusted to a federal Government. The second reason is, quite frankly, as the hon. Gentleman said, money. It is a very large sum of money that is being asked for over 10 years and even a very large sum over the first three years, and we cannot treat the Eastern Caribbean as a special case to the detriment of other territories. I cannot rob Peter to pay Paul and we have only a certain amount of cash—that is the difficulty.
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long the economic survey prepared by Dr. O'Loughlin has been in the hands of the Government?
    Mr. Fisher: I think about six or nine months. I should like to check on that before I give the right hon. Gentleman a particular answer, but I shall let him know.

  BECHUANALAND

    Secondary Education
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what schools in Bechuanaland are to be closed in the programme for centralisation of secondary education; and why this decision has been taken before the visit of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Mission on Education which is to visit the Protectorate later this year.
    Mr. Fisher: One secondary school is to be closed. Two are to be developed as higher primary schools. The organisation of secondary education is part of the development plan for the Protectorate. At present provision exists for one new secondary school and the improvement of two others. Implementation of the remainder of the plan will be kept fluid pending advice of the U.N.E.S.C.O. mission and the provision of further funds.
    Mr. Lubbock: How can it possibly make sense to have made this decision and then invited the U.N.E.S.C.O. mission to advise on it afterwards? Surely the decision should have been postponed until after its advice had been received? Very grave disquiet has been expressed by educationists in Bechuanaland about this proposal.
    Mr. Fisher: I do not think so. We are just making a limited start because the U.N.E.S.C.O. mission unfortunately took a very long time to materialise. It was first requested in January last year and it is not yet in Bechuanaland, so we thought that we had better get on a bit.
    Mr. Lubbock: Supposing the mission recommends that this secondary school be reopened, will that be possible?
    Mr. Fisher: As advised by our education experts, we think that the steps we have taken are fairly safe and that the U.N.E.S.C.O. mission will not recommend otherwise.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the proposed changes increase the provision of secondary education in Bechuanaland? There is anxiety that schools should be faced with closure at a time when the need for secondary education is very great.
    Mr. Fisher: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. This is really a scheme for the centralisation of secondary education in six schools in order to provide better facilities and teaching. This is really a case of reculer pour mieux saucer.

  ST. VINCENT

    Commission of Inquiry (Report)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will place in the Library of the House a report of the Commission appointed to inquire into public works irregularities in St. Vincent; and what action he is taking in the light of the findings of the commission.
    Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. A Commission of Inquiry, appointed last year in the Colony of St. Vincent, reported that Mrs. Joshua, Member without portfolio of the Executive Council, had improperly interfered with the Public Works Department, in a manner which resulted in serious financial irregularities.
    I informed the Government of St. Vincent that in view of the findings of the Commission I considered that the right course was for Mrs. Joshua to resign.
    202
    Mrs. Joshua has, however, declined to resign; and the Chief Minister, Mr. Joshua, is not prepared to advise the Administrator to dismiss her.
    In the circumstances, I felt it right to inform the Chief Minister that I could not continue to pay out money to a Government which was not prepared to observe proper standards of financial conduct. I hope that this will help to secure the early withdrawal of Mrs. Joshua from the Government, so that normal payments to the Colony can be resumed.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that I think there will be general acceptance on both sides of the House of that Answer? Can he tell the House whether there are any legal proceedings pending against Mrs. Joshua, and whether there are any powers to call for a general election to allow the people of this island to make up their own minds about the Government?
    Mr. Sandys: At the moment I am concerned with the more limited objective. I hope that what I have done will result in Mrs. Joshua seeing the wisdom of resigning, and that she will relieve me of considering such other measures as are open to me.

  PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

    Brick Supplies (Birmingham)
    Mr. Cleaverasked the Minister of Public Building and Works, whether he is aware of the shortage of low-priced bricks in the Birmingham area; and what action he is taking to remedy this.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Richard Sharpies): I am not aware of any serious shortage of bricks in the Birmingham area, although some types of low-priced bricks must he ordered well in advance.
    Mr. Cleaver: Is my hon. Friend aware that the need is to build houses for £12 to £14 per week men? Would he not agree that it will be exceedingly difficult for the Government to attain

    203
    this building target unless adequate supplies of building materials are assured?
    Mr. Sharples: Yes, Sir. If my hon. Friend has any particulars that he would like to bring to my notice, I shall be very glad to look into them.

    Foreign Office and Home Office
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the approximate number of civil servants working in the block which includes the Foreign Office and the Home Office; and how many he estimates will be housed there if the whole area is rebuilt.
    The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): There are about 2,000 office staff of the Home Office, Foreign Office and Commonwealth Relations Office in this building at present. Until a scheme has been drawn up I cannot say precisely how many could be accommodated in a new building on this site. My aim is to bring together all the staff of the Foreign Office and Commonwealth Relations Office, at present numbering over 3,000 who must for efficient working be under one roof and who are now accommodated in the main building and 10 other buildings scattered around the central area of London.
    Mr. Digby: As efficiency seems to be the justification for interfering with quite a pleasant skyline, would it not be necessary to be quite sure that a very large number of people could be housed there—if it is wise to bring more civil servants into Whitehall?
    Mr. Rippon: No, I do not think that it is wise to make provision for further, unnecessary staff.
    Mr. C. Pannell: Will the Minister tell his hon. Friend how many people this building was supposed to house when it was built, and will he indicate the degree of overcrowding there, which is far beyond anything ever envisaged in the Shops and Offices Act?
    Mr. Rippon: I cannot give the figure of how many it was supposed to accommodate in the beginning, but it was certainly very much less than the 1,900 there at present.

    Accounts Division (Transfer to Hastings)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will postpone his decision, announced on 28th January, to transfer the accounts division of his Department from London to Hastings.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what were the considerations that led to his decision to transfer the accounts division of his Department to Hastings; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what administrative problems he expects to arise from his decision to transfer the accounts division of his Department to Hastings.
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what savings he estimates will acrue from his decision to transfer the accounts division of his Department to Hastings.
    Mr. Millanasked the Minister of Public Building and Works which other localities he considered before deciding to transfer the accounts division of his Department to Hastings.
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Minister of Public Building and Works which areas of Scotland he considered before deciding to transfer the accounts division of his Department to Hastings.
    Mr. Rippon: I have decided to move the accounts division of my Ministry to Hastings as one of my Ministry's contributions to the dispersal of staff from London. The accounts division is an integral part of the Ministry's headquarters so that for operational reasons it has to be within about one to one and a half hours travelling time from London.
    Some dozen places within this radius were considered in consultation with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Not all of these could provide the facilities required and the list was reduced to three towns. As these three towns were equally acceptable for official purposes, the staff were consulted and expressed a preference for Hastings.

    205
    As it was necessary to have the accounts division within one to one and a half hours travelling time from London it was not possible to consider on this occasion any areas of Scotland.
    It is not possible to estimate precisely the financial effect of the move. The only substantial saving is in the cost of accommodation which will be well over £100,000 per annum.
    I do not expect any major administrative problems to arise from this move.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is that the sort of example that the Government ought to set to the private sector?
    Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Lawson: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman's policy has been determined according to the wishes of his staff, that they would like to live in a convenient place near to London, despite the reiterated policy from other members of the Government that they will use this particular power to reduce congestion in areas such as the South-East and to help other parts of the country? Is it not the case of some "old boy" network operating here?
    Mr. Rippon: No, Sir, to both supplementary questions.
    Mr. Willis: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the reasons why it would be impossible to take it further than one and a half hour's distance? Does he not think that this decision is scandalous?
    Mr. Rippon: I have explained the answer to that already.
    Mr. Ross: Am I right in thinking that the reason the right hon. Gentleman gave was that it had to be within one and a half hour's distance of headquarters? Is not that a good reason for changing the headquarters? Would it not be a grand idea to have the headquarters in Glasgow, where there is a seaside resort within 30 miles of Glasgow at Ayr, and thereby he could save the deposit of the Tory candidate?
    Mr. Rippon: There is, of course, an office of the Ministry in Scotland which is adequate for that purpose.
    Mr. Millan: Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more specific about the operational reasons for making the office
    206
    only one and a half hour's journey from London? Is he not aware that that is precisely the kind of argument used by private industry, and it is very important that the Government should give an example? if there are good reasons for this, the Government should be very forthcoming about them and let the House and private enterprise know them.
    Mr. Rippon: That is a very sensible question. The reason is that members of the accounts division are very frequently called to London, often at short notice, to deal with matters. The accounts division is an integral part of the headquarters division. We had some experience of this when the accounts office was at Rhyl during the war and just after, and this proved highly unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Gourlay: The Minister said that the new branch had to be a one and a half hour's journey from London. Is he aware that quite a large part of central Scotland is only an hour's flight from London? What reason can he give for the complete and callous disregard of the possibility of siting this office in Scotland?
    Mr. Rippon: I should not like to rely on always being able to make the journey in that time. It must be borne in mind that this is only a part of the action which my Ministry is taking to help dispersal. The proposals I have made for decentralising more work to Scotland and Wales and other regions will assist further in dispersal.
    Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand from the Minister that these civil servants in his Department were asked in which place they would prefer to work? If that is the case, is this a new principle which the Government have established? Is it applied to the workers generally? Are they to be asked where they prefer to work, and will the Government agree to what they want?
    Mr. Rippon: After consultation and discussion, there seemed to be three places which could make out a fair case for having a share of workers from London—Hastings, Swindon and Margate. In those circumstances, since they all had a case, we consulted the staff. I think that that is good staff relations.
    Mr. Lawson: In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I will try to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Admiralty (Board Room)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what are his intentions for the future use of the Board Room at the Admiralty.
    Mr. Rippon: It is proposed that the Board Room should remain in use for conference purposes in the Admiralty Building with which it is historically associated.
    Mr. Digby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this very attractive room has many historic associations and that it would be a pity if an appropriate use could not be found for it? I am not sure that low-level conferences will necessarily be the right answer. Does my right hon. Friend mean that the new Admiralty Board will meet there, or that the Defence Council will meet there?
    Mr. Rippon: The Admiralty will continue in occupation for some years, and if in time an agreeable proposal is made for transferring this Board Room we shall certainly consider it.
    Mr. Snow: Is the Minister aware that the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) will be echoed by many of my hon. Friends? This is an historically most interesting and architecturally extremely valuable room and it must not be allowed to degenerate into an ordinary conference room. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the accoutrements of this room, including the wind indicator, will be retained as an historic memento?
    Mr. Rippon: I am not sure what is meant by the reference to the room degenerating into an ordinary conference room. Apart from that, I appreciate that this is a room of very great historic interest. I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to ensure that we make the best arrangements possible in all the circumstances.
    Sir P. Agnew: As it may well be that the tenure by the Navy Board, as we shall have to call the Admiralty after 1st April, may be only temporary, will my right hon. Friend consider transferring this historic room to a worthy permanent site, such as within the Royal Naval College at Greenwich, so greatly associated with the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Rippon: I am certainly prepared to consider that and any other suggestion.

    Public Expenditure
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will give an assurance that public works expenditure will be maintained or expanded at a steady rate, in view of current anxiety in the building materials industry regarding the difficulties of planning under conditions where demand is alternately expanded and contracted.
    Mr. Rippon: Public expenditure on construction is increasing steadily and as the White Paper on "Public Expenditure in 1963–64 and 1967–68" shows, the intention is that this trend should be maintained.
    Sir T. Moore: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that with the growth of the use of prefabricated buildings the manufacturers of traditional building materials have reason for anxiety? Will he give some reassurance on this issue?
    Mr. Rippon: As I have said on a number of occasions, the achievement of the expanding programme of construction will entail an increased use of all available resources.

    Industrialised Components
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what proportion of current building contracts are using a substantial amount of industrialised components fabricated off the site; and how the proportion compares with 1962 or other convenient date.
    Mr. Rippon: I cannot give the information in the form requested, but I am satisfied that the use of industrialised components fabricated off the site is growing steadily, especially in contracts for public authorities. Industrialised systems were used for about 15 per cent.

    209
    of all new schools in 1962–63 and this proportion is likely to increase in 1964–65. Such systems are also likely to be used in 1964–65 for about 10 per cent. of new local authority houses and about 45 per cent. of new local authority flats.
    Mr. Boyden: I welcome that trend. Is not there a danger of over-emphasising industrial building and the increased output of the industry? Is it not much more important to improve site conditions for the workers and to recruit an extra labour force? What success is attending the right hon. Gentleman's activities in that regard?
    Mr. Rippon: In all Ministry contracts employing more than 100 men I provide for minimum standards of site amenity which I hope will set the standards for other people to follow. These matters are important. We want to see the expansion of all sides of the building industry and all aspects of it and not just industrialised building.
    Mr. Boyden: What is being done to increase the number of building workers?
    Mr. Rippon: Over a period of years, more men may become available, but, broadly speaking, we must aim at achieving our programmes by increased efficiency with roughly the same labour force as we now have.

    Winter Building (Pamphlet)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what evidence he has of the adoption by building contractors of the recommendations contained in the pamphlet Winter Building issued by his Deparmtment.
    Mr. Sharples: Many of the recommendations were already the practice of progressive firms, and reports which we have been receiving show that an increasing number of other firms now appreciate the advantages of continuity of working.
    Mr. Boyden: What is the present state of progress in making contracts in such a way that contractors are obliged to hurry on with building? The Parliamentary Secretary will recollect that this question was left open in the Winter Building pamphlet. What is the present situation?
    Mr. Sharples: My right hon. Friend has said that he is considering this question.
    Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Parliamentary Secretary seized of the idea that, despite what his Tight hon. Friend says, the building industry needs a far greater labour force if it is to fulfil all the priorities of the present Government, let alone the greatly expanded priorities of the next?
    Mr. Sharples: This Question is related to winter building.
    Mr. Marsh: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that some building firms use inclement weather clauses in contracts as a method of escaping responsibility for the capital investment which would enable them to continue through the winter?
    Mr. Sharples: As my right hon. Friend has said on another occasion, this is a matter which we are examining. The Banwell Committee is examining contractual procedures and will also be considering matters of that kind.

    Building Operations (Bad Weather Conditions)
    Sir E. Jannerasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress has been made during the last year with regard to the provision of better facilities for building in bad weather; and to what extent building operations this winter have been facilitated by the introduction of more scientific methods.
    Mr. Sharples: The main needs are protection for the operatives and protection for the work. We have given a lead in Ministry contracts by requiring improved welfare facilities on building sites. The industry has made considerable advances in the protection of work in progress. Building operations have so far been little hampered by weather this winter.

    Scotland (Purchases)
    Mr. Manuelasked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) what percentage of the total manufactures used by his Department in Scotland during the period 1960 to 1963 was purchased in Scotland;

    211
    (2) what percentage of the total furniture purchased by his Department during the years 1960 to 1963 was ordered from Scottish firms.
    Mr. Sharples: About 3 per cent. of the furniture purchased by the Ministry in the three financial years ending March, 1963, came from firms in Scotland. I regret I cannot say what proportion of total manufactures used by the Ministry in Scotland was purchased there.
    Mr. Manuel: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a shocking reply when Scotland has twice the rate of unemployment of the rest of the United Kingdom and yet only 3 per cent. of the furniture used by his Ministry comes from Scotland? Were Scottish firms asked to tender? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the standard of furniture production in Scotland is recognised throughout the United Kingdom as being of an exceptionally high quality and that furniture firms in Beith in my constituency are household names? Did they have an equal chance to tender and so procure work for that area which is listed as a development district?
    Mr. Sharples: Scottish firms, of course, have equal opportunities for tendering, and Scotland shares in the general arrangements to help development districts. With furnishing, as opposed to furniture, about 43 per cent. of the floor coverings produced for the Ministry in the three financial years which ended March, 1963, came from Scotland.
    Mr. Steele: Am I to understand that Hastings will now share in the greater expansion of the hon. Gentleman's Ministry and that more orders will come from Hastings?
    Mr. Sharples: I do not think that Hastings comes into the subject of the supply of furniture.

  SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (PROPOSALS)
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether he will propose to President Johnson and Prime Minister Khrushchev that a treaty resulting from the Anglo-Soviet-American proposals for prohibiting resort to or threats of
  212
  force to settle disputes, or any form of interference in the internal affairs of member States, should be open to signature by and apply to relations with all members of the United Nations.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I have been asked to reply.
  We and the Americans have made proposals in reply to Mr. Khrushchev's message, which was addressed to over one hundred States. It is too early to say whether any basis for a treaty will result and therefore the Question is hypothetical at this stage.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate whether the Government are in favour of making this a treaty within the United Nations based on the Charter and open to signature by all the member States?
  Mr. Lloyd: If a treaty became possible, I think that it would certainly be desirable that it should be open to signature by the member States.
  Sir C. Osborne: In view of the fact that in the inter-war years pacts like the Kellogg Pact were signed by dozens of nations and that they did not prevent a war, would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not the signing of treaties but the will to live in peace which matters? Can something be done on those lines?
  Mr. Lloyd: I agree with my hon. Friend. Nevertheless, if it were possible to have a worth-while treaty signed between the Powers it would be desirable that it should be open to signature by other countries.

  MULTILATERAL NUCLEAR FLEET
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Soviet delegate's statement at the Disarmament Commission that the setting up of a multilateral nuclear fleet would be an insuperable obstacle to an agreement on disarmament, he will propose to President Johnson at their meeting that this project should be abandoned.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have been asked to reply.
  No, Sir.
  Mr. Zilliacus: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister took the line that, whereas the military merits of the matter were still open to consideration and argument, the real reasons for the multilateral fleet were political, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the view that it is more important to reach a disarmament agreement than to have a multilateral fleet at the cost of wrecking the chance of an agreement on disarmament? Or do the Government put disarmament last and war preparations first?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Member's supplementary question. His Question was based on a suggested statement by the Soviet delegate to the Disarmament Conference that the setting up of a multilateral nuclear fleet would be an insuperable obstacle to an agreement on disarmament. There has been considerable doubt about whether he said anything of the sort. If one is to go by Tass, it quotes Mr. Tsarapkin as having declared to the Press on 24th January:
  "I have never said that there can be no discussion of the question of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons until the United States gives up its plan for creating a multilateral nuclear force".
  The Question is based on a misapprehension.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Nevertheless, does the Leader of the House recognise that the multilateral force has been an element of great difficulty in the discussions of the Committee of Eighteen?
  Mr. Lloyd: I come back to the Question on the Order Paper. I think that it has now been clearly stated, if Tass is to be believed, that this suggestion is not an obstacle to the consideration of any plan for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Obviously, the factor to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred is a matter to be taken into account.

  ALCOHOL, SMOKING AND DRUGS
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Prime Minister, in view of the public concern over the direct and indirect effects of the personal use of narcotics, sedatives and stimulants and the employment of chemical fertilisers, insecticides and fumicides, he will advise the appointment
  214
  of a Royal Commission to ascertain their medical, social and economic incidence, in particular the social injury caused by the excessive consumption of alcohol compared with excessive smoking and drug addiction, the extent to which commercial considerations encourage the excessive or irresponsible usage of substances that can be socially and personally deleterious, and the measures that should be taken to minimise the effects.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have been asked to reply.
  I agree that these are serious matters, but I do not think a Royal Commission would be the best way to make progress.
  Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman devise some other means by which the public can be more clearly informed as to the respective dangers of the various matters I have embodied in my Question? In particular, is he aware of the disproportionate emphasis placed on the dangers of excessive smoking in the absence of an equal emphasis on the dangers of excessive drinking? In these circumstances, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate whether the whole matter will be reviewed?
  Mr. Lloyd: What I doubt is the practical possibility or desirability of having all these matters reviewed by the same body, particularly a Royal Commission, which might take quite a long time over them. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has certain responsibilities with regard to what are called sedatives and stimulants. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has already stated that he proposes to take action on a law relating to medicines. As the hon. Member will recollect, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has said that he is asking for the views of his Advisory Committee to be given without delay on the recent incident. I think that it is better to deal with it in that way.
  Mrs. Slater: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman also include the Ministry of Education as a body which might deal with some of these suggestions? Some of the preventative work could then be done at the source.
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that I would dispute that proposition.

  CYPRUS
  Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the situation in Cyprus, on the continued use there of British troops and the possibility of the use of a United Nations peace-keeping force to relieve them, and on the outcome of the London discussions on Cyprus.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on the proposed international force to be stationed in Cyprus; and to what extent it will be given United Nations status.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have been asked to reply. Negotiations and discussions on this matter are still in progress. A statement will be made to the House at the earliest opportunity.
  Mr. Driberg: But will that be very early? Is it not a fact that the situation is changing daily and may be getting worse? Has Mr. Khrushchev given any indication that the Russian veto would be used if Commonwealth forces, or forces from neutral nations, were under the authority of the Security Council in Cyprus?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think that I would be wiser to confine myself to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question and to say that my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary has said that he will make a statement to the House later this week.
  Mr. Henderson: In view of the reported intention of the United States Government to evacuate all American dependants by Thursday in view of the deterioration in the security situation, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied as to the safety of all British dependants on the island?
  Mr. Lloyd: As I have said, negotiations and discussions are taking place and I would be wiser—and I have had some experience of these matters—not to say more today.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Must not an international force command the confidence not merely of the Cyprus Government, but of Turkish Cypriots and
  216
  Turkey, who are painfully aware that so far the United Nations has shown itself more concerned with "one man, one vote" than with the rights of minorities?
  Mr. Lloyd: Those are not matters which are suitable for me today. My right hon. Friend has said that he will make a statement to the House later this week and I think that we had better wait for that.
  Mr. Bottomley: My right hon. and learned Friend made inquiries about the safety of British citizens in Cyprus. Can anything be said about that, particularly bearing in mind that the Americans are withdrawing their citizens from the island?
  Mr. Lloyd: This is a matter very much in the minds of my right hon. Friend and other members of the Government, but I still think that it would be wise if I did not say anything about that today.
  Mr. Driberg: Pending the statement by the Commonwealth Secretary, cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least answer factually the second part of my supplementary question? Has there been any hint or threat from Mr. Khrushchev that the Russian veto would be used if Commonwealth forces were put in under the authority of the United Nations?
  Mr. Lloyd: Many questions could be asked and answered, but in the circumstances it is much better that I should say no more today and that we should wait for my right hon. Friend's statement.

  THE PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO UNITED STATES)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister how many advisers he is taking with him on his visit to the United States of America; and what are the subjects they advise on.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has available to him a wide range of information and advice.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Leader of the House aware that the last time a Prime Minister went to America he came back

  217
  with a policy which meant very large commitments on behalf of the British taxpayer, such as the Polaris submarines? Is the Treasury well represented at this conference to see that this does not happen at this time?
  Mr. Lloyd: That is not at all the supplementary question which I expected. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to refer to the occasion when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) and I went to Moscow and the hon. Gentleman came as a camp follower.

GHANA (EX-CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Dr. KING: To ask the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what is the result of the representations which have been made by Her Majesty's High Commissioner to the Ghana Government on the burden of the new tax imposed on overseas service pensions by that Government.
Mr. RIDLEY: To ask the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what further action he has now taken with regard to the imposition of a tax of 7s. in the £ on the pensions of former colonial servants of Ghana.
Mr. WOODNUTT: To ask the Secretary for Technical Co-operation if he will now make a statement on his negotiations with the Government of Ghana on the burden of taxation imposed by that Government on overseas service pensioners.
The Secretary of State for Technical Co-operation (Mr. Robert Carr): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 34, 35 and 36 and I apologise that my Answer must be somewhat lengthy.
I am glad to inform the House that an agreement has been reached with the Ghana Government which entirely removes for pensioners resident in this country the discriminatory element in the tax imposed by the Ghana Government last October.
As a result, the Ghana tax will be at the same effective rate as the pensioner pays on his total income taxable in this country provided only that this
218
amount of tax is not less than that paid by a resident in Ghana with an income equivalent to the pension.
Because of double taxation relief this means that the great majority will have no additional tax to pay overall even if their Ghana pension is their only source of income. In fact, most pensioners are likely to have some additional income, partly because of our own pension supplements.
The Ghana authorities are suspending all tax deductions for the next three months while the detailed application of the new formula is being settled. The adjusted to will be levied from May onwards.
My Department, in agreement with the Board of Inland Revenue, will send a short statement to all Ghana pensioners resident here explaining how the new formula will work.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and I are grateful to the Ghana Government for their co-operation in reaching this agreement.
Dr. King: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish to express their gratitude to the Minister and to the High Commissioner of Ghana for raising this matter with the Ghana Government, and particularly for the very happy result of the efforts they have made over the past two or three months?
Was not the root trouble that the Ghana Government had the idea that Income Tax in this country was a flat-rate tax of roughly one-third of one's income, whereas under the complicated pattern that we have most of the Ghana pensioners would have paid not 7s. or 8s. in the £, but no shillings in the £?
We are all very grateful, and I am sure that my hon. Friends on both sides of the House, and the Ghana pensioners, would wish to thank the Minister for what he has done.
Mr. Carr: I thank the hon. Member for what he said. I shall see that his message is conveyed to the appropriate quarters. I think that the hon. Gentleman is probably right in suggesting that the Ghana Government did not foresee the effects of the tax which they introduced last October.
Mr. Ridley: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on negotiating this settlement and tell him that this will reassure a large number of ex-colonial pensioners of the determination of Her Majesty's Government to maintain the pensions of her former civil servants? May I ask my right hon. Friend whether if, at the end of the day, it transpires that there are any Ghana pensioners who will suffer still as a result of what has happened, he will look sympathetically at their cases with a view to trying to help them?
Mr. Carr: I am glad that my hon. Friend feels—and I am sure that all pensioners will agree with him—that this is an example that Her Majesty's Government are determined to look after the interests of her pensioners. We do not know the circumstances of individual pensioners because the tax liability of each one cannot be known until all their incomes are taken into account. Therefore, I cannot make any definite statement, but pensioners will no doubt be examining the effect of this new formula on their circumstances. If there is evidence of real hardship as a result of this, we shall, of course, be prepared to consider the matter.
Mr. Woodnutt: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and say how warmly this news will be welcomed by all ex-colonial servants who have been in a sorry plight indeed during the last few months? I am concerned about the future, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend, to avoid this sort of thing happening again in other territories, would consider opening discussions with the Governments of ex-colonial territories with a view to Her Majesty's Government making a clean sweep of all this and taking over the pensions on a basis to be agreed between the Governments concerned?
Mr. Carr: I know that that is something which many pensioners would like to see happen, but it is a long-established principle that the Governments of the countries in which our former civil servants served should take this responsibility. I think that this really is the right principle, and that the right course is for Her Majesty's Government to make sure that the obligation is honoured; and that, so far, we have always managed to do.
Mr. Wade: I also heartily welcome the statement. Will tax that has been suffered be reimbursed? Alternatively, will there be some kind of rearrangement, which, at the end of the tax year, will have the effect of restoring the balance?
Mr. Carr: I think that the hon. Gentleman can be assured that at the end of the tax year the whole thing will be properly adjusted. The hon. Gentleman may recall that in my original Answer I said that all tax deductions for the next three months would be suspended.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: While joining in the general appreciation which has been expressed, may I ask the Minister whether he can say that in this information which is to be forwarded to individual pensioners some details will be given of the basic rate of deductions from similar pensions within Ghana itself so that those concerned will be able to judge whether they will get back to the point of starting, or whether they will be worse off even after the arrangements have been made?
Mr. Carr: I shall take account of what my hon. Friend said.
Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Minister whether this is to be retrospective? I did not gather that from his answer to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade).
Mr. Carr: I think that the House can be assured that at the end of the year the total tax paid by pensioners will be what would be paid on the basis of the agreement that I have announced. In other words, they will not suffer by the end of the year as a result of what they had deducted from their pensions in December and January.
As I have said, as a start to that, the Ghana Government will make no deductions at all during the next three months.

GHANA (EX-CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS)
  BILL PRESENTED
    TENANCY OF SHOPS (SCOTLAND)
    Bill to continue (with amendment) the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949, presented by Mr. Noble; supported by Lady Tweedsmuir; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

LAW OF PROPERTY (JOINT TENANTS)
3.38 p.m.
Sir Barnett Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to land vested in joint tenants.
Technically, my proposed Bill is difficult to explain, but it is not very difficult to understand. The House frequently asks whether the Law Society is diligent in trying to reduce the cost of legal matters. I think that my Bill would serve as an example of the kind of diligence that it shown and will, to a considerable extent, make hon. Members realise how difficult it is for lay people engaged in the law to deal with legal matters when they are not aware of the law.
The Bill would not seek to introduce any new principles of law. It would simply clarify an ambiguous situation created by the property legislation of 1925. The purpose of that legislation was to simplify the legal formalities involved in the purchase and sale of land, and in this it was generally successful. Indeed, it succeeded in reducing to a considerable extent the cost of conveying land from one person to another.
However, in the case of a sale by a surviving joint tenant, difficulties were actually created, and it is the purpose of the Bill to remove these difficulties and to state in clear terms what is believed to be the law on this subject, so avoiding unnecessary expenditure on the part of people who are purchasing land, and difficulties arising for people who do not understand the law owing to the complications which have arisen in it.
Let me give a single illustration of the difficulties under the old law. If a husband and wife purchase a house they usually become entitled to it, in law, as joint tenants. Shortly, this means that on the death of one spouse the whole house belongs absolutely to the survivor. Before 1925, when the property was sold the survivor simply conveyed it to the next purchaser. However, in 1925, the Law of Property Act—which was intended to simplify the procedure,
222
and which did simplify it—provided that joint to rants became trustees.
It therefore followed that the usual rules governing sales by trustees applied to sales by joint tenants. One of these rules provides that a purchaser will get a valid receipt for his purchase money only if he pays it to at least two trustees. The result is that where a surviving tenant wishes to sell property he or she has to appoint an additional trustee so that the purchaser can get a valid receipt for his purchase money.
This has created a complication which involves additional expense. It was soon realised that this result had not been intended. In 1926, the Law of Property (Amendment) Act was passed, which attempted to deal with the problem. This House sometimes does not foresee the difficulties that it creates in its legislation, or realise that it might have avoided difficulties if it had added certain provisions. That Act provided that a surviving joint tenant who was solely and beneficially entitled could deal with property as if he were not a trustee. But this did not remove all the difficulties.
I will return to the illustration that I have given. If one of the spouses mortgages his or her half-share of the property the joint tenancy is divided. This division is called a severance. The result of a severance is that the property does not puss to the survivor on the death of one spouse, so that the survivor is no longer solely and beneficially entitled. Thus, reliance cannot be placed on the Law of Property (Amendment) Act, and the old procedure of appointing a new trustee has to be employed. This is still the only course to be followed when it is known that a severance has taken place, and the Bill does not seek to alter the law in this respect.
However, the question whether or not severance has taken place is now always raised by a purchaser, and it is an extremely difficult matter to prove. For instance, it is quite possible for one spouse to mortgage his or her half-share in the property without telling the other. On the death of that spouse the other could think himself solely and beneficially entitled, when, in fact, this would not be the case. Thus, very few purchasers now take advantage of the provision of the Law of Property

223
(Amendment) Act, and they usually require the vendor to appoint an additional trustee to receive the purchase money. This is the course recommended by the Law Society, which has received a substantial volume of correspondence from members of the profession seeking advice on this difficult question.
Thus, an additional responsibility is placed on the vendor, who in many cases is unwilling to incur the trouble and expense involved in appointing an additional trustee. Also, it is frequently difficult to find a trustee who is willing to act, because he then becomes responsible for the correct application of the purchase moneys. Thus, conveyancing, far from being simplified, has been rendered very complicated in this connection.
In 1925, it was probably intended that a surviving joint tenant should be entitled to convey the whole property unless it was actually known that severance had occurred, and this is the sole object of the Bill. I gather that the terms of the Bill have been considered by the Government and that there is no objection to it, except that it will require some amendment in Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir B. Janner, Mr. Graham Page, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. van Straubenzee, Mr. Silkin, Mr. Gower, Mr. C. Hughes, Mr. Bowen, Mr. Doughty, Mr. J. Silverman, and Mr. Stratton Mills.

LAW OF PROPERTY (JOINT TENANTS)
Bill to amend the law with respect to land vested in joint tenants, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 21st February and to be printed. [Bill 85.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to a resolution of the board of governors of the International Development Association, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required for making payments on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in pursuance of the said resolution;

  (b) the raising of money under the National Loans Act 1939 for the purpose of providing sums to be so paid or for replacing sums so paid;

  (c) the payment into the Exchequer, and re-issue out of the Consolidated Fund, of any sums received by Her Majesty's Government in pursuance of the said resolution;

  (d) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums payable under any notes or other obligations created and issued to the said Association in pursuance of the said resolution.

  Resolution agreed to.

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION BILL

    Clause 1.—(THE RESOLUTION.)
    3.49 p.m.
    Mr. John Stonehouse; I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, at the end to add:
    "subject to the resolution including a provision for the expansion of the resources of the Association to a total equivalent to 5,425 million dollars by November 1968".
    I move this Amendment because I believe that the Committee will want to impress upon the Ministers responsible for our overseas aid the degree to which we feel that the work of the International Development Association should be expanded and extended.
    Once again, I must protest that the Ministers directly responsible—the Secretary of State for Technical Co-operation, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and the junior Ministers of those Departments—are not in their places to take part in this debate.

    225
    This further indicates the lack of interest among hon. Members opposite in the work of the I.D.A. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee feel that the International Development Association is a most important organisation and its work should be increased and expanded. A former president of the World Bank referred several times to the need for the Association to have further finance put at its disposal in order that it may extend and expand its work.
    During the Second Reading debate last week I quoted what he said at the annual meeting of the World Bank group. He pointed out how important it was that the Association-type loan should be extended. This is because the high interest loans granted by I.F.C. and the World Bank result in too onerous a burden for countries engaged in long-term development.
    The I.D.A. provides loans at a nominal rate of interest equivalent to 0·75 per cent., with provision for repayment over a period of 50 years. This is the type of loan which enables developing countries to develop railways, transport, irrigation and hydro-electric schemes which take a long time to produce any return. In the opinion of most of the experts on the problems of newly developing countries, work which ha been done by the Association should be expanded.
    What do we find when we look at the details of the work of the I.D.A.? We see that there is available a total of 775 million dollars which is to be expanded by a further 750 million. I ask the Committee to consider whether this is sufficient, bearing in mind the enormous need for development aid at low rates of interest for long-term development projects. The summary statement of development credits which appears in the I.D.A. Report for last year shows that on 30th June, 1963, the actual amount dispersed by the Association was only 68 million dollars whereas the un-dispersed portion was over 365 million dollars.
    This is far too small a sum compared with the crying need which exists in so many newly developing countries. But what is particularly a matter for concern is that the details of the disbursements reveal that over two-thirds of the dispersed portion has gone to India and
    226
    nearly two-thirds of the un-dispersed portion is also allocated to India. I, and I am sure other hon. Members, would not want any of these sums to be withdrawn from India. We want more money to be available for India, and long-term credit to be extended and improved for other countries which are crying out for development assistance.
    There are 29 countries which are already Part II countries in membership of the I.D.A., but which as yet have received no assistance in the form of long-term development credit. I hope that the Committee will bear with me while I read out the list: Afghanistan, Bolivia, Brazil, Ceylon, Cyprus, the Dominican Republic, Equador, Ghana, Guatemala, Iran, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Malaya, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Syria, Tanganyika—which, I believe, has received some assistance, and we are glad of that—Togo, United Arab Republic, Vietnam and Upper Volta.
    In addition to the countries which are already independent and have joined the I.D.A. as Part II countries, there are many other newly independent countries in need of assistance which have not yet received it. They include Kenya, Uganda, the two Congos and Dahomey. There are countries which are still dependencies of the United Kingdom, but for which the governments have not yet applied for development assistance. We believe that they should apply because there is a great need for development in countries like Mauritius, Basutoland, Bechuanaland, and other territories for which we are still responsible. None of the countries which I have mentioned appears in the list of territories receiving development credit from the I.D.A. They will 'iced assistance. They need it now.
    I wish to refer to some specific projects which they lave in mind to develop if assistance is forthcoming. We can only presume that no assistance has been given from the I.D.A. because funds are not available. In the last annual report of the I.D.A. there is an acknowledgement that insufficient money is available in I.D.A. resources to deal with all the demands which are being made upon them. There is a further reference to the problems of the many newly independent countries which need immediate

    227
    assistance but cannot rely on the metropolitan Powers to help them to the extent that they need help. They have not yet developed a credit-worthiness of their own sufficient to borrow on the scale which is necessary. These are the countries which will need help in the next few years and the I.D.A. work needs to be expanded to cope with this enormous demand.
    I believe that the first annual report appeared three years ago and referred to the fact that
    "In relation to I.D.A.'s sphere of operations and the need for the type of development capital that I.D.A. can provide, its resources are small".
    That is why, in the Amendment, we propose that the resources available to the International Development Association should be expanded sevenfold by 1968. We feel that there are many countries which would desire to take advantage of the advantageous terms of credit available through the Association, if those funds were made more freely available.
    I wish to refer to one or two examples of development which are needed in the territories concerned, but which cannot be proceeded with because the money is not available. I will quote from the economic development of Uganda, in the report prepared in October, 1961, by the World Bank. In a long and interesting report there is a reference to the tremendous opportunities for the expansion of economic activities in Uganda if the money is available for long-term development. There is a reference, for example, to water development and the need to bring into use large areas of the country which are at present unused; the need to open up 6,000 square miles of Uganda which at present are covered by swamps and the need to have an irrigation scheme for the area north of Kasese. in Toro. This scheme will cost about £500,000, for which the Uganda authorities have not the available resources.
    4.0 p.m.
    When I was in Uganda, in 1962, attending the independence celebrations, I met one of the officials of this department. He described some of the schemes to me in terms full of enthusiasm showing the great advantage to Uganda's wealth which could be created if some of these long-term schemes were engaged in. He spoke of the possibilities of irrigation
    228
    schemes opening up large areas for the growing of coffee and cotton and some other cash crops. They are enormous, But Uganda is held back because the accumulated funds—developed when the prices of coffee and cotton were high on world markets and gave the administration an opportunity of building up reserve funds which were then available for long-term economic development—are now running out.
    During the last few weeks we have heard that Uganda, like Kenya, has had to cut back her coffee growing because of the vulnerability of this crop on the world market. The fact that under the International Coffee Agreement Uganda has had to cut back the amount it can sell in the world is a very great blow to a country which depends for its income largely on production of coffee and cotton. It is necessary for the country to diversify the economy and to grow other cash crops to enable the peasant community to increase its cash income. I am well aware of the fact—I saw it at first-hand when I lived there—that a large part of the population of Uganda is prosperous, but there are other sections who are very poor indeed. They are suffering from the disease of malnutrition, which exists in so many other territories.
    It is very important that these developments should go on not only in the prosperous areas where there are obvious economic opportunities, but in the remoter spots where there need to be long-term schemes for development which, although they may not produce an economic return in the short term, in the long run may prove of immense value to these people and also to Uganda itself.
    I turn to the example of Bechuanaland. In addition to Uganda, in Bechuanaland we have a direct responsibility. According to the replies—or lack of replies—to questions put to Ministers responsible for seeing the Bill through the House, there has been precious little information about obtaining I.D.A. assistance for Bechuanaland and Basutoland, although some information is available about Swaziland. It is important that we should obtain economic aid for Bechuanaland and Basutoland, because in relation to South Africa they could be an example of how development can go ahead without the rigorous repression which exists further south.

