Sitting of 21 July 1967

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967 that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Finance Act, 1967.

2. Road Transport Lighting Act, 1967.

3. Matrimonial Causes Act, 1967.

4. Control of Liquid Fuel Act, 1967.

5. Criminal Law Act, 1967.

6. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Orders Confirmation (Buxton, Stockport and York) Act, 1967.

7. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (West Hertfordshire Main Drainage District) Act, 1967.

8. Metropolitan Water Board Act, 1967.

9. University of Bradford Act, 1967.

10. Newquay Urban District Council Act, 1967.

11. Guildford Corporation Act, 1967.

PETITION

  Wigg v. The Spectator Limited
  Mr. William Hamling: I beg to present a Petition to the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble Petition of John Montgomerie, partner in the firm of Goodman Derrick and Company, Solicitors, sheweth
  That the Right Hon. George Edward Cecil Wigg, a Member of this House, is Plaintiff in an action for libel against The Spectator Limited, the Defendant in the said action,
  2660
  instituted in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice.
  And that it may be material in the said action for evidence to be given by the said Hon. Member of or touching statements made in the course of debates which have taken place in your Honourable House as well as of matters arising out of or connected with the subject-matter of the said statements or any of them.
  Wherefore your Petitioner prays that the leave of your Honourable House may be given to the said George Edward Cecil Wigg to give evidence of or touching any statements made in the course of any debates which have taken place in your Honourable House and of any matters arising out of or connected with the subject-matter of the said statements or any of them so far as the same may be held by the High Court of Justice to be relevant to and admissible in the said action.
  And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  I beg to move,
  That leave be given to the said Member to attend and give evidence accordingly.
  Question put and agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL (DEBATE)
Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make.
There has been confusion of interpretation of my instructions on when to put down one's name for the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on Tuesday. My staff—and I, if hon. Members came to me—informed hon. Members that names would be received—first come, first served—as soon as the Leader of the House announced the date of the debate in the House.
Some hon. Members in good faith stayed until the announcement was made and then went to my office to give in their names. Others, in equally good faith, and perhaps with more ingenuity, queued some time before outside my Secretary's office to hand in their names as soon as they reckoned that the statement had been made in the House.
I have consulted the three Chief Whips of the parties, and to be fair to all I have decided to select the order of topics handed in by balloting for places in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate on Tuesday. I think that this will be fair to the House.
Mr. David Winnick Mr. David Winnick (Croydon, South) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Winnick.
Mr. Ivor Richards: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already called the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick).
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of hon. Members, including myself, once the statement was made yesterday by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), took the view that it would be a waste of time to submit an application to raise a topic on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
May I ask for your advice and guidance at the moment? Does it mean that if one submits an application now to speak on the Bill it will be included in the Ballot, or is it too late?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. It means that.
Mr. Richard: Mr. Speaker, as one of those who queued up outside your Secretary's office, may I put one or two points to you about the Ruling that you have given? It was not, with respect, that hon. Members queued up and put their names in when they reckoned that the statement had been made. They put their names in in your office as soon as your office told them that it was open to receive notice of application for subjects for the Bill.
With respect, there was no confusion as far as your instructions were concerned, Mr. Speaker. I inquired on at least two occasions from your office as to the precise procedure, and I was told that subjects could not be accepted until after the Leader of the House had made his Business statement for the following week. Nothing at any time was said as to where the hon. Member who wanted to give notice of a subject was to sit or stand until the Leader of the House had made his statement.
I and a number of my hon. Friends inquired of the precise position from your office and were given to understand in most specific terms—I make no complaint about this, but the terms in which we were assured were quite specific—that the order in which subjects would be
2662
selected for the Consolidated Fund Bill would be first come, first served. Having been given that assurance specifically on two occasions by your office, I went along and waited until after your office was satisfied that the Leader of the House had made his statement. With respect, there was no confusion whatsoever. The only confusion that I have been able to discover was in the mind of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Ruling that I have given he will find that all that he has done is elaborately to paraphrase one part of it. The Ruling that I have given criticises neither those who queued outside my office nor those who interpreted what was said the other way. There was confusion in the minds of hon. Members other than the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). The hon. Gentleman may be quite right in his interpretation but other people have a right to different opinions.
We now come to the business—
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that your attention will have been drawn to the occurrences in the House late last night. While I fully appreciate that the business of the Government is a matter for the Leader of the House and of the Government, and not yourself, may I ask you, on behalf of the House, whether you would consider reviewing the rules in this matter regarding a carry-over from morning sittings?
May I put to you very humbly, bearing in mind that we all know your zealous regard for the rights of hon. Members, the point that there were a number of hon. Members yesterday morning who sat through the debate and who were expecting that the debate on the horticulture and agriculture Orders would come on late last night. The Government then decided, in their own judgment, not to put those forward. As a result, a great many hon. Members were put to very considerable inconvenience.
I would hope that perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, could confer with the Leader of the House to see whether some arrangement can be made to ensure that when a morning sitting spills over into the late evening hon. Members are fully

2663
informed before the evening part is reached as to what is to happen.
Mr. Speaker: I will deal with the point of order in two parts.
First, I cannot comment at all on the proceedings of last night. One of the features of a Count is that it completes the evening and no point of order can be raised after it. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise matters which caused him great distress last night, he must seek his Parliamentary opportunity. There will be a Parliamentary opportunity.
On whether I should change the rules of the House so that business which took place in the mornings should be carried over automatically without change of mind on the part of the Government, this, I am afraid, is not a matter for Mr. Speaker at all.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Further to your most gracious Ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I make clear that I was not asking you yourself to change the rules? I was only asking whether you would consider having discussions with the Leader of the House to see what can be done about the matter.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker has already expressed his opinions to the said Committee about the introduction of morning sittings, but the arrangement of morning sittings and the decisions about morning sittings are matters in no way for Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker is not the master of the House; he is its slave.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Can you tell us, Mr. Speaker, when the Ballot for next Tuesday will be drawn?
Mr. Speaker: I shall probably take the Ballot on Monday. That does not preclude any hon. Member who catches my eye on the Consolidated Fund Bill debate from raising the grievance which he wants to raise before Supply is granted, before the money is voted. It may interest the House to know, however, that at present at least 40 topics are sought to
2664
be discussed during the 24 hours, the 12 hours, or whatever the time of the debate will be.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Mr. Speaker, may I raise with you a point of order on a different matter? On 6th July I put down a Question to the Prime Minister on the subject of redeployment and unemployment which was for answer on 27th July, which was 21 days later. I received notice yesterday, 20th July, that it had been transferred. That was after a period of 14 days.
May I ask whether there is any way in which the House can insist upon transfers being made at an earlier stage, because the effect of this is that it is now not possible for me to put a Question to the Prime Minister on this important subject of mounting unemployment because there is now no time left? Had the Question been transferred immediately, it might have been possible for me to rephrase it or in some way arrange it so that the Prime Minister would answer it. But because of the long delay I have been thwarted, so to speak, in that opportunity.
Is there any way in which the House can ask that if Questions are to be transferred—I know that this is a matter for the Government—they should be transferred within a limited period of time in advance?
Mr. Speaker: I would hope that points about Questions would usually be raised just at the end of Question Time, which is a convenient moment. I am not unsympathetic to the point which the hon. Member has raised. I have no power, of course, to interfere with the transferring of Questions from Minister to Minister, but I would express the hope, which has been expressed from the Chair before, that if Ministers transfer questions that have been put to them to another Minister they will let hon. Gentlemen know as soon as possible.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WELSH LANGUAGE BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  WELSH LANGUAGE BILL [Lords]

    Clause 5.—(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND SAVING.)
    11.20 a.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ifor Davies): I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, to leave out subsection (4).
    The reason for this Amendment is procedural. The Clause was inserted in another place, where the Bill was first taken, to avoid questions of privilege arising.
    Some increase attributable to the Bill may he expected in the charges payable out of central and local funds. The House has already approved the Money Resolution which covers this point and, consequently, subsection (4) of Clause 5 should now be deleted.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.

ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir Eric Fletcher in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20.—(REMOVAL OF VEHICLES ILLEGALLY, OBSTRUCTIVELY OR DANGEROUSLY PARKED, ABANDONED OR BROKEN DOWN.)
Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
11.23 a m.
Mr. R. Graham Page: I understand that a later Amendment on
2666
the Notice Paper, standing in the name of the Solicitor-General, takes account of the fact that very soon Clause 20 may not describe what the law is in that the Civic Amenities Bill has now completed all its stages in the other place.
Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could explain what will now happen to the Clause, in view of the proposed Amendment to Schedule 6.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): Perhaps it might be convenient for me to deal with this matter if and when my Amendment is called on Schedule 6. Otherwise, I shall have to deal with the same thing twice.
The Chairman: That would be more convenient. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment will be called on Schedule 6.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 21 to 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78.—(SPEED LIMITS FOR VEHICLES OF DIFFERENT CLASSES.)
Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Graham Page: Clause 78 deals with the speed limits on vehicles of different classes. I understand that it is a consolidation partly of Statute and partly of Statutory Instruments. It refers to Schedule 5 of the Bill, which again sets out the contents, if I understand it rightly, of Statutory Instruments, and again, in Part II of Schedule 7, those Statutory Instruments are repealed wholly or in part.
This, of course, is not strictly a consolidation of the law, in that a consolidation of Statutory Instruments into a Statute does alter the rights of the subject in taking action for the invalidity or ultra vires nature of a Statutory Instrument if that be so. The inconvenience perhaps, in this case, is that it may be necessary from time to time to alter the speed limits here referred to, so one has to put in another subsection in this Clause giving the Minister power to make those alterations.
It is not a very convenient way to consolidate. Surely the normal way would