    229
    When we read reports of the money which South Africa is spending on development of South-West Africa and of some of the new Bantu schemes which are being established, we should be extremely ashamed at our lack of attention to Bechuanaland and Basutoland in particular. The Morse Committee went to the Protectorates and came back with a report which has been largely neglected by Ministers who have responsibility for these territories. That report referred, in paragraph 6, to
    "projects which would carry each territory well on the way to becoming a viable economic unit."
    Projects detailed in the report would be likely to carry Bechuanaland and Basutoland into becoming viable economic units, yet very little attention is given to the Morse Committee's Report. It has been allowed to lie neglected on the shelves for many years.
    There are many examples. I shall not quote them all, but we have reference to the need for new road development and development of the coal beds in Southern Bechuanaland to produce cheap power and the development of water resources for which there is a crying need in Bechuanaland. All this needs money. That money could be obtained from the International Development Association if its funds were enlarged and if the Government had the initiative to carry an application through to the I.D.A. asking it for those funds to be made available to the protectorates.
    Another example I refer to in passing relates to South America. I have been looking at a very interesting United Nations report on development of Peru. It says that nearly half the population exists on an average income per year of less than £30 per head. It is extremely low and, as it is an average, it must cover intense poverty of many tens of thousands of people who live in the under-developed part of Peru. The United Nations report points to many economic possibilities in Peru which would help to raise the standards of the present population and give them new cash crops to grow. These opportunities could open markets of which they could take advantage and help to develop new processing industries for the primary goods which could be produced. Yet the amount of money which is made available in Peru from the International Development Association is precisely nil.
    230
    We are proposing this Amendment because we believe that the I.D.A. work should be enlarged, not that the World Bank activity should be reduced, but that the should become a far more important aspect of the Bank's work. For the newly-developing countries it is vitally necessary to have low-interest-rate loans, or loans without any interest, over a very long period of time so that they may get on with the development of their infrastructures, railways and irrigation schemes which cost enormous amounts of money. We are proposing that the grants should be expanded and that the sum by which they should be expanded should be a realistic one
    Mr. James Griffiths: I begin by expressing regret to my hon. Friends that, owing lo other commitments, I was not able to be present for the Second Reading of the Bill. I am glad now of the opportunity of saying a word in support of the Amendment. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that he and the Government are prepared to consider at least some addition to the sums of money provided for in the Bill.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) has told us of countries whose plans for development are being held up through lack of resources aid money. This is a very big challenge to all of us in the industrially-developed world. In my short intervention I wish to concentrate on two areas about which I, and I think all of us, have been thinking lately. I recently had the privilege and pleasure of visiting some parts of Asia. I went to India and through Malaysia, Singapore, Sava and Sarawak.
    I found in India and Malaysia one common factor which will adversely affect development. Each has its development plans. Each has to spend more and more of its resources in money, material and human beings, upon defence. India must do so because of what occurred upon the border with China not long ago. Malaysia must do so because of the Indonesian confrontation. It seems clear to me that, faced with the obligation, which they all recognise, of meeting these increased requirements of defence, something will suffer.
    I believe that their development plans will suffer. It would be extremely

    231
    serious if the development plans of India and Malaysia were curtailed because they are confronted with problems of defence, upon which I know that they will be aided. The fact of the matter is that their development plans, although they are ambitious when considered in monetary terms, are inadequate when considered in the light of the explosive growth of population in Asia. The last report from the United Nations Demographic Association indicates that during the last year or two the world's population has been increasing at the net rate of 61 million a year and that about 37 million of this increase has taken place in Asia.
    India and Malaysia are the only two areas in Asia and in South-East Asia where what we regard as being our democratic system has any chance of surviving. If democratic government fails in India and Malaysia, we can forget about Asia. Therefore, everything depends upon whether these two countries will be able not only to maintain but to enlarge their development plans. For this reason, there is the strongest possible case for the richer countries and for associations like this one—this is only one medium, but it is an important medium—increasing their aid. There is every reason why this Association and all the other agencies of the United Nations and of the Commonwealth should provide far more generous help to these countries than they have done previously. They should say to these countries, "If you have to devote some of your resources to defence, we will ensure that your development plans will not suffer at all, and we will make it up". We would be well advised to do this in our own interests. We have a moral obligation to do it. This is another reason, in addition to those advanced by my hon. Friend, for increasing the amount of money.
    I turn now to East Africa. My hon. Friend referred to Uganda. We have all been disturbed, anxious and concerned about what has happened in East Africa. I do not want to discuss the political situation or recent events. I merely want to stress that they have highlighted the fact that these countries face colossal problems. I have had the privilege of visiting Kenya. I am sure
    232
    that we all pay tribute to the Prime Minister of Kenya for the way in which he faced recent events. I have not been to Kenya for some years, but some friends of mine who have visited Kenya recently are deeply disturbed about the colossal problem of unemployment there.
    On the outskirts of Nairobi there are thousands—some say tens of thousands—of unemployed people. They are almost without any financial assistance. It appears from the reports which appeared in the Press that this was at least a factor in the background to all the recent disturbances. This affects all these countries. It affects Tanganyika. It affects Uganda. I understand that it affects Kenya more than it does the other two countries.
    4.15 p.m.
    Whatever our views may be about recent events in that part of the world, it is certain that the new Governments who have come to power face colossal problems. They face, first, the enormous problem of how to provide work and livelihood for the thousands of people who are unemployed. One of the consequences of the developments in agriculture is to put more men out of work. For instance, as a result of the agricultural development in the form of land resettlement which has taken place in Kenya it is absolutely essential for peasants displaced by new land measures to be provided with work in towns.
    All that has happened recently in these two areas and all that is happening now provides a pressing reason for very substantially increasing aid, not for reducing it. I therefore hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the Government. I am sure that it commends itself to my right hon. and hon. Friends. This is our biggest challenge. Those who care for the preservation in the world of the values we cherish will realise that these are now in danger in areas which, because of the needs of defence, have to cut back their development plans, as a result of which they will face problems of unemployment and poverty that could overwhelm them. For all these reasons, it is the highest wisdom as well as a moral duty for us to provide help.
    I have some experience in these matters, because I am privileged to be the

    233
    treasurer of an organisation which works in this field. I have the opportunity of meeting young people, teenagers—people in all walks of life. One thing which encourages me perhaps more than anything else about our country is that there is an ever-increasing recognition that we have a real deep moral obligation to help poverty-stricken countries. I believe that there is a readiness even to make sacrifices, if necessary.
    I give this assurance to the Government. I have no need to give it to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friends, because I know that they already have faith in it. When we make calls to this country to aid poorer countries, the Government need not be afraid of the country. I believe that the country is ahead of the Government so far. I hope that we shall soon have a Government which will be as anxious to face up to these problems as the people are.
    Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house). I am particularly pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), part of whose work in connection with War on Want I have had the privilege of watching from two different points of view.
    First, perhaps I may say that from above, as a member of the National Committee of the Freedom from Hunger Campaign and of its Projects Group, I know very well what this voluntary body is doing in supporting schemes all over the world. Secondly, I know about it from a worm's eye view, because I am the chairman of a very small foundation which is doing development work in Greece, and we sometimes find ourselves in the queue hoping to attract a little help from organisations such as that of which my right hon. Friend is treasurer.
    I hope that the Amendment will enable the Economic Secretary to say something to dispel the impression which he and his right hon. Friend gave last week, and which, I am sorry to say, was very much fortified during the debate on technical assistance for the Commonwealth on Thursday, that the Government entirely lack any kind of fervour in their approach to the whole
    234
    business of technical assistance and aid to the developing countries.
    I regret that, apart from the Economic Secretary, there is not a Minister on the Govern Went Front Bench. I also regret the absence of even one Conservative hon. Member on the benches opposite. It is a disgraceful demonstration of the lack of interest the Government and their supporters show in this vital problem. One would have thought that the Whips could have mustered two or three hon. Members to decorate the benches opposite, and so at least give the impression of interest.
    I hope that when the Economic Secretary replies he will not take refuge behind the work that has been and is being done by private citizens and voluntary agencies in this country, important though that is, in claiming that more official funds are not required for the kind of work which I.D.A. is doing. I was disappointed in the debates last week that not a reference was made by the Government to the tremendous amount of work that is being done by voluntary bodies such as Oxfam, War on Want, Inter-Church Aid, Save the Children Fund and the many organisations which are co-operating in the Freedom from Hunger Campaign.
    I hope that it the Amendment will give the Economic Secretary the opportunity of saying a word of thanks and encouragement to the millions of private citizens who are supporting development projects throughout the world. I am aware that there is anxiety being expressed in some circles about the methods being used to follow up and inspect some of these projects. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) mentioned this in the debate last week. It is difficult for voluntary bodies giving money for schemes throughout the under-developed world to have the resources to watch and inspect these schemes. There is a need for the Government to help them to co-ordinate their work and also to co-ordinate it with the activities of the Government and international agencies like I.D.A. I hope that the Economic Secretary, in saying a word of encouragement to the voluntary effort, will also say something about the Government's plans to help the voluntary agencies to

    235
    co-ordinate their activities with the work of the Government.
    I wish to take up some remarks made by the Economic Secretary in the debate last week when, answering an intervention of mine, he stated that, in his view, Her Majesty's Government had no responsibility at all for the failure of developing countries to absorb the aid we are offering them through I.D.A. and in other ways. He made some play with the fact that not all of the allocation through I.D.A. had been taken up in the current year. He may use this argument today.
    One of the major obstacles to the efficient deployment of economic aid and technical assistance is the difficulty which the developing countries themselves experience in planning, administering and organising that aid and assistance. It is often a feature of an under-developed country that its administration is weak and inexperienced—sometimes inefficient and even corrupt—and does not have the "know-how" to enable it to plan and coordinate the aid offered by international agencies and national governments.
    Her Majesty's Government have, as a participant in I.D.A. and other international agencies—as a member of the Commonwealth and as a national Government who are offering bilateral assistance to the developing countries—a direct responsibility in helping those countries to organise themselves in such a way that they can absorb that aid more effectively. A great deal was said in the debates last week about the relative merits of bilateral and multilateral aid. There are advantages in both systems, though I believe that my hon. Friends hope that when a new Government take office in Britain there will be a great extension of British participation in multilateral schemes through the United Nations.
    However, bilateral schemes have an important part to play and the problem which the Government of every developing country is facing is how to organise and co-ordinate the aid which is offered in the most effective way; and usually the most effective way is by setting up, under government auspices, with some degree of independence, an economic planning board. United Nations agencies
    236
    have often been helpful in achieving this.
    I went to Israel and Cyprus last month to look at what the United Nations was doing there by way of technical assistance. When I was in Cyprus my mind was rather taken off that subject by other and more immediate preoccupations. However, Cyprus is an example of a developing country where the United Nations has been instrumental in setting up a semi-independent planning board on which the main economic Ministers are represented along with a United Nations representative. This board is doing excellent work and is helping to utilise the aid. There are many other examples where this is being done.
    Certainly, Her Majesty's Government, as the promoter of many bilateral schemes and as a participant in I.D.A., have a direct responsibility in helping the Governments of developing countries to set up machinery to absorb aid more effectively. I hope, therefore, that the Economic Secretary will reconsider some remarks he made in the debate last week. He said, for example:
    "…it is difficult for the donor countries to have any control at all over the rate at which the aid allocated is taken up. A certain amount of help can be given but, ultimately—and especially in the case of the independent countries—it is the receiving countries' responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1964; Vol. 688, c. 908.]
    We cannot control the aid taken up, but we can take effective steps to enable the developing countries to absorb it.
    In the great argument about multilateral and bilateral schemes I think that opinion generally is now moving in favour of the integrated, comprehensive development project, even if it is only on a pilot scale—in other words, even if it is conducted in an area or district of a country. Often such a scheme can be more effective than several isolated projects not related to each other but important though they may be one by one.
    May I illustrate this, from my limited experience, by taking an example from Greece? We have a British volunteer doctor working with Greek doctors and helping villagers to organise and to use the rural health services more effectively. The other day I asked him, "What is the most urgent piece of equipment you require?" He replied, "A bulldozer".

    237
    When I said that that seemed rather far removed from medical work he replied, "On the contrary. We have enough medical people in the area, a small laboratory, an X-ray unit and various other facilities provided by the Foundation. Our big problem in the winter is that we cannot use our Land Rovers to get to our patients and, therefore, from the medical point of view, a bulldozer would be of great assistance".
    This illustrates how one aspect of development inevitably overlaps another. We are finding that our agricultural extension work overlaps veterinary work, that veterinary work overlaps work into the medical sphere and that that, in turn, overlaps educational work. This shows that one cannot take a piecemeal approach to this problem.
    Her Majesty's Government have a big part to play in helping and advising the Governments of developing countries to plan the aid we offer in such a way that they are able to co-ordinate and integrate the work being done. I press the Economic Secretary again to explain what he and his right hon. Friends meant when they claimed that Her Majesty's Government had no responsibility for the preparation of development schemes by dependent territories. That left us baffled at the time and we remain baffled. My hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury is now asking for a greater extension of funds to be put at the disposal of I.D.A. to be used in various territories, some of which he mentioned and some of which are dependent territories.
    In our earlier debate the Economic Secretary and the Chief Secretary, when questioned about Montserrat by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), said that Her Majesty's Government had no responsibility to help Montserrat to produce a project to fit the requirements of I.D.A. Clearly, this is nonsense. I am sure that the Ministers responsible did not wish to mislead the House, they must have realised that Her Majesty's Government have direct responsibility to help Montserrat to produce projects to which the funds of I.D.A. and other international agencies could be usefully turned.
    I hope that the Amendment will provoke the Economic Secretary into doing
    238
    something to repair the very lamentable impression which was left by Government spokesmen last week. I hope that he will convince us that the Government, even during the last dying weeks of their tenure of office, will take more seriously tile great task of technical assistance and aid to developing countries, a matter in which Great Britain has such an enormous future rôle to play.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Donald Chapman: The purpose of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) is to get this country to support the I.D.A. operating at a much greater pace of activity and with much larger funds at its disposal. I should like to put that into the setting of the Development Decade, which we are supposed to be in, although I begin to wonder whether the targets of the Decade will be reached. It is a terrible thing to have to say this, but I begin to feel a little despondent about it.
    It is worth putting the Amendment into the setting of the United Nations Development Decade. The aim of the Decade is to raise the rates of growth of the incomes of developing countries from 3½ to 5 per cent. per annum by 1970, which will be sufficient to double their standard of living in 20 to 30 years. The United Nations estimate that if aid were 1 per cent. of the gross national products of the rich countries, this would take the developing countries halfway towards the Decade's target. That is the figure which we must keep in mind. One per cent. only of our gross national product, added to 1 per cent. of the gross national product of all the other rich countries, would still take the world only halfway towards the target of the Decade.
    What is our proportion today? I rely on the calculations made impartially by the Overseas Development Institute, a fine British body which is doing first-class work for the country in looking into the whole question of foreign aid. The Institute estimates that our aid to developing countries is 0·6 per cent. of our gross national product. If this is so, it means that our race of assistance to developing countries mist be substantially expanded immediately and that even when we reach a rate of 1 per cent. as opposed to our

    239
    existing 0.6 per cent., we shall still be doing our share to get only halfway to the Development Decade target.
    The Overseas Development Institute says that this is the sort of thing that must happen in all the developed Western countries. Quoting from the Institute's booklet on this subject, "Survey and Comment," on British aid, it states:

    "For the O.E.C.D, countries to achieve this average percentage of gross national product in aid would imply an increase of about 40 per cent. over the 1962 figures."
    That is our immediate target, at least 40 per cent. better than we are doing now. In this wider setting, the new target of increased aid which my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury is giving us in his Amendment is imperative. I hope that when the Economic Secretary replies there will be no doubt that the Government accept, if not the letter, at least the spirit of the pledge that is involved in the Amendment.
    There are two other particular reasons for the Amendment. There is, first, the argument about multilateral versus bilateral aid. I repeat the point, which I made on Second Reading, that during the last decade our aid has been largely bilateral; only 12 per cent. of our help has been given to multilateral agencies. It is inevitable that this must change. During the last decade, that bilateral help was largely to our colonial dependencies, most of which are now independent countries; and much as we shall wish to continue helping them, they will take their place in a larger total of independent countries whom we will wish to help.
    If, as I suspect and hope, the multilateral aid is to be increased, the one way above all in which we must do it is through I.D.A. because of its low rates of interest, because of its experience and because it can be made into the foremost development agency in the backward areas.
    The International Development Association and, with it, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development have had one valuable piece of experience which I want to see extended once it has more money. What I.D.A. and I.B.R.D. have been doing in India, for example, is to act as chairman of a consortium of countries which are help
    240
    ing to improve India's development. If I.D.A. could have more money, it could do this in other parts of the world on a big scale. In other words, not only could we use I.D.A. to give out money internationally. It could use its position to draw in even extra money under consortia of interested countries in various parts of the world.
    On Second Reading, I quoted the example of the West Indies. The new economic survey prepared by Dr. O'Loughlin, to whom I referred at Question Time today, shows that we shall need about £100 million of capital development to put the new Caribbean Federation on its feet over 10 or 12 years. Much as I want an enormous contribution towards this total from Her Majesty's Government, it is wrong to rely simply on our Government as the main contributor towards the foundation, in a capital sense, of the new Federation.
    Two other countries have traditional great interests in that part of the world. One, curiously enough, is Canada—I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) agrees with me—which has taken an active interest in the Caribbean countries.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Having regard to the success of the Colombo Plan, I suggested many years ago that we might have a Caribbean plan with the participation of such countries.
    Mr. Chapman: That is my point. With Canada's great interest in that part of the world, and with the great interest there also of the United States, why not have a consortium under I.D.A., with its increased capital at its disposal, to put in some I.D.A. money, more American money and some Canadian and British money, to hit the target of the £100 million which is needed over 12 years to launch the new Caribbean Federation?
    However one looks at the problem of aid, there are increasing adventurous opportunities for an expanded I.D.A. I am extremely pleased that the Amendment raises the question of committing this country to an I.D.A. with expanded powers and greater opportunities and the chance of solving problems in many parts of the world.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): Extremely interesting points have been raised in the debate, but I have one difficulty in replying to them. It is a difficulty which the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) put to the Committee, although without realising it, when he said that the Amendment asked for a lot more money to be made available, implying by Her Majesty's Government.
    This is not, with respect, what the Amendment seeks. It asks that a contribution to the I.D.A. by Her Majesty's Government shall be made only on condition that the Resolution includes a provision for the expansion of the resources of the Association to the total which the Amendment suggests. This means that if the Amendment were accepted the Government would have to go back on negotiations and, meanwhile, there would be no contribution to the I.D.A. unless we could obtain agreement to this much higher figure by all those concerned.
    This is why there is some slight difficulty in answering the debate, and why I must say at once to the Committee that there is no possibility of the Government accepting the Amendment as it stands, although we very much take the point that it is necessary for all concerned to do everything they can to expand multilateral aid to the developing countries. One of the problems of this sort of organisation is simply that they are international and their policy depends not on the will of one Government, but on negotiations between a large number. Hon. Members spoke in the debate from time to time as if this were entirely under the control of Her Majesty's Government and largely for the benefit of the Colonial Empire. I thought that I detected a somewhat Kiplingesque attitude of mind among hon. Members opposite.
    It is not true to say that Her Majesty's Government take no interest in development aid, whether in the Commonwealth or in other countries. The fact that no Minister responsible for disbursement of aid is present in the debate is no evidence of that. It is evidence of the narrow purpose of the Bill, of which we are discussing one Amendment to one Clause. Even the
    242
    Long Title of the Bill is narrow in the extreme in what it seeks to achieve. This is a Bill to
    "Enable effect to be given to a resolution of the board of governors of the International Development Association."
    It is not concerned with the general policy of Her Majesty's Government on aid and contributions throughout the field.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I hope that the Economic Secretary will explain what the Government are doing to take advantage of the resources of the International Development Association in the territories for which we are still responsible. Surely the Committee is entitled to replies on these points. The Bill proposes to vote a great deal of additional money to the I.D.A. and, therefore, we must expect the Ministers responsible to indicate how they exert their influence within the I.D.A. itself.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Macmillan: It is paradoxical that the hon. Member should continue to plead for multilateral aid under an international organisation and then seek to hold Her Majesty's Government responsible for its policy. I shall have something to say shortly about the lending policy of the I.D.A., but I cannot give an undertaking of this sort, simply because the I.D.A. is not under the control of Her Majesty's Government. It is an international organisation with British representation, but its policy is evolved as a subsidiary of the International Bank and not as an offshoot of the Colonial Office. The hon. Member must accept that there is a considerable difference between the two.
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: The hon. Gentleman has said a number of times that this is a narrow debate on a narrow Bill and is not concerned with wider aspects of development and technical assistance. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to take back to his colleagues the warm desire of this side of the Committee that we should have a wide debate on the general problems of development and technical assistance?
    Mr. Macmillan: If the hon. Member makes that point on Thursday, no doubt my right hon Friend the Leader of the House will lake it. Certainly, I will remember it. I think that many people

    243
    would agree with the hon. Member, but this debate is not the one that he is seeking.
    On the point raised by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) about developments in Uganda, Bechuanaland, and Basutoland, I have no detailed information on why the I.D.A. found itself unable to help the Uganda irrigation project. I doubt whether it is purely a question of funds, simply because there is a carry-over. There is a manpower difficulty and a difficulty in the time required to assess various projects and to find out whether or not they are suitable.
    The standards of the I.D.A. are very high and rigid when it comes to questions of the size of the project and the population of the territory concerned. A scheme for highways for Uganda as well as Basutoland and Bechuanaland is under consideration, but, again, I do not think that is primarily the concern of this Clause to give effect to such projects, although I hope that the projects will come to a successful conclusion.
    I have the same difficulty in answering the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). It is a little difficult for the United Kingdom to plead in any international organisation that the defence requirements of territories, some of which are independent, some colonial and some having nothing to do with the Commonwealth, are our particular concern and that we should make greater efforts than the other countries involved. I would hope that the Government would take a lead in all projects, particularly where the Commonwealth is concerned, in getting across the need for development, but to say that we have a special responsibility because we are a leading member of any alliance is to stretch the point a little far.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I mentioned defence incidentally, because of these consequences, but I was concerned because it was, in my view, essential—and I hoped that it would be accepted by the Government—that these countries should be helped to maintain and expand a development programme which ought not to be cut down because of what is done in defence schemes. I thought that when debating an Amendment which
    244
    seeks to increase the amount of money available to I.D.A. it was right that we should bring this matter to the Government's notice.
    Mr. Macmillan: Again, the right hon. Gentleman puts me in a difficulty. He is really saying that the I.D.A. should contribute more to a development, no matter whether it reaches the I.D.A.'s standard or not, simply because the country concerned is spending a great deal on defence. That is an extraordinarily difficult argument to put forward in a body concerned entirely with development on a rather narrow front. I fear that I cannot, on this Amendment, go into matters for which the Government have really no responsibility.
    In reply to the hon. Member for Swindon, I gladly recognise the great work done by private institutions and private people in relieving hunger and misery, including the really fine and, one might say, noble work of the organisations he referred to. I agree that, in this country, the response to this sort of appeal has been very great. We should, at the same time, pay tribute to the American people, who have always put aid to foreign countries above reductions in taxation at home.
    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) said that total I.D.A. aid was too little. I have no doubt that it would be admirable if we could get the Part I member countries of the I.D.A. to agree to 1 per cent. of their gross national product all round being devoted to aid. At present, the United Kingdom is leading in the proportion of gross national product contributed through I.D.A., and the negotiations were partly concerned with trying to get some of the other contributories even up to the level we have reached ourselves.
    The hon. Gentleman also referred to the O.E.C.D. I should be out of order if I took the debate any further into the difficulties of supplying markets in Europe and in this country for industries of developing territories. Perhaps our willingness, even at the cost of inconvenience to home industries, to accept imports from developing countries is at least as important as building up the industries in those countries.

    245
    The same considerations I have mentioned to the right hon. Member for Llanelly apply to the hon. Member for Northfield's ideas for Caribbean development. It would be admirable for the Caribbean to produce a plan on the lines of the Colombo Plan, but that is not pail of the functions of the I.D.A. Nor is it within my terms of reference today.
    Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not part of the functions of the I.D.A. to produce a plan for the Caribbean. I challenge him on that point. The I.D.A. is increasingly, as was pointed out during Second Reading, instituting the research to draw up projects. Indeed, the Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development picked out this aspect of its activities as one which was bound to increase. It is part of the I.D.A.'s functions to do this. The suggestion I made of the I.D.A. being, as it were, chairman of a consortium is precisely what it is doing in India.
    Mr. Macmillan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the correction. I entirely agree with him. He is a little ahead of me in time. This is not, in fact, what the I.D.A. is now doing, and we are supplying money for immediate purposes. Perhaps it would be convenient if now I spoke of what is now the lending policy of the I.D.A. since that might clear up one or two difficulties and, perhaps, misunderstandings.
    The loans, which are normally referred to as credits, are on the standard terms of a 50-year period with a 10-year grace period for capital repayment, and are interest-free, with an annual service charge of ¾of 1 per cent. The basic policy of the I.D.A. is really the same as that of the International Bank, except that it does not require the same ability to repay.
    The type of project with which it is prepared to assist is the same and the standards of what they call "project appraisal" are the same, but, for a number of reasons, a very large number of countries eligible for an International Bank loan cannot afford it. That, indeed, is why the I.D.A. came into being In deciding on what countries do or do not qualify or what projects do or do not qualify for I.D.A. credits, the I.D.A. is
    246
    prevented by the Articles of Agreement from lending when the money could otherwise be obtained privately or from the International Bank.
    Thus lack of creditworthiness is one of the qualifications of countries seeking I.D.A. assistance and this does, incidentally, eliminate a number of Commonwealth countries and territories which might, for other reasons, have qualified. But there is no absolute standard of creditworthiness. That is why a number of countries are judged able to afford a blend of International Bank and I.D.A. financing. India and Swaziland have both been helped on this basis.
    Another major criterion has obviously been poverty, and over three-quarters of the credits have gone to countries with a per capita income of less than 100 dollars a year. Finally, the I.D.A. has regard to the efforts of the applicant Government to mobilise its own resources.
    It was originally feared that the I.D.A. would not be prepared to consider applications from dependent territories but, fortunately, that has not been so, although few British. Colonies, other than Swaziland, Bechuanaland and Basutoland, are eligible, partly because others have too high a G.N.P., like Hong Kong or Malta, or are too small to have a project of sufficient size to justify an I.D.A. Credit.
    The minimum size for a project—although, again, this is not a fixed standard—is about 1 million dollars, and the number of people a territory needs to qualify is also normally about¼ million. The great proportion of the I.D.A. aid is going to India and Pakistan. The proportion going to Africa has been comparatively low because few African countries were actually members in the first year of the I.D.A.'s operations, and suitable projects in Africa are only just be ginning to come forward.
    Finally, the original agreement setting up the envisaged that it would make loans solely for the foreign exchange cost of a project and that the borrower would be expected to advance the local costs. It has been asked to finance only a small proportion of the local costs. The local costs rule has created some difficulty in countries with low rates of savings and little scope for

    247
    increasing tax revenue. It has meant that some countries have not been able to put forward projects with high local costs but have had to propose instead projects with lower local costs and higher foreign exchange content. However, the I.D.A. is reconsidering the rule, and, naturally, the Government welcome this very much.
    I now want to go through, in general terms, the details of the level of contributions the Amendment seeks to alter.
    5.0 p.m.
    The Amendment would make the United Kingdom contribution which is authorised by the Bill conditional on the replenishment resolution now before the Board of Governors of the I.D.A. being amended so as to multiply the resources of the Association by about five by 1968. Under the Resolution as it now stands, the disposable resources will be about doubled by 1968. The initial resources of the I.D.A. were 968 million dollars including the subscriptions of the Part II—the developing countries—and about 750 million dollars if we take account only of the freely disposable subscriptions of the Part I countries.
    The replenishment operation, which has been the occasion of this Bill, provides a further 750 million dollars to be contributed by the Part I countries, making total disposable resources of 1,500 million dollars. The Amendment would appear to provide for additional contributions of about 1,500 million dollars a year for the three-year period 1965–67 as compared with 250 million dollars a year provided for in the Resolution in its present form. I think that is about right—1,500 million dollars a year as opposed to 250 million dollars in the original Resolution.
    The United Kingdom cannot determine the scale of the replenishment operation. The scale which the Amendment provides for is far beyond that which any of the contributing nations were prepared to contemplate and beyond what I suspect I.D.A. would be able to dispose of effectively without considerable reorganisation of its own manpower and operations. When Mr. Black was President of the I.B.R.D., and the I.D.A. first raised the matter of
    248
    replenishment at the Bank's annual meeting in 1962, he suggested that the I.D.A. should be provided with funds of about 500 million dollars a year, and finally the amount agreed, as the Committee will be able to work out, was half that amount.
    The difficulty is that the scale of replenishment had to be agreed by the general body of the contributing countries, and fixed at a realistic level in relation to the willingness of Governments to contribute; unless, of course, the hon. Gentleman is willing for this country to bear the burden more or less single handed. It had to be adjusted so that the level of contributions should be equitable as between the industrialised nations.
    In deciding what they should contribute, the Governments took into account their other multilateral aid programmes, their bilateral aid programmes, and all their other expenditure in the years ahead. I said the "Governments" because it was not merely the United Kingdom Government but the Governments of all the countries concerned with these negotiations. The final level of contributions was settled after a pro-longer period of negotiations, between the principal contributing nations. As I said on Second Reading, the negotiations were confidential, but it was clear that the willingness of the United Kingdom to participate in this operation and the amount of the total contribution that we were prepared to contemplate was only one of the many factors relevant in determining the final level.
    It will be about another two years before member-nations will have to consider what provision should be made at the end of the period covered by this replenishment. The scale of annual contribution in the Bill is about a 66 per cent. increase over the 150 million dollars per annum contributed in the first five years, and with the carry-over of the uncommitted money from this first period it should be enough to meet the new commitments to be made at the rate of 300 million dollars a year, for this year and the remaining two years of the three-year period, allowing for a time lag of normally about two years between commitments and dispersements.

    249
    There is no particular significance in the fact that the replenishment operation is for a three-year period as against the initial period of five years. It is partly because some nations are a little reluctant to commit themselves precisely for so long ahead, and partly because other nations welcome a shorter period as giving an earlier opportunity to revise and review the scale of I.D.A.'s activities, with a view to revising it upwards.
    I have tried, without straying too far from the terms of the Bill, the Clause and the Amendment, to answer some of the general points which have been raised in this, as it was, second stage of our general serial debate on aid. I can assure the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who made them that they will be studied by the Government. I would reiterate to the Committee that no discourtesy or lack of interest in what it was to discuss was intended by the absence of my hon. Friends from the Commonwealth Relations and Colonial Offices, or any other Government Department. It is simply that the terms of the Bill are not to give aid to the developing countries, but, narrowly, to enable effect to be given to the resolution of the Board of Governors of the I.D.A.—a resolution which has yet to be taken, and which depends upon the agreement of all those concerned.
    Mrs. Barbara Castle: The Economic Secretary has made a very spirited effort to fight back against the accusations that he and the Government are not sufficiently apprised of the urgency of the need for aid for under-developed countries. He has made a rather better effort this afternoon than he did last Monday. None the less, he cannot get away from the fact that the status of this section of aid has been further downgraded by the Government this afternoon. During the Second Reading debate we at least had the pleasure of the presence of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury as well as of the Economic Secretary. Now the Economic Secretary is left to battle alone.
    We have had four first-class, informative speeches from hon. Members on this side, but not a single speech from a Conservative back bencher to help us in the task of studying aid needs. I anticipated that the Economic Secretary, in giving us the answer he has done, would
    250
    take refuge in a technicality. He tells us that my hon. Friend's Amendment, far from improving things, might actually delay the coming into operation of increased aid by necessitating the reference back of the whole issue to I.D.A.
    The hon. Gentleman took refuge in the implication that if it were not for this he would be only too glad to consider the need for increasing aid—aid in this most effective form—for the under-developed countries, and that he would be very glad to meet some of the points that my hon. Friends have advanced with such knowledge and passion this afternoon.
    If this is the hon. Gentleman's desire, he has a way open to him to implement it. It need not involve holding up the application of the Bill. Why does he not do what Sweden has done? We are told in the annual report of the I.D.A. for 1962–63 that during its work from 1961–63 Sweden made two welcome supplementary contributions totalling 10 million dollars, thus doubling her initial contribution. That is not an unimpressive gesture from a small country. There is nothing whatsoever in the rules of the I.D.A. to stop us emulating it. I suggest to the Economic Secretary that, in the light of the evidence which has been brought before him this afternoon, it is a way out of his technical difficulty which he should consider urgently.
    The problems of some of the countries we are discussing have been brought to the pitch of desperation. Let me elaborate the example given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). He quoted, rightly, the unemployment situation in Kenya. I wonder whether the Economic Secretary has read the very terrifying story which appeared in The Times only yesterday. Under the heading,
    "Grim prospects facing Kenya: desperate measures to check mounting unemployment".
    The special correspondent of The Times writes from Nairobi:
    "Desperate measures to alleviate the mounting unemployment in Kenya which is considered the most explosive force in the political situation after the mutiny will be announced this week. A tripartite agreement has been negotiated between the Government, the employers and the unit ns for all private employers of labour to take on 10 per cent. more staff than they had on January 23rd…The Government will take on 15 per cent. more employees.

    251
    In return the trade unions have undertaken to call no strikes and to accept a wage freeze for a year".
    This is done because in Nairobi alone there are 40,000 unemployed and in the Riff Valley 60,000 unemployed. In addition, 80,000 school leavers will be coming on to the labour market with no jobs in prospect for them.
    This morning I took part in a march organised by the Young Socialists to protest against the lack of job prospects and prospects of proper openings for the young people of this country. That is an urgent problem to which we have rightly drawn attention here. But imagine what the political situation in this country would be if we faced the kind of desperate prospects which face the new Government in Kenya. They are having to deal with it in ways which they recognise—and Mr. Tom Mboya, the Minister of Labour, has said this—will add to the economic burden of the country because they are compelling employers and the Government service to take on an uneconomic labour force. The reason for this is that they have mutiny and political unrest on their doorstep.
    The Times continues:
    "These are some of the facts which lend weight to the parting shot by Mr. Chou En-lai, the Chinese Prime Minister, that Africa is ripe for revolution. The Kenya Government with remarkable realism accepts that it has only a limited time to deal with the security problem while British troops strengthen the forces of law and order. Mr. Mboya who led the negotiations with the employers frankly described the situation as ' desperate '. The employers accepted this work-spreading scheme, which in many cases will reduce efficiency, just as frankly as a necessary insurance policy."
    We have heard the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box opposite repeating the old favourite dark hints of the Conservative Party about subversive elements from outside being at work in Africa. They do not need to be at work in Africa from outside when Africa faces conditions like these.
    5.15 p.m.
    Up to now, as the Economic Secretary admits, the I.D.A. has had to concentrate its resources almost exclusively on the equally pressing and desperate problems of Asia. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr.Stonehouse) pointed
    252
    out, none of us begrudges help to India. She, too, is trying to hold back the flood tide of disaster with inadequate funds. But in the lifetime of the I.D.A. to date only about 18 million dollars have been spent in Africa, and they have been concentrated in Tunisia and Ethiopia. It has not begun to tackle problems like this in Kenya which are repeated over the length and breadth of the Continent.
    We have been told that there is no Government representative present from the Department of Technical Co-operation and no Tory Member on the benches opposite because we are dealing with a technicality. We on this side refuse to consider the work of the I.D.A. and the question of how we should extend it and whether we are extending it far enough as a technicality. This is a desperate economic challenge which faces not only this country but the whole world. We deny that the Government are bound hand and foot and that they are prevented from giving a more vigorous lead in extending the work of the I.D.A. to meet this challenge.
    A hundred and one suggestions could be made. Let me put one to the Economic Secretary, because it impinges directly on the work of his Department, which is answering for this section of aid today. Why is the I.D.A. so important and valuable? I refer the hon. Gentleman to the resolution of the Executive Directors of the I.D.A. on which part of the Bill is based. In talking of the need for additions to resources, which is why we have this Bill, it points out three things:
    "(a) the existing freely usable resources of the Association will be wholly committed in the near future; (b) if the steady progress of development is not to be seriously impeded, a substantial amount of the future net capital inflow into the less developed countries must be made available on terms which would place little or no burden on their balance of payments (c) in order to meet part of the need for assistance of this character, it is desirable that the Association be provided with additional resources…"
    Would anybody in this Committee deny for a moment that, faced with the situation which I have outlined, the new Kenya Government are incapable of meeting it with conventional forms of finance, whether operated through the World Bank or the type of bilateral loans which this country is making today? Can the Kenya Government begin

    253
    to face the debt burden of borrowing money on the sort of rates at which money is borrowed in the City of London in a wealthy developed country like our own? It is dangerous, out-of-date nonsense to suggest that it could.
    The Treasury does not realise it because, particularly under a Conservative Administration, the Treasury Is totally and ideologically committed to conventional forms of financing in this country and even overseas. If it were not, there would be a remedy open to it and there is a remedy open to us now. It is to extend the sort of help which we feel we are giving inadequately even under the additional resources to be committed under the Bill.
    Why do we not alter the terms of our own bilateral loans and extend the amount of the loans which we give bilaterally on terms matching those of the I.D.A.? Why do we not give bilateral loans for fifty years at ¾ per cent. merely to recover the administrative costs involved and not to exact a ruinous rate of interest? It is because the Treasury is too hidebound by the sanctity of the principle of lending at commercial rates of interest. It has such a doctrinaire belief in the virtues of the market economy that only a short while ago, in the White Paper of 1957, it was arguing that the best way to meet the needs of the under-developed territories was not even by World Bank type of loans, but by private investment. It said:
    "Her Majesty's Government considers that it is through the investment of privately-owned funds in the Commonwealth that the United Kingdom has made in the past and should continue to make its most valuable contribution to economic development."
    What out-of-date nonsense that is! It does not fit the actualties of the situation facing the under-developed countries and that is why the most recent White Paper, Cmd. 2147, had to record that there had been a tendency in recent years for the flow of private capital to the developing countries to level off, or even decline. Why are these countries not able even to take up the money which on paper we have committed to them? It is because they cannot face the burden of servicing the debts which will accumulate from borrowing from terms of this kind.
    That is why we say that we are justified in again accusing not only the Gov
    254
    ernment but their supporters of a total lack of an adequate sense of urgency about the situation facing us. Let us have no more of the Prime Minister's speeches about Communist infiltration in Africa. Let us have a few more speeches about the failure of the developed countries of the West realistically to face up to their duty. Whether the Amendment can be faulted on a technicality or not, the arguments behind it cannot be so faulted, and the Government could meet the situation which we have outlined in other ways if only they had the heart and mind to do so.
    Mr. Stonehouse: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has summed up the debate with a brilliant speech, as we have come to expect from her on this subject. She has given an inspiring lead to the Committee, and we can hope that the Economic Secretary will carry this message back to his colleagues and will try to persuade them to take a far greater interest in tackling this enormous task, not only in the territories which have acquired new independence from our colonial rule, but also the many territories facing these enormous problems of backwardness, problems with which they cannot cope entirely from their own resources.
    The Economic Secretary's reply so far has been disappointing, because although his interpretation of the effect of the Amendment was correct, he did not acknowledge the Government's responsibility for influencing the policy of the International Development Association itself. He does not seem to have realised that what we are asking the Government to do is to take a far more energetic part in the deliberations inside the Association so that it can become a more dynamic part of the world's attempts to cope with the problems of backwardness.
    Since he made his speech, I have looked up the annual reports of the Association and I have found that the present Leader of the House was the Governor of the International Bank and I.D.A. appointed by the United Kingdom in 1961, that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer held the appointment in 1962 and Mat today it is held by the Earl of Cromer.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Is he a Minister?
    Mr. Stonehouse: What instructions are given to our representatives on the Board of the Association to pursue the policy points which the Economic Secretary apparently agrees should be pursued? Are we now to expect that they will demand that the Association's work be extended?
    The Economic Secretary asked whether I was anxious that the United Kingdom should accept all the additional burdens suggested by the Amendment. I have no such intention. I want all the industrial and advanced countries to accept their responsibilities. This is something not only for the United Kingdom, but for the United States, for France, for Western Germany, which should be paying a much greater part of her increasing income into international funds of this sort rather than, as at the moment, concentrating on economic aid with strings attached. We want this sort of aid to be enlarged, and the Government can play some part in influencing the policy of the I.D.A., because it has a substantial vote in its decisions. The percentage of the total voting power of the United Kingdom has been slightly reduced over the years, but it is now 11·53 per cent., or 26,728 out of 156,544 total votes by Part I members of the Association.
    These votes should be exercised wisely and in the direction in which we have pressed the hon. Gentleman, namely, the expansion of the Association's work so that more funds can be made available at very low or nonexistent rates of interest so that the newly developing countries can get substantial assistance for their development projects. Judging from the hon. Gentleman's reply, the amount available for new commitments will be only about £100 million per year. Is that sufficient to cope with the tremendous backlog of demand and the problems of Kenya and Uganda and those developing in the Protectorates for which we still have primary responsibility.
    5.30 p.m.
    Is the Economic Secretary really telling the Committee that £100 million a year is enough for the work of this international Association? I wish to ask whether he will give an undertaking that
    256
    the Government, through their representatives on the Association, will in the years ahead press for the work of the I.D.A. to be expanded and enlarged. I accept that were our Amendments agreed to it would delay the proceedings, because the proposal would have to go before all the other member countries and this would hold up a decision regarding the additional amount on which most have already agreed. I do not want that delay. But I desire an undertaking from the Economic Secretary to consider this with his colleagues so that the policy points may be pushed forward by United Kingdom representatives and that we may get an extension of this work.
    I wish also to ask the hon. Gentleman to convey to his right hon. Friend the urgency of preparing plans for the economic development of Basutoland and Bechuanaland. He did not refer to this, but I understood him to say that the Articles of the I.D.A. prevented it from considering projects which were not economically viable.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I hope that I did not mislead the hon. Gentleman. It is not in the Articles; it is the policy and practice.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I thank the Economic Secretary for that correction. But he also mentioned the need for creditworthiness before loans can be granted through the I.D.A.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman again to the Morse Committee's Report which shows that many of the projects proposed were economically viable. I ask him, therefore, to consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations on the advisability of making requests on behalf of Bechuanaland for assistance for the projects described in that Report as economically viable—and therefore as much entitled to economic assistance as any other projects which have so far been assisted by the I.D.A. Subject to being given such an undertaking, I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the points he has made will be considered most seriously. The Morse Report on the High Commission Territories has not been neglected or

    257
    shelved. It is being used in relation to the development plans of the three territories concerned, as are other surveys of other parts of the Commonwealth. I hope I did not say that it was creditworthiness which made a country suitable for an I.D.A. loan. It is very much the reverse. It is the fact that it has not creditworthiness for I.B.R.D. loans which is one of the qualifications for an I.D.A. loan.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I thank the Economic Secretary for that assurance and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. A. E. Oram: The debate on the Amendment gave my hon. Friends an admirable opportunity, which they exploited to the full, to point out the limitations of the funds which will be made available through the acceptance of this Bill. I wish to comment on the kind of project which may be aided under the provisions of this Clause by the implementation of the Resolution by the executive directors.
    In his reply to the debate on the Amendment, the Economic Secretary raised a point which was made on a number of occasions during the Second Reading debate by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, namely, that the actual amount of funds spent on projects was less than commitments entered into. Since the Second Reading debate, I have been pondering why this was so. One suggestion has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), and I think another reason is that there is still a vast gap in the needs of the developing countries to be met either by loans available from the World Bank or from the finances available from the I.D.A.
    The kind of need which I have in mind could be financed by the Association. But I doubt whether that is being done. We know the kind of project which qualifies for a loan from the World Bank. It is, perhaps, an ambitious scheme for a steel works which it is apparent is likely to become a profitable undertaking within a few years. Or perhaps it is the construction of a dam or irrigation works, which
    258
    may readily be assessed as a means of providing productive farmland which will produce funds to repay the loan. That kind of obviously profitable undertaking qualifies for a loan from the World Bank. But the things dealt with by the I.D.A. are different. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave an estimate during the Second Reading debate that roughly 30 per cent. of assistance had gone on roads and 20 per cent. on other forms of transport; 20 per cent. had gone on irrigation and the remaining 30 per cent., or a little less, was divided between electrical power, communications, industry, water and education. I mike no complaint about the use of I.D.A. funds for that kind of very necessary project. Obviously, that is the kind of thing which the I.D.A. was set up to deal with.
    My point is that when we have dealt with all the things for which world Bank loan; are particularly suited, and the things for which I.D.A. loans are suited, and which are financed by the policies pursued hitherto by the I.D.A., there is still a vast number of needs of developing countries which cannot be met from any normal, usual, international financing institution. I have in mind not a vast steelworks project, not roads, not an electrical supply undertaking, but perhaps the small, less ambitious, physical need of some new agricultural process, or the establishment of an agricultural co-operative. There the need would be for the sort of physical equipment which would not qualify under any of the schemes we have considered hitherto.
    I hope that the Economic Secretary will not reply that the encouragement of such things as agricultural co-operatives is nor appropriate for the I.D.A. because that would come under technical assistance and that there are other means of promoting co-operatives. I accept that technical assistance is what is largely required; that it is largely a question of education, and of sending out experts or establishing educational courses—bringing suitable students over here for study, and so on. That is a great part of the problem.
    But there is another substantial part, namely, the provision of the kind of physical equipment that these cooperators would need in the establishment and working of their undertakings

    259
    —such things as warehouses for the crops when harvested, fencing for their farms, ginneries for their cotton, and things which are not seen to be immediately profitable undertakings; not the sort of projects which easily qualify for financial assistance by the World Bank but which are still necessary and, in the long run, are perhaps more suitable from the point of view of development in the territories that we have in mind in Africa and South-East Asia. I believe that schemes of this sort are as essential as the more ambitious ones which are so often discussed in this connection.
    Some of my co-operative movement colleagues say that co-operatives ought to be self-financing, as far as possible, and that the voluntary association of members and the voluntary accumulation of their funds is the real strength of the co-operative method, so that any suggestion of their being financed from public funds—either bilaterally or multilaterally—under the I.D.A. is perhaps dubious in co-operative theory. I do not accept that point of view. I believe it to be essential for co-operatives to be encouraged in these developing territories to a far greater extent than is likely to be the case if they are left to accumulate their own funds in the orthodox way. That is why I am anxious to see the I.D.A. cast its net wider in respect of the sort of project that it takes under its wing.
    When he was replying to the debate on the Amendment the Economic Secretary queried whether my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) was right in suggesting that our representatives have any major part of the responsibility for the policy of the I.D.A. My hon. Friend gave the answer, which I am glad to reiterate, that we are a major partner in the I.D.A., and therefore ought to be putting forward strong and vigorous views, and voicing the opinion of hon. Members of this House as to the kind of thing that I.D.A. funds should be used for.
    If our representatives there speak with the same lack of enthusiasm and conviction that has been shown from the Government benches during these debates it is not surprising that we do not have a great influence in the councils
    260
    of the I.D.A. I hope that the points which have been made so strongly by my hon. Friends will eventually find their echoes inside the councils of the I.D.A., and that the kind of point that I have been putting forward this afternoon on behalf of the co-operative movements, which are so essential a part of the development of these territories, will be borne in mind and vigorously advocated by our representatives.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The problem which has been raised is one of which we shall take note. The hon. Member's plea was a two-fold one. First, he said that the I.D.A. should pay attention to smaller schemes. That would be a reversal of its policy. Secondly, he said that it should pay special attention to the needs of co-operatives—and especially to the physical needs. All that has been said in the debate will be studied by the British representatives on the I.D.A. As the hon. Member pointed out, we have a good representation on it. We have just over 11 per cent. of the votes.
    But there is a genuine problem here. Because of the need of the I.D.A. to study the complexities of these projects, and because of the trouble that it has to deal with them all, it is difficult for it to undertake small projects without being unfair as between one territory and another by giving too much aid per head of the population. Subject to that qualification, I undertake to see that all the points which have been raised are put before the proper authorities.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: In view of what the hon. Member has said, I do not think that we can let the Clause go without once again reminding him that his reply has been inadequate, in the light of the nature of the debate. It reinforces the complaints that we have been continually making, that the Bill has been left entirely to be dealt with by Treasury Ministers. The Economic Secretary knows a great deal about company taxation, but he knows almost nothing—with respect to him—about the problems of co-operative development in under-developed countries. That is the kind of knowledge which a Minister who answers this sort of debate should bring to the Government Front Bench.