2667
be to keep the existing Statutory Instruments in being and effective and to give the Minister power to alter them as necessary by further regulations. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain why this course has been adopted of embodying these existing Regulations as part of the Bill, and therefore as part of our Statute law. In the normal course of events, these Regulations may be changed from time to time and might have been better left as Regulations now.
The Solicitor-General: I submit that there is an obvious advantage in incorporating the whole of the law in a single instrument, in this case a Statute, rather than in a number of instruments consisting of a Statute and regulations. I appreciate the point which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has put to me on earlier consolidation Measures. It is true that, whenever Statutory Instruments are made by a Minister in pursuance of statutory powers, these instruments may be open to challenge in the courts as being ultra vires.
If there were instruments which embodied a substantial volume of law and it was proposed to include them in a Statute, I agree that there might in those circumstances be some loss of the rights of the subject. But here we are dealing with Statutory Instruments which merely prescribe speed limits. I cannot imagine that, in these circumstances, anyone would attempt or attempt with any success to challenge such an instrument in the courts. There is no loss to the rights of the subject. What is being done is to incorporate these regulations in the Statute giving the Minister power to vary. That is surely a convenient course for everyone.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 79 to 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 113.—(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.)
Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Graham Page: I would like to know why the bringing into operation of Clause 17 is being postponed. The Clause deals with the restriction of the use of heavy vehicles on weak bridges. This is a consolidation Bill and I had presumed that the law on this point is in existence perhaps in some other words than those in Clause 17. Why, then, is it necessary to postpone the operation only of Clause 17 out of about 113 Clauses?
The Solicitor-General: The answer, of course, is that this is a consolidation Measure. Under the law as it stands, the bringing into force of these powers depends on an order made by a Minister and we could not put a precise date in the Bill without altering the law, which is what we are not entitled to do under the consolidation procedure.
Mr. Graham Page: I am still not quite clear about this. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it would be altering the law to bring Clause 17 into operation at once. Is it in some future legislation? What is the position? I do not quite understand this.
The Solicitor-General: It reproduces existing legislation because this is a consolidation Measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6.—(CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)
11.30 a.m.
The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 106, line 9, at the end to insert:
THE CIVIC AMENITIES ACT 1967
In section 25 for the words from 'sections' to '1960', where last occurring, there shall be substituted the words 'sections 20, 52 and 53 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967'.
I move the Amendment in this form, not in the form in which it appears on the Notice Paper. On further consideration it has been thought that the rest of the Amendment is unnecessary, namely,
"and at the end of the said section 25 there shall be added the following paragraph:—
'Until the coming into operation of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 the foregoing provisions of this section shall have

2669
effect as if for the reference therein to sections 20, 52 and 53 of that Act there were substituted a reference to section 43 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 and sections 15 and 16 of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act 1960'."
The Amendment as I now move it arises out of what was said by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) on Second Reading. He then expressed the fear that confusion might arise it the Civic Amenities Bill became law before this Bill. I do not think that there was any real danger of confusion, because, even if the Civic Amenities Bill received the Royal Assent before this Bill, which I understand is not very likely, Section 38(1) of the Interpretation Act would apply and would convert the references to the old law into references to the corresponding provisions in this Bill.
I am sure that the House will agree that it is much more satisfactory for an Act of Parliament, and in particular a brand new Measure such as the Civic Amenities Bill, to show on the face of it what the provisions referred to are. The Schedule makes a number of consequential Amendments in other Acts. It is desirable, now that the Civic Amenities Bill is about to become law, to add a consequential Amendment of it to the others in the Schedule.
Mr. Graham Page: I think that I am justified in being a little angry. I raised this point on Second Reading. I was first called to order by Mr. Speaker. Evidently, I had not expressed the point properly in opening it and it took me a little time to explain to Mr. Speaker how the point was in order, the point being that when another Bill was passing through the other place we should not pass legislation contrary to a Bill which was just reaching its last stages in the other place. My intervention was treated with scorn by the Solicitor-General. He brushed it aside casually and said, "It is a point which does not matter. It is a trivial point."
2670
Then the Government table an Amendment which appears on the Notice Paper today. I saw it only this morning. Even then, they did not get it right and they have had to amend it by a manuscript Amendment. Perhaps in future the Solicitor-General will treat the points I raise on consolidation Measures with some respect.
Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). What has happened here shows how important it is to have someone as alert and wise as my hon. Friend, even on a big consolidation Measure like this. I was present for the debate on Second Reading. I confirm every word my hon. Friend has said about the way he was treated by the Solicitor-General.
The real answer is that the Government have been trying to push through at all hours far too much legislation in a short time. It shows the complete and utter mess which the business of the House is in that on a Bill like this, which is an agreed and wanted Bill by both sides—I agree that it is right to have this consolidation Measure—the Government have to amend their own Amendment.
This is one defect we have been able to spot due to the wisdom of my hon. Friend. We do not know how many other mistakes may have crept through in the Bill, despite all our scrutiny. Why cannot the Government get even their own Amendments right without having to table a manuscript Amendment? I deplore the way in which Government's business is being conducted at this stage of the Session.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 7 and 8 agreed to.
Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the third time and passed, with Amendments.

FUGITIVE OFFENDERS BILL
Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2.—(DESIGNATED COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES AND UNITED KINGDON DEPENDENCIES.)
Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 13, leave out from first "of" to "and" in line 14 and insert:
"the West Indies Act 1967".
11.35 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment occasioned by the fact that the Bill providing for certain West Indian territories has now received the Royal Assent.
Mr. Antony Buck: This is, in substance, a drafting Amendment, I suppose. This provides the Under-Secretary with a useful opportunity to tell us about the progress relative to reciprocity. The Bill makes provision for us to return to Commonwealth countries people alleged to have committed offences there. The whole basis of the legislation is one of reciprocity. Throughout the earlier stages of the Bill we heard much about what had been enacted in Australia; we heard that Australia was ahead of us in the matter of legislation on this.
The Amendment raises the question of the position of the West Indies territories —Antigua, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Kitts, Nevis, and so forth. What proposals does the Under-Secretary know of for these territories to enact reciprocal legislation corresponding to the Bill? If the Under-Secretary is in order in doing so, I ask him to tell us about other Acts which may be passing through other Commonwealth chambers at the moment.
Mr. Taverne: I do not see that this arises. All that is happening is that, instead of the words
"within the meaning of any Act of the present Session relating to the West Indies "
the Bill is being amended to read:
"within the meaning of the West Indies Act, 1967 ".
This is all that is at stake.
I cannÓt tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what legislation is going through
2672
in the West Indies. I would have made inquiries about this if it had been relevant to any Amendment which is to be before the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19.—(INTERPRETATION.)
Lords Amendment No. 2: in page 14, line 12, at end insert: " ' race ' includes tribe "
Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment increases the protection given by paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 4(1). The provisions, which relate to matters of race, are extended to include tribal matters. These provisions were modelled on Article 3 of the European Convention on Extradition, but in the inter-European context tribal considerations do not play a very great part. The object of this provision is clearly to protect minorities who might be prejudiced because of their ethnic back-ground.
It must be accepted that if a man were conclusively to satisfy the courts that as a member of a particular tribe he might face certain prejudice and not receive a fair trial, it would be embarrassing if the courts had to reject any such argument which had merit on the ground that the case was not covered by the reference to race, religion, nationality, or political opinions. It is possible on an ordinary commonsense view that tribes in certain parts of the world could not be regarded as races, and it has, therefore, been thought prudent to amend the Bill to put it beyond doubt that race includes tribe, and that is what the Amendment does.
Mr. Buck: This is a very small Amendment, but it slightly helps in clarification. However, it is interesting to note that not only does the Large Oxford Dictionary, in its definition of "race", include a reference to "tribe", but so does the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, and in those circumstances the matter would appear to be covered by the Bill as drafted. However, to make it even more clear it may be helpful to have a reference to "tribe", because in certain Commonwealth countries tribal considerations may be more appropriate than those which we normally think of as racial considerations.

2673
This, therefore, seems to us to be a small, but helpful Amendment.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21.—(REPEALS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)
Lords Amendment No. 3: In Page 14, line 45, at end insert:
"() Without prejudice to subsection (2) of this section, this Act applies to offences committed before as well as after the passing of this Act".
Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that if the new Fugitive Offenders Act has been brought into operation in relation to any country and the old Act of 1881 has been repealed, any new application made to this country for the return of a fugitive offender will be dealt with under the provisions of the new Act even though the offence complained of was committed before the new Act was actually in force.
Mr. Buck: This is a commonsense Amendment, although we on this side of the House have considered it with some care because it smacks of a legislation of a character about which we are not entirely happy, because it provides that a person who has committed an offence in the past and who may have anticipated being dealt with under the old procedure will now be dealt with under the new. There is, therefore, an element of retrospection in some sense. We do not like retrospective legislation unless on the whole it confers a benefit, and perhaps this Amendment has an element of conferring a benefit, because the new procedure, under which an alleged offender will be dealt with, will be more advantageous than the old.
While being guarded about this element of retrospection, on the whole we welcome the Amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 14, line 45, at end insert:
"() In paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, the reference to the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 shall include a reference to this Act".
Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment speaks for itself. Under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1967, the Parliamentary Commissioner cannot conduct an investigation into actions taken by the Secretary of State under the Extradition Act, 1870, or under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, and the purpose of the Amendment is to apply a similar exemption in respect of action taken under the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.

SUMMER TIME
11.45 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time Order, 1967, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 6th July.
As the Order this year may be the last to be made under the Summer Time Act, 1947, it may be of interest to say a word about the background.
In general, the Summer Time Acts of 1922 and 1925 provide that summer time should run from the Sunday after the third Saturday in April until the Sunday after the first Saturday in October. In 1947, during a serious fuel crisis, an Act was passed which provided for summer time to be varied in any year by Order in Council. It is under the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of that Act that the draft Order has been laid.
This power has been used to extend the period in the years 1948–1952 and again from 1961–1967, so that summer time ends this year on 29th October. Hon. Members will know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced the Government's intention of introducing legislation early next Session to apply the equivalent of summer time throughout the year. This morning our discussion is limited to this Order. But hon. Members will, of course, have ample opportunity to discuss the merits of the proposed permanent change when a Bill comes before the House next Session.
It would be idle, however, to pretend that the terms of the Order have not been influenced, at least to some extent, by

2675
the Government's decision on that larger matter and the result of the inquiries which preceded it. The intention is that the period laid down in the Order should cover the interval before the new legislation becomes operative and as my right hon. Friend told the House it is proposed that next year summer time should begin earlier than it has previously.
Over the last seven years summer time has begun towards the end of March—I stress "summer time" and not "summer"—and the present Order proposes an earlier start of four to five weeks, on 18th February. Hon. Members will want to know what the Government had in mind in choosing this date. We felt that this earlier start might help to accustom people to the projected change to permanent summer time.
But, this apart, our experience of the extension, during recent years, of the statutory period by a further three or four weeks, and its almost entirely favourable acceptance by the public, would have persuaded us that the time had come to make a further move in the direction which this Order takes.
The effect of the choice of 18th February, which I would stress is only four or five weeks earlier than has been customary, is broadly that on that day the time of sunrise by the clock will be almost exactly what it was on 21st December under Greenwich Mean Time —in London, this is just after eight o'clock. Hon. Members need not fear, therefore, that this will create any novel problems or difficulties.
On the other hand, the position is, of course, very much better at the end of the day than it is in mid-winter. Sunset is already some 90 minutes later and the extra hour added by summer time means that sunset by the clock in London will not be until 6.30 p.m.—about 21 hours later than on 21st December. Hon. Members will appreciate that this will allow most people to get home from work in the light and the more fortunate ones who get home around 5.30 p.m., will be able to take full advantage of the extra hour of daylight. In February, too, the days are drawing out rapidly both mornings and evenings so that any disadvantages of having a later sunrise by the clock will soon disappear.
2676
I hope that for these reasons, and irrespective of their views on the introduction of permanent summer time, hon. Members will agree that the date for the present Order has been aptly selected. One other feature to which I should draw the attention of hon. Members is that special provision has been made for the Isle of Man. There summer time will not begin next year until 7th April.
This has been done at the request of the Isle of Man Government who, on this subject, would be competent to legislate for themselves, but which has been left, as a matter of convenience, to be covered by our legislation, with the power for special variation. The implication of this is that, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, the wish of the Isle of Man Government should be respected. This has been done by the variation in the Order.
It may appear at first sight a little unusual that, for seven weeks of next year, the Isle of Man will be working to a different time from both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But it is for the Government and the people of the Isle of Man to judge what is in their own best interests. This is an almost entirely rural community, with limited commercial and industrial contacts. It has few dealings with the Continent of Europe, and its chief contacts with Great Britain are through the tourist trade, which does not properly start until Easter, which falls next year during the weekend 12th to 15th April. By then the time system in the island and the United Kingdom will again be harmonised.
There are no other features of the Order which call for hon. Members' special attention. It is, with the differences I have mentioned, the successor of many others which the House has approved in previous years, and, if the Government's intentions are fulfilled, it will be the last.
Mr. Speaker: It might be convenient if I advise or warn hon. Members that we are debating this Order and not the legislation which it is proposed to introduce next year.
11.52 a.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: This is not the first time that I have had the pleasure of opposing these extensions of summer time legislation.

2677
While I have in mind what you just said, Mr. Speaker, I am bound also to have in mind what the Minister of State said; that it would be idle to pretend that the Order is not a paving arrangement for the permanent legislation which is to be introduced in the next Session. The right hon. Lady was frank enough to say that it was hoped, in this way, to accustom people to what that legislation would propose.
In as much as the Order will introduce summer time from the middle of February and keep it going until the end of October, leaving a mere three months or so of winter, one cannot escape some intermingling of the considerations which arise in this matter. I say that in view of your remarks, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that I shall remain in order.
The Minister gave some of the history of this matter. It would be more complete to say that this came in 1916 as a provision to assist during the course of the First World War. On that occasion the Act laid down—as did the Summer Time Act, 1922—a definition of the summer season with which most people would not be disposed to quarrel, unless they had undue regard to the weather.
However, what is proposed now is nothing to do with summer. It is really, getting away from euphemisms, introducing Central European Time to Britain for almost all the year—and doing so, in the explicit words of the Minister, to accustom us to this so that we shall the more readily accept it for 12 months of the year next Session. I suppose that this shows that the present Government are the last survivor of those who believe that the world is flat. We have heard the justification for this operation—it is being done so that everybody can be doing things at the same time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The fact that the Minister, when introducing the Order, made incidental reference—said just a few words—to the legislation which is ahead does not allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to open up the whole question whether we should synchronise with central Europe.
Mr. Bell: I am content that my remarks should be related simply to the Order—that is, from 18th February to 29th October—and I am not going to be
2678
greatly fussed about the little runt, if I may call it that, which is left for demolition in the next Session.
The extension of the period under the Order has been already—not today, but earlier—expounded to us as something which is justified by the commercial advantages which it will bring, in that it will make people do the same things at the same time in this country and in central Europe. The Minister obliquely mentioned that, because, in excusing the exclusion of the Isle of Man, she said that it would not be too bad for the people there because they did not have many commercial relations.
I take it that the reason for the Order —and I must have in mind the legislation for next Session—is this conception which the Government have of people in Britain working to the same time schedule as people on the Continent of Europe.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are discussing whether summer time should come in five weeks earlier.
Mr. Bell: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and, of course, we are also discussing summer time lasting for some weeks longer. We are, therefore, discussing whether this extension should take place at both ends of the period. The Government are saying that it should take place because it will assimilate us with the countries of Europe. I am not making a fanciful point or indulging in some private foible, for I think that the Minister wll not deny that that is the motive behind laying the Order.
I believe that the Government also have the motive of preparing us for the next stage, and I submit that if the right hon. Lady considers that this proposal is before the House on the ground that it will help with the next step, then, if that is an argument in favour of the Order, it should be a relevant argument against it to say that the next step is not a virtuous one.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity to talk about the next step when the next step is before the House. I allowed the Minister to make only an incidental reference to it. The hon. and learned Gentleman is, therefore, entitled to make

2679
only an incidental reference to the matter. The incidental part of his remarks is over, and he must now address his comments to the Order.
Mr. Bell: I could make a further submission to you, Mr. Speaker, but I am not particularly concerned to make those points. I am arguing that the Order, with its extension of the period, is laid before, and commended to, the House because of its assimilating effect. This is the case for the Order, with its extension in the spring and autumn. This is the case which I seek to rebut.
This proposal is not put before us on the ground that it will be a boon to the population. The Minister said that people will not experience great inconvenience and that may be so if one looks at the negative side. This assimilation will, the right hon. Lady said, not cost much because sunrise on 18th February will be no later under the proposed system than it would have been on 21st January. This, therefore, is accepted to be the rub or disadvantage. The advantage—the bribe or inducement—being set before us is assimilation. It is to that point that I wish to address my remarks and I do not believe that we could debate the Order except on that principle.
If one puts away the euphemisms about summer time, one must accept that this proposal is designed to extend Central European Time to this country for nine months of the year because, we are told, it will be commercially good for us. That is the case which I want to put.
Mr. Speaker: We are acting under a Summer Time Act. This Order, in carrying out that Act, fixes the date on which summer time shall come into force. The Order extends it by five weeks at the beginning and at the end. The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity to discuss the other question later.
Mr. Antony Buck: On a point of order. The right hon. Lady told us today—and, indeed, it was stated by an official Government spokesman in another place—that the purpose is to accustom people to the permanent change which will be effected. This is avowedly a precursor. Once we start summer time in February, we will never come out of it again, if the Government's
2680
intentions are fulfilled. Am I wrong in thinking that that enables us to discuss the effect of continuous summer time in future?
Mr. Speaker: If we were to discuss it, then we would traverse the whole question of law which, I understand, is to be introduced next Session. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to discuss the general question then.
Mr. Bell: I am not seeking to discuss the general question of the law which will come next Session. I am arguing against an Order which extends summer time in the spring and autumn. If every argument against the Order is impermissible, then I do not see how we can debate it.
The right hon. Lady has asked the House to approve an Order. She has to adduce reasons in favour of it and give some advantage which will accrue to the public from it. I am saying that no advantage will accrue to the country from extending summer time in the spring and autumn. We have to ask ourselves what advantages the Government allege will arise from the Order. The advantage which they allege is not some domestic convenience of the population in going about their daily chores.
The right hon. Lady said that she did not think that the inconvenience would be marked. One approves an Order of this kind, not because the inconvenience will not be marked, but because there is some counter-balancing advantage. However small the inconvenience and the advantage which is alleged, the Government say that this is a god thing to do because it brings us closer to Europe. For the moment, because they are operating under the Summer Time Act, they say no more and I say no more. But I want to rebut the argument that we shall gain a national advantage from extending summer time in the spring and autumn.
To do that, I must return to my point that "summer time" is an inappropriate name and that the proper geographical, scientific name for what we are proposing is "Central European time". The Government appear to be the last people who think that we can gain that sort of advantage by this sort of proposal. The idea is that we will outweigh the disadvantage of getting up in the dark by doing the