    261
    If the hon. Member knew something about it—and I do not blame him for not knowing about it: it is not his prime responsibility—he would know that the new Director of the International Development Association, Mr. David Woods, has recently laid great emphasis on the need for the I.D.A. to devote more of its resources to exactly the kind of agricultural development that my hon. Friend has mentioned. Mr. Woods has been saying that agricultural credit banks are just the kind of thing that the I.D.A. should go in for. I gather that a great deal of criticism has been expressed by some of those associated with the I.D.A. about its going into this field of operations, which is normally held to have greater risks attached to it than some of the more straightforward developments for which I.D.A. money has so far been used.
    But I would have liked to hear from the Minister, in reply to the excellent points made by my hon. Friend, that the Government believe that this is the direction in which the I.D.A. should go, and that our representatives are pushing in that direction. Our objection to the Clause is that the resolution mentioned in it does not go nearly far enough in terms of the kind of rôle that the I.D.A. can play in world affairs.
    I do not want to go over the ground that has already been covered in our discussion of the Amendment, but what has been missing in this newest development of the I.D.A., is the opportunity of making it into a major instrument of economic development for the poorest countries. If it were to have the kind of voice which it should have, and which was mentioned in our debate on the Amendment, it would be able much more easily to carry out some of the smaller schemes that my hon. Friend has been advocating.
    The Minister's reply—that it is impossible for the I.D.A. to undertake small schemes because it might mean providing a disproportionate amount of aid per head between different territories—simply indicates once again that he has been brought here without having been adequately briefed on this Bill. The outstanding feature of the I.D.A.'s work, and the one that disturbs us—great credit though we pay to it for what it has done—is that its geographical
    262
    distribution is extremely uneven. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) pointed out, there is a long list of member countries of the I.D.A. which have had no money per head of population from the Association.
    I should have thought that even on the limited resources contained in this resolution mentioned in the Clause it would have been well worth while the International Development Association considering whether it might go down the line into smaller territories and smaller undertakings.
    What the Minister said in reply to the Amendment, and what he said during the Second Reading debate, reinforces our view that there ought to be in the Government of this country a Minister of Overseas Development charged with overall responsibility for these matters. If during the lifetime of the forthcoming Labour Government a further I.D.A. Bill comes before the House, the Government will fulfil their responsibilities to the House by ensuring that the subject is dealt with by a Minister with knowledge of and responsibility for this whole sphere of economic aid.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause.—(ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS.)
    There shall be laid before Parliament an annual report together with accounts, of expenditure incurred under this Act.—[Mr. Chapman.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The complaint of Members on this side of the Committee, as it was during the Second Reading debate, is that the Government are treating this Measure as a purely technical Bill. The Economic Secretary refuses to discuss the wider issues of policy involved in the I.D.A., and more or less hints that the points that we wish to raise should be preserved for another occasion.
    The purpose of the new Clause is to try to insist that we should have an

    263
    opportunity annually to debate what will probably be a White Paper, or some similar document, which will explain the extent to which the I.D.A. has drawn on the funds made available under the Bill, and to try to explain to the House and to the country the way in which the money provided has been used by the I.D.A.
    When I looked to see what documents were available to us, I was astonished at what I discovered. First, under the Ruling made by Mr. Speaker in 1961, the Treasury has placed in the Vote Office the documents which it thinks are relevant to this debate. Apart from the resolution referred to in Clause 1, all that we have had available in the Vote Office are the Articles of Agreement of the I.D.A. dated 1960, another document dated 26th January, 1960, and the I.D.A. Act of 1960. We are supposed to be able to discuss the work of the I.D.A. after studying those three documents.
    When I made inquiries about the possibility of seeing the I.D.A.'s annual report and the document of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, I found that they were not stocked by the Stationery Office, and were therefore not available to hon. Members. It is deplorable that in the Library of this House there is only one copy of the I.D.A.'s annual report. If someone had borrowed that copy, I would not have been able to see it before the commencement of this debate, and on the basis of that one document, which we are able to see thanks to the perspicacity of the Librarian, and not due to any efforts by the Government, we are voting over £30 million to be spent in the next three years, with no provision for a report back in the interval, by way of documents published by the I.D.A. or by the Government, to explain how the money is being used. I repeat that the main purpose of the new Clause is to ensure that a report will be published annually about the use being made of the funds provided under the Bill.
    I suppose that one answer which the hon. Gentleman can give is that, after all, in September last year the Government published the White Paper, Cmnd. 2147, entitled "Aid to Developing Countries". But if that is really the hon. Gentleman's answer, perhaps I might refer him
    264
    merely to the first sentence of that White Paper which says:
    "It is now more than three years since a White Paper giving a comprehensive account of our economic aid to developing countries was published."
    The present state of affairs is deplorable and I cannot emphasise too strongly what I feel about it. We are pouring out about £100 million to £150 million of economic aid of one kind or another and we have no document, except an occasional one thought up by the Treasury once in three years, no international document, no annual report, and no White Paper to show how the money is being spent. It is astonishing that this state of affairs has been reached without steps being taken to keep Parliament and the country properly informed.
    I repeat that the purpose of the new Clause is to try to remedy that state of affairs; to try to provide that next year we shall have a report on the £10 million, or £12 million, or whatever it is, that is drawn by the International Development Association, together with at least a summary of what that body has been doing with our money, with taxpayers' money, with British money, in that period. When that document is published, we shall have a chance to ask Questions about it in the House and to prevent the hon. Gentleman from coming forward at some future date and saying, "All that the Government have for the House is another technical Bill. I cannot discuss policy subjects. I do not know anything. I have not been briefed. The matter is not dealt with by my Department, and in any event we do not have a Department to deal with this subject". That is the sort of tale that we have had throughout this debate.
    I hope that my new Clause will shake up somebody on this issue, and that in future we shall get documents by which Parliament can be kept reasonably informed, and the country can be made aware of what is happening to the money that is raised from the taxpayer.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has moved the new Clause, and I support it. As my hon. Friend said, it is

    265
    important that people in this country should know what responsibility the House has accepted on their behalf, and how we are fulfilling our task in helping the newly developing countries.
    There is an immense amount of public interest in this subject. The development of Oxfam, War on Want, and similar organisations in the last few years is one small indication of this tremendous interest in the subject. Only the other day I heard that a school in my constituency, with only 400 students, had contributed more than £400 to the War on Want funds, an indication of the tremendous interest taken in this subject by schoolchildren.
    I believe that people would like to know how we are playing our part in these international organisations, and if this report is presented to the House it will give us an opportunity of questioning informed Ministers rather than those holding a mere technical brief about the working of these organisations. Judged from the Bill that we are discussing, which will see us through to November, 1967, it will be about three or four years before this House has another opportunity to debate the work of the I.D.A That is too long to wait in this development decade. I hope that when the Economic Secretary replies to the debate the Committee will hear that he is prepared to accept this very reasonable and well-argued new Clause.
    6.0 p.m.
    I make a further suggestion, that the Economic Secretary should consider the setting-up of an advisory committee to assist him and his colleagues in the work of presenting a policy case to the I.D.A. and co-ordinating all the points which have been raised this afternoon, as well as many others which are bound to be raised by Commonwealth countries and dependencies. We have already established an advisory committee on co-operative development, of which my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) is a member. Can we match that committee with another which would advise on the International Development Association and other agencies and the part the United Kingdom is playing in them? Such a committee would assist the Minister responsible for preparing the annual
    266
    report which would be presented as suggested by this new Clause. I support the new Clause and I hope that the Economic secretary will on this occasion see fit to accept it.
    Mr. A. E. Cooper: I often wonder whether hon. Members who put forward Amendments really understand the purpose of what they put forward. This new Clause is simply an amendment to this Bill. All it asks us to do is to ensure that
    "an annual report, together with accounts, of expenditure incurred under the Act"
    should be Provided. This country and this Government employ huge sums of money far in excess of those called for by this Bill. I remember the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in the last Parliament, and on previous occasions, calling for the expenditure by this country of 1 per cent. of the gross national product to help emerging countries. We are doing much more than that, but what we shall spend under this Bill is very much less than 1 per cent. of the gross national product.
    We spend far more in other ways in helping these countries than is proposed by the Bill. We should recognise that fact. As a nation, we spend far more in helping emerging countries than does any other country in the world. It does us no good to denigrate what we in this country are doing. We are doing far more than any other country at this time. If hon. Members opposite were sitting on this side of the House they would not be able to do any more to help these countries than we as a Conservative Government and party are doing.
    Simply to publish an annual report about what we are doing would not help anyone. What the country wants to know is can we do more? Are we doing more, or are we doing less than we can do? [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) does not agree with me, but what his Friends are seeking to do by this new Clause is to create the impression that the Conservative Party and the Conservative Government are not doing enough and that if a report were presented year by year the country would see how badly we are doing. What we are doing is far more than is being done by other countries.
    Mr. Stonehouse rose—
    Mr. Cooper: I am sorry; I cannot give way. Hon. Members opposite are now making what one might call a deathbed repentance about this issue. I raised this issue in an Adjournment debate before the Whitsun Recess five years ago. I raised the question of what we were to spend, how we could spend it and what the country could do. I do not recall that at that time any hon. or right hon. Member opposite supported me. I tried to show that the country was doing a very great deal and that we as a nation could not invest in a deficit. No matter how much we present accounts to show what we are doing, we cannot do more than the country is capable of doing as a result of its trading position. If we as a nation are earning a surplus in our trading account we can support a much bigger—
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he should come rather more closely to this new Clause, which particularly asks for an annual report to be laid before Parliament. He should not go into a more general debate.
    Mr. Cooper: I should be the last to disagree with you, Sir Robert, in your Ruling on this matter, but one has to look a little beyond the terms of the Motion before the Committee at this time. For all the fine phrases which have come from the Opposition tonight, which are simply designed to indicate to the country what we are doing, the purpose of this new Clause is to show to the country that we are not doing so much as hon. Members opposite would like us to do. That is the sole purpose of the new Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Whatever they may say, all these fine words, comments of "nonsense" and head shaking, all they are trying to do is denigrate the efforts of the Conservative Government in helping emerging nations. I am seeking to show that they could not do better because, unless our trading position is good—
    The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but he is getting wide of the new Clause. I must ask him to come back to the question of whether a report should be laid before Parliament.
    Mr. Cooper: The new Clause says:
    "There shall be laid before Parliament an annual report, together with accounts, of expenditure incurred under this Act."
    All I suggest is that there are motives other than those which appear on the face of the matter.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: But what is on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Cooper: There are many things on the Order Paper of this House which are not necessarily in the minds of hon. Members who propose them. I am suggesting that what is being proposed is something derogatory to the record of this Government. This new Clause ought not to be accepted. The House and the country are doing as much as possible within the limit of resources available.
    Mr. Oram: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) was obviously frustrated by your Ruling, Sir Robert. He was developing a very interesting speech which I think would have been very much in order had he been delivering it on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". It is a pity that, quite rightly, you had to rule him out of order.
    I warmly support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) and his new Clause asking for the provision of an annual report of expenditure under the I.D.A. I only wish that my hon. Friend had been able to incorporate in the wording of the Clause the requirement that the report, having been laid, should be fully debated. Clearly this cannot be provided for in the Clause, but it is highly desirable that we should have in future a report and that there should be an annual debate upon it.
    For some years I have been trying to take a special interest in the problems of developing countries. I have been astonished at the lack of opportunity that there is in the normal course of the business of the House of Commons to debate specifically questions of aid to developing countries. Opportunities arise such as in last Thursday's debate on Commonwealth trade, when in a sentence or two one can inject a few ideas. Opportunities for a special debate on the problems of developing countries and what this and other industrial countries can do about them are remarkably

    269
    few in the House of Commons. Anything which can be done to overcome this difficulty should be warmly welcomed.
    Not long ago we managed to squeeze in a debate lasting an hour or two on the Freedom from Hunger campaign. This occurred in part of the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill. This only reinforce my plea that annually there should be, perhaps on a report such as that suggested by my hon. Friend, a straightforward debate on the whole question of aid to developing countries. In a few weeks' time we shall have our annual debate on defence. Always at this time of year a Defence White Paper is laid and, after a great deal of preparation and publicity, we have a debate on defence which usually lasts two days. The problems of the poverty-stricken lands are at least of equal importance as those of defence. If we can have a two-day debate annually on the Defence White Paper, as should have a report on this Association on which there should equally be a regular two-day debate every year. The maintenance of peace depends more on the elimination of poverty throughout the world than it does on the provision of weapons of offence or defence. It is in the hope that a report of the type asked for will lead to some breakthrough on this vitally important question of the needs of developing countries that I warmly support my hon. Friend's initiative.
    Mr. Charles Longbottom: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) that we are doing a great deal by way of aid and technical assistance. I do not think that anybody in the House of Commons denies that, though many people feel that we are not co-ordinating our aid programmes properly, that perhaps we are not getting the right priorities in our aid programmes, that perhaps we are not getting across to the people the extent of British aid and the need for it, because our programmes are not co-ordinated.
    Within our aid programme the activities of the International Development Association should be much more widely known, As the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), amongst others, argued on Second Reading, the receiving countries want this aid over a long-term period and with low interest charges. We must all agree that there
    270
    is in general the need for a much wider debate in Parliament on the priorities of aid. The Clause proposes that we should have an annual report on the expenditure incurred under the Bill. The Association itself produces an annual report. The hon. Member for Birmingham. Northfield (Mr. Chapman) rightly said that this report should be much more readily available. This would probably be the answer, rather than us having to produce one of our own. The hon. Member was right that we need much more opportunity to debate aid and technical assistance. In whatever way we achieve this, it should certainly be done.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Bence: I am sure that the Committee is grateful for the contribution of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Long-bottom). His was a reasonable contribution, very different from the extraordinary outburst of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) whose contribution lowered the whole standard of the way in which this Committee or any Committee of the House of Commons operates. The Committee operates on the principle that we table Amendments and new Clauses with the object of discussion and achieving a purpose. We do not table them with ulterior motives. The hon. Member for Ilford, South gave the impression that he rose with the ulterior motive of defending what may be a marginal seat. I was astounded at some of his remarks. His was a disgraceful contribution, because in the time I have sat in the Committee today I have heard no one denigrate the efforts of this country in making its due contribution to all sorts of international organisations.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) rightly argues that we should have an annual report on the disposal of the taxpayers' money and the accounts of this international organisation. This is a reasonable request. All my lifetime I have heard Parliamentarians, those out of the top drawer and those out of the bottom drawer, stress the need to preserve Parliamentary accountability for the use of the taxpayers' money. I support this principle, because as a member of the Estimates Committee I am always deeply concerned about the way in which

    271
    money is spent, to whom it goes, and who gets the benefit from it when it is spent. I represent a Scottish constituency. We in Scotland consider that not nearly enough money is spent in Scotland by the central Government.
    The hon. Member for Ilford, South complained about annually accounting for the expenditure of the taxpayers' money. We have a body in Scotland called the Highland Development Association. The contributions paid by the Exchequer to the Association are subject to criticism and analysis every year. Yet the contributions the Government make from the taxpayers' money to an international organisation can go on for years and years without anyone questioning them. This is a dangerous precedent. The Government could go on linking themselves with all sorts of international organisations, pouring the taxpayers' money into them, without any accountability to Parliament. This is a breach of the constitutional principle of accountability to Parliament.
    I know full well that the Whips work the machine and the Lobby fodder goes through the Lobby. It is probably true that there is not enough freedom of expression in the House of Commons. Nevertheless, we should have in our hands annually documents showing in every detail how the State spends the taxpayers' money. There always seemed to be inquiries about money for Scotland. We need only to have a simple proposal to build a power station and there is a public inquiry; every penny is scrutinised; the profitability has to be examined. Nothing can be done in Scotland without a close examination. Yet under the Bill hundreds of millions of pounds can be paid into an international organisation. I agree with the principle of making the contribution, but I still believe that it should be accounted for to Parliament. The argument of the hon. Member for Ilford, South seemed to be that, as it was a small sum and as it was paid to an international organisation, Parliament should not bother about it.
    Mr. Cooper: Nothing that I said could in any way be related to anything that the hon. Gentleman is saying. I will ask him this direct question: is he saying clearly and unequivocally that we as
    272
    a Government are doing as much as we can in this respect?
    Mr. Bence: I cannot refer to any of the hon. Gentleman's remarks because if I did I would be out of order, for his contribution to the debate was not directly relevant to the point at issue.
    I believe that this country, irrespective of Government, has and is making a great contribution towards helping the developing territories. We are now discussing whether an annual report on the money spent by the Government as a contribution to I.D.A. should be presented to Parliament for examination. Do hon. Members consider that such a report should be presented to the Public Accounts Committee? Should any Department of State have the right to spend the taxpayers' money without telling Parliament how it is being spent? My hon. Friends and I are not saying that the amount being spent is inadequate or that it is too much; only that, whatever it is, details of it should be presented to Parliament annually.
    The hon. Member for Ilford, South receives the Report of the Public Accounts Committee and is able to see how much is being spent, for instance, in Scotland on hydro-electric development and so on. My hon. Friends are asking for something that is absolutely Parliamentarily sound. It has been our tradition not to spend money without debating why it is being spent and to whom the money is going. How much longer will we delegate responsibility to the Executive so that the taxpayers' money may be used in any way the Government wish without presenting the accounts to Parliament?
    Do hon. Members wish to create a bureaucratic system whereby there is no accountability? If so, that is in direct conflict with everything I have believed. The State should answer to the people, through Parliament, for every penny that is spent. This may sometimes be difficult to do, but it must be done. To suggest that £34 million is a small amount and, because of that, the Government need not be accountable, is frightful. I recall being told as a child that the smallest hole will sink a battleship. If the views of the hon. Member for Ilford, South were taken to their logical conclusion we should be in a frightful state, with money being

    273
    flung out of the till with no accountability.
    Whether it be the National Health Service, increased pay for judges or more money for the Army, we must have accountability. That is why hon. Members are here. If the Executive are not to be accountable in this sphere how are we to be sure that that they will be accountable in other respects? I am surprised at the hon. Member for Ilford, South for taking the attitude of a Tudor King; that money should be spent without any questions asked. That is a Tudor, pre-Jacobite attitude to take. Does he want the Government to rule by divine right, with no questions asked? I hope that the Economic Secretary will accept the proposed new Clause, which is vital if Parliamentary responsibility and the integrity of hon. Members is to be retained.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I very much regret that I do not think it possible to accept the proposed new Clause, for it would not work in practice. I see the point behind it; that there should be occasions for Parliament to debate and be given detailed information to debate this subject. However, my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Longbottom) summed it up when he said that the new Clause would not be practicable. In any case, its provisions can be achieved without difficulty in other ways.
    I should first like to deal with the narrow point of accountability which, in a characteristically late and exuberant contribution, was dealt with by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). I will have to be rather technical about this because, despite the dislike of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) of technicalities, this is a technical Clause.
    The Bill, as interpreted under Clause 2(1,a) by reference to the draft resolution of the executive directors of the I.D.A., the terms of which are contained in the White Paper, Cmnd. 2230, provides for the payment by the United Kingdom to the I.D.A. of three instalments, each of 32·2 million dollars—£11½ million—on 8th November, 1965, 1966 and 1967. The payments will take the form of non-interest bearing and non-negotiable notes, as provided for by Clause 2(3),
    274
    applying Section 2(4) of the I.D.A. Act, 1960.
    The procedure is for the Treasury to create these notes in favour of the I.D.A. on the due date, and the corresponding amount of cash is paid to the I.D.A. in return for the notes on demand; that is, when the I. D.A. needs the money for the purpose of its operations. This procedure is, for the purpose of accounting, the creation of a debt to the I.D.A. and the subsequent redemption of that debt. In other wore s, the United Kingdom borrow the subscription back from the I.D.A. on the day of payment and repay it when the money is needed.
    The amount of the payments is specified by the Bill, as interpreted in the light of the resolution of the executive directors, and the dates of payment are also so specified. The payments will be recorded in the various published accounts of Exchequer issues, including the Consolidated Fund Abstract Account which is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and laid before Parliament. In addition, the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom, which are also laid before Parliament, will show both what notes have been created, and in what sums; and to what extent notes have been redeemed during the preceding financial year.
    In effect, because of this somewhat complex procedure—of, so to speak, giving the money, borrowing it back and lending it again—the sum will appear twice in the accounts, once in the Consolidated Fund Abstract Account and once in the Note Issue. In view of these considerations there appear to be no grounds for requiring that an additional annual report and accounts of expediture under this Bill should be laid before Parliament.
    6.30 p.m.
    There is no statutory requirement in the International Development Association Act, 1960, any more than there is in the legislation concerning the United Kingdom subscriptions to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Finance Corporation and International Monetary Fund. The postion is the same for all of them. Additional statutory accounts are normally required only when they will disclose information

    275
    additional to that already available to Parliament. Therefore, it is fair to say that the sums provided by the Bill will be accounted for in the usual way and by the methods which covers the other affiliates of the International Bank and also the International Monetary Fund.
    The new Clause would require the laying of an annual report as well as of accounts under the terms of the Bill. This is where the difficulty arises. It is not possible to give an account of the money spent under the Bill, because the United Kingdom contribution is simply a fraction of the total payments and it is impossible to isolate it. It would be impossible to say in what direction our contribution was devoted. It goes simply to the I.D.A. In other words, the money which is contributed through the Bill will be accounted for. The money which is spent by the I.D.A. under the Bill cannot be separately accounted for, but will come into the general accounts and annual report of the I.D.A.
    Part of the burden of the complaint of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) was that the information was not available. His Amendment begins to look like saying that we should republish the I.D.A. Report as a White Paper.
    Mr. Chapman: Something like that.
    Mr. Macmillan: I cannot agree to that course at the moment, but I undertake to see what can be done about it. The real point is that the House of Commons should have a debate on aid from time to time at suitable intervals. As I have suggested, there are opportunities when the various accounts are laid before Parliament, and there has been a White Paper.
    The remainder of the hon. Member's complaint was that White Papers did not come frequently enough for such an important subject. I will take note of this point, too. The hon. Member is asking for the report of the I.D.A. to be republished and made available; for it to be done either through the Library, or by way of a more frequent White Paper on aid which could be debated. One of these two alternatives would be more satisfactory than the method proposed by the Amendment to achieve the hon. Member's objective. He will not,
    276
    I hope, expect me to give an undertaking that we will do this, although I will certainly put to my right hon. Friend the point raised by the hon. Member and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of it as well as of what has been said in the debate.
    Mr. Chapman: I am obliged.
    Mrs. Castle: We begin to make progress. The Economic Secretary's reply shows how justified we on this side were in refusing to treat the debate merely as a formality. It would be a good step forward if, as a result of this debate, we were to get the laying of an annual report on all aspects of aid and for the House to have the occasion for an annual debate. Before we go much further, we shall have won the hon. Gentleman over to the sequitur that we should have one Minister who could answer effectively questions concerning aid.
    It would not be of much help to us if the annual report dealt with the work of I.D.A. in the same way as the most recent White Paper, Cmnd. 2147, does. At the end of three years, we merely had on page 39 of that White Paper a reference to I.D.A. covering its official terms of reference and some rough financial figures. It was simply three short paragraphs and gave no details about the work. It would not meet the point merely to supplement that by publishing the annual report of I.D.A. as a White Paper.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) made a valid point when he said it was scandalous that we could not even obtain the annual report of I.D.A. to guide us because we were all competing for it. I know. I was in the queue and was angry to be informed in the Library that the one and only copy was temporarily in the possession of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), who was effectively doing his homework for the debate. I had to give strict orders that the document should be out of his hands by a certain time so that I might have it, only to be informed by the Library that I, too, must pass it on before too long because somebody else was awaiting it. Therefore, to have it available in the Vote Office as a White Paper would be something.

    277
    That would not be enough, however, because the annual report of I.D.A. is very brief and gives no indication of the policy pursued by our representative on I.D.A. It is not good enough for the Economic Secretary to say that when we appoint a representative to serve upon a multilateral agency, we thereupon lose all control over his activities. I.D.A., particularly in a situation in which it has less funds than it needs to meet more than a fraction of the claims upon it, must obviously exercise priorities. Parliament has a right to discuss whether it is exercising the right priorities and whether its work is effectively integrated with the work of other agencies. This is all part of the move towards more effective planning internally in this country and externally on a world basis, in which we genuinely believe, and we are having to take the Government through a tutorial course on the necessity for thinking in proper planning terms. This is part of the operation to that end.
    I have read the annual reports of I.D.A. They leave many questions unanswered. For us to send the Governor of the Bank of England, who may be extremely good at deciding upon the financial validity of a project in conventional market terms, to represent us in taking decisions which by definition, under the terms of reference of I.D.A., will be based upon quite different considerations, is not a situation which leaves me happy that the right economic political and social questions are taken into account in fixing the priorities of I.D.A. and in deciding which claims should come first and how the contributions of I.D.A. should fit in with help from other agencies to recipient countries.
    For all these reasons, we should welcome the Economic Secretary's offer to consider the laying of an annual White Paper. That is a step forward. In that White Paper, we want far more information about the work of I.D.A. than we had in the last White Paper. We should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would put the I.D.A. annual report in the Vote Office as a White Paper every year, but will he, please, supplement it through his all-embracing White Paper with much greater detail about how our representative sees the work of I.D.A.
    278
    and how he acts on our behalf in its deliberations?
    Mr. Chapman: I shall, of course, seek leave shortly to withdraw the Motion. I thank the Economic Secretary for what he said and I accept his offer in the spirit in which he made it, subject to the qualifications made by my hon. Friends about the nature of the payments to be made. I hope that this will open up a new era in these matters. The Economic Secretary will realise that all I could do was to table a new Clause which would be in order and which would be called, and not something which would quite do the job we had in mind. Nevertheless, the outcome has been what we all wanted. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion end Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    6.41 p.m.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: I do not want to detain the House, because we have had a thorough discussion of the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, but it would be wrong to let the Bill pass from he House without underlying its importance in British participation in the International Development Association. Enough has been said to indicate that we believe that this must be one of the major international instruments enabling the richer nations of the world to help those that are less well off. What has irritated and frustrated us particularly during the proceedings on the Bill has been the fact that the Government who are responsible for it have dealt with it as a narrow financial Bill, instead of a Bill whose financial provisions open up policies of the widest possible humanitarian and international nature.
    I hope that the attention that has been given to this comparatively small Bill on one aspect of our international aid policies is some indication of the degree of importance which the Labour Party gives to these in its overall attitude on matters of public policy

    279
    By the next time that these matters come to be debated in the House a General Election will have taken place. The kind of arguments which have been adduced from this side of the House, and the absence of arguments from the other side during most of the proceedings, themselves are a strong reason why Britain, in terms of international responsibilities for aid-giving, would be better off with a change of Government.
    We hope that by the time this kind of Bill comes before the House again there will be a Labour Government dealing with it and that that Government will deal with it through a Minister for Overseas Development, with his proper place in the Cabinet, responsible for co-ordinating all our aid policies and giving the House and the nation a much more adequate account of our responsibilities than we have under this Bill.
    6.44 p.m.
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: We have had a full discussion, but I remind the Economic Secretary that he expressed the opinion that a wider debate on the whole question of technical assistance and aid to underdeveloped countries would be welcomed in the House, that he said that he would speak to the Leader of the House, and that he advised me to raise the matter on business on Thursday. I propose to do this. We would welcome anything which the Economic Secretary could do behind the scenes in the meantime to put to the Leader of the House the deep dissatisfaction felt on these benches about the way the Bill has been approached by the Government, about the narrow front on which Government spokesman have been operating, and about the total absence of support on the back benches opposite, which once again are entirely unoccupied. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will convey these sentiments to the Leader of the House and will press him to give us a wider debate.
    Thanks perhaps to inadequate briefing, the Economic Secretary has left a large number of questions unanswered. I should be grateful if he would cause HANSARD to be looked at carefully by his Department, or other Departments more closely concerned, and I should
    280
    be glad of answers, perhaps by correspondence, on the question of assisting more effectively the underdeveloped countries to absorb aid given by this country through I.D.A.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Bence: I also want to support the great purposes behind the Bill. If we are to maintain the best that is available in Western civilisation we can do that best by co-operative effort, by all the nations in the United Nations and outside that organisation, to raise the living standards of the peoples who form a part of world civilisation. By means of international organisations of many kinds, nations of different standards of financial and physical resources can contribute in terms of those resources to a planned effort to raise the standards and the productive capacities of other nations. It is absolutely essential to give immediate aid, but it is just as important that we should give that form of aid and capital assistance that enables nations to raise their standards by increasing their capacity to do things for themselves.
    This can be done only through a co-operative effort by all the nations. I do not think that it can be done in future on the old principle of competitive investment. There is room among the wealthier nations for competitive investment in Western civilisation, but we must also look further afield. The wealthy nations must look to exporting, even as a gift, much of their capital resources and surplus capacity to the underdeveloped countries.
    There is a great opportunity in an international organisation like the I.D.A. to put a stop to the sort of flag-interest investment and the kind of aid with strings attached given by nations individually to further their own individual ends, which may be good or otherwise. It is often easier to offer help than to have that offer accepted willingly. There is often understandable suspicion among recipients of aid that it might cause conflict in other directions.
    It is desirable, therefore, that aid and development should be carried out collectively by the richer nations through an international organisation. Under the Bill our contribution is not made for a specific purpose. It is a contribution to

    281
    a universal development policy. It cannot be isolated as a British development. It is international. This is highly desirable because this means some sort of planning on a world basis and international decisions on the priorities. The hon. Member said that difficulty arose when aid was given in certain areas which led to greater expansion than elsewhere, but these things can be overcome if, through such an Association as this, there is a proper distribution of the various resources afforded by each country.
    The easing of trade barriers helps to raise standards all over the world and helps poorer nations to develop, but by itself it is not sufficient. Every year all the Western nations should find means, through scientific and technological expansion, whereby they can increase their own standards and cultural level and, in co-operation with each other—the United States, E.E.C. and E.F.T.A.—increase the contribution which they make to the more rapid development of those nations where capital development is small, where the educational level is low and where the cultural core is very narrow but where there is a great potential. We should yearly be able to make larger contributions, with other organisations, through such an Association as this and should expand investment which is complementary rather than competitive.
    This would be a great asset and addition to competitive trade between nations. I welcome the Bill and hope that when it expires we shall be able to introduce another Bill which will increase the contribution to a much higher figure than that suggested in the Amendment. I am sure that my hon. Friend, too, hopes in the future to increase the sum.
    6.52 p.m.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I have little to add to the long debate on some aspects of aid policy which we have had in the course of this small Bill. The criticisms have been not of the I.D.A. but of the Government. Broadly speaking, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite think
    282
    that our aid has been too small and ought to be multiplied by about seven, whether other people do anything to contribute or not. The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) suggested that we should provide much more bilateral aid at a subsidised low rate of interest. In general terms, the feeling was that there should be a Minister with a seat in the Cabinet controlling a co-ordinated aid policy based primarily on channelling aid through international institutions and multilateral channels, rather than aid tied to any British exports or national needs.
    At the same time the I.D.A. has received a great deal of stimulating and inspiring attention, not least during this debate. The review of policies which have been put in hand by the new President, Mr. George Woods, has raised great hopes for the future, it has been agreed. As we made clear on Second Reading, the Government from the outset have strongly supported this initiative and particularly welcome the proposals for expanding the help given both for agricultural development and for education. Mr. George Woods' intention to put in hand a large programme of technical assistance is equally in line with Government policy. All these reviews augur well for the future. It is against this background, and having said enough in the course of the debate, that I commend the Bill to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read accordingly the Third time and passed.

  INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND DEFENCE ORGANISA TIONS [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as to certain international headquarters and defence organisations, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under section 8 or section 9 of the Visiting Force; Act 1952.
  Resolution agreed to.

  INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND DEFENCE ORGANISA TIONS BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee
  [Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

  INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND DEFENCE ORGANISA TIONS BILL [Lords]

    Clause 1.—(INTERNATIONAL HEAD QUARTERS AND DEFENCE ORGANISA TIONS.)
    6.57 p.m.
    Mr. William Warbey: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "party" to insert:
    "being arrangements made solely under the authority, and with the express authorisation, of the Security Council of the United Nations Organisation".
    Despite the short and long Title of the Bill, it is clear from the Clause that we are not dealing with any international headquarters but only with international military headquarters. I am surprised that this has not been made clear from the start in the Titles. The Clause makes it clear that we are concerned with the organisation of military forces and with international headquarters or defence organisations which may be set up in connection with the international organisation's military forces. We were told by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on Second Reading that the purpose of the Bill was to ratify a protocol which was referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum, but I can find nothing in the Clause or the Bill which restricts it to that protocol, to any specific international military organisation or to any international military alliance.
    The purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear that the only international military headquarters and the only international defence organisation which we are prepared to see designated under the Bill and given the rights which are to be accorded to it under the Bill, including rights to some extent restricting the rights and liberties of British citizens and British courts of justice, are military organisations which are set out under the only body to which this country has so far made a delegation of national sovereignty in respect of the use of British armed forces.
    This is necessary in order both to bring the Bill into line with previous legislation passed by the House and to
    284
    avoid what would be a very grave constitutional error—namely, that we should delegate national sovereignty to any body which Parliament and the Queen have not explicitly designated as a body to which we have delegated specific aspects of British sovereignty.
    In putting forward the case—
    It being Seven o'clock The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

  NORFOLK ESTUARY BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Denys Bullard: I have listened to a good many debates on the Second Reading of Private Bills and I know that one of the drawbacks which hon. Members have in following the debates is in not knowing just how the land lies and what the Bill is about. I do not want to give a geography lesson to the House, except to say that the Wash area is a pretty wide area, roughly 20 miles square, and that at low tide a great deal of this land is above water level and is marsh or sandbank.
  Over many years there have been plans to drain this area. The Norfolk Estuary Company, who are the promoters of this Bill, were given powers in 1846 to reclaim some of this land, and, in return, they took upon themselves certain obligations in the shipping channels. Those obligations have been largely taken over by other people. This Bill would wind up the Estuary Company, they having sold their land to the Crown Estate Commissioners, and their rights of reclamation will revert to the Crown from which they originally came.
  There are two or three short-term questions I wish to put on the Bill, and then I want to raise some very much larger questions affecting the economy

  285
  of the nation. First, on what I call the short-term issues, is the question of the use of the land which has already been reclaimed or is at the point of being reclaimed. This, to my mind, is a form of enclosure. This is land which has been reclaimed from the sea after certain operations have been carried out by the company and to which there will never again be, so to speak, access for the public. This gives rise to my contention that at any rate some of this land ought to be devoted to smallholdings. I dare say that even the use of some of this land for this purpose would be difficult and perhaps expensive, and I am not sure that the Crown Estate Commissioners have power to develop it for smallholdings if the cost would be too great. This may be something which could be done in co-operation with the county council, the smallholdings authority; or perhaps some other means might be found of bringing about this object. However, I think that people would be happy if some of this land could be used for farming. It is land which is suitable for smallholdings and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider my proposition.
  My second short-term question concerns access. A considerable area of coastline is involved. We know that very often when enclosures take place access to the coastline is restricted. It would be a pity if this were to be the case in this instance. I should like to think that it would be possible for people to enjoy the land which is being reclaimed. In particular, there should be opportunities along this stretch of coastline for the mooring of small boats. There are all sorts of difficulties about this in this estuary. There is a 25 ft. tide in the Wash and the conditions are very different from those which obtain in Holland. People who want to moor boats along this coastline and to have access to them should be catered for, but I am inclined to think that the effect of the Bill will be that to annex the land to neighbouring farms.
  Thirdly, there is the question of the obligation of the Norfolk Estuary Company with regard to the shipping channel for King's Lynn. There is no doubt that originally it was a two-way obligation. They were to drain the land and, in return, they were to keep open the
  286
  channels which shift about extraordinarily from time to time in the Wash as the great deal of research which has been carried out into this problem shows. There was no doubt that there was this double obligation.
  The Preamble to the Bill says that these obligations have been taken over by the Great Ouse River Board—under an Order nude in 1931, the Great Ouse Catchment Board Transfer Order. I am advised that there may be some legal doubt about whether the repealing of the Norfolk Estuary Act—part of the Bill now before is—does safeguard the keeping clear of the King's Lynn Ship Channel. In any event, it is my contention that the only way to keep the King's Lynn Ship Channel in good order is to link it with land reclamation. Merely to say that there has to be consultation between the Crown Estate Commissioners and the various navigation and river board authorities is not enough, and I shall watch the Bill very anxiously in Committee to make sure that this linking of the two aspects is not overlooked.
  I turn from the short-term considerations to my longer-term considerations. I am by nature as well as in politics a conservative If I had my preference I would not see one reed bed or one sandbank or one wild bird's nest in the Wash area interfered with in any way; I would not in any way deny my hon. Friends their opportunities for working small boats there and keeping them there; none of the other amenities or natural features of the Wash would be interfered with in any way.
  Mr. J. M. L. Prior: What about the fishing?
  Mr. Bullard: I shall come to fishing. That is very important. I am a great admirer of the East Coast fishermen and the King's Lynn fishermen, in particular. I can assure the House that none of my plans would in any way upset their interests. In fact, they would greatly help them in pursuit of their calling.
  There are possibilities of much more extensive works in the Wash than can possibly came about if this Bill becomes law. There is also the question of the value of the reclaimed land to the community and the nation as a whole. In years to come, our population will greatly increase. We shall need

  287
  opportunities not only for land settlements but for jobs and there are great possibilities of work being set afoot in the area of the Wash on a much wider scale than this Bill would allow.
  I know all the arguments against rapid land reclamation in the Wash area. think that I have read every report on it. Many of them are very interesting, notably those presented by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. I know that this is a gradual process. I do not want to exaggerate the possibilities nor lead any hon. Member to the conclusion that if a mighty gang could be put to work immediately the land could be reclaimed.
  As I have said, conditions there are not the same as they are in Holland because of the high tide. There is a tide of 5 or 6 ft. in Holland where the Zuider Zee was reclaimed, while the tide is more than 25 ft. in the Wash area. We have a much more gradual process of putting up embankments and of silting. However, the process could be hastened by modern methods. If all this could be formulated into a national plan for land reclamation then, over a period, it would not only provide us with land needed for our growing population but would do good to the spirit of the people.
  It would be a new thing for us to do. We have done a lot of reclamation and development in other countries, but not much here. I would link this scheme with some kind of land settlement operation, perhaps on a similar scale to the proposals of the Land Settlement Association. It would be long-term. It could not realise quickly. But it would be something for people to study and take an interest in and, I repeat, it would do good to the spirit of the British people.
  As soon as one envisages the possibilities of land reclamation of the Wash area there are other possibilities to be seen. Perhaps they are a little farfetched and Utopian, but nevertheless they are worth considering. I will give the House two examples of what I have in mind. First, if we could have road transport across the Wash it would revolutionise the nation's road transport system. Combined with easier access across the Humber and linked with the
  288
  developments along the East Coast of England it would make an extremely important contribution to our economy.
  Perhaps all this is Utopian, but I do not think that it does any harm to look at such propositions from time to time. We are now planning a Channel Tunnel, but I am not sure that it might not be better to divert the resources to be devoted to that to doing some extensive road development work of this kind.
  Secondly, there is also the possibility of harbour facilities on a very extensive scale. It will not be long, even if the Crown Estate Commissioners go on with land reclamation, before there is left in the Wash a very deep channel, right in the middle of the East Coast, easy of access to the Midlands and accessible both to London and the North as well as being in a most strategic position facing Europe. It might provide us with facilities in the distant future from which we would very much benefit.
  Those are some of the long-term possibilities. I go as far as to say that if these could be given reality they would alter the whole complexion of the Rochdale proposals and the Harbours Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) spoke of fishing. I believe that facilities for the fishermen would be augmented and improved by such measures.
  I have drawn attention, as I had intended in my Motion which you, Mr. Speaker, were unable to select, to some long-term possibilities. No doubt they will be thought Utopian and even farfetched, but I am not ashamed of having done so. It is not a bad thing to look imaginatively at these problems now and then.
  Mr. Prior: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the Utopia he has been putting forward is no more Utopian than the possibilities the Duke of Bedford must have envisaged when he employed Vermuyden to drain the fenland in the seventeenth century?
  Mr. Bullard: Exactly. There does not seem to be any mechanism in our elaborate planning machinery for coping with problems like this. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will, I imagine, offer soothing

  289
  words but he and his Ministry cannot possibly deal with the wider aspects I have been mentioning. Neither can my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, because so many other interests are involved. Nor can the Board of Trade, with all its interests in industrial development, Nor can the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Nor, indeed, can my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Science deal with all these aspects.
  I wonder whether it would not be possible to look at the wider and more far-reaching aspects of the matter. In 1846 Sir John Rennie had a plan for draining the Wash, which was the origin of the Acts now being repealed. Nothing much came of his schemes. If something had been done about them, it would have been of great benefit to the country. But the thing fizzled out for lack of enthusiasm. A great deal could have been done if only some of Sir John Rennie's provisions had been adopted.
  I know that my hon. Friend may pour cold water on my enthusiasm in broad terms, and I am sure that he will do so very capably. But I hope that he will say nothing that will debar the possibility of this matter being considered, because I would not like it to be said in years to come that he played a part similar to that which others played towards Sir John Rennie's proposals 100 years ago, thus missing a great opportunity which may be presenting itself and which would be of great benefit to the nation.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. A. V. Hilton: Unlike the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard), I am neither naturally nor politically a Conservative, but he said certain things with which I agree. I do not agree with his suggestion about a road over the Wash. I think that is rather too much to expect. I should like, however, to take up his suggestion that this land or part of it might be utilised as smallholdings. He ended what I thought was a very useful speech on rather a pessimistic note when he suggested that the Parliamentary Secretary would pour cold water on his suggestions. I hope that he will not pour cold water on all the suggestions which the hon. Member has made, because I believe that no firm decision can be reached until a complete survey has been made, and the
  290
  hon. Member for King's Lynn went over quite a number of the points.
  I want it particular to refer to his suggestion that part of the land should be used as smallholdings because, as a member of the Norfolk County Council, I can tell the House that the council farms extensively—I think about 30,000 or 40,000 act es—and it has 1,200 or 1,300 tenants, the majority of whom are doing a good job, many in the constituency of the hon. Member for King's Lynn and in my own.
  Although these tenants are doing a good job on this large acreage, we still have a very Long waiting list of potential smallholders, mainly ambitious farm workers and farmers' sons, and we know that at present it is virtually impossible for a small man to buy a farm. Many of these men are waiting the opportunity to take on a smallholding. Unfortunately, in Norfolk, and, I suspect, in many other parts of the country, it is mainly a question of waiting for dead men's shoes or for somebody to retire.
  Most of this area is in the constituency of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and many of the applicants to the county council live in the Terrington area where much of this land is situated. This is obviously the sort of land that could very well be utilised as smallholdings, especially as the present price of land prevents the Norfolk County Council from purchasing more farms to make into smallholdings. This is land which the sea is giving up—it does not actually belong to anybody, so it would not be taking it away from anybody. Some of it has been reclaimed and some of it is still being reclaimed, and there is a good deal in the suggestion that it would provide many more smallholdings to satisfy this long-felt need. To use some of the land for this purpose would be simple justice, because many potential tenants of smallholdings in Norfolk live in this area and actually work on this land for other people. They should be given serious and sympathetic consideration.
  The hon. Member for King's Lynn said, quite rightly, that there would be difficulties in handing over this land for smallholdings. This is obvious. I hope, however, that the Parliamentary Secretary will take note that in Terrington

  291
  St. Clements we have a very fine experimental farm that comes under his Ministry and which for many years, up to the present time, under a first-class principal and staff, has been doing a splendid job. I should have thought that at least a small portion of this land might be handed over to and come under the jurisdiction of this experimental farm. If some of the land were taken over and used as smallholdings, the experimental farm would be able to keep its eye on the smallholders and they would be able to look to it for advice, which, I am sure, would be readily forthcoming. Only a few months ago a farmer in a neighbouring county handed over to the nation, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, a farm for experimental purposes, and some of this land could very usefully be taken over and used in that connection.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not turn down out of hand the suggestions which have been made. I believe that there is a good deal of merit in them. Before finally deciding to hand over all this land to big business, I hope that he will give serious, sympathetic consideration to the suggestions which have been made.
  7.28 p.m.
  Sir Anthony Hurd: I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) for taking this opportunity to raise our sights a little beyond the scope of the Bill. It is always interesting to look back on what might have been a hundred years ago and to think of what might be achieved in the next one hundred years if we set about it the right way now. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister of Agriculture has to say about the wider visions which my hon. Friend has put before the House.
  Like the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton), I was a little horrified at the idea of roads and industrial development over a part of the county which I regard as peculiarly lovely because of its isolation. I do not live in Norfolk, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn knows what would suit the people of Norfolk much better than I do, but I took a little trouble yesterday to inform
  292
  myself about this Bill because I knew my hon. Friend's views. I also took the opportunity to have a word with the Crown Estate Commissioners and I found that they were not at all averse to putting a broad and wide interpretation on the responsibilities which they would take over under this Bill from the Norfolk Estuary Company.
  My hon. Friend spoke particularly about the need for more smallholdings in Norfolk and the suitability of some of this land for intensive cultivation as smallholdings. That may be true, but, as I understand it, there are certain limitations under the Crown Estate Act, 1961, which rather bind the Commissioners in the scope of their operations. They have authority to do on behalf of the Crown
  "all such acts as belong to the Crown's right of ownership".
  Under Section 1(3) of the Act, it is the Commissioner's general duty
  "while maintaining the Crown Estate as an estate in land,…to maintain and enhance its value and the return obtained from it, but with due regard to the requirements of good management."
  I should think that that rather precludes the Crown Estate from any sort of philanthropy.
  My younger son happened to be a tenant of the Crown Estate in a different part of the country. The Crown Estate Commissioners are good landlords, but they expect a fairly full rent. After all, Parliament requires them to manage the estate in a businesslike way.
  Mr. Bullard: As I understand it, my hon. Friend's argument supports my Motion, namely, that the Crown Estate Commissioners are not likely to be in a position to do just what I think should be done. That is a reason, is it not, for opposing the Second Reading of the Bill?
  Sir A. Hurd: I had not concluded my argument. I have looked up the 1961 Act and I have just given my interpretation of its provisions.
  I was reassured a good deal yesterday when hearing that the Crown Estate is by no means averse to trying to do the right thing, as any big landlord should. I think that it already owns 13,000 acres of land in the fairly close neighbourhood of the Wash. I think that it takes its

  293
  responsibilities seriously and fulfils them properly as a landlord. I have no doubt that on those 13,000 acres there are a number of smallholdings. I should have thought that if further land could be reclaimed it could suitably and with reasonable economy be dealt with as smallholdings. I should not think that that would be an impossibility.
  My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn has reminded us that the Norfolk Estuary Company goes back to 1846. This shows what a very longterm job is land reclamation in the Wash and, indeed, anywhere else. I understand that since 1846 4,000 acres have been reclaimed, most of which have been sold, but that 1,000 acres have been retained by the company which are now being farmed by the company and which would be handed over to the Crown Estate Commissioners, who would pay for it. That is the payment which is covered by the Bill. It is mainly for this 1,000 acres of land which has been reclaimed and which is good farmland. It is the major asset of the company which is being acquired by the Crown Estate Commissioners.
  I understand that there are another 21,000 acres of tidal land in the Wash which might be reclaimed over the years. However, this is a long-term job and it is thought that only about 1,700 acres will come to hand as farmland in the foreseeable future—perhaps in the next 25 years. The Crown Estate tells me that it is prepared to invest £50,000 a year in land reclamation in the Wash over the next few years. I hope that that would considerably speed up the process, because the Crown Estate has a deeper purse than, I think, the Norfolk Estuary Company. I hope that, with all the technical help which it will get from the various bodies with whom it will work in full contact and cooperation, it will be able to press ahead a good deal faster than perhaps would have been economical for the company.
  However, this is bound to be a slow job for the very good practical reasons stated by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn. It is not possible just to put up a bank one year and expect to get farmland produced behind it the next year. As I say, this is a slow job and I think that the Crown
  294
  Estate Commissioners are just the right people to tackle it.
  I therefore think that the House might well approve this Bill, which is brought forward, not by the Crown Estate Commissioners, but by the Norfolk Estuary Company, and entrust the Crown Estate with the obligations and duties as well as the opportunities which have been fulfilled and enjoyed by the company since 1846. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us about the obligations and undertakings which will pass. The points which my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn raised about keeping the channels clear and the other obligations which could affect the business of King's Lynn as well as the interests of neighbouring landowners, whether they bought from the Norfolk Estuary Company or not, are important.
  With those few words, I commend the Bill to the House on broad national grounds. The best way of tackling a difficult job is to entrust it to the Crown Estate, which will, I think, do it better than anybody else.
  7.37 p.m.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I may be the Member of Parliament for Twickenham, but I am an East Anglian by birth. Therefore, I was surprised and rather shocked to find that the Norfolk Estuary Company was to be wound up, because I still have a great affection for that part of the country.
  The Wash is very important to our island, for two reasons. The first is because it has a very deep channel coming in from the North Sea which serves the ports of Boston and King's Lynn. Erskin Childers, as long ago as 1903, in "The Riddle of the Sands" pointed out that if the German fleet invaded Britain from Heligoland the best place at which it could do so was through the deep channel leading into Boston from the Wash. At that time, people became alarmed by the thought of the German fleet coming into the Wash. However, that book pointed to the importance of keeping that navigational channel open for those two harbours. Since the war King's Lynn has become a much more important port than it was before the war. It

  295
  serves the Midlands. Anything which would derogate from its importance would be a real tragedy to the nation as a whole.
  The second reason why the Wash is important concerns the reclamation of the land on the fringes of the Wash which has been undertaken over the years by the Norfolk Estuary Company. This company has had local directors who have known about local problems and it has probably served the county very well. Reclamation of land can be a great danger to navigation. Unless it is done well, it can block up harbours and channels. We have only to look a little further along the Norfolk coast to North Norfolk to see the harm done to navigation by the enclosure Acts of 1760 in the Cley channel and Blakeney harbour. Reclamation has led to the gradual silting up of those harbours. Any reclamation undertaken in the Wash without due regard to navigation could be extremely dangerous for the future.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) that this matter should be looked at as a large national problem. I hope that the Crown Estate Commissioners, in taking over rights and responsibilities for the Norfolk Estuary, will pay attention to the question of navigation as well as to reclamation.
  I rose only to say that this is not just a light local matter which can be dealt with in a few minutes by the winding up of one company and handing its responsibilities over to the Crown Estate Commissioners. It raises some big issues. This is a very important part of our island from both the navigational and farming points of view, and I hope that we shall hear from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that all those interests traditional to this country and to the whole of East Anglia will be properly taken into account by the new estate owners.
  7.40 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): Perhaps it will be convenient to the House if I intervene at this point and say at once that my right hon. Friend
  296
  and I on behalf of the Government are glad to welcome this as a very sensible Bill. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) for raising issues which, I hope, will give me the opportunity to satisfy some of his doubts and anxieties.
  The Crown Estate Commissioners propose to buy the rights of the Norfolk Estuary Company in respect of reclamations in the Wash, and this will give the Commissioners the opportunity to undertake much useful work in an area where one of their very best estates is situated. I am sure that the Commissioners can be relied upon to press on with this reclamation as the land becomes ripe for this to be done.
  One of the short-term considerations with which my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) were concerned was that of smallholdings. The Crown Commissioners are not precluded from letting parts of their estates to smallholders, but, as the House will know, the whole question of smallholdings is being considered by a Committee, sitting under the chairmanship of Professor Wise. This Committee is examining the structure and future possibilities of smallholdings in this country, and my right hon. Friend would not wish to take any decisions of policy until he had received the recommendations of the Committee. I hope that hon. Members will not expect me to go further into this subject at this time.
  The Crown Commissioners share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn that reclamation is a longterm venture which should be pressed forward for the good of the country generally. What the Commissioners are proposing to do by way of reclamation will not prejudice any issues of navigation or land drainage, and they propose to consult the land drainage and navigation authorities about their future reclamation proposals.
  Mr. Bullard: I had not appreciated that my hon. Friend had left the subject of smallholdings. I am rather worried that we should have to wait for the Report of the Wise Committee, because it is the favourite occupation of Governments to wait for Committees to report. I should have thought that it would be

  297
  possible to say something rather more positive now and not to have to wait for the Report. Could not this consideration be put to the Wise Committee so that it could consider the possibility of the land being so used?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sure that the Crown Commissioners will note what my hon. Friend and others have said about this matter, but my hon. Friend must understand that when we are considering whether new smallholdings should be created in this area, as he is proposing, it is only reasonable to wait for the Report of an expert Committee which is examining the subject in all its aspects and in the round before taking a conclusive view. I hope that I carry my hon. Friend with me about that.
  Mr. Bullard: No.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Various issues concerning safeguarding navigational rights and so on were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). These considerations are important and have been mentioned by other hon. Members. On acquiring the Norfolk Estuary Company's reclamation rights, the Crown Estate Commissioners will arrange for the Great Ouse River Board to act as consulting engineers for any reclamation scheme in their area, and I understand that that river board and the King's Lynn River Board are together being advised by the Hydraulics Research Station on works in the Wash which are required as part of flood protection schemes. The Crown Estate Commissioners will similarly wish to be guided by these authorities in carrying out reclamation works in future so that all interests may be properly safeguarded. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept that the Crown Commissioners have every intention of consulting and safeguarding the interests which have been mentioned.
  My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn has drawn an exciting picture of the use to which a fully reclaimed Wash could be put and he said that this might be a Utopia. I would not go so far as to say necessarily that it would be a Utopia, but, taking the long-term view of total reclamation, I have a very great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's ideas. However, the economics
  298
  involved are tremendous. My Ministry's engineers have never attempted an accurate estimate of the cost of reclaiming the whole of the Wash, but it would probably entail many miles of embanked channels for the several rivers draining into it and also providing protection and drainage for the reclaimed land. Nevertheless, we think that the cost might well be about £150 million which, as my hon. Friend has said, is the cost of the Channel Tunnel. I accept that, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed to the commensurate economic advantages which that expenditure on the Channel Tunnel would bring, and I cannot see such economic advantages for the Wash.
  As the reclaimed area would be about 80,000 acres and the cost could be anything up to and more than £150 million, the cost would be about £2,000 an acre, and for many years the land would be unproductive, certainly for agricultural purposes, as it would be mainly sand. Hon. Members may not be aware that tests have shown that much land underneath the Wash is composed of sand, which is valueless for agricultural purposes. Therefore, from the agricultural aspect such reclamation would be uneconomic.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) was rather horrified with the idea that one might have some sort of industrial development or some form of other development in the Wash, and I can appreciate his concern. The hon. Member for King's Lynn was also concerned about transport facilities. However, if we are to consider draining the Wash at a cost of £150 million, the only proposal which would provide an economic justification for so doing would be the establishment of a major industrial enclave. Even supposing that the major problems of fresh water. which is in very short supply, could be overcome and such a project were found to be acceptable or even practicable as part of the Government's general planning policy, the acquisition by the Crown Estate Commissioners of reclamation rights in the Wash would facilitate and not hinder the establishment of such a comprehensive scheme, if at any time in the future it were found to be practical and desirable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn spoke about amenities which might

  299
  be provided in this part of the country as part of the reclamation. He mentioned access. Access will in no way be changed by the Crown Estate Commissioners obtaining possession and continuing the reclamation. If we are thinking of large-scale reclamations, that still applies; but if we are considering amenities in the context of reclamation schemes on the scale which the Crown Estate Commissioners are undertaking then, in spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury said about acceleration of these processes, progress would be relatively slow and the impact of the expansion on amenities would also be only limited.
  I conclude by commending the Bill to the House as a sensible and progressive Measure aimed at eliminating some of the more archaic aspects of land reclamation around the Wash and giving the Crown Estate Commissioners a chance of extending the very useful work which they are already doing in the area. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn will he partially if not completely satisfied that I have not poured cold water on these proposals.
  Mr. Bullard indicated dissent.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Far from it. I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity of putting such exciting ideas before the House. I am sure that they will receive the consideration they deserve, and at some time in the future my hon. Friend's prophecies may come true.
  Mr. Hilton: Would the hon. Gentleman comment on my suggestion that at least part of this area might be linked up with the experimental farm at Terrington St. Clements?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I thought that there was no need to comment on that because, if the Crown Estates Commissioners retain it, and if at some time in the future this was thought a desirable development, and if sufficient land had been reclaimed—and I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that we are talking about a relatively small acreage—the point he made will be borne in mind.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  SAINT GEORGE HANOVER SQUARE BURIAL GROUND BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): The first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. A. Allan) is not selected.
  7.52 p.m.
  Wing Commander Eric Bullus: This is a useful Bill, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House. The Promoters of the Bill are the Rector and Churchwardens of Saint George, Hanover Square, London.
  Briefly, the Bill seeks to remove restrictions on building contained in the Disused Burial Ground Act, 1884, in respect of the disused burial ground belonging to this parish. If development is permitted it can be sold for a suitable amount. The ground is situated off the Bayswater Road in the Metropolitan Borough of Paddington on land opposite Hyde Park and was bought in 1762. It consists of slightly more than 5 acres. The southern frontage of the land is let on long building leases and is not affected by the Bill, which is concerned only with the land at the back which was laid out by the parish as a burial ground and consecrated in 1765. It was closed for burials by an Order in Council in 1854, 110 years ago.
  About 60 years after the closure, the ground was laid out by the parish as a private garden and most of the gravestones were removed and stacked round the wall. Later the northern part of the area was turned into an archery ground. During the war the gardens were used for allotment purposes, and it was during the war that several bombs fell on the area and some buildings were destroyed. The allotments were given up after the war, but the ground has never been reinstated. Apart from the archery ground and some short lease lets for tennis and netball, the land has remained largely derelict, and the Parish Church has no funds available for improvement. It is important to know that the land is not open to the public, and also that few graves can now be identified and that

  301
  rarely is inquiry received about any of them.
  Since the war the parish church has been faced with the problem of continually rising costs of maintenance and a decreasing income, and yet it possesses this potentially valuable site which in its present condition produces no income and has long outlived its purpose. If the land can be used for residential development, it will help to relieve the acute shortage of building land in central London and will at the same time release a considerable sum of money for the use of the church.
  The Bill provides that the proceeds of sale shall be divided between the London Diocesan. Fund, which will probably use it for the building of new churches in outer London, the parish church, where it will he used mainly to form a permanent endowment fund—at the moment the parish church has no endowment—and the ecclesiastical trustees of the Hyde Park Place Estate Charity, where it will be available for grants to the nine daughter churches which formed part of the original parish when the ground was bought in 1762. It is perhaps needless to say that: all these objects are in urgent need of funds today.
  The application of the rector and churchwardens to the London County Council for planning permission for residential development was called in by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister for Welsh Affairs, and a public inquiry was held on 22nd and 23rd October last. The application was supported by the London County Council, by the Paddington Borough Council, and by the Church Commissioners who own almost the whole of the surrounding land. The inspector has made his report in the last few days, and I should like to quote one or two of his relevant recommendations and conclusions. He says
  "In relation to its importance and potential the application site is grossly underdeveloped and largely wasted in its present condition and limited use. Its 'cemetery' notation is obviously redundant.
  The site is adjacent to Hyde Park and in a locality which contains several private squares and open places. The area is not one which is deficient in open space.
  I am of the opinion that the development of the site would be reasonable and in the public interest."
  302
  He continues:
  "The appropriate density of the proposed development must depend upon the detailed layout. Prior to the possession of that information and in view of the urgent need for housing land a reduction of density to below that of the adjoining locality (200 persons to the acre) does not seem justifiable."
  I understand that the Minister accepts the report, and at this time we cannot afford the luxury of five acres of derelict land in the centre of London. This is a useful and essential Bill, and I commend it to the House.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Allan: Those of my constituents who live around this burial ground were naturally surprised and rather shocked when they learned that it was to be developed and built upon. They had bought their houses and their flats or taken lease:, of their property in that area on the assumption that this burial ground would remain an open space. They had good reason to assume that, for this site has been an open space since the Domesday Book was compiled.
  After the Order in Council of 1854, to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) referred, ended its use as a burial ground, the site has been virtually unused except since 1925 by the Royal Toxophilite Society and occasionally by the owners of three tennis courts in the area. The site has been unused except for these rather rural and quiet pursuits. Further, this site of over five acres is part of the 12 acres designated as open space in the Hyde Park Estate Development Plan, which is incorporated in the London Plan and has the approval of a planning authority.
  Those who live in that area were therefore justified by ancient history and by modern planning in believing that this site would remain an open space. When they heard that it was to be developed and built upon they felt some concern, this concern turned to active hostility when they discovered that they were to have no say in the development of an area in which they were so acutely interested. They therefore decided to oppose this blanket and unspecified development. They formed a protection association under very distinguished leadership. They petitioned this House against the Bill and demanded an inquiry. As my

  303
  hon. and gallant Friend has said, that inquiry was held, and the protection association gave evidence.
  In his report the inspector says that the strength of the objections of the protection association was impressive. He goes on to say:
  "Their aim, in acceptance of the fact that the site could not indefinitely continue in its present state, was its preservation and development for recreational purposes: they were not hidebound reactionaries trying to hang on to the site for their private benefit. Their offer to the owners in respect of the lease of the site had been met with a blank refusal but they were still prepared to negotiate. Their letter of approach had stated that the intention was to use the site' as an amenity for the residents' but its use as a public open space would be an acceptable alternative: in such an event it should take the form of a controlled recreational use".
  The protection association further suggested that as there was already a huge development going on in this area the development of this ground could wait awhile. It suggested this particularly because there is some doubt whether there is as much demand for the type of accommodation which will probably be built there as is often supposed. The association also pointed to the considerable amount of additional traffic which would flow, from the development of this site, into the already chronic congestion of that area. On reading the evidence there is little wonder that the inspector was impressed by it.
  The inspector also heard evidence from the Rural Decanal Education Committee indicating that there was no need for a school in that area. Against this, he had to weigh the evidence in favour of development, given by the Promoters of the Bill, and in fairness it should be pointed out that they were seeking to develop this valuable asset not so much for the benefit of their own parish as for the benefit of the Church, as a whole, in London.
  As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, both the Paddington Borough Council and the London County Council supported the development. The L.C.C. placed many restrictions—with which I agree—on its approval, and in the end the inspector concluded that the development was reasonable and in the public interest, although he suggested that certain definite limitations and restric
  304
  tions should be placed on that development. In view of the desperate shortage of housing land in the centre of London my right hon. Friend concluded that he must support the inspector in the decision that he had arrived at. In doing so my right hon. Friend, too, reiterates the stipulations made by the L.C.C., and also notes the interest of the Fine Art Commission in any future development.
  My right hon. Friend made his decision only last Wednesday. I heard about it on Thursday, as, I believe, did the Promoters and those who were opposing the Bill. Until my right hon. Friend's decision was known there was little object in trying to come to a compromise on the Bill, although I was in more or less continuous touch both with those who supported the Bill and those who tended to oppose it.
  Time has been very short since my right hon. Friend's decision, and I have talked only to the leaders of the protection association, but, as one would expect from men of such eminence, they recognise that they cannot stand in the way of reasonable development of an area such as this. The stipulations made by the L.C.C. and imposed by the Minister, coupled with a requirement of consultation—this is the point of the Instruction which I shall subsequently seek to move—lead those who have hitherto opposed the Bill to believe that the development would be reasonable. Therefore, although I do not actively welcome the Bill, I do not intend to oppose its Second Reading.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: It is with some diffidence that I intervene in a debate in which I have no constituency interest; indeed, I know nothing of the St. George Hanover Square Burial Ground, or the rector, or the protection association which has been formed to combat some of the provisions of the Bill. But I am interested in the more general question of the provision of housing land in Greater London. A year ago the White Paper on London Employment: Housing: Land, was published, and in paragraph 53 we were told by the Minister that
  "As many additional houses as possible must be built inside London."
  Therefore, we should welcome the Bill.

  305
  But when I examined it more closely I was somewhat surprised to find that in the case of burial grounds a Private Bill of this nature is needed before any development can take place, no matter how long ago the relevant Order in Council was made giving effect to its cessation of use as a burial ground. I am wondering whether the Bill does not raise a question of wider importance. Should we have to go through this procedure every time a disused burial ground is brought into use for some better purpose, such as residential or educational building, as is proposed in the Bill? It would be much better if we had a procedure which covered any disused burial ground, so that we did not have to treat one individually in this way.
  I note that the land will be available only for residential or educational purposes. That is very sensible. But how shall we ensure that it is a residential and educational purpose of the right type? By which I mean that it is quite possible for this land to be disposed of by the present owners and for a property developer to erect luxury flats on it. I do not think that would be desirable, because there is plenty of luxury accommodation available in central London. There is a gross shortage of land for local authorities to use for housing purposes. This is a difficulty which all the London boroughs and the L.C.C. have had to face for many years and here there exists a possibility to alleviate that difficulty. I should like some assurance that this land may be offered first to the L.C.C. and not to some property developer.
  Miss Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devon-port): I wish to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan). I have a slight interest in this matter because, although my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing-Commander Bullus) said that there were no allotments on the burial ground, my grandmother had one and I had one during the war and there are some under cultivation.
  I am disturbed at the thought of this land being developed for luxury flats. They would be bound to be luxury flats because the rents would be far
  306
  to expensive for ordinary tenants. I would prefer to see the ground left as an open space for use by people in the Paddington area, or for use for some educational purpose. The ground has been neglected by the Vicar and the Warden; of St. George.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South mentioned tennis courts, and I used to play tennis on the courts. It has beer stated that the ground is near Hyde Park. But there are no facilities for tennis, netball or even toxophily in Hyde Park. I realise that toxophily is not practised by many people, but more tennis courts and netball courts might be provided.
  A playing space is badly needed in that part of Paddington, and I hope that the need to keep this as an open space will be considered so that it may be somewhere for people from the neighbourhood to come to play games. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North said that there are plenty of private squares in that area. The word "private" should be emphasised as no one may enter these squares unless he resides locally and possesses a key. I consider that this valuable piece of land should be left as it has been since the time of the Doomsday Book, as an open space.
  I understand that 96 acres of ground are being developed in the neighbourhood, and I would have thought that to add this piece of ground would be overdoing that type of building in this part of London. I believe that it has not been possible to sell some of the existing property and the owners have had to furnish their accommodation and let it to members of the Diplomatic Corps because they have been unable to obtain other tenants. In the Bill it is stated that the ground could be used for some useful purpose. Its use for building would not result in providing accommodation for people on the long waiting lists for houses in the area. Its use as an open space would provide an opportunity for young people to play games, and I am not aware of any other place where there is an open space in the neighbourhood.
  I am not particularly interested in the fact that money is required by the Church of St. George. I consider that the church has had its day and, in saying

  307
  so, I am not saying anything which I have not already said to the vicar. There are no people living in the neighbourhood of the church. I understand that there is a very small congregation which attends Sunday services, and there are services for workers from the surrounding shops. I do not think it is a good suggestion that the land is needed to keep St. George, Hanover Square going. Other charities may be more deserving, but I do not consider it a good argument that permission should be given to sell this land.
  There is a reference in the Bill to the use of the site for residential and educational purposes. If it cannot be kept as an open space for all time, I should like serious consideration to be given for its possible use for educational purposes, and then part of the ground might be used as a playground. If the Bill is considered by a Committee, I hope that regard will be paid to the congestion which exists in this part of London. If flats are built there I presume that the residents would possess cars, which would mean that there would be more cars in an area which is now over-congested. I refer to the area including Connaught Street, Albion Street and the Bayswater Road. This matter should be taken into consideration by those advising the Minister. There is considerable over-building in this area, and I think that the figure of 200 persons to the acre is high. It would not be possible to accommodate them on the site unless there was provided a building of at least eleven storeys.
  The new Greater London Council is to be formed, and I think it would be a good idea to delay any decision about this ground until that authority comes into being; because, obviously, it would be able to take a wider view of the matter and consider far more points than we have been able to raise tonight. I hope that if the Bill goes to Committee cognisance will be taken of the matters which I have raised. I should be very sorry if this site is built on. I should prefer it to be kept as a permanent open space or, if that is not possible, that it should be used for educational purposes.
  308
  I think it unfair to say that almost all the graves are completely unidentifiable and that since 1935 the land has remained largely derelict. It is derelict because the vicar and the wardens have not co-operated with local residents who offered to take it over on a lease of seven or of thirty-one years and pay rent. Had that offer been accepted, it would not have got into its present derelict state. There are two graves there, those of Laurence Sterne and Paul Sendly, the father of English painting. Whatever may be done to the ground in future, I hope that some attempt will be made to preserve the graves or that some plaque will be put up to commemorate the fact that these people were buried there. This may be the last chance to save what is a real oasis in the centre of London.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: In view of what the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) said about the Rector and Churchwardens of St. George's, Hanover Square, I think I should say a word or two in their defence, although I do not happen to have any personal knowledge of them. It seems that their position is rather like the position of those responsible for some of the churches in the City of London from which the residential population has ebbed away, but who are faced with the responsibility of maintaining buildings of considerable architectural and historical merit. No doubt, therefore, it is very difficult for them, particularly since we have been told that hitherto there has been no endowment fund for St. George's.
  Apart from that single point, I agree very strongly with what the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said about this matter. I am not in the least impressed by the fact that an inspector conducting a public inquiry found that the proposal was reasonable and in the public interest. Such phrases as those have been used repeatedly to cloak some of the worst acts of vandalism of the last few years—of which, goodness knows, there have been far too many. We were told that the destruction of that irreplaceable and beautiful Coal Exchange was reasonable and in the public interest. This is just jargon. In this context the words "in

  309
  the public interest" merely mean what is convenient to the bureaucrats.
  We all probably sympathise with the objects of the promoters of the Bill, the objects for which they desire to raise these funds, but I must say that I share the views and the doubts expressed in the last two speeches; so it may be said that there are all-party reservations and doubts about the desirability of this Bill. I think there is much to be said for keeping this site as an open space, as the hon. Lady suggested, possibly for the use of children only, rather as the Foundling Hospital site in Bloomsbury is an invaluable open space for the use of children only.
  As hon. Members may know, there is a notice at the gate which says that adults will be admitted only if accompanied by children. This does a tremendous amount of good and it is enormously valuable right in the centre of London. I do not think the fact of the proximity of Hyde Park is relevant to this point, since I imagine that most of the parents in that neighbourhood would rather that their young children had a small and enclosed open space to play in safety than to run about in that vast, rather dangerous park.
  Similarly, I agree strongly with the point which was first made by the hon. Member for Orpington that we do not want any more luxury flats in the West End of London. Every day in The Times we see hundreds of luxury flats offered at 15, 20 or 30 guineas a week, or whatever it may be. It is ridiculous, almost hypocritical, to use what is rightly described as the desperate need for building land in central London for housing purposes as an excuse to give some avaricious developer the green light to go ahead and build more blocks of, probably hideous and at best undistinguished, luxury flats.
  Before we allow this Bill to pass—and it is by no means certain yet that we shall—I hope we shall have some assurance that it will be possible either for the L.C.C., Paddington Borough Council or, maybe, the new Greater London Council—I do not quite know what the timing is, but one or other of those local authorities—to have the chance of acquiring this land for the only kind of housing that is socially
  310
  useful at this time, and desperately needed: that is, council housing.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. James MacColl: I have to declare in interest in this matter in two respects. I am a member of Paddington Borough Council which has been quoted as a body which has expressed views on this matter and which as the minor planning authority has been a party to the planning discussions which have gone on about the use of this land. Secondly, I am a member of the Diocesan Fund, which is a residual beneficiary under the Bill and will get a share of the proceeds of this transaction if it goes through. I am not in any sense personally or individually taking any part in the consideration of the development.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) that it is perfectly true that in 1947 or 1948, I do not mind admitting, I coveted this site for housing. I do not want to introduce an odium politicum into a debate which has an odium theologicum already, but it so happens that when we were in power in Paddington we built council fiats south of the Bishop's Road, the Hallfield Flats, and wanted to build more flats in that part of the borough, but we did not get beyond the Hallfield development. The position now is that under present legislation it is quite impossible for any local authority to consider building cheap flats in that part of London, because the land is extremely expensive. There is no doubt about that. Therefore, I quite agree with my hon. Friend.
  I am not romantic about the development and I am quite certain that the development will be extremely costly. The point is, which is the best decision? Is it best to keep this area sterilised and have such benefit as it will bring to the people, or is it best to develop it, I think rather cynically, in order to use the money for other purposes? I see one of the Church Commissioners present. I do not want for a moment to say that I agree with the justification of the Church Corn missioners. Much of their development in that area has gone too far on the side of cynicism and too little on the side of benevolence, but in general that is a dilemma which any trustee has to resolve.

  311
  We have this choice. We have a site adjacent to the Bayswater Road and the junction of Edgware Road, which is not an area teeming with children. It is an area which is over-churched in the sense that no one would want to build more churches in that area but would probably want to get rid of some of the redundant churches which are not needed there. We have the chance of using the site for development. The value of this proposal, which I think is not an ungenerous arrangement, is that what is proposed is that the proceeds from the sale of the site should be used as to a quarter for St. George's Hanover Square, which is not now parochially concerned with the site. The churches around the site would get a benefit of one-quarter. The important thing is that the other half would be available at large for the use of the London Diocesan Fund, of which I am a member. It is for that reason that I think that this is of very great value indeed.
  What happens to the Church is that people often point an accusing finger at it and say that the Church is never alive, that it has all over the place old, wasted, unused and undeveloped land and sites in the wrong places, and that the whole dispersal of the resources of the Church is wrong. However, as soon as it is argued that, balancing the pros and cons, this is a case in which one should sell a site in an over-churched and overcrowded area in the middle of London and apply the proceeds for the benefit of other parts of the diocese where people are crying out for churches, then immediately everyone, including people who have done nothing for years, begins to find that the tombstones are attractive and contends that the site ought to be used for all sorts of purposes.
  The London County Council could have used the site for other purposes. We could have used it for other purposes, but we did not. Therefore, when the Church proposes to do something about it, I do not believe that this is the time to say that it must be held up because it has all sorts of implications and that there are all sorts of dangers in it. If that argument held good, the whole fire would he drawn out of the Church's attempt to reorientate and redirect its activities in a socially necessary direction and reassess all its resources, which is
  312
  what it is being urged to do. I therefore hope that the House will let the Bill go to Committee.
  The hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan), in the way which one would expect from him in performance of his duty to look after the interests of his constituents, advanced their point of view with his usual dedication and enthusiasm. The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) used the most impressive argument of all. If she had said that she wanted to be buried there, my heart would have failed me: we could not have gone on. However, the hon. Lady graciously waived her claim. We all hope and think that it will be many years before she will require to use it. Therefore, it would hold up things for a very long time if we waited for the hon. Lady to grace it.
  I believe that the main obstacle has gone. The Bill should go to Committee. There some of our colleagues who are wise and careful people will examine the interests of the different people involved. I am sure that they will consider the points raised tonight. I hope that as a result something will be done. I found my support mainly on the principle that on balance it is a good thing to take money out of the centre of London and use it on the outskirts of the diocese. For this reason, I hope that the Bill goes through.
  8.33 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for making it so clear that he is in favour of the Bill receiving a Second Reading. I was not sure whether some other hon. Members were in favour. I remind the House that the Bill is purely to decide whether the restrictions which are inherent in a burial ground should he removed. As I understand it, that is the extent of our concern on Second Reading.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan) rightly put forward the objections, fears and anxieties of his constituents. In that he was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), who has a personal knowledge of the area. One appreciates that any land use problem is very likely to interfere with private interests from time to

  313
  time. Despite the "sarcasm"—perhaps that is the right word—of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) about the words "wider public interest", that is, after all, what planning is about—whether it is right in the public interest to override private rights. I do not think that it was very wicked of a qualified man, who held an inquiry, who happened to be employed by the State, to use that term, nor do I think that he earned the rather scathing tone of voice with which the hon. Gentleman used the word "bureaucratic". The hon. Gentleman does not happen to agree, but the inspector's choice of words seems to me to be very much to his credit.
  In reply to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), whether the land is used for municipal housing or for private housing will depend entirely upon whether any of the local authorities concerned wish to acquire it. I agree with the hon. Member for Widnes that it is likely to be expensive land, and this may well be the limiting factor. I should like to make it clear that by giving his decision my right hon. Friend has not in any way tied the hands of the Committee which, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, will consider the Measure upstairs.
  The inspector's report has already been quoted and I do not think that I need quote from it further, except to say that my right hon. Friend felt that in view of the acute shortage of housing land in London it would not be right to refuse outline planning permission on the lines suggested by the applicants.
  I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will give the Bill a Second Reading because it seems that the Committee is the right place to sort out and thrash out the various pros and cons which have been expressed tonight and the many others which, no doubt, will come to the minds of the objectors.
  Question put and agreed to
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. R. Allan: I beg to move,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert in the Bill provisions for consultation by the owner with the Saint George's Burial Ground (Tyburn) Protection Association before application for detailed planning permission in respect of the burial ground is made.
  314
  My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) has made a powerful plea for the development of this site for recreational purposes. As she knows, this is the main contention and view of the tenants protection association mentioned in the Instruction. I believe that the Promoters of the Bill are prepared to accept this and, if they are, the voice of the residents in this cause will be heard when the detailed ph ns are drawn up. The Promoters, it they accept this Instruction—as I understand they will—are showing that they have neither the wish nor the intention to ride roughshod over local interests.
  I should like to add how much appreciate the courtesy and consideration they have shown to me during our negotiations. I believe that as a result of this compromise, aid if we get consultation, there is reason to hope that the burial ground and the surrounding area may even be improved by the type of development envisaged in the Bill to which we have given a Second Reading.
  Wing Commander Eric Bullus: On behalf of the Promoters, I can give the assurance that the Instruct on will be followed. I think that I may also reasonably say on behalf of the Promoters that there is no desire to ride roughshod over the local residents but that every consideration will be given to their views.
  Question put and agreed to.

  INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND DEFENCE ORGANISATIONS BILL [Lords]
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

  INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND DEFENCE ORGANISATIONS BILL [Lords]

    Clause 1—(INTERNATIONAL HEAD QUARTERS AND DEFENCE ORGANISATIONS.)
    Amendment moved: In page 1, line 7, after "party", insert:
    "being arrangements made solely under the authority, and with the express authorisation. of the Security Council of the United Nations Organisation".—[Mr. Warbey.]
    8.39 p.m.
    Mr. Warbey: Now that the Committee has had time to digest the hors d'æuvres, as it were, we can proceed to the main dish. I was saying earlier that the Amendment is not only desirable but essential both to bring the Bill into conformity with earlier legislation on the same subject and to establish a clear constitutional position which does not derogate from the powers of Parliament and the Queen without express authority.
    In regard to the previous legislation, when moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said that to understand the Bill we must go back a few years. She took us back rather more than a few years—in fact, 12 years—to the time when the protocol referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum was drawn up and initialled by this country but not ratified. Since Second Reading, however, I have done a little homework, as I expect the hon. Lady has, too, and discovered that I was in error in suggesting that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, to which the hon. Lady referred as the background and basis of Clause 1(1) of the Bill was and had remained a dead letter. In fact, a number of Orders in Council have been made under it.
    I discovered, however, that the 1950 Act was only a consolidation Measure. It embodied three earlier Acts, known as the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Acts, 1944, 1946 and 1950. All of them were based on the concept of according immunities and privileges of the type and using exactly the same words as are contained in Clause 1(1) of the Bill. They conferred immunities and privileges on international organisations as corporate bodies and upon their members, staffs and representatives. The most important was the 1946 Act, which enabled the Government by Order in Council to designate the United Nations as a corporate body and to confer the necessary immunities and privileges upon the members of the Secretariat of the Organisation and also upon persons attending assemblies of the United Nations held in this country and on other persons serving the Organisation.
    That was a new and significant departure in British legislation. It was
    316
    equivalent to establishing the United Nations as a supranational political authority. It was necessary that it should be done, because the charter of the United Nations, which the House of Commons earlier had ratified and endorsed, conferred such a status upon the Organisation.
    In the subsequent legislation, the Orders which we made under the consolidation Act for the first few years applied entirely and solely to the United Nations and its Specialised Agencies. There is a whole list of them, including the World Health, Organisation, the I.L.O., the F.A.O., U.N.E.S.C.O., the Universal Postal Union, and the World Meteorological Office, all exclusively world organisations of which this country is a member. It was not until 1954 that the Conservative Government introduced an Order under the Act which related to a military alliance—to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—but even that was restricted to N.A.T.O., in, so to speak, its civilian aspect and not to a military headquarters. The same applies to the Order dated 27th June, 1962, conferring the same immunities and privileges on the Central Treaty Organisation. None of these powers was conferred on these organisations as military organisations.
    This is the first Bill, therefore, in the history of this country which seeks to confer partial sovereign powers on an international military organisation. This is the grave and historic departure from precedent in the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, I do not object to it in principle, because I recognise the need for combined defence in the modern world, but if we are to do this we must do it for an organisation to which we have already accorded supranational stature, that is to say an organisation which we by deliberate act on our part have accepted as having a higher political authority than the Government of this country.
    There is only one organisation to which we, by treaty and by ratification of treaty and by the explicit endorsement of the House, have accorded such powers, and that is the United Nations Organisation. These powers include the power to order the employment of British Armed Forces. I must say with respect

    317
    to the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department that I very much wish that we had on the Government Front Bench one of the defence Ministers to answer for the defence aspects of the Bill, because it is concerned with military organisation and nothing else.
    8.45 p.m.
    It is extremely important that we should know what powers are being given to other authorities, non-British authorities, to command British armed forces and take decisions which may involve their use in war. That decision is one `N h i eh is regarded as the essential symbol of national sovereignty. The power to decide whether or not one employs the armed forces of one's country in war is reserved by all countries as a national prerogative, as a symbol of sovereignty, and the nations of the world have not abandoned that sovereign right to anybody except the United Nations. They have done it, and we have done it, too, by signing the United Nations Charter and specifically by accepting Articles 25 and 42–49 of the Charter, which compel us to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.
    Article 25 does that in so many words, and Articles 42–49 apply that power of the Security Council to take decisions binding upon member nations to the field of enforcement action—that is, of military action, the actual employment of military forces, and the employment of military forces in the form of combined defence forces.
    I do not think I need remind the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State of the exact wording of the Articles of the Charter to which I am referring, but if she has any doubts, I refer her specifically to Articles 42, 45, 48 and 49. I will just quote the first part of Article 48 because this is relevant to my Amendment:
    "The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the main tenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine."
    Thus, the Security Council has powers not only to decide that military action shall be taken by armed forces; it has even the power to decide which nations shall carry out that obligation. In other words, it has the power to organise com
    318
    bined military action, combined defence, and to order this country to contribute to that combined military defence.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. I have been listening very carefully to the deployment of his argument, but I cannot see how he is relating all this to what the Bill does, which is really merely to apply what one might call diplomatic privilege to a headquarters which happens to be in this country. I should be grateful if he would assist me as to how what he is now saying about the Security Council applies to this rather limited Bill.
    Mr. Warbey: I felt, Sir Robert, that it was necessary to establish the responsibility of this country and the Government of this country to the Security Council of the United Nations in the field of defence, because that is precisely what my Amendment is about. My Amendment proposes that the arrangements to be made under this Bill, the orders to be made under this Bill, the privileges and immunities to be granted under this Bill, shall be granted to the United Nations and not to any other body. I was saying that, in my submission, we have no power to grant them to any other military organisation, because such powers involve according the right to determine whether or not British armed forces are employed, and that is a sovereign power of the British Crown and Parliament.
    This is way I was concerned to show that the United Nations is the only international organisation on which we have expressly conferred this power, and that, therefore, my Amendment is necessary in order to bring the Bill within our constitution, and that if the hon. Lady and the Government want to apply this Bill to any other military organisation than one set up under the United Nations they must first of all bring in another Bill in order to give the necessary sovereign power to that other military organisation which they have in mind. That is the reason why I was making this point at some length.
    I want to say now only that I know of no other treaty entered into by this country by which we have abandoned or derogated from our national sovereignty to give certain privileges outside our

    319
    national law and, in effect, of being able to ignore our national law, other than the United Nations Charter. This certainly does not apply to the North Atlantic Treaty, as the hon. Lady will know. I think it would probably not be in order at this stage to give reasons why this Clause cannot in law apply to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or military headquarters under its jurisdiction, but I shall, perhaps, be able to do that on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    On the Amendment, I only say that I hope that I have shown that it is constitutionally necessary and that it is also desirable because it would be very undesirable to set up in this country and to confer these rights and powers contained in this Clause on an international military headquarters or defence organisation which is not capable of adequately defending this country.
    9.0 p.m.
    When one speaks of combined defence arrangements, as this Clause does, one must think of arrangements which contribute to the defence of our people and of other countries against war and its consequences. But the general view of almost all independent observers is that the military alliances to which the country is a party are irrelevant to the question of the defence of our people against the most probable causes of war.
    I finish my case for the desirability of this Amendment by quoting from an important article in the Observer of 5th January last, called "Order out of Chaos." It said:
    "The most obvious possible causes of world war are two—nuclear proliferation and the risk of local frictions becoming worse, which might involve the two super powers. As the two super powers cannot possibly act in sufficiently close harmony to provide a world police force themselves, this must be done by United Nations forces drawn from other powers. Britain should offer her services to the United Nations for this purpose."
    In other words, British armed forces should be members of the United Nations combined defence arrangements. It is to these United Nations arrangements, which alone are capable of safeguarding the British people and the peoples of the world against the most
    320
    probable causes of war in this age, and to them alone, that we should grant the rights and privileges accorded in this Bill.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): I must recommend the rejection of this Amendment. As the hon. Gentleman has himself said, he wishes to limit the application of the Bill to international headquarters and defence organisations set up pursuant to arrangements expressly authorised by the Security Council of the United Nations. This, of course, would defeat the primary object of the Bill, which is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters set up pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty.
    Mr. Warbey: There is nothing whatever in the Bill about what the hon. Lady is saying.
    Miss Pike: Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman will listen he will understand more fully the argument I am deploying. This Amendment would defeat, as I say, the primary object of the Bill which, as I explained simply and clearly on Second Reading, is to ratify the Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters set up pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty and to regulate the status of such headquarters and their personnel in the United Kingdom and Colonies in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol.
    The hon. Member appears to hold the view that the only kind of international military organisation to which it would be justifiable to apply the provisions of the Bill would be one set up under the authority of the Security Council. I remind him that Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations clearly recognises the right of member States to make arrangements for collective self-defence.
    The North Atlantic Treaty provides for arrangements of this kind and the international headquarters to which the Protocol relates are simply part of these arrangements. There is nothing in the Charter which prohibits the setting up of such headquarters without the authority of the United Nations. I remind the Committee that the wording

    321
    in the Clause to which the hon. Gentleman referred—
    "…any arrangements for common defence to which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are for the time being a party …"
    closely follows the wording used in Section 1(2) of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952. This Bill is in the main an extension of that Act. It would be wrong to introduce legislation which would limit it in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests. I would say to him that there is absolutely no question of setting up a supra-state.
    The effect of the Bill is not to confer supranational powers on the headquarters and organisations designated under it, but only to regulate their legal status and that of their personnel and to provide certain immunities and facilities desirable for the effective exercise of their functions. All that it does is to define the extent and nature of the inviolability granted. Similar provisions to those contained in Clause 1(1) of the Bill have already been made, as the hon. Gentleman said, in the case of numerous international organisations under the Immunities and Privileges (International Organisation) Act, 1950. I think that the hon. Gentleman enumerated some of these. I should have thought that there was nothing very exceptional in what we propose to do by means of the present provisions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he exaggerates the implications of the Bill and of the Protocol in the speech which he made today and in his Second Reading speech.
    This Bill merely seeks to extend provisions which are already in effect in this country, and to limit the Bill in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests would of course, as he will recognise, defeat the whole object of the Bill. I therefore urge the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: This is an obscure little Bill, and the hon. Lady has not done much to enlighten us. We have been told repeatedly since the last visit of the Prime Minister to Moscow that the days of the cold war are over, and now we are establishing some kind of international headquarters. If the cold war is over, what do we want an international headquarters for—what is the hurry?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we cannot discuss whether it is an international headquarters or not on this Amendment. It is clearly a limited one to introduce the United Nations into the provisions of this Bill whereby certain diplomatic immunities are given.
    Mr. Hughes: I support the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey). I fail to see that this is an urgency at the present time, and I fail to see what case the hon. Lady has made against the proposition that this headquarters should be a United Nations headquarters. If it is not to be a United Nations headquarters, it must be some other kind of headquarters. I therefore assume that this headquarters is part of i he machinery for continuing the military organisation which is thought necessary as a result of the Government's policy.
    I do not believe that this country is the place for an international headquarters of this kind; it is not safe enough. In view of till; possibility of this country being destroyed by hydrogen bomb warfare, this is the worst place in the world in which this headquarters should be set up. If we set up this headquarters, it will be leaked upon by the people against whom we are supposed to be preparing for war as a further step in the organisation for a possible war.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but he is going right outside the Amendment, which is concerned only with granting diplomatic immunities and privileges to a headquarters which is set up here. We cannot on this Amendment go into the question of whether the headquarters should be here or not. That is quite outside the scope of discussion on this Amendment
    Mr. Hughes: I fail to see why there should be diplomatic immunity of any kind for this organisation.
    Are we setting up a new kind of embassy in this country? Diplomatic immunity is supposed to apply only to embassies, but here we are giving diplomatic immunity to some other organisation. I believe that there are enough diplomatic immunities already. In fact, many of them are being abused. People

    323
    with diplomatic immunity are breaking the traffic laws of this country.
    I therefore believe that the hon. Member has found a flaw in the Bill and that this Amendment is perfectly justified.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Warbey: I propose to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State a few questions which I hope she will be able to answer more effectively than she answered the points which I put in proposing my Amendment. I warn her that if I do not get full and satisfactory answers to my questions on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, it will be necessary for me to put them again when we come to the Third Reading. That will perhaps give her the opportunity to consult the Ministry of Defence, which I repeat ought to be the body responsible for this Bill and for answering questions about it.
    The hon. Lady keeps saying that the object of the Bill is to ratify a Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty. That is not the object of the Bill. If it is, why is it not put in the Bill? That is the first question I ask the hon. Lady.
    On Second Reading, the Joint Under-Secretary of State said that the privileges and immunities conferred under the Clause were similar to those conferred under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950; and she said it again just now. Why is there no reference to the International Organisations Act, 1950, in the Clause? Why does not the Clause derive from that Act as do the Acts conferring similar powers on the International Finance Corporation and the International Development Association which were expressly related to the 1950 Act? Is there no mention of that legislation because the Bill makes a substantial departure from the principles of the 1950 Act?
    Miss Pike indicated dissent.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Warbey: The hon. Lady shakes her head. Perhaps she will tell me why if there is not a substantial departure it is not related to the 1950 Act, which
    324
    contains all the privileges and amenities of Clause 1(1) in almost the same words. I suspect that the only reason why the Bill is not related to the 1950 Act is that for the first time powers of this type are conferred on an international military organisation—and I emphasise the word "military".
    Will persons on technical missions to the international headquarters or defence organisations designated in the Clause be immune from arrest and detention? The hon. Lady will know that, under Orders made under the 1950 Act, immunity from arrest and detention is conferred on persons visiting this country as technical experts on missions to international organisations here. Will such immunities be granted, for example, to security officers of N.A.T.O. visiting this country in order to snoop on British citizens and perhaps tap their telephones or invade their private houses in order to try to see whether there are any of the classified documents mentioned in the Bill as "archives"?
    What is the exact distinction between an international headquarters and a defence organisation? Why is there this differentiation, and what is the basis of the distinction? By definition, international headquarters are international military headquarters set up under combined defence arrangements. In what way are they distinguished from defence organisations?
    I am aware that on Second Reading the hon. Lady referred to Article 14 of the Protocol and said that there were no defence organisations; but some are about to be set up. That Article refers to the whole or any part of the present Protocol or Agreement. In order to be able to understand the Bill, hon. Members must study not only the Protocol, but the Agreement from which it is devised, a document of some 30 pages including the French text, 15 pages of English text. This simple, short, technical little Bill involves a certain amount of research and study on the part of hon. Members if they are to understand its implications.
    Article 14 of the Protocol says:
    "The whole or any part of the present Protocol or of the Agreement may be applied, by decision of the North Atlantic Council, to any international military Headquarters or organisation (not included in the definitions…of this Protocol) …"

    325
    That is to say, other than the existing ones such as S.H.A.P.E. and SACEUR and so on established pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty.
    Paragraph 2 of Article 14 says:
    "When the European Defence Community comes into being, the present Protocol may be applied to the personnel of the European Defence Forces attached to an Allied Headquarters and their dependents at such time and in such manner as may be determined by the North Atlantic Council."
    What an extraordinary business this is. The European Defence Community never did come into being. Are we going to bring it into being? Is it to be brought into being when this country enters the Common Market? Is that what the Government have in mind? Is this Bill in reality part of the Government's preparations for taking the country into the Common Market and establishing through the European Economic Community not only an economic community, but a defence community, and making provision for the headquarters of that defence community, or defence organisation associated with the community, to be established in this country?
    Is that the purpose of the Bill? I ask that because the hon. Lady has not made a frank statement of the practical purposes of the Bill. During the Second Reading debate she told us some nonsense about the Government not having had time during the last 12 years to bring in this Bill, but she knows that in another place the Government spokesman, Lord Derwent, said that the Bill was essential and urgent. If it is essential and urgent what are the defence organisations which are to be brought within the scope of the rights conferred in this Clause?
    Those rights are rather more far-reaching and significant than the hon. Lady has suggested. She has tried to say that they are no more than such privileges and immunities as we have granted in the past to all kinds of persons and organisations. That is true, but they have not been granted to the members of a combined defence organisation. We have never done that in the history of this country, and I want to know why it is being done now.
    Moreover, these privileges and immunities are not being conferred on a Power which can reciprocate, because
    326
    they are not being conferred on a nation State, or on the Government of a nation State. They are being conferred on an independent organisation. How does an independent organisation reciprocate in respect of the powers which we confer on it—the immunities and privileges which we grant to it? Exactly to what body corporate are we proposing to accord thee privileges and immunities? What political authority is responsible for the exercise of the rights granted under the Protocol? Article 4 provides that the rights and obligations which are grantee or imposed
    "upon the sending State or its authorities in respect of its forces or their civilian components or dependents shall, in respect of an Allied Head quarters and its personnel and their dependents…be vested in or attach to the appropriate Supreme Headquarters and the authorities responsible under it,"
    with certain exceptions. Therefore, apart from certain exceptions the rights granted in the Clause will be conferred upon a supreme headquarters—a body which will have a juridical personality, and which, by being given these rights and immunities, is also being given a political personality.
    In other words, what is being done is to convert the Supreme Headquarters of N.A.T.O. into a supranational authority to which this country is responsible. In this Bill the Government are smuggling in something that they could not get through in the North Atlantic Treaty itself, and something which they cannot get through the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, but something which they can get through by a technical device—by taking one unit set up under the North Atlantic Treaty Council and according to the unit of the military supreme headquarters supranational authority. Let us not forget that in the event of hostilities breaking out in any part of the North Atlantic Treaty area the supreme headquarters will have the power to give orders to the British armed forces assigned to it. Or will it? I should like to know the answer.
    I am afraid that the hon. Lady will not be able to tell me. She will have to consult her defence colleagues. Will the bodies set up and designated under the Clause at any time have the power to command the use of British armed forces in war? If I cannot have an

    327
    answer to that question I shall not be able to support the Clause. If the hon. Lady is not able to give a clear and definite answer it will be an admission that, under the cover of this innocent, simple and technical little Bill, the Government are smuggling in the power to hand over to some other authority—not the United Nations—the power to send this nation to war and to send British armed forces to their deaths.
    9.30 p.m.
    Miss Pike: I am afraid that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) is being somewhat obtuse in his questions on this Clause. I accept that he may have found it difficult to follow my argument during the Second Reading debate, and that he finds it difficult to appreciate the reasons for this Bill. But apart from his criticisms, the only other criticism which we have heard is that the Bill was not introduced sooner. It is the general wish of hon. Members that we should be in the position to ratify the Protocol of the North Atlantic Treaty.
    The hon. Gentleman asks why that is not specifically mentioned in the Bill, but it is not necessary that it should be. I said that the primary object of the Bill was to enable us to ratify the Protocol and I think that that will be welcomed by the majority of hon. Members.
    Mr. Warbey: Can the hon. Lady say why we cannot ratify the Protocol without accepting this Bill?
    Miss Pike: If the hon. Gentleman will read the Protocol carefully, he will understand. I have already explained, and I am sure he is fully aware, that it is only by applying the 1952 Act to headquarters and headquarters personnel that we shall be in a position fully to ratify the protocol.
    The hon. Gentleman asks why there was no reference to the 1950 Act in the Bill. The Bill says that an Order in Council may give certain immunities to headquarters. The fact that these are the same immunities as are referred to in the 1950 Act does not mean that we should refer to that Act. It is better to have direct legislation than legislation by reference. The majority of the relevant points raised by the hon. Member do not refer to this Clause or
    328
    the Question before the Committee. They would apply when Orders in Council are brought before the House for affirmative Resolution. The hon. Gentleman can then ask his questions. We are now taking enabling powers because this is an enabling Bill. I can assure him that there is nothing in the Bill which gives immunity from arrest or detention to any one.
    Mr. Warbey: Can the hon. Lady say that there will be no such immunity from arrest or detention given by an Order made under the Bill?
    Miss Pike: Any Orders will be brought to the House for affirmative Resolution. At present there is no intention that any such Orders should be made.
    On Second Reading I indicated the sort of powers we had in mind and I outlined the headquarters and defence organisations which it was intended to designate. When these Orders in Council come before the House the hon. Gentleman may seek answers to the questions which he has asked. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this Clause, which is the heart of the Bill, is essential. He will be able to express his fears at a later date and have the opportunity to obtain adequate answers to his questions.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2.—(EXTENSION OF ACT TO COLONIES AND DEPENDENCIES.)
    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Warbey: There is a small point on this Clause and the extension of the Bill to territories outside the United Kingdom such as the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Colonies and Protectorates. Could this include a territory such as the British base in Cyprus? This is a point of some interest, because clearly if the Bill were extended, or if an Order in Council could be made extending its scope to the British base area in Cyprus over which we have sovereignty, some interesting and useful possibilities would arise. It would, for example, then be possible to invite the United Nations Organisation to set up an international defence headquarters in the British base

    329
    in Cyprus. I should have thought that the British base in Cyprus might be a very suitable place for any international defence headquarters for the United Nations Organisation.
    The United Nations Organisation is called upon more and more to put peacekeeping and peace-enforcing forces into the field. At the moment there is a proposal that the United Nations Security Council should authorise the sending of an international force into Cyprus. It would be extremely valuable if this international force sent by and under the authority of the Security Council could he in that base. Although my Amendment was not accepted, the hon. Lady will realise that the sense of it could still be within the scope of the Bill. She and the Committee have not ruled out the setting up of a United Nations organisation and headquarters.
    It would be very valuable if the Government would make this possible, should be very willing to co-operate in giving speedy passage to any Orders in Council which would make it possible for the United Nations to send an international force into Cyprus and to use the British base area in Cyprus as its headquarters.
    Miss Pike: The only Colonies and Dependencies which we at present envisage the Bill being extended to are Malta and Gibraltar. Technically a base in Cyprus could come within the scope of the Bill, but there is no intention at present of extending it there. Consultations wtih Gibraltar and Malta are at present proceeding.
    Mr. Warbey: I am rather surprised at the hon. Lady's reply because the Government, as everyone knows, have just been engaged in the exercise of trying to get a N.A.T.O. force into Cyprus, They have invited all the countries of the N.A.T.O. Alliance to contribute contingents to an international force to go to Cyprus. How on earth is that international force in Cyprus to operate, unless it is able to establish a headquarters there?
    Miss Pike: The hon. Gentleman has given the case for the speedy implementation of the Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule.—(ADAPTATIONS OF VISITING FORCES ACT 1952.)
    Miss Pike: I beg to move, in page 5, line 11, at the end to insert:
    Application of law relating to home forces and settlement of claims
    7. Sections 8 and 9 shall apply in relation to a headquarters and its members and property and persons connected with it as they apply in relation to a visiting force and its members and property and persons connected with it.
    It is necessary to move this Amendment, because paragraph 7 of the Schedule has financial application and for that reason was left out when the Bill was an another place to avoid questions of privilege.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question proposed, That this be the Schedule to the Bill.
    Mr. Warbey: I should like to ask the hon. Lady a point which arises most clearly out of the definition paragraph. Paragraph 1(1) states that:
    " 'military member of a headquarters' means a member of any country's forces who is for the time being appointed to serve in the United Kingdom under the orders of a headquarters.'
    As I understand it—here one must have reference to the Protocol to which the hon. Lady referred—the headquarters will be either allied headquarters or supreme headquarters. The members will be under the orders of the headquarters. Which, in the last resort, is the political authority responsible for ensuring that in the execution of those orders the military members, or for that matter the civilian members, do not go beyond or abuse the privileges, immunities a id rights granted to them under the Bill? Which is the political authority responsible?
    For example, which is the political authority, responsible for prosecuting them in cases which cannot be tried in United Kingdom courts? As the hon. Lady knows, under the Visiting Forces Act provisions are made that members of visiting forces can be exempt from trial in certain circumstances in United Kingdom courts, but the understanding is that they shall be tried by the law

    331
    of their own country, by the law of the sending State.
    In this case the authority from whom they receive their orders is not a State but a headquarters. Will the headquarters, therefore, be responsible for seeing that its members are brought to justice if necessary?
    9.45 p.m.
    Miss Pike: The hon. Member indicated that he appreciates that the 1952 Act is extended in the Bill and that the conditions of that Act are applicable in this case. He asked which political body would be responsible in certain circumstances. It would be the Department concerned. For example, if it were a transport offence it would be the Ministry of Transport which would be responsible.
    Mr. Warbey: With respect, I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood my question. I meant which non-British political authority would be responsible. I was making the point that under the 1952 Act we waive our right to try people in British courts for certain offences, on the understanding that they will be brought to justice by some other authority. Which is the authority which will bring them to justice in this case?
    Miss Pike: It would be the military headquarters of the country concerned on the military side.
    Mr. Warbey: The military headquarters?
    Miss Pike: The military court of the country concerned, within the headquarters on the military side. On the political side the political council will be responsible in these cases. However, I think that the hon. Member is reading far too much into this. As was explained on Second Reading, if it were a question of a member of the Dutch forces being in trouble with another Dutchman, there would be no difficulty. In all these
    332
    cases, as the hon. Member knows, the obligations under the 1952 Act are extended. That is the purpose of the Bill; to extend this to the headquarters. I can assure the hon. Member that I am not being difficult about this. It is just that I do not appreciate the difficulties which are in his mind.
    Mr. Warbey: This is an important point and we should get it cleared up. This is a question of people who are members of headquarters and who are under the orders of a headquarters. A person who is under the order of his own Government or State is responsible to that Government or State and he can, if he is brought into a court, plead that he was acting under the orders of his Government or State. Will the people referred to in the Schedule be able to plead that they were acting not under the orders of any State or Government but under the orders of a headquarters? Will they have that defence available to them and, if so, who will be responsible for their actions?
    Miss Pike: I must repeat that there is no change in the present position. The definition of a military member of the headquarters means a member of any country's forces serving in the United Kingdom under the orders of that headquarters. The expression does not include any member of the home forces; and the rest of the position is adequately covered by the 1952 Act.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.

  LACE INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY)
  Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Revocation) Order, 1964 [draft laid before the House, 30th January], approved.—[Mr. D. Price.]

  FLUOROACETAMIDE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]
  9.50 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: It is unfortunate that we have to try to compress into a very few minutes a debate on such a subject with so many far-reaching effects and side effects as fluoroacetamide. However, fortunately enough, the various aspects relating to recent occurrences at Merthyr Tydfil and Smarden are fairly fresh in the minds of hon. Members. Therefore, to save time in the limited period available, I will confine myself to reminding the House of a couple of salient features in each of those outbreaks.
  The first outbreak occurred at Merthyr Tydfil a few months ago, when approximately 100 animals, chiefly dogs and cats, died as a result of being fed with the flesh of a horse which had been grazing on a local refuse tip. It was subsequently established that the tip was believed to have been treated with a fluoroacetamide preparation to kill rats which were infesting it. By some process more or less unknown, the poison was transferred from the refuse tip into the horse which had been grazing on or around the tip and was then transmitted to the cats and dogs which ate the horse after it had been slaughtered.
  The second outbreak of this fluoroacetamide poisoning occurred more recently at Smarden, in Kent, where about 30 animals, including cattle from a milking herd, have had to be destroyed or have died as a direct result of chemical sludge which has seeped into a ditch or stream from an adjoining factory owned by Messrs. Rentokil Limited, which was, and still is, manufacturing a number of chemical preparations including fluoroacetamide.
  It has been established that at Smarden fluoroacetamide left the factory in a type of chemical sludge and percolated by way of the water course into several ponds within a mile or two of the factory. It has been established by tests that not only are the waters of the stream and the ponds in the vicinity of the Rentokil factory highly toxic due to the presence of fluoroacetamide, but that
  334
  the sludge or silt in the bottom of the stream, the soil in the surrounding fields and, moreover, the grass which grows in that soil contain a certain amount of toxic organic fluoride.
  The up-to-date position as far as the House is concerned is perhaps completed by the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to the House on 3rd February. I, for one, welcomed the steps which my right hon. Friend announced as having been taken. In my humble view, they were sensible and practical steps, though possibly not quite adequate to deal with the situation as I see it. I particularly welcomed the statement that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would amend the Poisons Rules—and this has been done—to ban the sale of the chemical for insect control and to further restrict its sale for rodent control. These restrictions came into effect on 7th February.
  The score is still pretty wide, inasmuch as there are still many people who are authorised to purchase or who can authorise others to purchase this poison. Anybody may buy it, for instance, on the production of a certificate signed by a medical officer of health of a local authority or a port health authority, or by an authorised officer of the Ministry of Agriculture or the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. I shall try to persuade my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture that what his right hon. Friend and mine has outlined is not sufficient a rid that this poison, fluoroacetamide, should be banned completely. To begin with, there are many other efficient and older rat poisons about which more is known and to which fewer dangers are attached. It is obvious that a great deal is still unknown and will be for many years unknown about the properties of fluoroacetamide. Its use, which is still authorised as a rodent killer, is the very use which caused all the deaths at Merthyr Tydfil.
  I would ask my hon. Friend also whether it is as safe as is apparently thought by some people to put this stuff into sewers because, as I have said, a great deal is unknown about its properties. Most sewers lead to sewerage farms and most modern sewerage farms return the sludge as a form of compost fertiliser to be applied to farm and

  335
  garden land. Is this safe when we do not know how long fluoroacetamide can remain potent?
  The second point is connected with the siting of factories engaged not only in the production of fluoroacetamide but many other chemicals which are applied to farms and garden land in various forms and in varying degrees of toxicity. I feel that it is not too much to expect manufacturers of insecticides, pesticides and fungicides not to put their factories in the centre of some of the most fertile counties, as has been done and is still being done. It is not too much to expect them to site the factories in the more barren, the less populated and least cultivated parts of the country, preferably on the coast near to some deep sea water. Better still, why not put it in the Orkneys, or in the middle of the Sahara Desert as far as I am concerned. The time has come when there should be specific control—
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]
  Mr. Farr: Specific control must be exercised over where factories turning out such chemical products are established and operated. It would perhaps be preferable if the Ministry of Housing and Local Government were in future required not only to examine the sites where factories are now operating to prevent another Smarden occurring somewhere else in the country, but also carefully to regulate and position any factories which start production of these poisonous chemicals.
  Finally, I want to put to my hon. Friend a point to which I am sure he will be able to give me the answer in his usual knowledgeable manner. Can he tell me whether there is any lesson that we can learn from the two incidents to which I have referred? I understand mat inorganic fluoride is perfectly safe and is, indeed, a substance which is used in the fluoridation of our water supplies, but I also learn that there is a type of aquatic plant which can turn this inorganic fluoride into the highly
  336
  toxic organic fluoride which has caused the tragedies in Merthyr Tydfil and Smarden, and I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that this highly dangerous aquatic plant is of a non-indigenous variety.
  10.2 p.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on raising this subject so soon after the Minister's statement. There are two things on which I differ from him. I do not understand why he has such a detestation for the Liberal leader that he wants to send this stuff up to the Orkneys. Scotland will not welcome this suggestion.
  Secondly, we were not satisfied—I myself was not satisfied—with the statement made by the Minister. His suggestion that this poisonous material should be dumped into the sea did not bring any satisfaction to the fishing industry. On the other hand, it has brought it considerable alarm. Only today I received a letter from the chairman of the British Trawlers' Federation, and this is what he has to say about the suggestion that the substance should be dumped in the sea:
  "We are very concerned, as you may well imagine, at the prospect of having yet another consignment of poisonous material dumped into the sea off the British coast. I refer, of course, to fluorocetamide waste from the Smarden factory. We are far from satisfied that this persistent and virulent poison will lie on the seabed, and not be carried by upward currents to the fishing grounds. Even its inventor has said that he does not know what dilution is necessary to render the poison harmless, or whether in fact it can ever be rendered harmless. If this material is nevertheless dumped in the sea, and at some time in the future there is just one serious illness attributable to consumption of fluorocetamide through eating fish, our whole industry could he ruined for months and perhaps for years and the nation deprived of a valuable item of diet. I understand that the whole matter is to be raised in an adjournment debate tomorrow; and should greatly appreciate your help in ensuring that the Minister is made publicly aware of our anxiety."
  This, to us, is an extremely important industry, providing a considerable part of the nation's food supply, and I am not exaggerating, as this letter proves, in saying that the people in this industry view with alarm the very suggestion that this poison should be placed in the sea. The Minister said in reply to Questions at that time that he had had an assurance from so-called experts that this

  337
  would be rendered harmless if it were to be dumped into the sea at a particular distance but, after all, it was the experts who advised on the use of this material to begin with and they proved to be wrong. So what greater assurance can we have that another assurance, which the experts have given the Minister, that the stuff will do not harm to the fishing grounds, can be relied on?
  This is extremely important to this industry. It is already going through a very difficult time, and any further threat to it will be more than it can stand. I do not want to detain the House now to enlarge on it, but it is a very serious matter, and I want on behalf of the industry an assurance from the Minister that nothing will be done which will in any way affect the fish life in our oceans, if this is a threat to fish life, then we want an assurance that the Ministry will find some other way of disposing of this stuff rather than merely dumping it into the sea.
  It will be interesting also to have the Minister's opinion on that part of the letter which says that the man who invented this does not find any way in which to dilute it, to counteract it. I am not expert enough to give a judgment on the matter, but that is what the letter quite clearly says, and if it is true then dumping it into the sea, although that will get the stuff out of sight, will not take away the danger which this material contains. I certainly hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance in this debate, not only to the industry but the people of this country, that this valuable foodstuff is not going to be affected by any action the Minister may take to dispose of this refuse.
  10.3 p.m.
  Sir Richard Thompson: Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), I am mainly interested in the question of the disposal of this deadly waste, so poisonous that it is lethal even when in a solution and hardly to be detected by chemical analysis. It is said that one part in 10 million is deadly to animals, including dogs.
  I asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about this last week, and he seemed to think that by dumping it in a depth of two and a half miles at sea there would be no danger. I am
  338
  quite sure that he was sincere in that belief, but I wonder whether he was really well advised. To start with, the proposition was to put the stuff out to sea, but it was pointed out that that would not do, because waste dumped in that way does not fall to the bottom of the sea and become innocuous, but that some will float, some will drift about on the swells, and so on.
  Today I see from the Daily Telegraph that it is now apparently intended to put 2,000 tons of East Kent into 40-gallon steel drums topped with a concrete layer and put them off the coast. So obviously somebody has had second thoughts about the wisdom of just chucking it out loose even in two-and-a-half miles of water. I suspect that if this is done, long before the drums reach a depth of two and half miles they will cave in under the enormous pressure of water, and then we shall be back where we started, with this deadly stuff released at sea and having heaven knows what effects.
  It was said in answer to my question, and those of other hon. Members last week, that all this was the result of an industrial accident. I disagree with my right hon. Friend about this. The truth is that the process of manufacturing this stuff requires the equipment—pipes and so forth—to be flushed through with water from time to time in order to carry away the silt and sludge which the process forms.
  Originally, this was got rid of in some way which I have not been able to extract from my hon. Friend. The trouble really arose because when things froze up la; winter and lorries which used to take the stuff away refused to run, the stuff was run out on waste land at the back of the factory. But how was it disposed of before then? How do other manufacturers get rid of their wastes? Is my hon. Friend sure that a chemical so difficult to detect can be said to lave been wholly removed when these two 2,000 tons of soil have been excavated?
  What about the infected water from this? It is draining into a specially dug ditch and is being taken by lorries to be put into the sea at Dymchurch. I shall be told that this is great dilution, but if it is necessary to drop the soil

  339
  into the depths of the ocean, is it right to allow the water to be put into the sea so close to the coast?
  Is it not time that we looked afresh at this systematic poisoning of the soil, the sea and the air? The scientists, who have so often been cocksure and wrong before, are quite capable of being wrong again and the stakes here are far too high to presume on any assumptions that they might be right. We have to be careful that we are right this time, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give satisfactory assurances.
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. John Wells: There is very widespread anxiety in the country about this matter, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would reply to one or two small points. If he cannot do so tonight perhaps he will write to me.
  First, I understand that this substance was manufactured in America, where it has been banned for about four years, and that it has only been reprocessed in this country. That seems to be a curious story and perhaps my hon. Friend will write to me on the point. It seems very strange that it should have been banned and then reprocessed.
  Secondly, I go the whole way with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) in his point about the ultimate dilution of the water and the dumping of it in the sea at Dymchurch. That is surely an extremely dangerous practice and we should have some assurance about that tonight.
  Thirdly, there is the question of the workers involved. I understand that one worker at the factory was suspected of some other disease but nothing really concerned with this affair. Perhaps my hon. Friend can also elaborate on that tonight.
  There is also the fundamental fear of many horticulturists and fruit growers in Kent lest this one villainous, murderous chemical should lead to a general witch-hunt of chemical production. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for introducing this valuable debate, but I am a little
  340
  alarmed about his remarks concerning the siting of chemical factories.
  It is essential to the horticultural and agricultural industries that small chemical factories be sited sensibly, and I should not like to see a witch-hunt against well-established factories. There is one in my constituency which is of great value to the horticultural industry. I should not like to see a witch-hunt because of one chemical.
  10.15 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and giving me a chance to go into rather more detail than has been possible so far. He and others have expressed concern about recent events involving poisonous chemicals. That anxiety is shared by many other hon. Members and is widespread throughout the country.
  My right hon. Friend and the Government generally—for this matter transcends Departmental responsibility—fully share this concern and are determined to take the most active measures both to clear up the two accidents at Smarden and Merthyr Tydfil and to ensure, as far as they can, that such accidents do not occur again. If, in die course of my reply, I am able to remove some of the misapprehensions and anxieties which have gained currency in recent weeks then the debate will have served a most useful purpose.
  First, I will deal with the incident at Smarden. The House will recall that my right hon. Friend made a statement on 3rd February and explained the background to the action taken by the Government up to that date. For a proper understanding of the matter it is important to appreciate that the accidental contamination of a small area of land at Smarden was not caused by the use of fluoroacetamide as an agricultural spray or as a rat killer.
  It arose from the manner in which the industrial wastes of the manufacturing process were disposed of, as a result of which the poison leached into an adjoining farm ditch and from there to farm ponds. My hon. Friend the Member for

  341
  Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) was right there, but I repeat that this was an industrial accident and that it was not caused by the use of fluoroacetamide either as a rodenticide or as an agricultural insecticide.
  It is unhappily true that in any highly industrialised nation like ours accidents do happen despite all precautions, and Smarden is an example. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, may indeed have touched on one of the reasons for this. Nevertheless, to protect the public the Government are urgently considering whether there are any gaps in our defences which should be closed against the consequences of accidents, or, indeed, of carelessness of this kind.
  The important step to be taken at Smarden is to remove the original source of contamination. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, this consists of about 2,000 tons of soil, including sludge removed from the ponds and ditches into which the poison seeped. The material is lying outside the factory premises and must be removed to a place of complete safety.
  I should like to dispose of the suggestion that the poison may have penetrated the ground on the factory site to a considerable depth and that it may be necessary to dig down about 18 ft. This is not so. The factory and the surrounding farms in that part of Kent stand on Weald clay hundreds of feet deep and this is a soil which is extremely impermeable and difficult to drain. My right hon. Friend is advised that water cannot penetrate more than a very few feet at the most, and this section of the soil will be removed. It is included in the 2,000 tons.
  As hon. Members will know, the manufacturers have accepted advice to deposit the contaminated material off the Atlantic shelf. This deals with the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South. The site has been recommended by the eminent biochemist Sir Rudolph Peters who has worked with fluoroacetamide for many years. It will be dumped off the continental shelf far from the fishing grounds. I understand the point of the hon. Member for Leith concerning the anxiety of the trawler fishermen, and I
  342
  entirely agree with what he said about the importance of this industry. I assure the hon. Member that the expert independent advice of someone who is an acknowledged expert in this matter is that this chemical dumped at this depth at this place off the continental shelf is the correct method of disposal.
  The movement of the material into containers will start next week under Government supervision. Trial fillings will begin in the next day or so to determine the safest methods. As was mentioned in another place last week, the advice we were given was that it was not necessary to put the material into containers, but in practice it is difficult to ensure leak-proof conveyance with-not doing so. Actual shipping will start in March, and all precautions will be taken. We are advised that the chemical is highly soluble in water and the enormous dilution which would take place when it was released in very deep water would in any case ensure that no possible harm could be done to marine life. This is the point to which my right hon. Friend the Minister referred when he was answering questions in the House on 3rd February.
  The Government will continue to maintain a close watch on the situation at Smarden after the soil has been removed. Ditch and pond water is monitored by the Kent River Board and the Government Chemist is undertaking the analysis of samples. This will go on as long as necessary, and if any further remedial action is required, including, if necessary, the removal of further soil, the Government will see that it is taken promptly.
  The manufacture of fluoroacetamide at Smarden was stopped in the middle of the third week of July. As far as farming in the area is concerned, the Ministry's local officers are in close touch with the situation and will provide advice to farmers on the land affected. The veterinary surgeons in the area understand the position only too well. We all hope that continued sampling of the affected ditches and ponds, together with the remedial action which is being taken, will show that the resumption of normal farming need not be long delayed.
  Although some concern has been expressed about the extent of the area

  343
  affected by the original escape of poison from the factory, there is no evidence to support suggestions that contamination may have spread beyond the affected ditches and ponds and some of the fields immediately adjoining. Disposal of the substance at Dymchurch was approved because the dilution of the substance is so great. This has been approved by the river board, which has been in very close touch and consultation throughout.
  It is I think deplorable that the local residents, already much concerned about this unfortunate incident in their midst, should be regaled, as has happened from some quarters, with stories about the decimation of all animal and insect life in the area. This is not so, but I certainly understand their concern.
  I turn to the incident at Merthyr Tydfil. This also involved an organofluorine compound, probably fluoroacetamide, but arose from a different cause. In this case a number of cats and dogs died last September in circumstances which suggested poisoning. This was quickly traced to the flesh of a pony which had been sold as pet food. Urgent inquiries by my Ministry showed that the pony had been found dead near a rubbish tip at Rhymney, a few miles from Merthyr Tydfil, and sent by the police to a local knackery. A scientific investigation established that the pony's flesh contained an organo-fluorine compound, possibly fluoroacetamide, and this was announced by my Department at the beginning of October. Despite the most careful inquiries, it has not been possible to establish how this poison entered the pony's body. The most likely explanation—though this is not capable of proof—is that the pony picked up some rat bait, possibly on the tip near which its body was found.
  May I sum up these two unfortunate and unpleasant incidents. The first, at Smarden, was due to an industrial incident at a factory manufacturing the material. All the evidence concerning the second, at Merthyr Tydfil, goes to show—although I cannot give the House positive proof on this point—that the pony died as a result of eating some of this rat poison.
  Although there has been no evidence of any damage caused by the proper
  344
  use of this chemical in agriculture, nevertheless, because of these incidents, the Government have thought it right to widen the safety margin. As the House will be aware, its sale as an insecticide has been banned since last Friday under an amendment of the Poisons Rules. Steps have been taken to call in stocks or otherwise to dispose of them safely.
  It has been suggested that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was slow in amending the Poisons Rules, but I am sure that hon. Members will agree that he acted with the utmost expediency. Hon. Members will appreciate that no crop spraying or use in gardens would have been necessary while these matters were under consideration by the Home Secretary, because of the time of year—October until now—when these things are not in general use.
  The sale of this chemical, even for killing rats, has been placed since last Friday under more severe restrictions. It may now be purchased only on a certificate signed by a medical officer of health, or an authorised officer of one of the Agricultural Departments, for use by employees of a local or public health authority or a pest control business. Hon. Members will realise that on the licence to be issued to any of these authorised persons it will be stated where the chemical can be used—ships, aircraft, industrial premises and, of course, sewers. The restrictions on the use of this poison under the new procedure brought in by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary answers the criticisms of hon. Members. The licence not only specifies where it is to be used but what amount of the chemical is to be bought. My right hon. Friend has issued a circular to local authorities advising them of the changes and re-emphasising the need for taking especially strict precautions when this substance is used.
  Its use against rats has cleared complete sewer systems in this country for the first time in history and there is a distinct possibility that whole towns can be cleared, with great benefit to health and sanitation. There may be other poisons capable of doing that, but this is the first poison which has accomplished it. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend is anxious that no reasonable safeguard for the public should be neglected and at