2681
same things at the same time as people on the Continent.
But that is not so, People in Britain do things at different times from the times that people in France, Germany or Italy do them because the sun rises and sets at different times in different countries. Nothing that can be done by way of an Order like this can make people do things at the same time on different parts of the earth's curvature.
This Order abandons all pretence at dealing with the summer. When dealing with a period in the summer before, one could say that the range of daylight on either side was so great that by having this device one was persuading people to get up an hour earlier during that period and to do an hour earlier by the sun the things which they would be doing an hour later. When applied to nine months of the year, that argument is bound to go because there is no longer this elbow room of daylight on either side and people will begin to be regulated in their actions by the rising and setting of the sun. We may alter the time in the second half of February from nine o'clock to eight o'clock, but we will not make people do things at different times. They will accommodate themselves by the facts of lightness and darkness.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the five weeks which we are discussing.
Mr. Bell: I am discussing summer time in the second half of February. If I cannot discuss that, then I cannot debate the Order, because the Order is about whether it should start on 18th February or the beginning of April. It is difficult to deploy a case against a proposal like this. The Order is of the utmost importance. The fact that the Government have tabled it for discussion on a Friday morning does not alter that. The fact that there are only a few hon. Members present does not alter it. It affects everybody in many important ways, and I do not think that it should be difficult to deploy the case against it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. With profound respect, it is difficult but not impossible to deploy the case against the Order, but it is both difficult and impossible on an Order to permit a debate on the law under which it is imposed or the law of next
2682
Session which might or might not be introduced.
Mr. Bell: I am trying to address myself to the effect of the Order compared with the previous Orders which we have had. This is a very different Order from the previous Orders. It is a striking departure from all previous Orders on the subject in that it extends the period of summer time to nine months in the year. That raises considerations as to the effect of this change which surely must be in order in this debate. By taking the period back to 18th February we get to a point in the year when people will not be bullied by changing the clock. We should, therefore, be defeating the object of the exercise by making the dates too extensive. People will be regulated by the way in which the sun rises and sets. Therefore, the idea that the new dates will give the public a great commercial advantage is obviously nonsense.
It could have only the slightest relevance in relation to the Central European Time zone. We are not proposing to go on to Eastern European Time. As for the advantage which it is hoped to gain, I believe that one country in the Central European Time zone—Italy—is already playing this game again and is going a further hour forward. Are we to chase those who do not—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That would be a legitimate question on the Measure that will be taken next Session.
Mr. Bell: I venture to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is a legitimate question today—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bell: Well, in that case, Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot deploy my arguments. One is driven sometimes by the rules of relevance to put one's thoughts into words, and I feel that it is a waste of time to deploy the arguments which I wish to deploy against the Order.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. and learned Member disapproves of my Ruling, he has his Parliamentary remedy.
12.11 p.m.
Mr. Percy Grieve: I dislike the Order equally with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). I shall endeavour to keep myself strictly

2683
in order, but the few comments which I desire to make will apply as much to the extension of summer time to periods anterior to 18th February as to the period covered by the Order and its institution on 18th February. I will make my observations in a very few words.
It seems to me that a great many people who have to get up very early in the day and who, by 18th February, 1968, would in normal circumstances have been looking forward at last to beginning their day by daylight, will be condemned by the Order to beginning their day in the dark.
I concede that there is a case for saying that there are great advantages in having longer hours of daylight at the end of the day, and that it is one of the purposes of summer time generally. I concede that there are advantages in having the same time as our continental neighbours, but in matters of this kind advantages and disadvantages have to be weighed against one another.
School children, agricultural workers and women who rise early to clean offices, who by 18th February in any year would be saying, "Now we can go out by daylight", will now be getting up and going out in the dark if the Order is implemented. For that reason alone, which is important because it affects the daily lives of a very large part of the community, I deprecate the Order and would be sorry to see it carried into effect.
There is the further consideration that those people will be more liable to meet with accidents in the early hours of the morning than they would otherwise have been. For these reasons, I join my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South in asking the Minister of State to think again.
12.13 p.m.
Mr. A. H. MacDonald: I support the Order, although I am conscious of the difficulty of keeping within the relatively narrow confines of what is before us. I hope that I shall succeed in doing this, but I well understand the difficulty against which the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) was chafing. Indeed, I share his feelings and I hope that when the fundamental major matter comes before the House we may have an opportunity of discussing it.
2684
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State offered some of the background leading up to the Order, but she did not mention—I wish that she had—that the whole concept of summer time was started in 1912 by a gentleman named William Willett, who lived in Chislehurst, my constituency, where there is a memorial to him. The reason why he introduced summer time, which is germane to the Order, is that he was an early riser. As he rode about in the early morning, he was conscious that other people were still lying abed asleep. He therefore introduced this device as a means of getting people up earlier.
I appreciate the value of this, because I am a sluggard, a lie-abed—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are all interested in Mr. Willett, but we must connect Mr. Willett and his own domestic habits to the five weeks which we are discussing.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I simply wish to say that I am grateful for this extension of a device which provides a little measure for me to get up earlier.
The campaign started in 1912, but summer time did not come in, as the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South rightly said, until 1916, when it was brought in because there was a war and it was found to be necessary. Once it was introduced, the benefits were instantly manifest. I hope that we will not have to wait for a fearful cataclysm of that kind before the hon. and learned Member sees the merits of a further extension.
12.16 p.m.
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I support this narrow Order on the ground that it will benefit the business fraternity in the south of England, particularly those who have connections with Europe. That is the argument why it should be extended by even these few weeks. The business fraternity do not reach their offices in the London area generally until about half-past nine or even ten o'clock. They wish to telephone their business friends in Europe, who have already been at their offices about two hours—
Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order. If it is in order for my hon. Friend to

2685
deploy the commercial advantage, Mr. Speaker, why was it out of order for me to deny it?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member has anticipated my calling his hon. Friend to order. The question of the convenience of using the telephone must be related to the period of the five weeks in question.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: If I may develop that briefly, that is an advantage, Mr. Speaker, because people in countries like Switzerland get to work as early as half-past eight. By the time we get to work, a couple of hours of their day has already gone. They go to lunch—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is discussing the general issue. An Act about this was passed some time ago. The Order is being introduced under it. The Order specifies certain dates. The hon. Member must address himself to that. He will be able to talk about the parent Act and further Acts on a future occasion.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Act was passed as long as 40 years ago, and that conditions have changed.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a perfectly proper remark, as would be most of the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), to be made in another debate.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: I therefore come to the Order.
I am glad that the Minister of State is not extending it much beyond 27th October, because I agree with my hon. Friends that in the north of England, as the right hon. Lady will know, to get up in the morning in the dark for the two or three winter months is a great disadvantage and hardship for those who live in the north of England.
Mr. H. P. G. Channon: In that case, what about the business fraternity in the south-east of England?
Mr. Gresham Cooke: For about three months of the year, they must lump it. The business fraternity will get an advantage for nine months of the year. I have lived in the north of England when
2686
there was summer time in winter. In my view, it is not advisable to have summer time for the two or three winter months for those who live in the north of England.
12.20 p.m.
Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I hope that I shall keep strictly in order in discussing this Order, and before doing so I will say at once that I welcome the fact that summer time is to be permanent.
I have a few questions I should like the right hon. Lady to answer. First of all, have there been any precedents for having a different time in the Isle of Man and the rest of the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands? Does she not consider that this will cause considerable inconvenience to a large number of people? Surely the House will agree it is highly anomalous that while we shall have summer time in the United Kingdom and Channel Islands on 18th February next year summer time will not exist in the Isle of Man till 7th April. That, I think, is one inconvenience of this Order.
If the Government are going to change the whole law of summer time why bring in a period to end on 27th October next year? If that is the intention of the Government, why not have an Order with no date? If it is not the intention of the Government, what have they in mind? I think the Minister should tell the House exactly what is the significance of the date 27th October next year. If it is going to come to an end then, all very good, but if it is not going to come to an end why does she want those three months?
Although it may be beneficial to extend summer time throughout the whole year, would it not have been very much better not to have put into the Order the extra five weeks next year, but to have had the normal period of summer time, and just not have it come to an end? It seems to me that in putting in the five weeks the Government are having the best of both worlds.
The right hon. Lady should explain to us what her thinking is about this and why it is necessary to have this extra five weeks. Is it her case that, as with the sonic booms, she is going to test the reactions of the public during

2687
this time? By some of her remarks she gave the impression that this is to be the precursor for the years that lie ahead. If, in that period, public reaction is violently against any change, is she saying the Government are still open to representations about the matter?
Finally, I should like to know, if what this Order is really doing is to extend summer time by five weeks, whether she can say what the position will be between 18th February and 7th April in the various time zones in Europe, because it is on that matter that the House should be satisfied that there will be some extra convenience to the inhabitants of this country. We shall have in Britain itself a difference of time in the Isle of Man and the rest of Britain in that period. What will be the position with the Republic of Ireland? It is extremely relevant, as to whether or not Northern Ireland should have summer time six weeks earlier. This is a matter of great relevance to the introduction of summer time in any one particular year.
Can the right hon. Lady also say, if this Order is passed in its present form, what the effect in relation to the rest of Europe will be during that six-week period? Will they be having the same time as well as the British Isles?
Whatever the arguments are in favour of the Order it still seems to me that it would have been better to have done what I suggested, and that the better solution would have been not to have put in an earlier period but to have let summertime come in at the normal time, and then continue it or let it lapse. I think the right hon. Lady ought to convince us about these points before we agree to this extra period of summer time.
12.24 p.m.
Mr. Antony Buck: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on having made almost every point that could be made about this Order and having done so while remaining strictly in order.
This is a matter we have discussed in previous years but the two new factors
2688
are, first, that there is to be a substantially earlier bringing into force of so-called summer time, and. a factor of greater significance, and the most important factor, as my hon. Friend said, that this is a precursor to permanent summer time.
Indeed, summer time brought into force now on 18th February is not, in one sense of the word, summer time as such, and it would be lunatic in future to refer to this as summer time. Indeed, we have been invited to put forward other names for the time. We shall have to consider that later on, but this Order is bringing so-called summer time into effect on 18th February. I understand that there have been about a hundred suggestions for the new name for so-called summer time. "Central European Time" was suggested, but I think it has rightly been discarded, but in view of the time at which this debate is taking place one might consider the possibility of calling it "Greenwich boom time" or "sonic boom time". No doubt the right hon. Lady has discarded that on economic grounds—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the time to discuss the nomenclature.
Mr. Buck: Having enjoyed my moment of latitude, during which, perhaps, outside there has been another sonic boom, I will come to the provisions of the Order itself.
A substantial part of the argument for having summer time earlier is, I think, that there will be something in the nature of a trial period before having permanent "summer time". We want some assurance why it has been decided that we should start it so early, and why the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West have not yet prevailed. Why should it not be brought in at the normal time and then allowed to run on gradually, rather than take this course and plunge us suddenly back into darkness or into a greater degree of darkness?
With the additional five weeks there will obviously be problems—problems for the schools and in the countryside. We wonder if they have been dealt with, and we shall be interested to hear what precautions have been taken to see that school timetables are adjusted, for they may have to be altered. We do not want