  345
  his request the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances is again reviewing its use as a rat poison and will report to my right hon. Friend as soon as possible. As my right hon. Friend said in the House on 3rd February:
  "I fully realise that there are many important lessons which we must learn from the accident." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1964; Vol. 688, c. 823.]
  I have been asked why the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances recommended the use of this chemical in the first place. The Committee thoroughly examined fluoroacetamide in the light of all the knowledge and data available at the time, including data as to any residue which might be left after use. It concluded that it could be safely used, provided that certain precautions were strictly observed, and the House will forgive me if I repeat that neither of these two incidents arose from the recommended use of this chemical. However, as they arose from other causes, the Government thought it right to take the action which I have described.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough mentioned a kind of plant, but I can assure him that while it occurs in South Africa and Australia, it is not indigenous here and does not grow here, so that his anxieties on that can be cleared. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) that the chemical is not brought
  346
  from the United States and in part manufactured over here, but that the complete process is undertaken in this country.
  I cannot pretend that there are not lessons to be learnt and that anxiety has not been caused by what has happened in these two incidents, but I hope that the House will realise that the Government are taking all precautions and all the steps in their power to prevent further incidents of this nature. The matte: is being referred to the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances so that the best possible advice on this subject can be obtained.
  Mr. Charles A. Howell: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House where the refuse was dumped before this industrial accident?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It was not dumped in the sense that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The amount of waste concerned was not causing difficulty at the time, and indeed it is not certain that there was real waste to be dumped.
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

MALTA
  Human Rights (Judgment)
  Human Rights (Judgment)
  Elections
  Elections
VIRGIN ISLANDS
  Admiralty Jurisdiction
  Admiralty Jurisdiction
BASUTOLAND
  Constitution
  Constitution
NYASALAND
  Mr. Pondepande (Death)
  Mr. Pondepande (Death)
COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
  Technical Assistance Officers
  Technical Assistance Officers
BARBADOS AND BRITISH GUIANA
  Universities
  Universities
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Noise (Industrial Processes)
  Noise (Industrial Processes)
  Survey and Development Division, Cardiff
  Survey and Development Division, Cardiff
  Building Regulations
  Building Regulations
  Smoke Control
  Smoke Control
  South-East Regional Planning Study
  South-East Regional Planning Study
  Fluoroacetamide
  Fluoroacetamide
  Ash Green Village, Trentham
  Ash Green Village, Trentham
  Petrol Filling Station, Trentham
  Petrol Filling Station, Trentham
  Penkhull and Trentham
  Penkhull and Trentham
  Contaminated Land, Smarden
  Contaminated Land, Smarden
HOUSING
  Planning Permission, Scarning
  Planning Permission, Scarning
  Grants and Subsidies
  Grants and Subsidies
  Building Costs
  Building Costs
  Milner Holland Committee
  Milner Holland Committee
SCIENCE
  Information Officers (Advertisement)
  Information Officers (Advertisement)
  Deafness
  Deafness
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Departments (Expenditure)
  Government Departments (Expenditure)
  Incomes Policy
  Incomes Policy
  Excise Duty (Cameras)
  Excise Duty (Cameras)
  Civil Servants (Representations to Members)
  Civil Servants (Representations to Members)
  Unestablished Civil Servants
  Unestablished Civil Servants
SCOTLAND
  Electricity Supplies (Remote Areas)
  Electricity Supplies (Remote Areas)
  Herring Industry
  Herring Industry
KENYA
  Land
  Land
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Mr. Winston Field (Statement)
  Mr. Winston Field (Statement)
EDUCATION
  Educational Planning Mission for Tanganyika (Report)
  Educational Planning Mission for Tanganyika (Report)
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Amphetamine
  Amphetamine
  PRIME MINISTER (PARTY POLITICAL MEETINGS)
  PRIME MINISTER (PARTY POLITICAL MEETINGS)
  POST OFFICE (HOUSEHOLD DELIVERY SERVICE)
  POST OFFICE (HOUSEHOLD DELIVERY SERVICE)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farms, North Staffordshire
  Farms, North Staffordshire
  Cereals
  Cereals
  Agricultural Subsidies
  Agricultural Subsidies
  Fluoroacetamide
  Fluoroacetamide
  Exports
  Exports
HOSPITALS
  Stroud General Hospital
  Stroud General Hospital
EMPLOYMENT
  Aberdare and Mountain Ash
  Aberdare and Mountain Ash
  Scotland
  Scotland
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
  Advance Factories, Scotland
  Advance Factories, Scotland
RAILWAYS
  Rail Closures (Aberdare)
  Rail Closures (Aberdare)
TRANSPORT
  Bus Trailers
  Bus Trailers
BRITISH ARMY
  Recruitment (Scotland)
  Recruitment (Scotland)
PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
POST OFFICE
  Shakespeare Commemorative Stamps
  Shakespeare Commemorative Stamps
ROYAL NAVY
  Leukaemia
  Leukaemia
  H.M.S. "Implacable"
  H.M.S. "Implacable"

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

APPOINTMENT OF STAFF AT L.C.C. REMAND HOMES
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the appointment of staff at London County Council remand homes is carried out with due care and efficiency.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, the appointment of staff at the two remand homes run by the London County Council is the responsibility of the Council. The information before my right honourable friend does not suggest that this function is discharged without due care and efficiency.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but is he aware that there has been a very disturbing case recently? There is at the moment a housemaster employed by the L.C.C. in gaol for gross indecency to a boy at a remand home, and when the boy's father complained to the Home Office, the Home Office told him that there were no grounds for considering him unsuitable for employment at an L.C.C. home. The same man had had live previous convictions before being employed by the L.C.C., two of them for gross indecency.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the Home Office did not say that in the letter to which my noble friend refers. What they said was that at the time there was no reason to suppose that there was anything
470
against the man. This was a very unusual and regrettable case; according to my information there was an unusual combination of factors, including the use of a false name in the application, the forging of a reference, and a grossly misleading statement by a referee.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I respectfully agree with what the Minister of State has said? We all regret this circumstance, as we are bound to do. There was no offence against a boy in the remand home itself. Apart from that, and in addition to what the Minister of State has said, is he aware that one of the referees was a priest whom the Council consulted? He knew the man, and he gave the impression that he was satisfactory, which, on the information before me at the moment, he should not have said. The Council takes a lot of care in these appointments, for which it is difficult to find suitable applicants. In any case, the man is out of it now, and I am sure everybody will have learned a lesson. The matter was subsequently
considered by juvenile court people and a Home Office representative, and they agreed with the conclusions of the Council. It would be a pity to exploit this situation too much against an authority which takes a lot of trouble in its appointments.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I would bear out what the noble Lord has said, that there was no offence committed against any boy in the home. This is a matter for the London County Council, but they have shown us the trouble they take to try to get the right people, and there is no system which might not go wrong on some occasion. This was an extremely rare occurrence, and I quite agree with the noble Lord that the London County Council take every possible care they can to see that the right people are employed.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to a forged reference. Surely the falsity of the document would be discovered when the official or the Committee referred to the supposed signatory of the reference; surely that would be the case. Or do the Committee or Council accept references without verification?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I do not think I can go into the matter of the actual reference which does not concern the Home Office in any way. In this case, the reference was forged. The London County Council wrote to the man who was supposed to be giving the reference and got a satisfactory reference back. In fact, the answer was forged. This case slipped through. The man was employed for only a short time before it came to light, when he was first of all suspended, and then dismissed. I do not think I can go any further than that.
LORD SALTOUN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

SMOKING IN CINEMAS AND THEATRES
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider prohibiting smoking in cinemas and theatres.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are strongly in favour of people not damaging their health by smoking, wherever they may be, but this is a matter for persuasion, not prohibition, and a health education campaign is being vigorously developed.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but is he aware that for an extremely long time one has never been allowed to smoke in cinemas and theatres in France; and does he not agree that it is now time that Her Majesty's Government gave some sort of lead to the anti-smoking campaign by doing something definite?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers that, may I ask him whether, while Her Majesty's Government continue in office, we may continue to enjoy a little freedom and the exercise of free will?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, may I reply first to my noble friend Lord Swinton? I would say the answer is undoubtedly, Yes. In reply to my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, I would certainly agree with him that it would be very pleasant, particularly for those of us who do not smoke, if other people did not smoke in cinemas or theatres—or, indeed, in hotels or restaurants. But that is precisely one of the difficulties. Once we start on a policy of prohibition, where do we stop?
As regards what we are doing, we are pursuing a very active campaign of health education. It is run centrally by my Department and the Ministry of Education, and locally by the local health and education authorities. We receive a lot of valuable assistance from news items and features in the Press, on the wireless and on television, and in a quiet way I even try to forward the campaign myself. Perhaps I might recall that last week, when we were debating the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, on Road Accidents, I went out of my way to inform your Lordships that, whereas in 1962 in Great Britain 6,709 people were killed on the roads, in the same period 26,383 people were killed by lung cancer—very nearly four times as many.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask him whether he has examined the public health legislation of the country passed during this century? He says that he relies upon persuasion—to persuade people not to smoke, and so protect the health of the people. But he will find in every field of public health, whether it is infectious diseases, tuberculosis or even insisting that midwives should be qualified, that it has been necessary for the Government to legislate and so compel people to conform because they would not be persuaded.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I would not set myself up as an authority on all the public health legislation in the country, but I am bound to say on this matter of smoking that I do not take such an authoritarian point of view as does the noble Baroness. I am quite certain that the policy which we have been pursuing is right—namely, the policy of doing everything possible to make the facts about the hazards of smoking known to

473
the public so that they can draw their own conclusions. I do not believe that there can be many people in this country to-day who are not aware of the facts; and whether they draw what the noble Baroness or I would think were sensible conclusions on these facts is really a matter for them.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this shows the necessity for freedom?—and I must apologise to my noble friend. Is he aware that most of us who have been consistent smokers for more than sixty years, with advantage to our nerves and general outlook on life, have never yet had medical proof that smoking is a direct cause of cancer? Nor has anybody informed us what is the cause of cancer.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Earl, with all his authority as the Leader of the Opposition, should, so long after we have had these authoritative reports on this matter, try to throw doubts on the facts which have been established; and I cannot go with him on that.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: You have never brought the facts to me.
LORD NEWTON: I certainly agree with what the noble Earl said about freedom, but on the issue of how one's nerves are affected, I can only say from my own experience that my nerves have not deteriorated since I have stopped smoking twelve years ago.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, is not allowed to smoke in this House, but it does not seem to prevent him from coming here, and there is no reason to think that if he were not allowed to smoke in the theatre he would refuse to go there?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, think of the relaxation after departing from your Lordships' House!
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government a question quite straightforwardly without beating about the bush? Are they
474
interested in stopping cigarette smoking, which kills people, or are they not?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not know what my noble friend is trying to trap me into saying in reply to that question. If your Lordships remain in any doubt whatever as to the attitude of the Government in this important matter, then I do not think that anything I can say this afternoon will make your Lordships more aware of the danger.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, would my noble friend's Department use their good offices to persuade the authorities in those places which allow smoking of cigarettes only either (with due deference to my noble friend Lord Swinton) to ban it completely or to allow cigars and pipes?
LORD NEWTON: All that would require legislation.

GREAT BRITAIN AND EUROPEAN UNION
2.48 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Statement by the Foreign Secretary in another place that: "We do not believe in any federal form of political European Union or the cession of national sovereignty" means that, in their view, the already existing Western European Union should suffice to meet the political requirements of the United Kingdom and her immediate European neighbours.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government support the development of close political consultation and co-ordination of policy in Western European Union. But my right honourable friend's remarks did not mean that Her Majesty's Government are hostile to the idea of a European Political Union. If there are talks about a future political union of Europe we should naturally hope to take part in them. But there are no specific proposals for a European Union under discussion at present.
LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask the Government whether they would not agree that, in this age of the thermo-nuclear bomb, too meticulous insistence on national sovereignty might be considered to be a little out-of-date, and could they not, on reflection, at least consider the possibility of accepting one day the system of European political unity which, though not federal in the American sense, would at any rate represent something more than a simple, old-fashioned alliance?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as I said, there are at the moment no proposals before the Government. If there were proposals, no doubt Her Majesty's Government would take into account what my noble friend has said, in exactly the same way as they would take into account what I know the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition will now say.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that our aim in the political field should be a development in our co-operation with Europe towards a common will by thoughts and acts which are in harmony with those of Europe? Would he also not agree that Her Majesty's Government can work towards this goal without detriment to our fundamental interests?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think Her Majesty's Government made it plain on a number of occasions that they continue to believe that British participation in the political and economic development of Europe is in the best interests of the country. But how this can be achieved will be for Parliament to decide in the light of changing circumstances.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that specious and apparent unions which fall apart under the smallest stress are far more dangerous than frank and honest divisions?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, these are the sort of facts which have to be taken into account.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, some of us do welcome the recent statement by the Prime Minister on what used to be called "entry into the Common Market".

ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORT IN RAILWAY CLOSURES
2.50 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the unqualified assurance given by the Prime Minister on 12th November, 1963, they will confirm that it is their policy that no railway line in the United Kingdom will be closed to passengers until there is adequate alternative transport available to the public; if they will state the considerations which must be satisfied before the alternative can be considered adequate; and, in particular, if these include the provision of accommodation for bulky luggage.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the words used by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on November 12 reaffirmed the pledge given on March 27 last by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport in these terms [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons) Vol. 674, col. 1320] and repeated in this House
"I shall see that, where necessary, adequate alternative means of transport are available before a railway passenger closure takes place."
This remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
The adequacy of an alternative cannot be assessed except in relation to the facts of each particular case. In general, my right honourable friend tries to ensure that the alternative services provided are those required to meet the essential needs of the present rail travellers. If it appears from the Transport Users' Consultative Committee's report or the Minister's own study of the case that the alternative services will need to have special accommodation for luggage, then he will see that the nature of the requirements is brought to the attention of the bus operator.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that on November 12 the Prime Minister, referring to transport in the Highlands and the long distances and difficulties said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 684 (No. 1) col. 41]:
"then adequate alternative transport must be provided."

477
There is no qualification whatsoever. Is he further aware that later my right honourable friend Mr. George Brown asked the Prime Minister whether the principle he had just adumbrated for Scotland applied to England and Wales, and the Prime Minister said: "Certainly"? Is that not in direct contradiction to what the noble Earl has now said? The Prime Minister gave the assurance without any qualification; and is he suggesting that his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is now seeing to repudiate an undertaking given by the Prime Minister?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord conveniently finished his quotation of the Prime Minister's remark before the word "certainly". What he said was [col. 42]:
"Certainly if railways are closed somehow alternative transport must be found".
I think the noble Lord is, if I may say so, trying to drive a coach-and-four between the remarks of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and those of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, because the inference which the noble Lord places on the words "where necessary" is that, if those words are left out, the Government should provide alternative services even if they are not necessary; and that is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I quoted the exact words of the Prime Minister, without any qualification, and it is he who is trying to drive a coach-and-horses through them? Is he further aware that there is no question of services being provided in any circumstances? But can he not say what was in the Prime Minister's mind in using the word "adequate"? What did it mean? Or was anything in the Prime Minister's mind?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I find it rather easier to say what was in the Prime Minister's mind than what is in the noble Lord's mind. In fact, what is in the Prime Minister's mind is exactly the same as was in the mind of the Minister of Transport: adequate services will be provided where necessary. Clearly, if they are not necessary they should not be provided.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that among those of us who live in districts where rail services have been taken away in the absence of adequate services in their place there is profound discontent?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if there is profound discontent, as the noble Earl suggests—and I accept his view if he feels there is discontent—then the users of the railways have recourse through the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. That is what they are there for.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl himself just used the word "adequate". Can he not say whether, in the considerations of what is adequacy, such things as speed, frequency, comfort of the services, and whether they should carry luggage, should be taken into account? Can he not give any guidance whatever to local authorities, bus companies and members of the public who are anxious to know what the Prime Minister's use of the word "adequate" meant?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is impossible to state exactly what adequate is, because what might be adequate in one instance might not be in another. All these difficulties and points are taken into account when a rail closure is about to take place, and the frequency of the service is one of the things which the Transport Users' Consultative Committee take into account and pass on to my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport. It is impossible to say that what would be adequate in one set of circumstances would necessarily be adequate in all.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.55 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire will be making two statements at a suitable moment after 3.30, one on the detainees in Aden and another on Ghanaian pensions.

CITY OF LONDON (COURTS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
CHAPEL STREET (CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH (SOUTHPORT) BURIAL, GROUND BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
BARRY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

TELEVISION BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the House to be in Committee, on Re-commitment, on Report of the Bill from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the Bill. No Amendments have been made to this Bill by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, and they have reported that the Bill is pure consolidation and represents existing law.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be reported to the House, without amendment?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I rise in a spirit of humility and ignorance. I can understand our being resolved into Committee but what I do not follow is the words "on Re-commitment", which I have always understood to be used if an Amendment that was overlooked, or otherwise not taken
480
in Committee, was proposed on recommitment. I wonder whether the Lord Chairman of Committees could help me on this point, as to why the word "Re-commitment" occurs in the Notice on the Paper.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): I think the answer is that the Bill in any case has a Committee stage, which we are now engaged upon, and it is called "re-commitment" because it is first of all considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills who have a power to make Amendments; and that would be, I take it, the first Committee stage.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
3.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I do not think your Lordships will find this either a very controversial or a very difficult Bill. I do not propose to keep you long in explaining it. The Bill amends the statutory authorities under which the Export Credits Guarantee Department conducts its operations. The principal Act is the Export Guarantees Act, 1949. That Act established the limits within which the Department was authorised to accept liabilities, whether through its insurance operations or as the instrument for operating the Government-to-Government loans for the purchase of British goods or services which Her Majesty's Government make from time to time. These limits have been progressively increased by a succession of amending Acts, of which the last was the Export Guarantees Act, 1961.
In the business of insurance, of course, incurring liabilities does not necessarily mean, and I think we can agree should not mean, suffering trading losses. Although this small but important

481
Department has steadily increased its liabilities it has enjoyed a most satisfactory trading experience, so that its current operations are effected against an appreciable reserve resulting from past business. The normal operations of the Department are conducted either under Section 1 or under Section 2 of the Act of 1949, for each of which there is a separate limit of liabilities. Business under Section 1 is commonly referred to as "commercial" business, since it is conducted only after consultation with the Department's Advisory Council and, in practice, with their approval. They base their advise on each insurance proposal as a commercial proposition. Perhaps I might remind your Lordships that two members of your Lordships' House, my noble friends Lord Catto and Lord Melchett, are members of that Council, to whose wise guidance we all owe a great deal.
Business under Section 2 of the Act is undertaken without consultation with the Advisory Council, either because it is business which would not be undertaken on
a commercial basis or because it comprises economic assistance to an overseas country. It is commonly known as "national interest business", because in either case Her Majesty's Government have to be satisfied that it is in the national interest to do it. Under each of these sections the Department's commitments are now pressing on the statutory limit. In the case of Section 1, they are pressing hard. The Bill now before the House provides in Clause 1, for the current limit of £1,000 million to be increased to £1,500 million. The present position is that at the end of December last—the latest date for which figures are available—the Department's actual liabilities amounted to £918·7 million. In addition, the Department was pledged to give certain cover if the exporters in question called on it to do so: and these potential commitments amounted to a further £96·3 million. Although, strictly speaking, only actual liabilities count against the limit, we cannot altogether ignore the potential commitments; and your Lordships will realise that these figures leave little room for further offers.
It is four and a half years since the Government came to Parliament and asked for this limit to be raised. The
482
limit under this section has already been raised by amending Acts in 1952 and 1959. The limit in this Bill is based on the best estimates that can be made of the growth of the Department's liabilities in the next five years. If the Department's business grows faster in future than it is doing at present, it may well be necessary to raise the matter in Parliament again before five years have passed. If it should prove necessary to come to Parliament for further authority within a shorter period, it will be only because a greater use of the Department's facilities is being made than we have anticipated; and that would hardly be a matter for either criticism or misgivings. Liabilities under this section have increased by £111 million in the last twelve months. The Department's estimate of the five-year growth is based on an annual increase in these liabilities of some £100 million, so that we are proposing an increase in the limit from £1,000 million to £1,500 million.
Perhaps I may now turn to the limit under Section 2 of the Act of 1949, which was last raised in 1961. Here the Bill provides for an increase in the permitted limit of liabilities accepted from £800 million to £1,300 million. Again we are basing this on estimates of five years' growth namely, at a rate of roughly £100 million each year. The manner in which the Department has arrived at this figure is rather more complicated, since Section 2 provides for several distinct classes of operation. First, there are the Government-to-Government loans, known generally as "Section 3 loans", since Section 3 of the Act of 1949 provides the general powers under which the loans are made. They are, however, required to be accommodated within the limit placed on the liabilities which the Department can assume under Section 2 of the main Act.
Forecasting the future of this form of aid is decidedly speculative, since it depends not only on Britain's future capacity to provide aid, but on the future policy of Her Majesty's Government as to the form such aid should take. At the moment these loans make up roughly one-quarter of our total aid programme. Making a number of broad assumptions, Her Majesty's Government have decided that it is reasonable to allow in this

483
Bill for further loans at a rate of something like £50 million a year. In the nature of the case this estimate cannot be more than an approximate estimate and should not be taken to indicate any new policy decision.
Secondly, there are the Financial Guarantees for the financing of large projects. These guarantees were introduced just under three years ago. So far, ten nave been given, accounting for over £80 million of firm liabilities. There are commitments, however, to give a further £290 million of these guarantees, if called on to do so, in respect of projects, that are, so to speak, in the pipeline; and further projects are being approved for this form of cover all the time. The scale on which these guarantees will be issued in the future is also difficult to estimate, but it has seemed reasonable, in the light of our present experience, to put down another round figure of £50 million a year.
Repayments of both the Section 3 loans and the loans covered by Financial Guarantees are on such terms that we cannot expect that much of our existing liabilities will expire during the next five years. We have therefore provided for an annual net increase in our liabilities of some £100 million a year. This should cover other less substantial classes of business conducted under Section 2 of the Act, notably cover on markets not regarded by the Advisory Council as "commercial" risks, and such forms of experimental or non-commercial cover as the small exporter policies introduced in April, 1961.
The remaining provision of this Bill is to extend the facilities of the Department to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The authorities in these islands welcome this change, which should encourage exports from these areas;
and any increase which results from it will benefit the economy of the United Kingdom. The change means, however, that our United Kingdom policy-holders will no longer be able to cover with the Exports Credits Guarantee Department their sales to these islands; but such insured business is small and the facilities of the commercial insurance market are available to cover it.
To sum up, my Lords, the main purpose of this Bill is to ensure that for several years to come—we estimate about
484
five—this Department of the Government will encounter no constitutional impediment in carrying out its vital work of helping and encouraging the British exporter. In recent years the Department has expanded its business and its coverage of the export trade very considerably indeed. From time to time, as one would expect, one hears complaints that E.C.G.D. does not do enough. I can assure your Lordships that Ministers responsible for the Department will always be ready to look at any such case which is put to them. On the other hand, the Department gets complaints from foreign credit insurers that it does a good deal
too much. But, of course, the cases which get the publicity in this country are those where the British exporter is dissatisfied. When one considers the vast scale of this business—£1,000 million worth of exports were insured in 1963—it is remarkable how few are the complaints. It is at least reassuring that a substantially higher proportion of British exporters are credit insured than those of any of our competitors.
The amount of insurance written is constantly increasing. At present there are over 6,000 exporters holding E.C.G.D. comprehensive policies, and over 500 specific guarantees on individual transactions. The kind of cover given is continually being widened. The rates of premium have been reduced several times; for example, the rates for comprehensive guarantees insured by E.C.G.D. have fallen in the past nine years from 11s. 8d. per £100 to 6s. 5d. But there is still scope for growth, for at present the proportion of exports insured by E.C.G.D. is just over 25 per cent. That is as good an indication as any that the E.C.G.D. has not only been a commercial success but is serving our exporters well. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
3.12 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his lucid and careful explanation of this Bill, with every word of which I agree. I agree, too, that the Bill is neither difficult nor controversial, but it certainly is important. On this side of your Lordships' House we warmly welcome the Bill for a variety of reasons, all of them good. The first

485
is that in effect it acknowledges the remarkable success of a measure initiated by the Labour Government in 1949, and it is a tribute to an important form of State insurance. As the noble Lord has indicated, the guarantee of liabilities under Clause 1 has grown from some £500 million in 1949 to £1,500 million under this Bill. Under Clause 2 the national interest guarantees have grown from a single million to £1,300 million. Another reason is that the Department made a profit of some £7 million in its last financial year—and this, in the main, on risks which private insurance would not undertake. Last year guaranteed exports totalled no less than £1,000 million and gave indispensable assistance to 25 per cent. of our total exports—a percentage which, in my view, will continue to increase.
One other advantage is that this Bill includes among its most fervent supporters some of the largest private enterprise firms in the country. Indeed, this is one
form of State enterprise which even the most generous contributors to Aims of Industry do not wish to denationalise. In fact, they would join with me and with the noble Lord in acknowledging the skill, care, foresight and understanding with which the officers of the Export Credits Guarantee Department discharge their complex tasks to the benefit of British industry and the nation. The noble Lord said that the Ministers and the Department are always most anxious to hear suggestions for improvement; and indeed the history of the Department is a long history of considering suggestions and adopting a good many of them for the general betterment of our exports.
I feel that the most useful thing I can do is to give some idea of some of the
improvements which should be made. This Department is an essential and established part of our economy. But although it has progressively extended the range of its facilities, it never quite manages to keep abreast of the credit practice of at least some of our principal world competitors. Indeed, I do not think even now it can be claimed that our credit practice permits British exporters to allow credit terms as good as any available in the world. I submit that that should be our objective if British exporters are not to be unnecessarily,
486
and sometimes unfairly, handicapped in their efforts to secure an increased share of world trade. I feel, therefore, that some criticisms which are made by responsible people should be aired.
They fall roughly under three heads. First—the most commonly heard—the arrangements are not sufficiently flexible; second, they are not broad enough in their scope, and, third, they are not sufficiently forward-looking. To a considerable extent the lack of flexibility is inherent in this type of Treasury control. It is true, despite what the noble Lord has said, that valuable export orders have been lost, although the price, delivery and quality were right, just because exporters have been unable to match the credit terms. I could quote cases where, after considerable negotiation, the Department has been able to agree credit terms required, and then it has been too late; the business has gone elsewhere to another country. In some countries, notably Japan, the commercial representative has extraordinarily wide powers. He appears to be in a position to negotiate virtually as a representative of his Government. For example, because of this we missed the order for the steel rolling mill at Dargapur. On that occasion had the British consortium known earlier how far they could go and exactly where they stood, we should have got the order.
In regard to the complaints about the need for a broader scope, the Department's activities should be broadened by increasing their ability to help the smaller exporters and by greater assistance with progress payments. The Federation of British Industries have recently pointed out that the minimum limit on medium-term business should be less rigid. They feel that the present minimum limit of £100,000 should be lowered in suitable cases. There is also considerable difficulty with large-scale exports of heavy engineering plant. The larger, good companies have no difficulty in getting credit from their banks to finance exports under normal E.C.G.D. procedure; but borrowing against the security of a standard policy means that such borrowing is with recourse to the company and, naturally, is aggregated with their overdraft accounts as part of the total

487
facility afforded. To the extent, therefore, that companies have to rely on such finance, it can, and does, restrict exports.
The position is obviously alleviated when an E.C.G.D. banker's guarantee is available. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to finance an expanding business, and this would be the case with some exports, even when progress payments were available. This is when there is a very heavy volume of work in progress, because of the long manufacturing period prior to shipment. It is therefore important that better methods should be found, which would permit manufacturers to obtain finance from their bankers to cover manufacture without recourse against medium-term policies, before the date of acceptance of the goods by the customer. This would, in effect, provide manufacturers with the equivalent of progress payments during manufacture.
At present the Export Credits Guarantee Department requiries acceptance certificates given by the customer at the time of shipment. This is absurd in the case of an order for power station equipment, because this is not normally accepted by the customer until the end of the maintenance period, which is, usually a year after the plant has been commissioned. So in such circumstances it is obvious that an adjustment must be made to meet the difficulty. The present system has, in fact, never been really applicable to very large contracts for capital equipment. The length of credit which the E.C.G.D. will
underwrite is usually too short to meet the customer's requirements, and the mechanics imposed by the Department are such that the supplier cannot obtain progress payments which are frequently essential, in the case of the very large contracts, if the finance that is necessary for manufacture is to be available. Obviously, an adjustment must be made to meet this difficulty.
Another useful facility would be the provision of complete coverage for international consortium contracts. At present the E.C.G.D., within its terms of reference, can cover only the British content of a contract of that kind. There are places where it would be of advantage, politically, if the tender could be issued, for example, by a non-committed country. Given the right international
488
consortium, we could in such cases obtain a share of the contract which would not otherwise be available to us. This might well be achieved if the E.C.G.D. and other foreign credit institutions could co-operate in providing complete cover. My Lords, I am bound to say here that it may well be that the obstacle is not our own E.C.G.D., but the foreign credit institutions. But it is a matter which should, I think, be vigorously pursued.
With regard to the feeling that we should be more forward-looking, an example of this was given by my right honourable friend Mr. Douglas Jay during the Second Reading of the Bill in another place. He then mentioned the decision of the Pakistan Government to set up a single, large-scale lorry plant, which was to have the monopoly in Pakistan for 30 years ahead. The Leyland Company put forward a complete scheme by which they would construct and manage this factory, and the Pakistan Government was anxious to accept their proposal in preference to that of the Americans. But the American aid and credit authorities were willing to lend foreign exchange, as we were, not merely for all the initial equipment of the factory, but for all the spares and other necessary facilities for a number of years afterwards. Our own Department was unable to permit Leyland's to match this offer, so we lost not only this order for this important factory, but also the lorry market for a whole nation of 100 million people for at least 30 years, and it may well be permanently.
This has happened with a number of large-scale projects in different industries, when we have been in competition with the United States. Obviously, if we are to continue to lag behind the Americans and the Japanese in this way, we are hound to experience a disastrous decline, both in our markets and in our influence in underdeveloped countries, and it will be impossible to achieve or maintain the planned expansion of production to which we are committed. I do not think we have sufficiently absorbed the lesson that trade follows aid. Perhaps it is for this reason that during the last six or seven years the proportion of aid to India from the U.S.A. and Germany has gone up, while ours has gone down. Our position in relation to South America is even worse. I understand

489
that only some £3,800,000 is currently allocated for economic assistance to South America. It is, of course, right to urge our manufacturers to increase exports by hard work and hard selling, but in some cases our efforts are fruitless unless we are prepared to invest; and in other countries we are wasting our time, unless the credit facilities we offer are related to the need and capacity of the buying country.
I feel that the time has come—indeed, it may well be overdue—when we should consider another State credit agency as an alternative or supplement to the E.C.G.D. My right honourable friend Mr. Douglas Jay referred to the report on export credits recently published by the steel plant industry, and to their suggestion of a State guarantee corporation, independent of direct departmental control. Such a proposal has a number of attractions, because a corporation of this kind would be able to consider requests for financial assistance from every point of view. Of necessity, the outlook of the E.C.G.D. has to be actuarial. Very often there is not enough time for prolonged negotiations with the Department which are sometimes necessary, particularly when we are competing with countries who are offering unorthodox terms. The decision whether export credit facilities should be made available ought not to be based solely on financial grounds. The overall export needs of the country must be considered. The importance and condition of the industry asking for credit facilities, its location and employment position, are all major factors which should be taken into account. At present, with several Government Departments concerned, it is inevitable that decisions on unusual cases are taken slowly, and often too late. There would be great advantages in having a corporation, Government-sponsored, with a Government-sponsored board of directors, with a small staff and with a remit to do everything possible to further export trade within the Government's general policy.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reply to some of these points, which I agree are not new—he may have heard them before. I hope that he will at least be able to assure us that these suggestions will be carefully considered. On this side of your Lordships' House we
490
welcome this Bill, and acknowledge all that has been, and is being, done by the Department. But, my Lords, if our manufacturers are to win for us the exports we so badly need, there must be urgent improvements in the facilities available to them, and we must not send them into the markets of the world handicapped against other countries.
3.29 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I naturally, like all noble Lords on these Benches, welcome this Bill; but I am not quite sure that I can join my noble friend the Minister in congratulating ourselves on its existence, because I regard its very existence as a sign of weakness and collapse in world trade. After all, it ought not to be necessary to have any such Bill; but regrettably it is. In the manufacturing countries of the world we see creeping inflation. The price of their manufactures Roes ever higher, with the aid of their trade unions who every year demand higher wages, and their costs go up every year. That is not reflected in the materials provided by the raw material producers in the world. Occasionally their prices have a brief rise, but only to bring fresh supplies into the market, and there is then a further fall to lower levels. In fact, one might say there is a progressive pauperisation of the raw material suppliers of the world, and an increasing enrichment of the manufacturing countries. That is the reason for this Bill. The manufacturing countries cannot get rid of their goods except on the type of terms which are available under this Bill.
Moreover, I am afraid the process is going to increase. We are seeing the handing over of the various countries in Africa to very inexperienced Governments. There are great population increases, and we are seeing the splitting up of land in order to provide food for that increasing population—and, as we know, the breaking up of estates always means the lowering of agricultural exports. Again, the symptoms are of the increasing extravagance of Governments. The Scottish accountants have walked out, and now the era of extravagance comes in. We are going to see exactly the same things that have happened in the Western hemisphere happen in Africa. There, we know that in many countries it is almost impossible to trade

491
except by making loans, which in turn can be paid back only by making further loans in the future. In these circumstances, one asks oneself: do we want to stay in the business at all? Is the business worth having? The answer from the commercial point of view is, probably, "No", but from the point of view of our position in the world the answer is, "Yes, we have just got to do it".
But if that is the situation—and I do not think I am exaggerating it—are the limits in this Bill enough, or have I misunderstood them? I understood my noble friend to say that we were expecting £50 million a year credit on purely trading account and £50 million a year increase on purely Government aid. I should have thought that the second of those was probably a great deal lower than we could hope to expect if we are to do the duty that we have set before us, which is to support financially all these new countries that I have mentioned.

DETAINEES IN ADEN
3.33 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, this might be a convenient moment for me to make a statement about the situation as regards detainees in Aden State. On January 16, in reply to a Question from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, my noble friend Lord Lansdowne undertook that further information would be given to your Lordships about the security situation in Aden. My noble friend is unable to be here this afternoon owing to a meeting of paramount importance, and he has asked me to state—and I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships—that all persons detained from Aden State have been released, except for three still held on security grounds.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Duke for this very prompt reply to the inquiry that I and my noble friend made last month, and to say how glad we are that the Federal Government has now released all the detainees save three. May I ask the noble Duke on what grounds these three people are still detained? Are they security grounds? And does that mean
492
that they are suspected of having played a part in the bomb outrage? If not, why are they still detained? May I also ask him whether he can give us any indication of how soon the state of emergency in Aden will be lifted?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, as regards the latter question, I am afraid I am not in a position to give the House any information as to how long the state of emergency will remain. As regards the first part of the noble Earl's question, two of the three still detained are detained in connection with the bomb outrage.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I also am obliged to the noble Duke for this statement, and I share the satisfaction of my noble friend at the release of such a large number of people who had been interned, apparently without any case being ultimately preferred against them. I have also observed with some pleasure the announcement on the wireless in the last day or two that there had been an inquiry into the conditions under which these internees were detained, and that there was no confirmation of the allegations of personal acts against them in this connection. However, I observed that notes were made by the committee of inquiry that the conditions and accommodation—the amenities in general—were in some cases exceedingly poor indeed, so it cannot be said that these internees, who were there for so long a time and yet had no charge made against them in the end, did not suffer considerable hardship.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I will naturally bring to my right honourable friend's attention the remarks that the noble Earl has made.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, will the noble Duke inform us whether a charge is likely to be preferred soon, either against the two persons referred to or against any other persons, with reference to this bomb outrage in Aden?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am afraid I am not in a position to add anything to what I have already said.
LORD REA: My Lords, will the noble Duke say whether on future occasions this situation will not arise—that people

493
will not be held in detention without any prospect of trial?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am a little confused by the double negatives, but I fully appreciate what the noble Lord feels—and, of course, we deplore detaining people without charges being preferred against them. On the other hand, as I have said before in this matter, I think it must be accepted that public security is the paramount interest.