2689
the children in the country to be subjected to great inconvenience. It would perhaps have been better, as my hon. Friend said, to have had it about a month later and just let it continue, and then the problems could have been considered and met.
The farming community may be put to some inconvenience by this additional summer time, and one wonders if there have been full consultations with the National Farmers' Union, and what it had to say. One has not had representations oneself about this from constituents but, obviously, it will cause considerable inconvenience to some farm workers, and I shall he interested to hear if the farm workers' union is in favour of the order. I understand there was a great deal of consultation before the Order was drafted, but I think we ought to hear about it from the right hon. Lady.
It comes to this, whether it is good, tactically, to bring this Order in, so as to bring in so-called summer time five weeks earlier, or whether it would be good, tactically, as my hon. Friend suggested, to bring in summer time at the normal time, and to let it flow on. It seems to me that the arguments are fairly evenly balanced.
If the Order goes through—this may be the answer to my hon. Friend—I understand the position will be that the right lion. Lady will have achieved that all the clocks throughout Europe beat in time in harmony—with the exception of those in the Republic of Ireland and Portugal.
Mr. Channon: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the point I was making about Ireland is extremely relevant?
Mr. Buck: I do indeed. It is extremely relevant, that on 18th February all the clocks throughout Europe will be striking in time, except in Ireland and Portugal, which as far as one knows, have not come into step. I understand that Portugal will be the other European country which remains out of step—as, of course, will be the Isle of Man, by the very terms of this Order.
Mr. Grieve: Is it not a fact that the clocks will not be beating in time? The result of having summer time in this country in any part of the winter will not mean that the clocks in Europe will beat at the same time, because times will change, as they always have done.
Mr. Buck: That which is indicated on the clock will be the same from 18th February, as I understand it, other than in the two countries which I have mentioned. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend is not putting forward the backdoor case for returning to local time in various parts of the country.
Mr. Speaker: Order: If the hon. and learned Gentleman were to do that, he would be out of order. However, I do not think that he would do it.
Mr. Buck: I rather suspect that he would indeed be out of order if he were going that. In any event, I think that that is the position, but the right hon. Lady will be able to tell us.
With our economic sights forcused on Europe, perhaps it is a good thing at this early stage that we should have an opportunity of correlating the position, because undoubtedly it will be of advantage to the business community. If I pursue that any further, however, I shall be out of order.
I am surprised that there have not been many representations from Scotland, because I understand that on the date on which the Order comes into force, on 18th February, lights in Glasgow will have to continue to be on until about 9 a.m. One is concerned, too about the position in the north of Scotland, and it is rather surprising that there have not been representations by the Scots. Perhaps they recognise that it is a good thing to get uniformity of the position from 18th February and they are prepared to put up with the inconvenience. It is perhaps a little unusual to find them so ready to put up with inconvenience for the benefit of the rest of the United Kingdom but if that is the position, one is grateful for the attitude which they have adopted.
Our other concern is for the children. From 18th February, it is hoped that schools in remote country villages may alter their opening times. In answer to a point made by one of my hon. Friends, it is understood that there is likely to be a reduction in road casualties, since most of the rush hour will be in daylight from February. As for assaults on children, statistics show that these take place far more often in the evening and night-time

2691
hours of darkness than in early morning hours of darkness. All the evidence shows that children run the risk of molestation to a greater degree on their way home from school than on their way to school in the mornings. With an extra hour of daylight in the evening, therefore, this Order will be of advantage.
On the hole, we welcome it, but I shall be grateful if the right hon. Lady will deal with the points raised by my hon. Friends and by me particularly with regard to schools.
12.34 p.m.
Miss Bacon: Mr. Speaker, I find considerable difficulty in replying to a lot of this debate since you have ruled so much of it out of order. However, I look forward to the lively debate which obviously will take place next Session when we have the Bill before us and hen many of the arguments ruled out of order this morning will be deployed.
The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) accused me of saying nothing about this proposal being for the benefit of the people. I remind him that I devoted part of my speech to pointing out that many workers will be going home in daylight after 18th February as a result of this Order who would otherwise go home in darkness. Apart from paving the way for legislation, there will be a benefit in that respect.
Mr. Ronald Bell: But surely that is offset completely by the fact that they will be going to work in the dark. Incidentally, may I point out to the right hon. Lady that the winter solstice occurs on 22nd December, and not 21st December.
Miss Bacon: I pointed out that some people would be coming home in daylight and would have the benefit of an extra hour's light at the end of the day.
I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) for raising so many matters which were in order. He questioned whether we ought to have had this Order for February rather than leaving the starting date for summer time as it had been previously. However, we have not always had the same date for its introduction. Over the years, there has been a tendency
2692
to make it earlier. It started by beginning late in April and, over the last few years, it has been brought back to March. Even without the contemplated legislation, the Order is continuing a process already begun in earlier years.
Mention has been made of the Isle of Man. They have the right to legislate for themselves by themselves. It was at their request and to be more tidy in this respect that they were included in the Order. It is a matter entirely for them, and they wanted their summer time to begin in April. If we had refused to include them in the Order, they would have legislated for themselves.
As for Central European Time, we shall be in step with Europe, with the exception of Portugal—[HON. MEMBERS: "And Eire."] I agree that Eire raises a problem with regard to Northern Ireland. We have no official agreement with Eire for this, but Eire usually follows the United Kingdom in legislation of this kind, and we hope that the same will apply in this case.
Mr. Buck: Have there been consultations with the Government of the Republic of Ireland about this, which would seem to have been the courteous thing to do?
Miss Bacon: Up to now, there has not been consultation about the Order, but usually Eire follows the United Kingdom in these matters.
The hon. Member for Southend, West asked if it would have been better not to have put in the date of October for the lapsing of the Order since there will be legislation and probably we shall not go back from summer time in October, 1968. Obviously, we cannot anticipate what the House will do about the Bill which is to come before it next Session. Therefore, we have had to put in the date of October. If the Bill was turned down, it would be necessary to have the October date in the Order.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) raised some very important points about children going to school. It is a fact that most accidents to children take place at the end of the school day, rather than at the beginning of it. This extra hour of daylight in the five weeks from February to the end of March will be of great benefit in preventing accidents to

2693
school children. As the hon. Gentleman said, incidents involving the molesting of school children usually occur after school and not in the mornings before school.
Mr. Grieve: For reasons which are quite obvious, I concede that the molestation of children is more likely to take place in the evening than in the morning. However, will the right hon. Lady deal with the point which I made, that there will be a greater danger of accidents to children in the mornings if they are going to school in the dark?
Miss Bacon: That is a debatable point. I should have thought that, if children were coming home in daylight, a great many of the accidents which take place at the end of the day would be prevented. I think that it is when children dash out from school that the accidents occur. This is a debatable point. I do not think that anybody can answer it, but it is my impression that it will prevent more accidents at the end of the day, which is the time when children are most in danger.
Although there has been some opposition to this Order, as no doubt there will be to the Bill when it comes before us, I think that in general it has been welcomed, and I hope that the House will now approve it.
Mr. Speaker: Before I put the Question, may I observe to those hon. Members who have clashed with the Chair that I have every sympathy with hon. Members who, on an Order, seek to discuss the broader issues of the parent Act or any subsequent Measure. I suffered from the same disability in the days when I was a back bencher, but I must observe the rules of the House.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: Mr. Speaker, may we have your guidance? Here we are extending an advantage, or a so-called advantage, to the country for a period of five weeks. Is not one entitled to argue whether that is, or is not, an advantage, to the nation during that period?
Mr. Speaker: With respect to the hon. Member, that is what I was humbly try-mite to suggest to the House during the last half hour.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 6th July.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
12.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I beg to move,
That the National Steel Corporation (Change of Name) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.
The purpose of the Order is to change the name of the National Steel Corporation to the British Steel Corporation. The Government have always seen the advantage of using the word "British" in the Corporation's title, but there was in existence at the time when the Iron and Steel Bill was passing through Parliament a company called the British Steel Corporation Limited, a subsidiary of the British Iron and Steel Federation.
It was always expected, however, that this difficulty would subsequently disappear, and the Iron and Steel Act, as a result of discussions and debates in the House of Commons, therefore empowered the Minister to change the Corporation's name by Order when the opportunity arose.
The Federation has now agreed to give up the name British Steel Corporation Limited, and rename its subsidiary B.I.S.C. (Investments) Ltd. The way is, therefore, open for the Corporation's name to be changed and the Order provides for this to operate from 27th July the day before vesting date when the nationalised steel industry will come into the ownership of the British Steel Corporation.
12.42 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: This is the first debate on a steel matter that we have had since the Act became law. The debates on the Bill were extremely long, and I am happy to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, that the debate on this Order will be nothing like the length of the debates which we had at any stage of the Bill.

2695
Although we remain utterly opposed to the whole concept of the legislation, we on this side are pleased to see this Order, and if I appear at any stage to be delighted about this, I shall try to keep any smugness which may be apparent to the minimum. The fact is that the matter comprised within the Order was suggested to the Government during the very first debate in Committee, when we debated a number of possible alternative means for what was then the National Steel Corporation.
I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Government had always been prepared to look at this as a possible name. When we suggested calling it the British Steel Corporation, the Minister gave two reasons for rejecting it, and I think that it is worth looking at them. One was the reason to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that the name was at that stage pre-empted by a subsidiary of the British Iron and Steel Federation.
In Committee, the Minister said:
"Hon. Gentlemen opposite have asked why we should not call it simply the "Steel Corporation" or the British Steel Corporation or some other name. I confess immediately that I do not like the idea."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 27th October, 1966; c. 116.]
I think that it is a little jejune of the hon. Gentleman to come to the House this morning and say that the Government have always welcomed the name the British Steel Corporation, but we have to remember that that was said at a stage of the Bill when anything that was suggested from our side of the Committee was automatically and brusquely rejected.
In the ensuing 2090 columns of HANSARD, and 168 hours of Committee debate the right hon. Gentleman learned his lesson, and left that Committee a very much wiser man than he went into it. So much so that when, on Report my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) proposed to give the Government power to change the name of the Corporation, they were very ready to accept the principle of the Amendment. My hon. Friend argued:
"We believe that the Corporation should explicitly carry the title 'British'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 781.]
This was accepted in principle by the Government, though they did not like the
2696
drafting, and in another place they introduced a new Clause. The Government spokesman, Lord Shackleton, said that this was clearly the result of the Opposition's initiative:
"We think that the initiative of the Opposition in suggesting this is useful,"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, House of Lords, 28th February, 1967; Vol. 280 c. 1037.]
The point must be made that the hon. Gentleman is enabled to bring forward this useful Order as a result, not of one, but repeated initiatives while the Bill was going through Parliament. This is one of many instances of the Bill being improved as a result of Opposition pressure, and we welcome the Order.
There are one or two points which I would like to put to the hon. Gentleman. First, why have the Government chosen the name "British Steel Corporation" rather than "British Iron and Steel Corporation"? The point which immediately occurs to me is that the letters B.S.C. are already in frequent use as the title of the British Sugar Corporation, which is another State corporation. Clearly, the extent to which there is likely to be confusion between the two is bound to be limited, as they operate in wholly different spheres, but here we have two wholly-owned statutory corporations with the initials B.S.C. Presumably the Government considered this, and rejected the suggestion which had been put forward by a number of my hon. Friends that it should be the British Iron and Steel Corporation, which would have given the letters B.I.S.C. which would not have been confused with anything else.
In choosing the shorter title, did the Government have in mind the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) in Committee, namely, the desirability of keeping the name as short as possible because of the substantial expense which is bound to arise from the printing of letterheads, the painting of signs on lorries and so on?
We recognise that this change of name became possible only as a result of the overall agreement which the Minister had always hoped for, and has been amicably reached between the Minister and the British Iron and Steel Federation, but B.I.S.C. is also used by the Federation. Was the Federation asked to allow this to be used for the State corporation If it

2697
was, why was this rejected by the Minister?
Secondly, can the Parliamentary Secretary say at this stage whether the British Steel Corporation will be carrying on trade in that name? Will this be the name of the Corporation which will engage in the selling of steel products either in this country or abroad? Articles have appeared in the Press, some obviously inspired either by the Corporation or the Ministry, about the form which the organisation of the Corporation will take. There has been a suggestion that there will be a number of large groups. The Minister indicated in Committee—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the form—only the name.
Mr. Jenkin: You anticipated my next sentence, Mr. Speaker.
It was indicated in Committee that if this were to happen the trading entities would trade under the names of the existing companies. This would be expected, as substantial goodwill obviously attaches to them. But we are entitled to some indication of the extent to which the name "British Steel Corporation" will be a name under which steel will be sold by the nationalised sector.
I have in mind here the statement made the other day about a common pricing policy, put out by the member of the Corporation responsible for commercial affairs—Lord Layton. He referred to common pricing, loyalty, bonuses and so on. This appears to postulate centralised control, and that it will be done under the name of the British Steel Corporation—
Mr. Speaker: We are discussing an Order which changes the name from "National Steel Corporation" to "British Steel Corporation". That is the issue that we are discussing.
Mr. Jenkin: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that either the Parliamentary Secretary or I have referred to one of the principal reasons why the name "National Steel Corporation" was disliked by us from the beginning, namely, that it was the name of the fourth largest American steel company. In Committee and on Report
2698
we raised the question of the obvious confusion that would arise if the British Corporation sold in competition with the American company, and if it had to register patents, trade marks, business names, and deal with all the other legal matters.
The Government are right to move away from this name, because there would be conflict and dangers of confusion. I ask whether the change has been made because now, contrary to what was said in Committee, it is envisaged that the Corporation will be selling under its new name. I will not labour the point, Mr. Speaker, but it is relevant to the question why the Government thought it right to change the name. Presumably, they accepted our argument that there could be confusion with the National Steel Corporation of America.
I merely ask whether this postulates the fact that they are envisaging that the Corporation will sell under its new name, or whether the sales will be handled—as we had always expected would be the case—by subsidary groups, which would retain the names of the companies.
I had another point to raise about the writing of the name of the various properties of the Steel Corporation. Would there be a British Steel Corporation House? What is the plan for the London office? Since I have already asked a number of questions, however, and this last question does not arise as directly out of the Order as do the others, I will leave it.
I merely say that we have not budged one iota from the hostility that we have expressed towards the whole of this legislation, and our deep and bitter opposition to the whole concept. We realise, however, that the Order makes an improvement which we recommended not once but three or four times both here and in another place, and if the Parliamentary Secretary can answer my questions to my satisfaction we shall have no difficulty in allowing the Order to go through unopposed.
12.56 p.m.
Mr. Freeson: Both at the beginning of his comments and at the end the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) raised a general point about the history of this title. I

2699
was not in on the protracted Committee stage—thankfully—not having then been appointed to my present post, but as I understood the position there had been no doubt in my right hon. Friend's mind, and in the mind of my predecessor, as to the advantage of incorporating the word "British" in the title.
The only question that had arisen at an earlier stage was the question of the practicability of the matter. All sorts of queries arose. Therefore, by the time that the matter was considered on Report further consultations had taken place and further thought had been given to the matter, and the Government were happy to accept in principle the enabling power to change the name should the opportunity arise. That is what we are doing today.
The hon. Member raised certain queries about the possible confusion that might arise over the use of the initials B.S.C. both by the British Sugar Corporation and the British Steel Corporation. That was one of the thoughts in our minds at the outset, but we took the view that it would be manifestly absurd to confuse sugar with steel in commercial practice. We do not expect any difficulty on this score when the Corporation begins its activities as such.
Basically, the title has been designed in this way because it is shorter and simpler, and because steel will be the most significant part of the Corporation's production on vesting.
The hon. Member asked whether the Corporation would be carrying on trade as the "British Steel Corporation", and he linked with it the question of the possible use of existing names, with all that goes with it, historically and commercially, up to date. The answer must be that at this stage and for some time ahead there will clearly be a continuing use of existing names in various circumstances. The ultimate situation will depend upon the way in which the industry reshapes itself both organisationally and in terms of trade abroad and in this country.
The Corporation will trade under its own name, but the detailed manner in which it will undertake trading under certain other names will be a matter for the Corporation and not for my right hon. Friend the Minister.
2700
As for the possible confusion between the American National Steel Corporation and the British Corporation, no difficulties have arisen since we accepted in principle the power to change the name, and we do not expect any to arise. To all the points raised the answer must be that matters of this detailed nature will be for the Corporation to decide in the conduct of its business.
As for the hon. Gentleman's observations about the legislation in general, I can only say that the arguments have been held at length over the years prior to and since the last election. The decision has been taken and we think that it will be effectively operated.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the National Steel Corporation (Change of Name) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
12.58 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Luxembourg) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd June, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.
Mr. Speaker: It has been suggested to me that we should take the three Income Tax Orders together.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: That would be convenient to this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. If so, that is what we will do. The first Order will be moved and we will discuss the other two with it.
Mr. MacDermot: This Order relates to the new comprehensive Double Taxation Convention with Luxembourg which was signed in London on 24th May last and laid before the House on 22nd June. This is the first convention to be made between the two countries, and for those who are familiar with these conventions it will be at once apparent that it is based on the draft model convention

2701
drawn up by the Fiscal Committee of the O.E.C.D., and therefore follows closely the general pattern of other conventions recently concluded by this country and which the House has had the opportunity of debating. Perhaps for that reason it is not necessary for me to outline the provisions, which now follow familiar lines. But I should refer specifically to the provisions relating to the taxation of, and relief for, dividends, because they tend to vary in different agreements.
The rate of withholding tax which may be imposed in the source country on dividends paid to residents of the other country is not normally to exceed 15 per cent. for portfolio investment and 5 per cent. for direct investment. There is a similar 5 per cent. provision in relation to royalties. The agreement provides for a credit for underlying tax to be given in cases where the recipient of the dividend is a United Kingdom company which controls not less than 25 per cent. of the voting power of the paying company. In other words, there is a 25 per cent. test of control for that provision. Perhaps that is all I need say at this stage about the Luxembourg Order.
The South Africa Order relates to a Protocol which amends the Double Taxation Convention between the United Kingdom and the Republic of South Africa, which was signed in 1962. The Protocol was signed on 14th June last and laid before the House on 7th July. The Order concerning South-West Africa relates to an exchange of letters on 14th June in Cape Town, immediately after the signing of the Protocol. The substance of the letters is included in the Schedule to the draft Order, the effect of which is to extend the Portocol to South-West Africa.
The Orders deal only with double taxation relief in respect of dividends received from a South African or South-West African company by a United Kingdom resident. Our double taxation conventions generally need amendment to take account of the 1965 changes in our tax system, in particular, in relation to underlying tax, to withdraw the relief in the case portfolio investment and to define the circumstances in which relief is to be given for direct investment. It is with those matters that the Orders deal.
2702
Portfolio investors' relief is withdrawn, and on direct investment we have made clear from the outset that, subject to reciprocity, we are prepared to give relief where there is a 10 per cent. control by the recipient company. In the case of both South Africa and South-West Africa this reciprocity exists. It is provided because in both cases the general rule under their domestic laws is that dividends received by a company are not within the charge to the normal tax which is levied there.
Accordingly, the Protocol provides for credit for South African underlying tax where the recipient is a United Kingdom company which controls at least 10 per cent. of the voting power in the South Africa company paying the dividend. It is proposed that that shall similarly be extended to South-West African companies.
Article II ensures that the provision will not operate retrospectively. It will apply only to dividends payable after the date of entry into force and dividends payable on or before the date of entry into force which are chargeable to tax for a future tax year.
1.5 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am coming to the conclusion that the double tax Orders, are perhaps not among the most exciting matters which we debate here. We are reaching the 10th, 11th and 12th—or thereabouts—in the series, and the prospect of facing another 50 or 60 before this round of re-negotiations is completed fills me with the deepest gloom. But they must be dealt with, and we shall do so as briefly as we can.
However, I have a few points to raise. The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that the Luxembourg Order is based on the O.E.C.D. model Convention, and, indeed, it has followed it very closely, probably as closely as any we have yet had the pleasure of dealing with. This clearly demonstrates the value of the work of the O.E.C.D. in bringing common rules to a pattern of treaty negotiation which otherwise, because it is of necessity conducted on a bilateral basis, could give rise to enormous variations and complications.
The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned Article X of the Luxembourg