GHANA PENSIONS
3.38 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I should now like, if I may, to make a statement about Ghana pensions. I am glad to inform your Lordships that an agreement has been reached with the Ghana Government which entirely removes for pensioners resident in this country the discriminatory element in the tax imposed by the Ghana Government last October. As a result, the Ghana tax will be at the same effective rate as the pensioner pays on his total income taxable in this country, provided only that this amount of tax is not less than that paid by a resident in Ghana with an income equivalent to the pension.
Because of double taxation relief, this means that the great majority will have no additional tax to pay overall, even if their Ghana pension is their only source of income. In fact, most pensioners, partly because of our own pension supplements, are likely to have some additional income. The Ghana authorities are suspending all tax deductions for the next three months while the detailed application of the new formula is being settled. The adjusted tax will be levied from May onwards.
The Department of Technical Co-operation, in agreement with the Board of Inland Revenue, will send a short statement to all Ghana pensioners resident here explaining how the new formula will work. My right honourable friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations are grateful to the Ghana Government for their co-operation in reaching this agreement.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Duke for making that statement. Progress has obviously been made in this matter for which we are glad, but I am worried about one point. I see that there is to be a suspension of three months while the question of how the new formula is to be applied is gone into. But can we be assured that there will be no holding back of any refundment to the civil servants concerned of deductions already made since last October while all these discussions were going on, and that they will not be taxed twice during that period?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, as the House will appreciate, this is a matter which comes outside my normal responsibilities, but it is something which I also had noticed. I understand that part of the reason for this three-month standby period is to provide time to work it out with those who have already paid this tax, to see that they are not penalised by having done so. I cannot give any categorical answer to the noble Earl this afternoon, but I can say that this is very much in our minds, and we hope to use the interim period to see that no injustice is done.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I also thank my noble friend for his statement to-day which many of us welcome very much. I should like to ask one thing: will this double taxation relief arrangement that the noble Lord spoke about mean that at the end of three months' period the pensioners will pay only one tax per month, and will not be called upon to pay both the Ghanaian tax and British tax and then have to wait for a number of months until they are refunded either one or the other?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, as I understand the agreement they will pay just one tax. I am not an expert in taxation, and it is possible that may mislead my noble friend but, as I understand it, that is the case.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am not sure that this is going to help the pensioners as much as it appears to do at first sight. Is it a fact that if the Ghana Government have deducted a considerable sum from the pensions the United

495
Kingdom Government will not assess the pensioner for tax until the amount they have overpaid in Ghana has been taken into account? That is the point we want to get clear.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think the best thing that I can do, my Lords, is to repeat what I said:
"The Ghana authorities are suspending all tax deductions for the next three months while the detailed application of the new formula is being settled."
Clearly, what people have paid in tax previously must be taken into consideration in any future settlement. It would seem only just that, if they have paid more than they should have paid, that should be taken into account in what they pay in future.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I understand the point regarding the Ghana Government. I am talking about Her Majesty's Government. Will Her Majesty's Government take into account any over-payment in Ghana so that these unfortunate people are not assessed here for United Kingdom tax until the overpayment of the Ghana tax is taken into consideration?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I will undertake to draw the noble Lord's point to the attention of the Treasury, and, for what it is worth, it will have all the support I can give it.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
3.44 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the welcome he gave to this Bill, and I certainly agree with him on its importance. I do not want in any way to detract from the achievements of the Labour Government, but in indicating that this Department was started by the Labour Government in 1949, I think it is perhaps only fair to say that the Government first entered into credit insurance in 1919. This has a fairly long history behind it.
The noble Lord raised a number of points and he put them under three headings. First of all, he wondered whether the present provisions or rules
496
under which the Export Credits Guarantee Department work were sufficiently flexible; secondly, he wondered whether they were broad enough in scope; and, thirdly, he thought perhaps they were not sufficiently forward-looking. I think perhaps it is right to remember in dealing with the whole of this problem that what we are doing here is credit insuring. The whole object of E.C.G.D., the original and principal object of overseas credit insurance, is to insure the credit and to relieve the exporter of the risks involved in giving credit to his overseas buyers. I thought that a great many of the noble Lord's remarks were concerned rather more with pure finance than with the insurance of credit. But I would admit, of course, that finance does come into this in so far as the Government are making money available under Section 2 to overseas Governments.
First of all, the noble Lord wondered whether we were in a position to match credit terms. Well, I feel that there is a good deal of misunderstanding about this. Of course we have gone a long way in recent years to match credit terms. Before 1960 there were a large number of cases—and they were increasing—where credit exceeding five years was given by foreign Governments with the support of foreign governmental facilities. We are, of course, members of the Berne Union. He did not say so; but it is a fact that Japan is not. And members of the Berne Union agree to limit so far as possible the credit they give to five years, and to exchange information in those cases where members extend credit beyond five years.
We have always been reluctant to cover more than five years' credit; but financial guarantees, by their nature, generally—in fact, I would say invariably—exceed five years' credit. They give the freedom which foreign insurers enjoy to select appropriate projects for which more than five years' credit is clearly necessary. But, over and above that, there is a matching policy under our standard supplier credit guarantees whereby we support our
policy-holders in meeting competition beyond five years. With all these facilities, our firms are fully as well placed as foreign firms to secure business on longer credit terms.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could the noble Lord say, in that case, where we are in competition with the United States why the Leyland Company could not get insurance for credit terms that were required by the Pakistan Government?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I was coming to that. The noble Lord raised this point later in his speech, and the information I have is that E.C.G.D. were not approached by the Leyland Company
on this transaction. I understand that my right honourable friend the Minister of State has written to Mr. Jay, and I will send details to the noble Lord. But I was going on to say that matching policies always involve getting, evidence of competition, and obviously vague allegations that longer terms have been offered are not enough. We all know that in competition of this kind failure to get an order is sometimes attributed to advantages which the competitor has and which one is said not to have oneself. Obviously there are difficulties in getting evidence, but such information as I have does not suggest that it is impossible to obtain.
Obviously we are ready, through our Embassies overseas and our contacts in the Berne Union, and so on, to investigate with promptitude and as widely as possible any allegation that comes our way. I should say that we have made these investigations in some 330 cases since the introduction of matching cover in October, 1960; and also that it has been possible partly through these inquiries to establish a volume of general evidence of fairly constant longer-term credit competition in certain fields. That goes of course particularly to ocean going ships and jet aircraft. For such business, we have been able to dispense with specific evidence of competition to support longer terms. I think that, while it is often alleged that E.C.G.D. is slow to agree to matching terms, it will be found that in the period of two and a half years we have agreed to matching in a very considerable number of cases.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves this question of matching credit terms, could he tell the House whether the United States of America is a member of the Berne Convention to which he referred? Because I believe I am right in saying
498
that American locomotive manufacturers are able to give fifteen years' credit through the assistance given by the United States Government. That is causing great concern to the locomotive manufacturers of this country, who are very desirous of co-operating more fully with the European manufacturers, and their feelings are shared by the European manufacturers who were members of C.E.L.T.E.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot answer my noble friend, but I will certainly look into this matter and let him know about it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, could the noble Lord answer the question whether the United States is a member of the Berne Convention?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg my noble friend's pardon. Of course, that is so. I am obliged to the noble Lord.
I come now to the question of smaller exporters. The Small Exporter special experimental scheme has been, as I think I indicated, under Section 2 rather than Section 1. I thought that the noble Lord was particularly concerned with the contention of the F.B.I. that we should do something more to meet competition in ranges of £100,000 and under. So far as small exports are concerned, most of these arrangements are in the ordinary supplier way, where the normal credit given is for six months and an extension cover can be given for up to five years. In larger contracts and transactions this becomes a much more difficult matter to arrange, but I can assure the noble Lord that every application is considered on its merits and that in this connection the question of the credit that competition has given is also taken into account. I do not think I can carry the matter further to-day, but I shall be glad to go into it further and consider what the noble Lord has said.
The next point the noble Lord raised was that of the financing of expanding business. Perhaps I have already answered that by saying that we were really concerned here with credit insurance and not with the financial operation itself. It is true, of course, in the normal way that a bank guarantee

499
applies from the time of the acceptance of the goods by the importer who is being supplied. On the question that the noble Lord raised regarding coverage for international consortium interests, I may say that we are in touch with the suppliers of credit facilities in other countries and so far as possible cover these arrangements. There are many highly complex problems arising from this side of export business. This is undoubtedly an increasingly important form of contracting, and it would be quite wrong not to do the best we could in order to support British industry in this field. We have reached satisfactory arrangements to collaborate with other credit insurers so that our cover and theirs may be properly interlocked in supporting our respective firms.
Of course, we are not able under the terms of the Act as it now is to insure people other than British suppliers, so I think the proposal the noble Lord made, that we should try to cover the entire transaction—that is, all parties to the contract, no matter from what country they come—would not be practicable as things are, nor, according to the information I have, would it normally be necessary, because each member of a consortium would be able to get credit facilities from his own country. Therefore it is a question of interlocking these provisions rather than having one single organisation to provide for all of them. Perhaps one of these days we shall have such an organisation, but certainly we are not there yet.
I thought that my noble friend Lord Hawke was a little pessimistic in his general approach to the whole of this matter. After all, one of the main functions is to ensure the credit of the importer, and we all know that even without the world being in too great a state of disarray, countries do get out of balance in their payments and have to put restrictions on the transfer of payments or intervene in one way or another, making life difficult for the exporter. It is to cover all these various risks that we have this kind of legislation.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I appeal to the Minister
500
of State to be as gentle as he can with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke? After all he was speaking as a true Conservative. He does not like State activity of any sort. In fact, he is a sort of Tory anarchist. I respect Tories who are really Tories. What worries me are the Tories who are running away from their principles.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, as my name has been mentioned, may I rise to say that I spoke because I happen to be one of the people engaged in world trade, in which I believe Ministers of the Board of Trade have not usually been engaged. I do not mind State enterprise at all in its place.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I cannot say touché on that one, because I myself was engaged in world trade at one time. But I really do not understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has taken, because, as I have made very plain, this is a field which it has long been recognised is outside the scope of private enterprise. This is essentially a field in which it has long been seen that the Government must intervene, and we on this side of the House are all for ensuring that the Government do their job where there is a job for the Government to do. This, I believe, is one of them. I hope I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, that means that in this case the Government are taking the place of private enterprise because private enterprise is not able to cope with this matter.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we are here concerned not only with the question of insuring credit for private individuals—that is, where the private individuals fall down on their obligations—but also with cases where the Government intervene so that the private individual is not able to carry out his obligations, whether he wants to or not. It seems to me that if a foreign Government is intervening in this way it is not unreasonable that the home Government should step in and help to ensure that our exporters are paid for the goods they export and the services they render abroad.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is it not merely a question of taking an insurance payment from the exporters in order to guarantee the loans advanced by private enterprise banks, and the Government then make payment to insure it, and the Government make a profit on it? But they step in where there was no one else in private enterprise who will do the job. Is not that it?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I thought I had made it plain that this was a proper function for Governments to perform. The function of banks is insuring in normal circumstances.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The noble Lord is still qualified to come over.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Here we have a Government that is intervening in order to insure not only ordinary credit but the results of Government interventions of one kind and another all over the world. This is the assurance that can be given to exporters: that, no matter what goes wrong in the world, they can be assured of getting, not all their money, because we ask the exporter himself to bear part of the risk, but a large proportion of it. As I have said, I think this is not only a proper function for Governments, but is a function that was one of the arrows in the quiver of Government, so to speak, before we ever had a Labour Government in this country.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

SHIPBUILDING CREDIT BILL
4.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, we all regret that my noble friend Lord Chesham cannot be here to take charge of this Bill, but I am glad to say that he is making good progress and expects to be back here by the week after next. At the end of last May my noble friend Lord Chesham read to your Lordships the statement of the Minister of Transport about the shipbuilding credit scheme, whose provisions
502
are retrospectively covered by this short and simple Bill. My noble friend mentioned in the statement that at that time, on May 29, the Government contemplated an upper limit of £30 million as the total quantity of loans which were to be advanced to ship owners under the scheme, but he added [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 260, col. 886]:
"We shall consider raising this limit if experience shows that it would be right to do so."
Experience did show that it would be right to do so. Applications were more numerous than had been expected, and in July the Minister announced that the upper limit of loans under the scheme was to be raised to £60 million.
At the same time, the Minister disclosed that one particular separate application, from the Cunard Company for the building of the proposed new 58,000 tons "Queen", with the aid of a Government grant, had been rejected by the Government because the proposed terms put before them were not, in the Government's view, satisfactory. So that no loan for the Cunarder was included in this new limit of £60 million. But three months later, in October, a revised proposal for Government financial assistance by way of loan to the new "Queen" was agreed to. It was agreed that a loan of £17½ million should be advanced under this shipbuilding credit scheme by the Government to the Cunard Company.
The Ministry of Transport, therefore, decided to raise the limit from £60 million to £75 million, which is the figure mentioned in this Bill. The whole of this £75 million has already been committed, but none of it has actually been advanced, because under the scheme no loan is actually paid out until after the ship in respect of which it is made has not only been launched, but delivered to the owners who have ordered it; and although between two-thirds and three-quarters of the tonnage which will be financed under this shipbuilding credit scheme is already under construction, it is most unlikely that any of the ships will, in fact, be delivered to their owners until after this Bill has become law. So the granting of the loans will not take place until some time after the Bill is passed, although all the effective decisions were taken some time ago.

503
At the time when the original scheme was announced by my noble friend in this
House, in May of last year, the shipbuilding industry had been suffering from a growing depression for several years. There has been in recent years a great increase in capacity of all the shipyards of the world, and the same amount of ships can be built with far less labour. If, therefore, there is a falling off in world demand for shipping, the effects are much more severely felt. In Great Britain, whereas in 1958 our orders were enough to last for another two years, by 1963 outstanding orders were down to considerably under 2 million tons, and the amount of time which they were likely to last was only about six months. It was obvious that, whether temporary or not, there had been a severe falling-off in demand.
In order to deal with this drop in demand the Government had, of course, considered for some time whether there was any advantageous action which a Government could take. The most obvious method of State assistance to shipbuilding would be a subsidy. The four principal shipbuilding countries in the world are the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany and Sweden: Germany, Sweden and Japan are our three largest competitors. After that, in the next class, so to speak, are France, Italy, Norway, Holland and the United States. Of the three largest competitors, none subsidise their shipbuilding but France and Italy both do so quite openly; and the United States, although they do not subsidise ships built for foreign owners, do subsidise their domestic shipping.
As long as any of our competitors practise subsidisation of shipbuilding, it
must remain open to us, if we think it advantageous, to retaliate by doing the same. But in present circumstances the Government have always taken the view, and the shipbuilding industry have taken the same view, that, on balance, it would not be in our interests to do so: partly because it would encourage those who do not at present subsidise their shipping to do so, which would be considerably to our disadvantage, and also because it would prejudice the efforts which we are always making to persuade those countries who do subsidise that they ought either to reduce or to abolish their subsidies because we believe that they are a bad thing for world trade as a whole.
504
Another method of possible Government assistance which is often suggested, and which on one occasion before the war was applied here, is what is called the "scrap and build" policy. One objection to that is, again, that it would depend upon a substantial subsidy. Another objection at the present time is that the age of the British merchant fleet is not old enough to make any extensive policy of scrapping really economical. What the Government decided to do last year was to help the industry over this trough in demand for shipping by offering these loans at what are called Government rates of interest—that is to say, interest rates at which the Government themselves can borrow, which are less than those at which a private shipping company could raise the money.
This Bill, to which we are now asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading, is a short Bill which ex post facto authorises and covers what has been done under this loan scheme. The Bill gives power to lend money for any vessel which is more than 100 tons, except fishing vessels, because these are already in a position to receive assistance from either the White Fish Industry Board or the Herring Fishing Board. It limits the amount which was already allocated before the Bill was printed to £75 million, at such rate as the Treasury may direct. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 enables the Minister and the Treasury to appoint an advisory committee, which was appointed as soon as the credit scheme was announced last May, for the purpose of advising the Government which applicants for a loan under this scheme are creditworthy, and also whether they are likely to build the ship as quickly as possible, which is one of the purposes for which the scheme was introduced. What the Government wanted to do was to try to induce shipowners, by offering these loans at a favourable rate of interest, to execute orders which they were thinking of doing anyhow within the next year or two, a little sooner in order to tide over this trough in demand.
The whole of the money has now been allocated, and the shipping tonnage which
will now be built and financed by money advanced under the scheme is about 900,000 gross tons. Of that total, bulk

505
carriers account for 540,000 tons, tankers for 150,000 tons and cargo liners 120,000 tons. The new Cunarder, the new "Queen", will be a little over 58,000 tons, and the rest are made up by tugs, dredgers, coasters and other smaller craft.
As my noble friend Lord Chesham pointed out in the original statement, one reason which had prompted the Government to introduce this scheme was that so many of our shipbuilding industries—practically all of them—are in the development areas. The Government have not made any attempt at all, neither have they asked the advisory committee to make any attempts, to allocate the loans to applicants in any particular proportion between the development areas. Indeed, you could not do that, because the loans are given to the owners who are ordering the ships. After the agreement has been made with the owner, it is then left to him to decide in which shipyard or in what part of the country he will place his order after receiving competitive tenders.
Your Lordships may be interested to know how the distribution does work out in practice. It is more or less in proportion to the productive capacity of the different areas. Scotland gets 288,000 tons, the North of England 424,000 tons, Northern Ireland 94,000 tons; and there are still another 90,000 tons which have not yet been allocated—that is to say, application for loans has been accepted and guaranteed to the owners, but the owners have not yet decided in which yard they will place their order.
At the time when my noble friend Lord Chesham told your Lordships of the shipbuilding credit scheme, employment on construction of merchant ships had gone down from about 75,000 in 1958–59 to about 53,000, not entirely because of the falling-off in orders, but partly because of an increase in productivity. But it was going down, and the trough in orders seemed to be reaching a depth that was alarming. At the present time, the situation is very different. We estimate that by the spring of this year employment in the shipyards will be up to about 70,000, that 1½ million tons will be under construction and that the orders book will
506
be very nearly 2½ million tons—I think the actual figure is 2·4 million tons—on shipping. Of course, that improvement has not by any means been all due, or even, I should say, to a major extent due, to the shipbuilding credit scheme. Indeed, if it were, it would not be at all in keeping with the purpose of the scheme, which was only to give a temporary stimulus to help the shipping industry to tide over this bad period.
Of the 1½ million tons of shipping which we think will be under construction by the end of March, between 600,000 and 700,000 tons only will be tonnage financed by the shipbuilding credit scheme. Presumably a good deal of that would have been under construction whether the scheme had been introduced or not. The improvement in the situation is basically due, not to the advantage of this favourable Government credit under the scheme, but to improved demand, to better freights which now prevail and, to some extent, to the improving efficiency—not so fast as one would like, but it is improving—of British yards; and noncredit orders in the last six months which are not financed by Government money have been coming in very much more rapidly than they were before.
Our purpose, first, in bringing in the scheme, and now in confirming it after the event by this Bill, was simply to tide shipowners over their difficult trough in demand so that they would have more time to prepare themselves for the very keen competition which they will have to face and which will persist for as far ahead as can be foreseen. If our shipbuilding industry, as I am quite confident it can do, is going to hold its own in the modern world, both management and labour will have to get rid of restrictive practices; they will have to promote more competition among their subcontractors, and they will have to reorganise and re-shape their yards for the purpose of placing them upon a more competitive basis. In our view, only the industry can decide how to do that: it is not a matter which the Government can decide for them. But we believe that the measures which are authorised in this Bill, and which have, in effect, already been taken, will be a valuable and considerable help in giving the

507
industry more time in which to do these necessary things for the benefit of its own future. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
4.21 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very anxious to speak on this Bill but I have a rather bad, heavy cold. I may give your Lordships a little trouble in listening, but I will do my best. In the first place, may I say to the noble Earl that we welcome this Bill in principle, as we did the last one on export credits. The fact is that the Government have been over-late in dealing with the matter. It was pointed out in another place that nearly two years ago we were still pressing in Parliament for help to be given in the shipbuilding industry, and so far as I am concerned the present state of the shipbuilding industry—which I agree with the noble Earl has been stimulated in the last twelve months by the Government scheme—is not in the state in which it ought to be.
We had a tremendous task facing the nation after the First War, and by 1921 unemployment in the same areas in which it began to develop two years ago, was, indeed, terrific. Grave steps were taken. It was felt that there would be no future for the shipbuilding industry unless drastic steps were taken to close yards, and the late Sir James Lithgow was chosen to be the chairman of a company called National Shipbuilding Securities to go into the case for closing certain yards. He became, I think, rather a victim of trade union attack, although he was merely the chairman selected from within the shipbuilding industry to do this job, which he did not like doing. I went into it with some interest and detail later as I got to know him better.
The situation after the last war was dealt with in a very different manner from that adopted in the years 1918 to 1923. We had been so warned by the experience after the First War that the Coalition Government of the War Cabinet began to plan in 1944–45 for the arrangements to be made afterwards. A terrific task awaited the industry. It had been subjected to bombing and damage out of all proportion to any damage it suffered in the First War. It was able from time to time to bring in
508
modern replacements for plant which had been destroyed; but above all, with the wisdom of men like Lord Leathers, and his advice as Minister of Transport, and Sir Amos Mann, it set up a joint advisory committee to see how the work outstanding in great volume could be tackled, and how the resources of the country could best be used to lead into a steady prosperity of the industry. I am bound to say, looking back, that there have been few periods in the history of British shipbuilding in which any such joint arrangement made has been so successful.
Up to the moment when Labour left office in 1951, we had easily been the leading contributor, in tonnage, to the shipbuilding programme of the world—a very valuable business for us. But then, almost within a year or two of the arrival of the Conservative Government, began the general trend to what I call the wasted years in regard to the industry. The signs of decay in the industry were apparent to anybody years ago, and yet so little has been done by the Government in these wasted years to put it back again upon a firm footing.
I welcome, of course, this credit scheme, which has been brought in, because it has given a spell and a time for some things to be done of major reconstruction. My honourable friend who spoke for the Opposition in the other place on the Second Reading of the Bill, paid, I noticed, a great tribute to that quite young man, Sir William Lithgow, for what he is attempting to do from the shipbuilding side; and I am glad to join in the praise given to him by my colleague.
But I am bound to say that, as I look at the industry to-day, there are certain very great handicaps. There is not enough progressive outlook in this industry being sharpened by the outlook in the rest of the shipbuilding world. The noble Earl said something about the increase in general capacity for shipbuilding, on which, of course, he is absolutely right. Shipbuilding capacity has been increasing, but how do we hold on to our proper share in this great mercantile nation of ours? By simply standing still, or by attuning our control of the
industry to the needs of the times? Let us look at the facts of the situation and take the reference made

509
by the noble Earl to who were the leading shipbuilders after the war—he mentioned West Germany, Sweden and Japan; and quite rightly so. Then he brought in a list of those who were on a different basis—Italy and France. But, of course, Sweden, Norway and Denmark, have made great advances in their modernising of their shipbuilding equipment and, therefore, expanding their output into the world market for shipbuilding. But we have dropped steadily behind.
In 1962, I think, we were 350,000 tons less in output than we had been the previous year, and the noble Earl has quite rightly acknowledged that the prospects at that time were, indeed, very dim; and so they were. I have not seen the final output figure yet; I do not know whether the noble Earl has had the figure for 1963. From what he has said to-night, we hope it will have been affected to some extent by the date of finishing certain of the tonnage covered by this Bill. It may have improved on last year's output, but certainly there is nothing like the output we ought to have from this country.
What stands in the way of our getting going properly? In the first place I think there should be a Government who take a real interest in the prosperity of such industries. When a Government like the one we have now rely upon private enterprise to do everything, and only come in at the last moment as an insurance, as if they were dealing with a fire concern, we cannot hope, in this modern world of ours, to see this industry keep pace as it goes along. I do not think this Government have been anything like as active as they should have been in looking after the state of industry and seeing that it is modernised and kept up to date.
How do I pick out the points in regard to that? I was very interested when I was, politically at any rate, in charge of the building and repair of all naval and merchant shipping for five years during the war, and I know a bit about it from practical experience. I visited practically the whole of the shipyards in this country. I found they were nothing like well equipped, and they were being
constantly interfered with by bombing, but their output was stupendous. One of the reasons for that—let me be quite fair in allocating responsi-
510
bilities—was that in war time we seemed to get away from the restrictive practices in the industry which seem to arise in peace time and which are so much more absent from the industry in other countries. And these restrictive practices are not only by the workers. I do not like them when they are done by
workers, but they are done on the other side of the industry as well, very often. Restrictive practices cannot really operate to the benefit of a great industry like this or contribute properly to the general prosperity of the country.
I remember going up to the Wear and taking great interest in a firm—I do not suppose one ought to advertise names of firms, and I will not—which had brought up to date one of the finest marine diesel engines to be found. They did an export trade, but they were also very valuable to this country in time of war, and the work they turned out was really magnificent. What is the situation in diesel engines to-day? Will anybody get up and say we are leading the world, as we did then, in the production of diesel marine engines? I do not think so. I should like to hear from the noble Earl whether he contends that. Is Sweden ahead of us? Is the Swiss engineer ahead of us? Is the Dane ahead of us? This is something which requires consideration. I get my information nowadays only by glancing at the shipping papers now and again when I have time. But it is the Government's job, especially within the Ministry of Transport, to keep pace all the time with these things, and that is not being done.
Let us have a look at costs. One of the great handicaps in shipbuilding, according to the shipbuilders' case to me, was always the excessive comparative cost to the British builder of steel plates. What has happened about steel plates in this country? We had national ownership of the iron and steel industry for not much more than eighteen months. But the complaint of the shipbuilding industry is that the cost of steel plates to-day, in spite of the greatest subsidies to a part of the reconstituted capitalist steel industry, like the £50 million at best borrowing rates to Colville's and the like, is not competitive with the price at which they are being bought by our foreign shipbuiling competitors. What is the

511
explanation of that? It would be jolly interesting to me to know.
I am going to leave my noble friend to deal with all the extraordinary circumstances which seem to us to arise in the different stages of the Cunard business. I must say that as we look to the general future of the industry we must have something much better than the attention at present given by the Government to the industry. I noticed, for example, that the Minister of Transport, in his speech on the original submission of the Bill in the other place, did not make any reference to future possible changes in the propulsion of merchant ships. My honourable friend who was then in charge of the debate for the Labour Party referred in some detail to the extraordinary experiments that were taking place in the world—it is now nearly a month ago that he made this statement—in the development of nuclear marine propulsion. And I dare say many noble Lords here to-day will already have seen a copy of the Economist of last week and read an extraordinary article with regard to this particular matter.
And yet, so far as I can find in the report in Hansard of the Commons debate, after all this detailed case had been made by my honourable friend in the other place, not a single word was said in reply to the case put for the urgent need for the production of an experimental ship as a matter of research and development vitally required for the maintenance on a modern basis of our competitive power in the world as a shipbuilding country.
My honourable friend in the other place pointed out that to his knowledge there were experiments very far advanced in both the United States and Russia. He pointed out, too, that there were very far advanced experiments being built up in West Germany and in Japan. As a matter of fact, the Economist this week claims that unless the Government act at once on the basis of scientific research they may be continuously behind. They state two things: it would take four years, at least, for us to produce for final trials and use an experimental nuclear-propelled marine ship, at a cost of between £5 million and £6½ million. That is the cost I put on it. Some people say £5 million; some people say more. And the Economist
512
points out that the present experimental ship which is being produced in West Germany will be ready for full trials in 1967, whereas we could not possibly, even from now, have one ready before 1968. Take the case of Japan. Japan is well advanced with its inquiries into the production of such an experimental ship, and it is greatly helped by something they have devised in connection with their shipyards, that we have not done half enough about in this country. What they have done is to use their shipbuilding yards in the production of other engineering work as well as the construction of ships. That has been exceedingly valuable to them in carrying their overheads in relation to these other new matters, and they are engaged in, and developing rapidly, their experiments in the use of nuclear propulsion.
There are all kinds of problems yet to be settled. It is not easy to produce a nuclear-powered marine engine which is of the right weight to fit into a merchant ship. It is a big problem. A good deal of the absence of the use of special ballast in an ordinary merchant ship of the present type means that great tonnages of oil or other fuels have to be carried; while to have a nuclear and yet more powerful marine engine means that a comparatively light weight is needed. There you have a problem to face, with regard to how to get the proper stability and balance in a merchant ship.
Why are we not engaged in the same experiments? We are told in another place—this is now confirmed in the article in the Economist this week—that not only are Russia, the United States, Germany and Japan well ahead with these experiments, with 1967 fixed for performance by West Germany, but now Denmark, Sweden, Italy, France and, I believe, two other countries are engaged upon this same research and development. Here the Government have come to book on this to-day. We welcome their Bill, but they are late in the actual credit, and they have not deigned even to give an answer to the debate and the case put forward by my honourable friends in another place in regard to the need for having experimental and scientific development of this sort to keep us in line. The other thing that they have failed to tell us is what they have done constructively to see that our ship-

513
building yards are sufficiently modern in their equipment and outlook.
Frankly, I am disappointed in the speech of the noble Earl, whom we all greatly like. I thought that he would have studied the debate in another place; and, although the Vice-Admiral there seemed to get a good heckling while making his replies, I should have thought that we might have been told to-day what is the real answer to the case that I am putting and which has already been put by my colleagues in another place on January 15. We ought to have had the answer given us to-day to bring that debate up to date. Therefore, I conclude—and I apologise for having taken so long—by saying that I welcome the Bill as it is. It certainly is not the final answer. You have got to do some more about it in the interim period, while you get the shipbuilding industry properly back on its feet. Meanwhile, we welcome the Bill, and we pray that the Government will get on with the job that they ought to be doing.
4.45 p.m.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships' House for the first time with some trepidation. I am strengthened, however, first by the knowledge of your traditional tolerance; secondly, because I am going to speak on a Bill which is not a Party issue; and, thirdly, because if I am informed correctly, it is almost impossible to transgress the Rules in debate. This Bill is a retrospective measure; we are giving authority for expenditure which has already been incurred. While being unusual, this, of course, has its great advantages over some Bills which are produced by any Government. We are able to test and see whether it has been beneficial and has succeeded in its aims. I think we have to agree that here this is the fact. This has been a most successful measure. I am not going to take extreme cases, but if we take the labour force, in June 1963 it was 53,000 and it has now built up to 60,000. That is a considerable achievement. This has given employment to people largely in the distressed areas. So far as tonnage is concerned, the tonnage under construction has risen from 1·8 million to 2·4 million dead weight tonnage.
514
The situation before credit facilities were available to British owners was not, in my submission, primarily due to the inefficiency of out-of-date shipyards, or to the intransigent and archaic labour relations which exist in British shipbuilding yards. I do not believe that to be true. Apart from extensive rationalisation, British shipyards have spent a sum of no less than £150 million on modernisation. We must give credit for that. Mention has been made of strikes, demarcation and restrictive practices. I am not going to deal with those subjects, because it is hardly the debate in which to do so, but I must point out that there are far fewer disputes in British shipyards—an old basic industry—than there are in the British car industry, which is relatively new. I get a little tired of the denigrating of this great industry, and I only hope that the people who do it will study the facts.
I do not propose to accept the contention that it is essential for this industry to be contracted. I think it still has a great future, and that we are apt to forget that for every 1,000 work-People employed in British shipyards, at least
1,400 are employed by sub-contractors in providing the necessary equipment for
the vessels. So, in regard to the total manpower actually employed, one has almost to double the number employed in the shipyards. I thought that Ministers in another place were far too facile in talking in terms of drastic closure or retrenchment. The state of the industry and the difficulties that it has gone through are due entirely to the subsidies given by foreign Powers to shipbuilders and owners. The noble Earl gave many illustrations. Take Spain. Few people regard Spain as a shipbuilding country, but Spain gives heavy subsidies against British builders for British and Norwegian owners of shipping. In France, there is a 25 per cent. subsidy, yet French shipyards make a loss. Sweden, which had no disorganisation at all due to the war, has made available a special sum of £27 million in the form of credit to counteract Japanese competition.
Of course, Japan is the most ominous of the competitors. The Japanese Government have set the industry a deadweight target of 1½ million tons for export alone. The average wage rate in Japanese shipyards is £40 a month.

515
At present they can quote at 22½ per cent. lower than world prices. This is not the end of the story. Continental shipbuilders are constructing shipyards in Eire, Mexico and Greece, not only in competition with their own shipping companies but of course with British shipyards too. The Governments also provide subsidies. Therefore, it is essential that we should have a measure like this to give credit to British shipowners. It has certainly got the industry over a rather difficult period.
I have certain criticisms of this measure, and there are certain points on which I should like to have an answer. The first question I ask is why this scheme should be brought in at the end of May, 1964. That seems to me discriminatory against British shipowners, because foreign owners can order ships from British shipyards and get the benefit of the credit facilities. I fail to see why British shipowners should be placed at a disadvantage, and I should like an answer on this point.
I come now to the question of the Cunarder—a very controversial question, I regret to say, in a maiden speech, but it has been referred to by the noble Earl. I do not know whether I should call it the Q.3 or the Q.4, but for the purposes of this debate I shall call it the Q.4. Why was it found necessary to include the £17·8 million, the cost of the new Cunarder, in this sum of £75 million? This was not the original idea of the Government at all. If so, why was legislation produced in the other place? This is an afterthought. What is the real reason behind it? We have got to have a new Cunarder because British prestige is at stake, and this ought to have been taken as a separate item of expenditure. Let us look at it from the point of view of giving employment in shipyards—if we are to listen to some people, this "shot in the arm" to this derelict industry. The cost of the new Cunarder, £17·8 million, could have built five bulk carriers or five super tankers—work which could have been spread over the many yards in Britain. Instead of that, the Cunarder, whoever gets the contract for it (and I do not want to name them), is bound to be built in one large yard. I consider that this is a narrow, mean and not very far-sighted policy.
516
The noble Earl mentioned in general terms how this money has been distributed. But I should like to ask him to give us an assurance that one British shipowner has not had a 25 per cent. allocation of this global sum. It is a very difficult and tricky business for the Minister of Transport or the Treasury, whoever allocates the money, to do the job fairly. Therefore, we ought to have a little more explanation as to how it is being distributed.
I now come to the question of steel, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. It is axiomatic to say that steel is the prime raw material of British shipbuilding. Some of us want to know what is taking place in the steel industry. It is said that a reduction of £7 to £8 per ton on steel on a 60,000-ton tanker will reduce the tender price by something like £100,000. Therefore, this is a considerable item indeed. What we find happening is that British steel manufacturers are selling at lower prices to our competitors abroad. I fail to see why we should sell more cheaply to our competitors abroad rather than provide cheap steel plate for the British shipbuilding industry. But that is not the whole story. The Iron and Steel Community will not sell steel to British shipyards at lower than world prices, so it appears that this matter must be looked into. The Parliamentary Secretary in the other place stated that this whole matter was to go before the Restrictive Practices Court. It would be interesting to hear from the noble Earl just why he thinks that is necessary. There is no doubt that British shipbuilders have been placed at a great disadvantage in having to pay such high prices for steel.
I was amazed by the categorical statement by the Minister in the other place
that this was to be a once-and-for-all stimulus to British shipbuilders. This
point was mentioned by my noble Leader, and I should like to develop it. The £75 million credit provides capital for British shipowners to place orders for British ships to be built in British yards. The fundamental difficulty which affects the basic industries of this country at the present time is the

517
shortage of fluid capital. To take a homely example, if one were fortunate enough to be left £100,000 and went to one's stockbroker to ask for advice as to where it should be invested, would he mention one basic British industry in which to place that £100,000? The answer is, No. It would be invested in the distributive industries, in speculative building, and probably a few thousand in heavy chemicals. The dilemma with which any Government, whether it be Labour or Tory, is going to be faced is that the basic industries of this country must have capital. They cannot get it all from ploughing back profits, for profit margins are very tight at the moment. There are going to be more and more measures of this sort, in regard to not only the shipbuilding industry but many other basic industries.
There is another argument in support of this point. Whereas large firms could face up to a slump of six or eight years in the bad periods of the 'thirties, today they would be in bankruptcy if they had to face up to a slump of two years. This is going to mean careful consideration on the part of the economists of the Treasury and of both political Parties in relation to the financing of British industry, particularly the basic industries. I am not now going to deal with the question of the nuclear ship, except to endorse what my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough said—that the sooner we have one the better. It is monstrous that a great maritime nation such as Great Britain should lag behind in this matter, and we should like to have an explanation from the Minister. We might have an indication that a measure is to be brought forward providing the capital for a nuclear ship. If I might digress, I would throw out the suggestion that it would be a good idea to have a nuclear reactor placed in an Admiralty Fleet auxiliary, with the Fleet auxiliary manned in the usual manner.
I do not want to detain the House too long, but I should like to say that I have thought for a long time that the Ministry of Transport is one of those Departments which are far too big. How one man can keep control of roads, railways, docks, waterways, power stations—he has some power stations—and London passenger transport, and look
518
after shipping and shipbuilding, I just do not know. The Department will have to be split up. The argument that was advanced in the other place, that this cannot be done without giving every Minister a seat in the Cabinet, seemed to me—if I may say so, in a maiden speech—rather childish. My Lords, I welcome this Bill. Something is better than nothing. The British are a great nation. They can build ships and sail them; and long may they continue to do so.
5.1 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, it is a very agreeable privilege for me to be able to congratulate the noble Lord upon his most successful maiden speech in this House. He and I were colleagues for a number of years in another place, and it is a great pleasure to me to resume acquaintance with him here. He was a Minister—he was Assistant Postmaster General—and later, after the fall of the Socialist Government, continued his most useful and public-spirited activities on the Estimates Committee, serving as chairman of one of the subcommittees of that extremely important probing Committee. When he referred to this Bill as dealing with the expenditure of money which had already been spent without statutory authorisation, I thought that his old instincts as a guardian of the public purse were going to make him criticise it. However, on the contrary, he said that this had the advantage that we knew that the money had been well spent before the statutory authorisation was required for it. I cannot think that that sentiment would have been one that he would have expressed when he was a member of the Estimates Committee. As a member of the A.E.U., he is a most welcome recruit to the much valued and respected body of trade unionists in your Lordships' House. I am sure your Lordships all agree with me when I say that we hope frequently to hear from him, and we are confident that he will speak with the same detailed knowledge and wide grasp that he has shown in his maiden speech this afternoon.
My complaint against this Bill is that it is only a palliative, and not conditional on any improvement in the causes of the decline of the shipbuilding industry. It has been in decline for a long time,

519
largely through its own fault. In 1946 more than half—53 per cent.—of the world tonnage launched was launched in this country. By 1961 the proportion had fallen to 15 per cent.—that is, a decline in 15 years from 53 per cent. to 15 per cent. In 1962, despite the fact that the tonnage under construction in the world increased that year by 2½ million tons, Britain's share had fallen again, this time to 13 per cent. Between 1957 and 1963 it had lost one-third of its labour force, and we, who at one time were the greatest exporters of ships to the world, are now importing on average 300,000 tons annually from foreign yards.
My Lords, why has this industry declined? There is no secret about that: its costs are too high; ships take too long to construct, and strikes frequently make delivery dates quite uncertain. Usually when the Government ask Parliament to give some special assistance to a selected and favoured industry, Parliament is given an assurance that something is going to be done to put matters right, to make certain that if this special assistance is given the industry will be able, after the lapse of a period of time, to stand on its own feet. There is no such guarantee on this occasion. Indeed, the Minister speaking in another place refused to accept any proper responsibility for seeing that this assistance is conditional upon an improvement in the industry. He said, speaking on 15th January [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 687 (No. 31) cols. 239–240]:
"I come next to the labour situation. This is a subject with which employers and unions have been wrestling for over two years in a working party under a Ministry of Labour chairman."
My Lords, that was a reference to the working party set up in December, 1961, when my noble friend who is now Lord Blakenham was Minister of Labour. There has been no report, and the Minister went on to say:
"I make no secret of the fact that progress has been disappointing and distressingly slow. I hope that with the recent settlement on pay and hours it will be possible for both sides to get somewhere. I am sure that it is as much in the interests of the men themselves as of the management that this should happen. Indeed, it must happen if this industry is to be healthy and vigorous in the years to come."
520
A little later he went on to say:
"But all this is for the industry itself to tackle. It is not for the Government to tell the industry how to run its business."
Much the same words fell from my noble friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office this afternoon. But is it not justifiable, when special assistance is being given, to ask that something should be done about it? We have, I think rightly, the Government seeking to bring to an end resale price maintenance as it is against the national advantage, and I would say that when they are lending £75 million largely in order to assist this industry, the Government are entitled to ask of the industry that it should set its house in order.
My Lords, the cause of the depression, as the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, has said is foreign competition. In tankers and bulk carriers Sweden is undercutting us by 10 per cent. and Japan by 20 per cent. Surely this is no time for an increase in wages or for the phased introduction of the 40-hour week. Her Majesty's Government have reported the settlement of December 16 to the National Incomes Commission, and have presented this large volume of evidence showing what the effect of the settlement is likely to be. In a leading article, called "Danger Signals" published on December 18, The Times has also drawn attention to the very serious consequences that may result from this settlement.
The Government say, on the authority of the National Economic Development Council, that with a 4 per cent. increase in production it is possible to increase money incomes by from 3 to 3½ per cent. without inflation. I suppose this industry would claim that this settlement is just within the so-called "guiding light". It is estimated that the effect of the increased wages in this settlement, and the reduction of hours from 42 to 40 per week, in two stages, will ultimately increase hourly wages by the equivalent of 9·6 per cent. As this is spread over three years, I suppose it is argued that this is only 3·2 per cent. But, my Lords, that, of course, is conditional upon there being no further wage demands during those three years: it is conditional upon there not being a successful attempt to raise wages by local settlements above the national level; and there is, of course, as The Times has said, every

521
reason to expect that there will be a further wage demand next year, and another the year after. Not only does this settlement not contain any undertaking that during the period of the reduction in hours there shall not be a further demand for an increase in wages, but nothing is said about demarcation disputes, and nothing about restrictive practices.
My Lords, this permitted increase of 3 to 3½ per cent. is a general average over the economy as a whole, and an average implies that some increases may be more but that others must be less. In the case of an industry which is facing competition from abroad, with its own prices, as I have indicated, too high—10 per cent., too high, in the case of Sweden, and 20 per cent. in the case of Japan—clearly this is not an industry where it is safe or desirable for there to be an increase in wages of this kind. The effect of the promise of the phased introduction of the 40-hour week has already caused the closely allied engineering industry to demand the introduction of a 40-hour week; and, as The Times has said, if it were once admitted in the engineering industry as a whole it would be quite impossible to prevent it from spreading through the economy as a whole. While there may well be some progressive, vigorous and efficient industries where the additional cost of the 40-hour week could be absorbed, it is manifest that that cannot be the case at the present time in the shipbuilding industry unless there is to be such a change in outlook and improvement in relations as will enable restrictive practices to be brought to an end.
All these points were clearly foreseen by the Government, and have been set out in the memorandum which they have presented to "Nicky"; and when this is so clearly seen by the Government, is it really enough for them to lecture and to present memoranda upon the subject? If £75 million is being made available as a special effort to assist the shipbuilding industry, surely this is a case where the Government could insist upon something being done. This Bill does nothing to ensure the necessary reorganisation of the industry and the improvement in its labour relations. For example, there are no proposals to bring about keener competition, as I think the
522
noble Lord, Lord Hobson, said, among sub-contractors in order to make certain that prices are genuinely competitive; and no proposals, such as I should have liked to see, for buying steel in the cheapest market. If there is this complaint against British prices being higher than foreign prices, is there any reason why British shipbuilders should not seek to buy, as their competitors are doing, from foreign steel producers? My Lords, the Prime Minister has said that the objective of this Government is to try to ensure the modernisation of this country as a whole. Clearly this Bill, which is giving a temporary, unconditional assistance to the shipbuilding industry, is doing nothing to bring about the modernisation of the British shipbuilding industry.
5.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I should first like to add my congratulations, and those of the House as a whole, to the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, on a most successful and enjoyable maiden speech. I liked the whole of it, if I may say so, and I particularly liked the carefree gaiety with which the noble Lord announced that he had been told that there were no Rules of Order in your Lordships' House, and that it did not really matter what he said. Our Rules of Order are sometimes, perhaps, made up as we go along, and with regard to what is said in another place I never trust myself to give authoritative pronouncements on these matters, but I think we are supposed not to refer to what has been said in another place during the same Session unless we have some reason for quoting the exact words of some Minister in another place. I greatly enjoyed the noble Lord's references to the debate in another place on January 15, which was also referred to by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition. I enjoyed, and the House enjoyed, what the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, said about it, but I do not think that, if I pursued the matter, your Lordships would enjoy my remarks quite so much as you did his. I shall therefore try myself to keep in order about that.
I was also gratified by the patriotic tone which imbued most of what the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, said. It is true that we are in many respects holding our own, and doing much better than