2703
Order, dealing with dividends. It exactly follows the O.E.C.D. model, with its discrimination in the withholding tax between direct and portfolio investment, with the maximum of 5 per cent. for direct investment and 15 per cent. in the case of portfolio.
In Article XXV we see one of the lacunas of the O.E.C.D. Convention. The problem of a common pattern for giving relief for underlying tax was clearly one of the matters on which the members of the O.E.C.D. were unable to reach agreement. The commentary on Article 23 of the model convention, which deals with the special credit in respect of dividends, says in paragraph 52:
"Certain States wishing to apply the credit method allow in their Conventions, in respect of dividends received from companies in other States, credit, not only for the amount of tax directly levied on the dividends in those other States, but also for that part of the companies' tax which is appropriate to the dividends. Member States applying this method are left free to do so."
The hon. and learned Gentleman has explained that as a result of a change to the Corporation Tax the Government have found it necessary to withdraw the relief for underlying tax from portfolio investment, though they still allow some relief for such tax on direct investment. We have been over this matter a number of times, but one question arises. The usual pattern which appears to be developing in the Conventions in which this country is concerned is that there is no relief for underlying tax on portfolio investments.
Where there is a direct investment in the Commonwealth, whether or not there is a treaty the test of direct investment is a 10 per cent. holding. Where there is a treaty, it has almost always been possible to negotiate that for the direct investment the test should be a 10 per cent. holding. It is only where there is a non-treaty relief for a non-Commonwealth country that the fall-back position, as it were, the least favourable test, is applied—the test of a 25 per cent. holding in the company in the other country.
But here we have a Luxembourg Treaty that the Government have been able to negotiate only for a 25 per cent. holding. I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary could explain why it is thus necessary to treat a United Kingdom direct
2704
investor in Luxembourg less favourably than he appears to be treated in other European countries where the 10 per cent. rule applies. That is to say, there will be a number of investments in Luxembourg which would have been regarded as direct if made in France or Germany but because they are made in Luxembourg they will be treated as portfolio investment because the holdings will be less than 25 per cent.
The Orders in respect of South Africa and South-West Africa are very much more limited and deal only with what the Financial Secretary said in earlier debates is the limited alteration necessary to bring the Conventions into harmony with our new tax system. Here we deal with disallowance of credit for underlying tax in portfolio investment. I imagine they here apply the mirror image provisions of Section 31 of the Finance Act, 1966, in that deductions shall be allowed from a dividend paid abroad only to the extent that the foreign company would be allowed to deduct on a dividend paid from that territory to this one.
In the case of South Africa this is an unusual provision. The distinction between direct investment and portfolio investment is that the test of withholding tax credit is not a 10 per cent. or a 25 per cent. but a 50 per cent. holding. Under the South African law investment is regarded as direct investment in connection with the rate of withholding tax if it is a 50 per cent. holding or more. This seems to give rise to very much complication which will apply in reverse to British investment in South Africa. So where a company has a holding of less than 10 per cent. of the share capital of the South African company, there will be no relief from underlying taxes and the rate of withholding will be 50 per cent. Where the share is 10 per cent. or up to 50 per cent. there will be relief from underlying taxes, but the 15 per cent. rate of withholding of tax will apply. It is only if the share is more than 50 per cent. that one gets the full rates.
This appears to add an unnecessary complication and an unnecessary additional consideration which British investors in South Africa will have to consider before they decide what share of the investment to take. This seems to be unduly complicated. I hope that this will not be a permanent arrangement

2705
and that we shall not have to find ourselves dealing permanently with two different tests of direct investment, one for deciding the rate of withholding tax and the other for deciding whether the underlying tax will or will not be levied.
Apart from those remarks, we welcome the Orders. If the Financial Secretary can answer our points I think that we can let them go unopposed.
1.15 p.m.
Mr. MacDermot: If I may, with permission, speak again, I agree with the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) that these are not among the most exciting matters that we debate in Parliament. If the prospect of a substantial number more of the Orders to come daunts him somewhat, I can only promise him that we will see that they do not come as single spies.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the value of the O.E.C.D. model convention, which is fully demonstrated in the case of the Luxembourg Agreement. There is no doubt that it has greatly facilitated negotiations in this field.
With regard to the question about the test of 25 per cent. control in connection with the Luxembourg agreement, the hon. Gentleman stated the position correctly, which is that we are prepared in the case of non-Commonwealth countries to accept a 10 per cent. control where reciprocity is offered. But I am afraid that the answer is that it was not offered in this case. That is the reason why there is the 25 per cent. test.
With regard to the South African agreement and the question of the test of 50 per cent. control in relation to withholding tax, the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that this is the reflection that we received in applying the mirror image provisions. What he specifically asked was whether he could hope that this would
2706
not be a permanent provision. This is a matter for negotiation. This is only an interim agreement dealing with the immediate interim situation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when the time comes to re-negotiate fully the agreement, as I think must happen before too long, we shall bear in mind the points that he has made and seek to negotiate provisions which would be more in conformity with some of the other agreements that we have.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he has offered in general to the Orders.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Luxembourg) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd June, an Order may be made in the form of that draft
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the Republic of South Africa of the Protocol set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South Africa) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th July, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South West Africa) Order 1967, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 7th July.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

MATRIMONIAL HOMES BILL [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Commit-tee), considered.

New Clause No. 2.—(BETTERMENT LEVY NOT CHARGEABLE IN RESPECT OF RIGHTS OF OCCUPATION.)
The creation, discharge, modification or variation of rights of occupation under this Act or any order or charge relating thereto shall not be a chargeable act or event under the Land Commission Act 1967 nor shall it be capable of being made such an act or event by any regulations made under section 35 (Levy in Case F) of that Act.—[Mr. Graham Page.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
1.19 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause deals with betterment levy chargeable, or possibly chargeable, on the rights of occupation granted under the Bill. As I shall have to refer to the rights of occupation in connection with other Amendments, it might be as well if I referred to them in some little detail as an introduction to this Clause.
What we are considering here is the right of a spouse who is not the owner of property to occupy the property, and the right is defined in the Bill only as a right of occupation and may depend for its extent upon an order of the court. The court may declare the extent of the rightful occupation of the dwelling-house both physically and in a period of time and so on, and may make such order as the circumstances justify. That order may provide for periodical payments, for obligations as to repair and maintenance and, indeed, it may last longer than the marriage itself, because the court can order that the right to occupy shall not cease with the termination of the marriage. So that there is here something in the nature of a tenancy for the spouse in whose favour the order is made. It seems to me that it has all the elements of a tenancy—the possibility of periodical payments and obligations such as one would find in a tenancy—and the term may be longer than a week, a year, or even a fixed period of years, because it certainly is for the length of time that the marriage subsists and it may well be for some period after that.
2708
So it is the right in the property that we are considering and rights in property are subject to a levy under the Land Commission Act when certain events occur. Under the Act, there are some six chargeable acts or events on which betterment levy is chargeable, and chargeable by reference to the development value of the property on the occasion of these events. These six events are labelled in Section 27 of the Act as Cases A to F. I do not think that we are concerned here with Case A—the case of a sale of property, which is not likely to occur in the transactions contemplated by the Bill—but we may well be concerned with Case B.
If these rights of occupation are to be considered as being in the nature of a tenancy, then they may well come within Case B, which is a disposition granting a tenancy either for seven years, when it has to be reported to the Land Commission, or for less, when there is an option to report. The right to occupy under this Bill is not really defined and so it may well be that the courts would hold it to be a tenancy of the property.
If it does not come under Case B, it might well come under Case E, which deals with the granting of an easement or the releasing or modifying of an easement or a restrictive right. It is that phrase "restrictive right" which might catch the transactions contemplated by the Bill. Supposing the property has become subject to a spouse's right to occupy. Let us take the example which we argued all through the Committee stage of the Act as being probably the most frequent example.
The husband has left his wife, who has remained in the matrimonial home. She has registered her charge against that in the proper way and has a right to occupy. Then the husband wishes to sell the house or perhaps to acquire the occupation of it back from her, and by arrangement between the two he purchases her right of occupation—he buys her out so that she has to find another home. Such a transaction certainly is the release of a restrictive right, a right over the property which restricts the use of that property. What is meant by "restrictive right" is defined in Section 85(1) of the Act as
"…a covenant or agreement restrictive of the use or development of land, not being