523
countries like France or Spain, in spite of certain advantages which they give to their shipbuilding; and I was glad that he mentioned the £150 million which has been spent on modernisation, to very good effect. In my remarks I said something about the need for ending restrictive practices and for adapting yards on more competitive bases, but I was glad to hear this figure, of the actual amount which has been spent on modernisation, mentioned by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord said that, although speaking for the first time, he would like to say a few things which could be regarded as controversial. I do not think he was unduly controversial, but I ought to reply to the specific points to which he did ask me to reply, about allocation, about the new Cunarder and about the permanence of the scheme. Of course, one can never give a very definite reply on a question like permanence, because no Government and no Parliament can ever bind its successor, and we must always he free to act in the national interest according to the circumstances of the time. I think that one reason why we never contemplated making this shipbuilding credit scheme anything more than temporary was that we wanted to give the industry a breathing space during which it could give more attention to its own long-term plans which it has got to make for itself in the long run. If we had prolonged this particular scheme, I think it might have reduced the incentive to compete for exports, because this scheme is only for home ships or orders by home owners.
It is for the industry to adapt itself to the needs of the present. It may certainly be that in the long term there will be a reduction in the number employed. Some yards may have to go out of business; but the point is that this scheme has removed the industry's need to preoccupy itself with immediate survival. It has enabled it to give more attention to long-term planning. But we have all the considerations which the noble Lord mentioned, about indirect assistance which other countries give to their shipbuilding, very much in mind.
Then the noble Lord asked about allocation. I cannot, of course, disclose the firms to whom loans have been committed under this scheme; but the whole point of setting up the advisory
524
committee under Lord Piercy (for whose services the Government are grateful), provided for at the beginning of Clause 1, was to take the immediate responsibility out of the purview of the Minister of Transport and to appoint a specialist committee of people in a position to examine every claim on its merits. We did not propose that there should be any kind of distribution allocation by trying to divide up the money lent between different owners or areas, but simply that every application for a loan should be examined strictly on its own merits including the credit-worthiness of the applicant. There are some applications which have not been proceeded with; but the numbers finally refused are, I understand, very few.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether the loans are to be secured? If so, how?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords, they are secured. The loans, as the House knows, are up to 80 per cent. of the value of the ship, and the security is the ship itself.
LORD LATHAM: Not a debenture?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords; the security for payment is the ship on which the loan has been spent.
The noble Lord, Lord Hobson, asked about the new Cunarder, and he went into some recent history. I should just like to remind your Lordships that the Government were prepared to carry out, and offered to carry out, their obligations under the 1961 Act which enabled this large sum of money to be spent on what would have been the Q3. It was not the Government who retracted from that undertaking; it was the Cunard company who decided after the offer had been made, after they were first willing to accept it, that, after all, it was not going to be worth their while. It was they, not we, who withdrew.
I have already mentioned the next application in July which we did not accept. But I thought the noble Lord sounded as if he were under the impression that this £17·6 million which we were advancing had been money which might otherwise have been lent to a number of other, perhaps more needy, shipowners or builders. That is not so. The amount was increased in July to £60 million, and at that time the Cunard

525
application for a loan was turned down. Later on, the Cunard application was revised on the new terms which were no longer unacceptable to the Government and which should enable the loan to be made. An entirely new amount was authorised, and the maximum raised to £75 million which would not otherwise have happened. It was not at the expense of anybody else. It was done in order to enable this new loan to be given for what the noble Lord correctly described, I think, as the Q4. The Q3 will never really exist.
I should like to thank the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition for gallantly contributing his part in this debate, in spite of the very severe physical disability which he suffered, and which all of us are only too apt to suffer St this time of the year. I hope very much that he will soon be completely well again. I was glad to hear what the noble Earl said about research. I cannot reply at very great length, and I do not think he would want me to do so; but I would mention that the Ministry of Transport are extremely conscious of the potential advantages which there may be in the nuclear propulsion of ships; and various systems are being examined. The Minister does realise the need for urgency; but it is essential, whatever type of reactor is adopted, that it should be one which offers the prospect of being at least as economical as a conventional type of engine. It is not yet clear beyond doubt what type, if any, could be so developed; but we are urgently studying this matter.
There is not much I can say about diesel engines, because it is the case, as the noble Earl said, that builders have fallen behind in the production of diesels. The need to meet the difficult international competitive conditions does apply to all sections of the industry—engineers as well as shipyards. A great many have spent a great deal on modernisation; and it is the object of the scheme to provide time. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has just announced a considerably increased grant to the British Ship Research Association for the next five years; and I should like to mention to the noble Earl, also, that provided the shipbuilding industry raises a minimum grant-earning income of
526
£600,000 a year, the new terms will provide grant-aid of 50 per cent. of industrial income up to £1 million. In addition, there will be a grant of £1 for every £1 contributed by shipowners, subject to a maximum grant of £200,000 a year. That could represent the biggest grant yet made to any industrial research association.
I always listen with a great deal of interest to the noble Earl's comparison between conditions immediately after the war and conditions now, because there were so many theatres of administration in which the noble Earl played a distinctive part both during and after the war; and this was one of them. I would say—and I think probably most noble Lords would agree—that the most essential difference between post-war conditions and present conditions is this: after the war a great deal of the world's shipping had been sunk; very little new replacements had come along; and there was an enormous demand for shipping all over the world. It was too easy; almost everybody was crying out for ships, and however expensive and uncompetitive your production of a ship was, for a very long time you were fairly well assured of a market. Now it is the other way round. If we want to meet—and as a great shipbuilding nation we must do so—keen and permanent competition, we have got to think very much more of efficiency, and not nearly so much simply of bulk production.
I know that it is a matter of opinion, but our view is that State control cannot do very much to improve the efficiency of the shipyards. There are other circumstances, as in the emergency of war or in immediate post-war conditions, when a larger measure of Government control is right and justified; but we do not feel that in the present circumstances Government interference or Government management or Government control can be much help to the shipyards in their paramount need, which is to reduce costs and increase competitiveness. I was glad to hear the noble Earl pay tribute to those who have helped in making our modern shipyards more competitive, particularly to one shipowner, whose constituency I used to represent in another place.
My noble friend Lord Molson kindly gave me notice that he intended to raise

527
his point about wages, which I think, on the face of it, is a good point. It may have a particular application to the shipbuilding and engineering industries, but I do not think that we could have made any conditions of the kind he suggests in this shipbuilding credit scheme. The whole point is that we thought it would be a good thing if we gave a quick stimulus to the industry, and the need in the middle of last year was urgent. If we had tried to impose conditions, such as that a loan would be given only if there were no increase of wages that the Government thought excessive, it would have been doubtful whether any shipowner would have been prepared to take advantage of the scheme. The buyer needs to know where he stands. He does not actually get the loan until after the ship is delivered and the owner, through the Ministry of Transport, has entered a commitment to place a contract for a new ship, with the reasonable assurance that the commitment will be honoured when the ship is delivered to him. It would be very difficult if he were to be told that he would get the loan only if certain things, such as an absence of wage increases, had or had not happened by then, because individually he might have very little control over any wage agreement which is concluded.
The pay settlement which has recently been reached in shipbuilding has been referred by the Government, as my noble friend mentioned, together with the settlement in engineering, which was reached about the same time, to the National Incomes Commission for examination, and I think that it would be best for us to see what they have to say about it before venturing further comment, because I think it is likely to prove a little more complicated than it may appear to be at first sight, and we do not want to anticipate any opinion that they give. I am sorry not to be able to give a more satisfactory reply to my noble friend, because I think that, in principle, the point is a very good one. But I do not think that we could have done anything to meet it, either in this Bill or in the previous action which we took about the credit scheme, which this Bill somewhat posthumously legalises.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (ANÆSTHETICS) BILL [H.L.]
5.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, I beg to move that the Protection of Animals (Amæsthetics) Bill, 1964, be now read a second time. I must start by referring to the Animals (Anæsthetics) Act, 1919, which contained Schedules listing the operations for which an anæsthetic, general or local, had to be used. That was considered satisfactory for the time, but later the British Veterinary Association thought, because of the new operations and new techniques of anæsthetics which were constantly being devised, that it was impossible to schedule for any considerable length of time all the various surgical operations for which an anæsthetic was required. Accordingly, they sponsored the Protection of Animals (Amæsthetics) Bill, 1953. That Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, and received a Second Reading on October 22, but lapsed at the end of the Session.
A new Bill was then introduced in another place in 1954 by the noble Baroness, Lady Davidson, and eventually became the Protection of Animals (Amæsthetics) Act, 1954. That Act replaced the 1919 Act and, instead of listing the operations which must be performed under an anæsthetic, it provided that all operations an animals which involved interference with the sensitive tissue or bone structure should be carried out under an anæsthetic, except those listed in the First Schedule.
The British Veterinary Association had some proposals for amending the 1954 Act. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, replying to a question from Mrs. Barbara Castle in July, 1962, said that he was in touch with the veterinary profession on the subject of the possible amendment of the Act. An ad hoc committee of the British Veterinary Association later reviewed the Act, and recommended that the following classes of operation should always be carried

529
out under an anæsthetic: (a) the castration of a male dog, cat, horse, ass or mule; (b) the castration of a bull, or a male sheep, goat or pig over the age of two months; (c) the de-horning of cattle by any method, until actual physical severance of the horn occurs; and (d) the dis-budding of calves by actual cautery or incision.
They also recommended that the use of the rubber ring method for the castration of male animals or for the docking of lambs' tails should be permitted only if the ring were applied in the first week of the animal's life. A petition asking that the Protection of Animals (Anæsthetic) Act be amended was presented to the Speaker of the House of Commons in July, 1963, and later that month, in reply to a Question from me, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, said that it was intended to introduce legislation to amend the Act.
That brings us to the present Bill. Clause 1(2) has the effect of requiring that dogs and cats may be castrated only under anæsthetic. An Amendment was proposed in the Committee stage of Lady Davidson's Bill in 1954, that the castration of a dog should always be performed under an anæsthetic, but, after some discussion, for reasons which I need not elaborate, it was withdrawn. The elimination of dogs and cats from the classes of animals which may be operated on without an anæsthetic is the purport of this subsection. I must say that the present proposal has the strong support of the veterinary profession.
Clause 1(3)(a) would have the effect of removing from the First Schedule the reference to horses, asses and mules, and consequently would make it unlawful to castrate these at any age without using an anæsthetic. The Protection of Animals (Anæthetic) Bill of 1954 provided that the age above which horses may not be castrated without an anæsthetic should be eighteen months, but this was reduced in Committee to twelve months. An Amendment was also moved in Committee to require that the castration of horses should never be performed without an anæsthetic. This was the only Amendment on which the Committee divided, and the Amendment was defeated by 10
530
votes to 8. So from 1954 to the present time it has been legal to castrate horses up to the age of twelve months without an anæsthetic. It is now proposed that horses shall never be castrated without an anæsthetic. In that Committee in 1954 it was strongly urged that the process of applying an anæsthetic to a horse might damage its prospects for racing, and so on. But the development of tranquillisers and anæsthetics has made it no longer necessary to use these physical methods of restraint—that is to say, casting a horse and so on—and in the opinion of the veterinary authorities the whole operation can now be carried out with complete safety.
Clause 1(3)(b) would reduce the age above which a bull or male sheep may not be castrated without an anæsthetic from twelve months to three months. An Amendment to accomplish this was proposed in the Committee stage of the 1954 Bill, but it was eventually withdrawn. It was then stated that it might not be possible in remote parts of the country, and particularly in Scotland and Wales, to get in a veterinary surgeon to perform the operation when required when they had to be castrated up to the age of twelve months. The British Veterinary Association originally proposed that the age should be reduced to two months for bulls and male sheep; but the farming interests pointed out that hill-farming lambs are not brought down from the hills until they are older than two months, and if they were gathered at an earlier age there would be considerable risk that they would lose their mothers. The British Veterinary Association pointed out that animals become progressively more sensitive to pain as they grow older, but agreed that castration without anæsthetics would not cause much more pain to a three-months-old lamb than it would to a two-months-old lamb. I must apologise for reading this speech, but it is so full of detail that I could not memorise it all. Also, I think it is important that I should give these details, because it shows that this new Bill is not somebody's brain wave with the date arbitrarily fixed, but that the veterinary authorities and the farmers have been consulted throughout, and to a very large extent it records an agreed compromise.
The farming industry also pointed out that male calves of hill-suckled herds

531
were not generally castrated until they were between four and five months old, and that it would encourage contravention if the age above which an anæsthetic must be used for their castration were set as low as two months, and an extra collection of cattle would be necessary. In view of these circumstances, the R.S.P.C.A. and the Central Council in Scotland of the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and the veterinary profession, agreed with the representatives of the farmers that the age above which bulls and male sheep should not be castrated without an anæsthetic should be set at three months. This morning, when I came into the House, I received a letter from the Secretary of the R.S.P.C.A. giving the wholehearted support of his Society to this Bill.
Clause 1(3) would reduce to two months the age above which goats and pigs may not be castrated without an anæsthetic. At present the ages are three months and seven months respectively. In the Protection of Animals (Anæsthetics) Act, 1954, the ages were set at six months and seven months respectively, and an Amendment was moved that they should be reduced to three months. The Amendment was agreed to in the case of goats, but resisted in the case of pigs. Lady Davidson said that there was a reason for resisting the Amendment in the case of pigs, that
"in the remoter parts of the country and in Scotland and Wales the farmers are in some cases a hardier and tougher breed, and it would be unreasonable to expect them to bring in a veterinary surgeon when necessary to castrate pigs five or six months old."
The evidence suggests that the adoption of the present proposal would cause no hardship to the pig industry, because early castration is now practised very widely.
Clause (1)(3) would make it unlawful to castrate an animal by using a rubber ring or other device to restrict the flow of blood to the scrotum applied later than the first week of the animal's life, unless it was anæsthetised during the whole time that it carried the rubber ring. This would be quite impossible, of course, because castration by this method takes up to three weeks. The practical effect of this new paragraph 6A,
532
therefore, is to forbid the use of the rubber-ring method for castration unless it is applied within the first week of the animal's life. This proposal is, perhaps, likely to prove the most contentious one in the Bill, but the opinion of the Veterinary Society is that this method of castration by constricting the flow of blood to and from the scrotum causes a great deal of suffering over a longer period. Farmers have objected that it is not always possible to apply the ring in the first week of a lamb's life because the testicles have not developed sufficiently for the purpose. Now that other methods of castration are to be permitted, with amæsthetics applied by laymen and not by veterinarians, I very much hope that the practice of using the rubber rings will fall into desuetude.
Clause 1(4)(a) and paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Schedule to the Act of 1954 exempt minor operations from the general requirement concerning anæthesia. This provision covers those operations which may never be counted as such minor operations and, accordingly, an anæsthetic would always have to be used when they are performed. In Clause 1(4)(b), the de-horning of cattle as a surgical operation is an operation which is customarily performed by a veterinary surgeon and so its performance without an anæsthetic probably constitutes an offence at present. This paragraph is included, however, so that there shall be no doubt.
Clause 1(4)(c) would make it unlawful to dis-bud calves without an anæsthetic except by chemical cautery applied within the first week of life. It would therefore be unlawful to use any other method without an anæsthetic. This is in accordance with veterinary opinion. Clause 1(4)(d) deals with the docking of lambs' tails by using a rubber ring or other device to restrict the flow of blood to the tail. This is subject to the same argument as castration by rubber ring; it is permitted only if the ring is applied during the first week of the animal's life.
That completes the examination of the Bill itself, but there is another Act in existence to-day which has some bearing on the case. It is the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1948, which requires that the castration of animals of any of the

533
classes that we have been talking about this evening above a certain age must be performed by a veterinary surgeon. That means, of course, that the operation
must not be performed by a layman; and that is still the law. I do not think it is going to affect the question very seriously because the ages that were set at that time were very high. For instance, a horse might not be castrated over the age of two years except by a veterinary surgeon. Now, horses have come out of the Schedule altogether and may never be castrated without an anæsthetic.
In the same way, for bulls, goats, rams, boars, cats and dogs, the ages are all fixed much higher than they would be now. So, although this law remains in existence it ceases to have much effect, because (and this is the important part) the implied prohibition of the application of anæsthetics by laymen no longer exists, and this is, I think, a very important point of the Bill. It is, I believe, recognised by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and by the veterinary societies, and so on, that farmers themselves, or their farm hands, may properly be allowed to apply anæsthetics.
The difficulty of making that power general at present consists in the fact that most anæsthetics are on the poison list and cannot be supplied without an order from a veterinary officer. But there is a recommended anæsthetic, called "Lignocaine", which is not on the poison list and can be obtained through an ordinary chemist without great difficulty. This is an innovation; it is strongly supported by the veterinary fraternity, and I think that it will result in a great deal of alleviation of suffering of animals. But there is just this caution. I understand that if these anæsthetics are applied by an unskilled person they may quite possibly do more harm than good. I am therefore asking the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, supposing this Bill goes through, whether it would not be a good thing to circularise all farmers and stockholders advising them not to allow anæsthetics to be applied by any of their staff unless he has first received instructions from a veterinary officer. That, I hope, will remove the danger of inexpert application. I am sorry I have been so
534
long in explaining this new Bill, but I hope it has been clear, and I now beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Dowding.)
6.10 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I think we must thank the noble Lord for the introduction of this Bill and for the many details which he has given, both as to past Bills and what may happen under this proposed Bill. It is a short Bill. Perhaps it is none the worse for that. At any rate, I do not want to deal with the details which were covered by the noble Lord, but I want to put one or two points very briefly. This Bill amends the 1954 Act. That has been in operation for only ten years and I am wondering why it is necessary at this particular stage to amend that legislation. Of course, it may be the result of experience, the discovery that that Bill does not quite meet the situation in regard to certain classes of animal disease and animal operations.
I was wondering also, in listening to the noble Lord, whether or not the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons had been consulted, but in almost the final sentences he mentioned the College. I ask that because, in looking at the 1954 Act, I see that the Minister may, after consultation with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons—they are the persons concerned—do certain things, and I concluded that these were referred to and agreed to before that particular Act was passed. Among the things the Minister can do under that Act is to make orders to reduce the ages, and I wonder whether any orders have been made in the intervening years. Perhaps the Minister can say whether any orders have been made under the 1954 Act, whereby the ages included in the Schedule which has been referred to by the noble Lord have been reduced in any way, or whether it is sufficient now to adopt that previous Act and introduce orders to amend it.
I asked whether the Bill was the outcome of experience, and I wonder whether it has come to the notice of any noble Lord or anybody concerned with the Bill that there has been malpractice and a good deal of animal suffering through insufficient experience. None of us are infallible in anything, and it is

535
quite certain that neither "vets" nor experienced farmers or farm workers can be quite certain that any operations they carry out will be successful. I heard of one two or three days ago where two young bulls were castrated by an experienced
farm worker. One died and the other is very seriously ill at the moment. So it shows that none of us can be certain that any operations we carry out, with or without anæsthetics, are likely to be successful.
This Bill is restrictive in the sense that it restricts the operations on animals which may be performed without the use of anæsthetics, and I think it is, for that reason, a sensible little Bill, a decent little Bill, and one which should merit our support. There may be one or two minor details which have to be amended if the Bill receives its Second Reading to-night and comes up later. For instance, the noble Lord referred to the docking of lamb's tails and the castration of lambs. There are other means now of castrating lambs which one could mention. As he said in regard to hill farms—and the same applies to other farms where large flocks of sheep are kept—it is difficult to do this work in the lambing season when everybody is busy, to put the rubber ring round the tail or do any other operation within a week.
I am anxious to know—perhaps the Minister can tell us, and I expect he will in the course of his reply—whether this Bill, which is a Private Member's Bill, has been vetted by the veterinary officers of his Ministry, and also whether it has the approval of the Government. If we can in any way help to relieve pain and suffering among animals, whether they are domestic or farm animals, I think we in this House, as in another place, should do everything possible by Act of Parliament to do so and so establish what we hope will be better conditions for animals on farms and elsewhere.
6.18 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, this is not a revolutionary Bill. It is merely tightening up regulations which were made under the 1954 Act, and as such I think it is well worth while. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, quoted two cases where operations went astray and, as a result, animals died, and I think that sort of thing is an illustration of the reason why
536
we should be careful to see to it that operations are not carried out other than by experts, except, of course, in cases such as he mentioned, of the docking of sheeps' tails, which is certainly a difficult problem.
I am not one of those who have the idea that animals have the same thought processes as human beings. I have no sentimental feelings about it at all, but I think it is important to prevent suffering, either among human beings or among animals. And there is no doubt that animals, even if they are not capable of reasoning and thinking, are capable of feeling pain. That is borne out by the statement of a well-known circus trainer, who once said that the circus trainer's three chief weapons were hunger, fear and pain. There is no doubt that animals are capable of feeling pain. One can tell that perfectly well, unless one is deliberately showing a blind eye, by their reactions. The trouble is that they cannot inform us of the fact except by those reactions.
This new Bill, I am very glad to see, removes from the possible classes of animals on which operations without anæsthetics can be performed, the dog, the cat and the horse, which I think is right because they are the three animals which one may say have the most sensitive reactions. This view, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has said, is supported by veterinary surgeons.
I think that my noble friend actually mentioned the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
LORD DOWDING: Yes, I did.
LORD SOMERS: That is quite true, yes. Veterinary surgeons are not, as a class, sentimental about animals. They know their job well, and they know exactly what an animal feels and what it does not feel. Therefore, even if my speech is not too convincing, I think that possibly their opinion may be convincing. As to the de-horning of cattle I am a little uncertain, because I have never seen it done. I have no idea whether it is as painful as cutting one's nails or perhaps cutting through a tooth. It may be either. I think that one must leave that for the veterinary surgeon to decide.
In Clause 1(4)(d) we are concerned with the docking of lambs' tails. Why

537
not apply this to dogs, too? I think this should apply to dogs. I know that it is the fashion (shall we say?) for certain dogs' tails to be docked, but I think that that should not be done without an anæsthetic. I entirely agree with what my noble friend said about the circularisation of farmers in the event of this Bill's going through. I have the greatest admiration for farmers as a race—they are a fine lot of men—but some of them are rather apt, owing to having dealt with animals so much, to be a little insensitive about them and about their feelings. It is not easy to make certain that they observe the regulations, and I think that circularisation would be a good thing and a wise means of seeing that the Bill is more widely applied.
6.23 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but while listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, several points occurred to me upon which I feel I can make a contribution. With the noble Lord who has just spoken, I support the Bill and anything that leads towards the reduction of suffering among animals. I think all noble Lords will have that sentiment. I have some knowledge of the handling of horses and dogs, but, more than that, I have to declare an interest in that I am chairman of a company which manufacturers Lignocaine, a drug which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dowding. It is for that reason that I am speaking. Technically, this product is an anæsthetic, but it is because it is a novel product and its uses have been developed, as the noble Lord said, only in recent years that it occurs to me that it might be prudent to look at this Bill again, and that before the Committee stage the Government might perhaps consider the definition of "anæsthetic". I am not altogether prepared to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that "vets" are often insensitive. My impression of them is that, on the whole—
LORD SOMERS: I did not say "vets". I said "some farmers".
LORD FERRIER: Then I misunderstood the noble Lord, and I beg his
538
pardon. My impression of the veterinary surgeon is that, ordinarily, he is not only highly sensitive but tender hearted; and, especially with the development of anæsthetics as they are available to-day, the saving of suffering to animals is a contribution to the veterinary surgeon's own skills and to that end he is readily willing to adopt any method which can save an animal pain, if only in the pursuit of his profession and in order to maintain the health of the animal.
I understand that in the de-horning of cattle this new application of an anæsthetic is of great value. The only object of my intervention is to support what the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said about taking the veterinary profession along with the Government in a Bill of this nature. Off-hand, and from what I have seen of the available legislation, the only thing I can suggest is that perhaps a definition of "anæsthetic" might be considered as a help towards the end which the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, and all of us, I think, seek, which is to reduce so far as is humanly possible any suffering that may be caused to animals.
6.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I just point out, from my own personal experience with regard to the docking of lambs' tails, that in wild hill country it is impossible to find all the lambs in a week? There may be thousands of sheep ranging over tens of thousands of acres; to find them all in a week is an impossibility. But we have found that if rubber rings are used up to the age of three weeks, no inconvenience is caused to the lambs. That is as far as we can ascertain. With regard to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, as to whether the de-horning of cattle is cruel, I may say I have often seen this done in Eire, and it is extremely cruel. The blood spurts out, and the bullocks make a great row. I can assure the noble Lord that it is extremely cruel. I cannot quite agree with him that all animals cannot think. I can assure the noble Lord that some animals can think, as I have occasion to regret.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I did not deny that. All I said was that possibly they cannot think like human beings.
6.29 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, it has been made clear that there is a general and characteristic wish to support a measure the object of which is to prevent pain and suffering among animals. We are a nation of animal lovers, and it is consistent with the feeling that we have for animals that we should enlarge the protection already given to them by the law. I have listened, as I am sure all your Lordships have done, with the warmest interest to the exposition of the purposes and contents of the Bill given by the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, and I should like to make it clear that Her Majesty's Government have every sympathy with the objects of this Bill. I do not think there is much I need say, except that the Government favour the Bill.
In reply to the question addressed to me by Lord Wise, I could say that it is true, as he said, that the Schedule to the existing Act of 1954 reduced the ages, but our legal advice is that we have no power to remove animals from the Schedule. Therefore, we cannot reduce the period from twelve months to nil. In those circumstances, it is more desirable to have fresh legislation. We have not, in fact, made any reduction under the 1954 Act. There have been advance in technique which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, and changes in outlook since 1954, when the present Protection of Animals (Anæsthetics) Act, 1954 was passed, and the proposals in the new Bill are the result of consideration of the working of the present Act by a Committee of the British Veterinary Association. They are supported by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the R.S.P.C.A., and the Central Council in Scotland of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
Full consultations have been held with the farming and welfare interests, and I feel sure that this new Bill will commend itself to the public in general and to all enlightened members of the farming community. We will naturally consider the closing suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, which was in the form of advice and, therefore, outside the terms
540
of the Bill itself. I conclude by congratulating the noble Lord once more en bringing forward this Bill, and I hope that the House will, at the end of this debate, give it a Second Reading.
6.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I often think that debates in your Lordships' House are most interesting when, like the lark's song, they are unpremeditated, and particularly when they rouse latent feelings in many noble Lords on behalf of animals and farming. This debate has shown that noble Lords on both sides of the House warmly support this small but humane and useful Bill. The only objections that have been raised, relating mainly, I think, to the tails of domestic and farm animals, are such as can easily be met during the Committee stage of the Bill, but I must confess that I have one worry about the future of the Bill.
This is a Private Member's Bill. Judging from the speeches we have heard this afternoon, it will clearly have a smooth passage through this House, but what will happen to it when it reaches another place? There its survival is a doubtful matter. I should like the Government to consider—and perhaps the Minister would think about this—whether the Bill could be adopted as a Government Bill. I understand from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, that when this matter was discussed in another place the Minister then said that the Government intended to introduce amending legislation. Alternatively, I should like to know whether the Government could give Government time for the Bill when it reaches another place. We are all equally concerned not only that our work should not be wasted, but that this useful measure should reach the Statute Book. I very much hope that the Minister who has spoken so warmly and encouragingly about the Bill this afternoon will give us whatever further assistance it requires to make quite certain that it becomes law.
6.35 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, I think that all the points have been satisfactorily cleared up by this discussion, with the possible exception of the use of the rubber ring on lambs for castration and on lambs' tails. I feel that that

541
is a point that could well be left to the Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked whether the Bill had Government approval and the approval of the veterinary fraternity. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has spoken for the Government and also for the veterinarians, but I should like to add my own gratitude to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and to the British Veterinary Association for the wholehearted support they have given to this Bill and particularly for their great open-mindedness in the way they have looked at the possibility of anæsthetics being administered by laymen. My Lords, I have much pleasure in commending this Bill to your Lordships for a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]
6.35 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on the New Forest Bill that in considering Clauses 3 and 4 they have due regard to the need to preserve as far as is reasonably practicable public rights of access; and that in considering Clause 10 they have due regard to the undesirability of too much ornamental timber in a natural forest. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Instruction standing in my name. I regret that I was not able to be present in your Lordships' House when this Bill was given a Second Reading. My noble friend Lord Crathorne, with his usual courtesy, was kind enough to refer to two matters which, on behalf of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, I had wished to raise and about which I had written to him. In both cases he went a long way to give us the reassurance that we sought.
The first matter dealt with is the possible interference with public rights of access if and when the A.35 is fenced. At column 1317 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for January 30 [Vol. 254], my noble friend said:
"I should like to assure your Lordships that wicket gates or stiles will be provided at points where defined paths meet this main
542
road and that the appropriate bodies will be consulted about the location of these wicket gates or stiles.'
The second point dealt with Clause 10, by which power is given to verderers to permit the Forestry Commission to plant ornamental timber. I raised the point with my noble friend Lord Crathorne that we did not want too large an area to be planted up with ornamental timber in what is by nature a more or less primeval forest. Again, he very kindly gave satisfactory assurance, so far as it went, at column 1318:
"The verderers accept in principle that the powers under Clause 10 should not be overused, but there would be great difficulty in arriving at a proper figure for the purpose of describing a maximum acreage …"
It was because of the extremely friendly and co-operative nature of my noble friend's replies that I drafted the Instruction, so that it should direct the attention of the Select Committee only to particular matters to be looked into in detail.
It is not our intention to oppose the principle of the Bill. All that we ask is that they should preserve, so far as is reasonably practicable, public rights of access, and should have due regard to the undesirability of too much ornamental timber in a natural forest. I hope, therefore, that this Instruction, which is merely a guidance and not mandatory and does not interfere with the general purposes of the Bill, will be acceptable to my noble friend who moved the Bill and also to your Lordships.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on the New Forest Bill that in considering Clauses 3 and 4 they have due regard to the need to preserve as far as is reasonably practicable public rights of access; and that in considering Clause 10 they have due regard to the undesirability of too much ornamental timber in a natural forest.—(Lord Molson.)
6.40 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, for moving this Instruction, because it enables me to make yet another Second Reading speech and to say some of the things I failed to say on the previous occasion. However, personally, I think the House ought to be extremely

543
careful about accepting an Instruction of this kind; and one, furthermore, which is vague and deliberately worded. It is open to the Select Committee to read the speeches either on Second Reading or on this occasion, and it seems to me that an Instruction of this kind gives undue emphasis to one particular aspect of the matter.
There is a further reason why I should object to this particular Instruction, and that is in regard to the words about having
"due regard to the undesirability of too much ornamental timber in a natural forest."
The noble Lord called it a primeval forest, I think, but the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, will know that it is neither a natural nor a primeval forest. Indeed, the only possible natural part of it is the ornamental timber. My Lords, the ornamental woods to which reference was made in the Baker Committee's Report, the ancient beechwoods and oakwoods, are, of course, the original part of the forest. But a large amount of open forest was certainly not natural when it started, and the greater part of the forest that carries trees, as opposed to the large open areas, comprises plantations of the Forestry Commission.
I think it would be a little unfortunate (and I do not know what is the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, on this particular point) to send to the Committee an Instruction which is as misleading as this one. On the subject of the ornamental timbers, I would point out that there are powers in the Bill to enable certain enclosures to be made for the preservation or, equally, the replacement of these ornamental areas. In the past, there has been deep suspicion on the part of the commoners that anything the Forestry Commission did would be for some baleful purpose. But I am happy to say that relations between the Forestry Commission and the commoners in the New Forest have steadily improved ever since the 1949 Act was passed. Although there are powers to make certain enclosures—and I think there ought to be a limit on the amount of this—I really cannot see the justification for directing the Committee to consider this particular matter; and especially to consider it as opposed to all the other provisions of the Bill.
544
On the subject of public rights of access, I am, of course, in complete sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, but it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, gave fairly satisfactory undertakings. What would be far better would be to have no fences at all. I should hope, if we were to pass this Instruction, that the Select Committee, when they consider the whole Bill, would still have regard to the question of whether we want the New Forest—as undoubtedly it would seem to many people to be—ruined by posts and wire along the main roads. We know that the original proposals for what was mistakenly called a "ha-ha" fence, but which was nothing of the kind—it was a bank and a ditch—have been dropped. A ha-ha fence would be far too expensive but entirely acceptable, and would of course be greatly preferable to anything else. But now we know that, after the first abortive attempt to put up a picket post, where one saw something looking rather like a parapet—a most hideous bank which cut off the view of the Forest—that idea has been dropped. The noble Lord dissents, but I understand that in fact this idea of a bank and a ditch has been abandoned. The proposals are partly for posts and rails in some places, but mainly for wire and posts; and, again I am wondering whether the Select Committee should consider whether this is, in fact, desirable. I objected to this on the Second Reading. Since then I have had any number of objections from people who live in the Forest and who wish to preserve it.
The Bill proposes to extend fencing to the A.35. I think the A.31 has already gone, and to this we are committed. But if they are going to put fencing on to the A.35, then there is no alternative but to put it also on to the A.337, which joins Cadnam and Lyndhurst. I am wondering—and I put this point to the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne—whether, when the matter is considered, we ought to consider the possibility of a speed limit. I have the figures of animals slaughtered in the forest, and the number of accidents which have caused loss and have killed human beings; and since the great majority occur at night, it is possible that even a speed limit at night would meet the case. In regard to the accidents to animals which occurred in

545
1963, there were 349 (which includes one pig injured), and of those 278 took place at night.
I hope that the noble Lord may consider this point, and I hope that the Select Committee will consider it, if—as I am sure they will—they have due regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, even if we do not pass this particular Instruction. There is already to be one road through the New Forest on which people will be able to drive, if they so desire, at 80 miles an hour. The length of the A.31 within the New Forest is about eleven miles, maybe twelve. The noble Lord, Lord Congleton, will know this. Whatever happens, I should have thought that some attention (and this is not, perhaps, a matter for legislation) ought to be paid to the possibility of a speed limit. We are here seeking to preserve one of the great beauty areas of this country, and I think the public, and indeed the inhabitants of the New Forest, many of whom favour this, ought to be prepared to pay some price with a diminution in speed. So instead of getting along that 11-mile stretch in 15 minutes, let them take 22 minutes or something of that order.
My Lords, these are all very complex questions. They are questions which the Select Committee will surely be examining when the Petitions come to them. While I have sympathy with the first part of the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, I have the greatest doubt as to whether, on a Hybrid Bill, we ought to have an Instruction of this kind. I am wondering whether there is some other noble Lord who, from a constitutional point of view, might have views on this point. With a Private Bill it may well be necessary, but here there is the Second Reading and there will be a full Committee stage when we can make our views known. In these circumstances I personally hope that the noble Lord, having put his case very well, except in regard to his references to the ornamental woods, will not press the proposed Instruction.
6.49 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, it would be contrary to the Rules of the House if I were to take any part in this debate on the merits of the arguments
546
that have been used, and I do not propose to do that at all, but I am concerned, as a Member of your Lordships' House, about the procedural point here, and perhaps other noble Lords may be worried also. I see that the Lord Chairman of Committees is on the Woolsack, and I do not know whether he can help us in this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that an Instruction of this sort would perhaps be out of order, and your Lordships should not agree to this Instruction because the Select Committee upstairs are perfectly at liberty to take these points themselves. Well, my Lords, are they? This is a point on which I think
your Lordships might be enlightened by somebody who knows about the question. I am under the impression that the Committee upstairs are entitled to deal only with the Petitions that are being argued before them, and that they are not entitled to range widely over other matters that are not specifically brought before them. In that case, if a matter has not been raised on Second Reading, and if there is not to be a Committee of the Whole House, I do not see, unless an Instruction is given to the Committee—not an Instruction to do any one thing but an Instruction to pay regard to a clause—how the Committee upstairs can look at that clause. But perhaps I am wrong, and perhaps somebody can enlighten us on that point.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I should be greatly indebted if the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees could deal with that point. My reason for putting down this Instruction was exactly that to which my noble friend has referred. I understood that it would not be constitutionally proper for the Select Committee to pay attention to matters which had not been brought before it either in the form of a Petition by parties outside this House or in the form of an Instruction passed by this House.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what has been said upon the points raised, and perhaps it would be to the advantage of your Lordships if I informed the House that there are two Petitions against this Bill, which of course means that it is an opposed Bill and that it will, unless the

547
Petitions are withdrawn, be heard by a Select Committee upstairs in just the same way as any Private Bill. This Bill, of course, is a Hybrid Bill. Indeed, because it is a Private Member's Bill and a Hybrid Bill it is in itself a somewhat rare species. I do not recollect any other Private Member's Hybrid Bill; but there is nothing against it on that score.
So far as the Motion before your Lordships now is concerned, I can only say, as Chairman of Committees, that I can see no objection to this Motion inasmuch as it does not tie the hands of the Committee in any way. It merely draws the attention of the Committee to two clauses. It does not tell the Committee what to do or what not to do; and, therefore, it seems to me to be harmless at least from the strictly neutral point of view.
I should perhaps add that the Motion draws the attention of the Committee to two clauses, which I think are Clauses 3 and 4, and tell your Lordships that in any event I think the attention of the Committee will be drawn to those same two clauses, unless the Petition of the New Forest Society for the Prevention of Straying Animals is withdrawn, because I see that in the Petition they refer to and recite, among other clauses, the provisions of Clauses 3 and 4. Therefore, unless there is some alteration, I apprehend that the Committee will in any event have to look at those clauses. I think that those two things are all I can tell your Lordships at the moment: first, that I can see no objection to this Motion, but, second, that it may be superfluous because the Committee will have to look at the clauses in any event.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, Before the noble Lord sits down, I would point out that he has mentioned Clauses 3 and 4, but what about Clause 10? Is the point that, if there were no Petition on a particular clause, the Committee would not be entitled to look at that clause unless they were instructed to do so by this House?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I did not notice the mention of Clause 10 in the Motion. I do not at the moment see any reference in the Petitions to Clause 10, and I therefore think that the noble Earl is quite right in making that last
548
point: that they might not have their attention drawn to Clause 10 by the Petitions—a hurried look at the Petitions rather indicates that—and that the Motion before the House does that very thing.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, may I ask the Chairman of Committees a question? He rather implied that the Committee upstairs would consider only Petitions that were brought before it; but surely the Committee will carefully read the speeches that were made on Second Reading and the various points that were then brought out in criticism of the Bill. Is that not so?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, if I may, with the permission of the House, speak for a second time in answer to that question, the procedure in the Committee upstairs will follow precisely, I think, the procedure of a Private Bill Committee. The custom there is that the Committee do not pay attention to all the clauses in a Bill: they pay attention upstairs only to the clauses which are opposed. Whether they read your Lordships' speeches is a question which I would rather not answer, but I rather suspect that most Committees probably do not read all the Second Reading speeches or the speeches on a Motion such as this. It is true, as the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, has suggested, that the probability is that the Committee upstairs would not pay attention to clauses which were not opposed or to which their attention had not been specially drawn.
Perhaps I should add just this. The various Government Departments which might
be concerned with the Bill may make a report on the Bill, and those reports are available to the Committee. As your Lordships will no doubt know, Government Departments cannot petition against a Bill, but they can report on it, and usually do—that is, those which are interested—and the Committee have the advantage of having available to them the reports of the appropriate Departments.
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful I am for the observations which have been made by the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees, and to add that, so far as I am concerned this evening, speaking on

549
behalf of the Promoters of the Bill (because it is a Private Member's Bill and a Hybrid Bill), having given the undertaking on Second Reading on behalf of the Promoters that these particular points would be looked into, then I naturally do not dissent from the Instruction now moved by my noble friend Lord Molson, for the reason that the Chairman of Committees gave. He has spoken with authority, whereas I can speak only—shall I say?—without authority, but it appeared to me, as explained to me, that there was a doubt whether these points could be effectively considered by the Select Committee unless an Instruction of this nature were moved. As I, on behalf of the Promoters, had said they would be considered by all concerned, naturally I do not dissent from the Instruction moved by my noble friend Lord Molson.
LORD CONGLETON: My Lords, had hoped not to rise to my feet, but after what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said I think there is a point on this Instruction which should be made clear. The timbers of the New Forest that are open and are the old timbers are known as the ancient and ornamental woods of the Forest. I think it rather confusing to look at the comment about too much ornamental timber which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, made in reference to Clause 10. I think he literally means foreign ornamental timber which is being imported into the Forest. In this case there is confusion in the terms used, and I should be happier if that were made clear.
May I just say one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton? So far as the ha-ha fence scheme is concerned, I may say that the present one has been dropped, but I understand from the Council for the Preservation of Rural England that they have approached the Ministry of Transport and that the Ministry of Transport may have agreed that the present fence should be a temporary one while a new scheme of ha-ha fence or bank is developed. In his reply the noble Lord may be able to expound that, but I think we should have this question of ornamental timbers clear.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, and with apologies for speaking
550
three times, I may add one more comment. The point was mentioned, but I have not answered it. May I point out to the House that, this being a Hybrid Bill, the position is that after the Committee upstairs have dealt with it and allowed it to proceed—if they do so—the Bill is dealt with in all respects as a Public Bill. This means that it will be referred to a Committee of the whole House.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, does it not follow, from what the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees, has said, that any noble Lords who have representations to make about Clause 10 will have the opportunity to make those representations in the form of Amendments to Clause 10 to be taken at the Committee stage on the Floor of the House; so that that matter may be dealt with then, notwithstanding that this Motion may not be passed this evening?
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, may I, with your permission, say two things? I am grateful to my noble friend. I had understood—and I think the Commons Preservation Society had understood—ornamental timber to mean exotic trees which, however beautiful and attractive in gardens and parks, would not be suitable in excessive quantities in the New Forest. But, naturally, if my Instruction is passed by your Lordships that point would be brought out fully in the Select Committee. In reply to the noble Lord, I would say that it is, as my noble friend Lord Crathorne said, extremely difficult to define accurately how much should be enclosed for this ornamental timber. It is essentially the kind of thing that can best be discussed by a Select Committee upstairs; it is not the kind of thing we could usefully deal with on the Floor of the House. I hope that noble Lords will agree to this Instruction I have moved.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, might I, with your permission, speak again? Dealing with the noble Lord's last point, I had understood that the Promoters of the Bill had already agreed with the Commoners' organisation to a maximum figure for new ornamental woods; and I had understood it was, in fact, 200 acres. I should have thought that this might have been inserted in the Bill by the ordinary process when the

551
Bill comes back to this House. The noble Lord will find there will be trouble if he does not agree; because I have had some very strong views on this point. It is a little unfortunate that we are using the wrong word in this Instruction. The word "ornamental", as the noble Lords, Lord Congleton and Lord Waldegrave, know, has a specific meaning in the context of the New Forest. I do not want to press too hard; but, the Petitions, and the one in relation to straying animals, goes right to the root of the Bill. It seems to me, as the
552
noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, said, that this was bound to follow; and these particular clauses were the ones that would be specifically examined in full. I do not want to take up the time of the House, and if your Lordships desire to pass this Instruction I should not wish to stop you. But personally I do not think it is a very useful thing to do.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes past seven o'clock.