2709
a covenant or agreement made between a lessor and a lessee or, except as respects Schedule 4 to this Act, an obligation on a vassal imposed by a superior or mid-superior;"
The latter part of that provision I understand refers to Scotland and, as the Bill does not apply to Scotland, is perhaps irrelevant here.
If, contrary to what I have been saying previously, this right of occupation is not a. tenancy, then it may well be something in the nature of a restrictive right and if it is released then that may be a chargeable act or event under Case D, giving rise to betterment levy.
As a third alternative, it may be a chargeable act or event under Case F, which is what one might call the "dustbin" into which all other chargeable acts or events are swept by Regulations made by the Minister. He is restricted in the Regulations he can make creating chargeable acts or events by Section 35(1) and (2) of the Act. He can make Regulations creating chargeable acts or events out of the dispositions there described. But they must be dispositions which renew or extend a tenancy or which vary the terms and conditions of a tenancy by releasing or making a covenant or agreement whereby the development of any land comprised in that tenancy is restricted.
Again, if, as I have suggested, the wife's right of occupation can be considered to be a tenancy, then it would be possible for Regulations to be made by the Minister, under Case F, bringing the release of the wife's right of occupation into Case F as a chargeable actual event. So there is a strong possibility that the creation of the wife's right of occupation as being the creation of some interest of value in the property might be a chargeable act or event under the Act. Certainly, the occasion of the release of the wife's right of occupation might be a chargeable act or event.
My Amendment is intended to prevent that happening. It would be quite unjustifiable for the Government to step in in the course of these domestic transactions which the Bill contemplates and take their cut. It would be wrong to tax or levy a capital charge upon one of the spouses whose property this was
2710
on the occasion of the arrangement between husband and wife, who have become estranged and are obliged to arrange their domestic affairs in terms of this Bill.
It is merely to make certain by a statement in the Bill that this will not happen, that no levy shall fall upon either party to these transactions, which are domestic transactions even by the terms of the Bill as it stands, that I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see fit to accept this declaratory provision. We must ensure that there will be no imposition of levy on these occasions.
1.30 p.m.
Mr. Peter Archer: It is no bad thing that the provisions of a Bill such as this should be examined closely. The careful attention which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has already given the Bill had the effect of improving it in Committee.
The point the hon. Gentleman raises in the Clause has exercised the minds of the sponsors of the Bill considerably. We are at one with the hon. Gentleman that it would be a great pity if rights arising from matrimonial difficulties were to attract betterment levy. That is not the intention. Possibly we are also in agreement that, unless a further Clause is required to achieve the object, it is much better that it should not be included, particularly at a time when the public is rightly insisting that legislation should be no more complicated and no longer than circumstances require.
The question at issue is whether, if the Clause were not added, there would be any danger of betterment levy being attracted under the Bill as it stands. The sponsors of the Bill have given their attention to this question. I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest at once by saying that it is the overwhelming opinion of those concerned that the rights of a wife arising under the Bill could not be construed as a tenancy. A tenancy arises by voluntary agreement. On that score, it appears that there is no reason for fear.
Mr. Graham Page: A tenancy is defined—for example, in the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954—as being one created

2711
by agreement or by enactment. A tenancy can be created by law and not only by agreement.
Mr. Archer: There may be situations where legislation specifically sets out to create a tenancy. We could not envisage a court holding that the House had unknowingly created a tenancy by virtue of the provisions of the Bill. There would appear to be little danger that a court could hold that the rights of a wife arising under the Bill amounted to a tenancy.
Another possibility envisaged by the hon. Gentleman arises under Case E and from the use of the term "restrictive right". It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that that term is defined in Section 85 of the Land Commission Act:
"restrictive right' means a covenant or agreement restrictive of the use … of land, not being a covenant or agreement made between a lessor and a lessee".
The right of a wife arising under the Bill could not be a covenant or agreement, which again must import a voluntary agreement between the parties.
The possibility which has considerably exercised the minds of the sponsors of the Bill is Case F. This is dealt with in Section 35 of the Land Commission Act, under which a possibile chargeable act would be a disposition made for a valuable consideration. My first reaction in Committee was that there could not be a situation in which any act arising under the Bill would be for valuable consideration but it was pointed out in Committee that there might be a situation in which a wife released her right in consideration of a more generous allowance of maintenance. In those circumstances, I was convinced that there might be something which was done for valuable consideration.
What remains is whether it fulfils the other conditions which it would have to fulfil before betterment levy would be attracted—in other words, whether it is a disposition. We have taken the best advice we can obtain. Our advice is unanimous that it would not be held to be a disposition within Section 35 of the Land Commission Act. Clearly, it is not the kind of situation which was contemplated when that Act was passed.
2712
The only danger was whether incidentally the term "disposition" might have been found to cover the kind of situation which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The best advice we have received is to the effect that there is no danger of that happening. In these circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the view that the danger which he has in mind is one which upon investigation has been found not to exist and that the Clause is not necessary.
Mr. Graham Page: May I exercise my right of reply? I accept that the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) has taken very good advice. However, I am not convinced that this could not be a disposition under Section 35 of the Land Commission Act—that is, Case F. It could well be brought within Case F by the wording of Section 35 referring to extensions or releasing of tenancies.
I still say that a tenancy can be created not necessarily by agreement between the parties. We know only too well that a rent-controlled tenancy has no agreement whatever between the parties and depends entirely upon Statute. It may have originated in an agreement, as indeed the marriage has in this case, but it soon drifts into an enforced tenancy as between landlord and tenant. The tenancy created from the right of occupation created by the Bill might well be such a tenancy. I should have been much happier if an assurance had come from the Government Front Bench that no levy would be charged upon these transactions. Perhaps the Solicitor-General would like to intervene, or nod or shake his head to give some indication whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that he may be able to collect levy out of these transactions.
Whatever may be said in the House, and whatever assurances may be given about the best advice having been taken, when cases come before the courts what is said in the House is irrelevant. It is the wording of Statutes with which judges have to be concerned. There is a grave danger to the parties that the courts may decide that a dealing with the rights of occupation of the wife is a chargeable act or event or can be made such under Case F in Section 35 of the Act. I wish the sponsors of the Bill could have

2713
accepted the Clause. I do not feel inclined to withdraw it.
Question put and negatived.

New Clause No. 3.—(COMPENSATION NOT PAYABLE, IN RESPECT OF RIGHTS OF OCCUPATION, UPON COMPULSORY PURCHASE.)
No compensation shall be payable in respect of the rights of occupation under this Act in the event of the acquisition of the dwelling house by an authority having powers of compulsory acquisition and the interest of the owner of the dwelling house shall be valued as if no such rights other than those A such owner existed.—[Mr. Graham Page.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause deals with the compensation which may be payable on the compulsory purchase of property subject to the wife's right of occupation. I draw a parallel here with the case of compulsory purchase of property which is rent-controlled. When an acquiring authority such as a local council wishes to acquire property which is subject to a rent-controlled tenancy, it can acquire the property at the value of the property with a controlled tenant in it; that is, it can acquire the property at investment value and not at vacant possession value.
The unfortunate owner of the property may see it passed to the local authority at a low value because it has a controlled tenant in it and, immediately it gets into the hands of a local authority, the local authority is not bound by the Rent Act and does not have to keep the controlled tenant there. It can get him out. Having acquired the property, the authority gets it at vacant possession value, having paid for it at its value with a controlled tenant in it.
We may have exactly the same parallel in the case of a wife—and again I use the example of the husband's house and the deserted wife, or the wife who has been subject to a matrimonial offence of some sort—when the local authority puts a compulsory purchase order on the house. It offers the husband who owns the house the value of the house with the wife in occupation and with the wife's right to occupy, a right to occupy as against the owner of the property for something longer than the mere periodic
2714
tenancy, for the life of the whole marriage and possible longer. There is a great difference in value between a house with vacant possession and a house with the wife in occupation who has been deserted but who has a right to occupy it and may have an order of the court giving her that right. The local authority may be able to purchase the house at that low figure and then acquire vacant possession from the wife.
As the Bill stands, I do not know whether the wife's right of occupation holds good against a local authority which has acquired the property, but, on a proper construction of the law, that right does not hold good against the local authority, although the authority is under some obligation when it acquires property to assure the Minister who gives consent for the compulsory acquisition that it can re-house the tenant if it desires to pull down the house. But, strictly, the local authority would have the right to turn it into property with vacant possession, having acquired it at a value subject to the wife's right to occupy indefinitely.
Neither the husband-owner of the house nor the wife-occupier of the house would benefit out of the value of the right to occupy. The local authority acquiring the property would put that value in its pocket. This cannot be right and the Bill must contain a provision to avoid that.
In the new Clause I have suggested that, because the right to occupy is a matter between the spouses it should be disregarded in a compulsory acquisition of the property and that the acquiring authority should pay the value as though that right did not exist, that it should pay the value of the property as it would be when it got into its hands and it had vacant possession. The domestic right of occupation as between the spouses should not be a matter of profit to the acquiring authority, and as the Bill stands it would.
I would not mind if it were provided that an acquiring authority should pay to the injured wife compensation for her right to occupy, or should give her alternative accommodation and give the remaining compensation to the husband. But it would be quite wrong if the acquiring authority could acquire the property at a value which showed that the property was subject to the right of occupation for an

2715
indefinite period and could then acquire vacant possession from the person entitled to occupy it. In some cases the authority would be paying no more than half the proper value of the property, and there should be some provision to prevent that.
The new Clause would prevent that and it would be fair and it would allow the husband and wife to make arrangements between themselves as to future accommodation for the wife. This should be dealt with somewhere in the Bill, which should make clear what is to be the position on the compulsory purchase of the property.
1.45 p.m.
Mr. Archer: The problem which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned arises from the difficulty of holding the balance fairly among the various interests which may be entailed in a piece of property. The principle of compensation on compulsory acquisition is that the acquiring authority should pay the market value of the property, neither more nor less. Any property may be subject to a number of acts which can appreciate or depress its value and the kind of situation which could arise under the Bill with the wife in occupation might be one. Of course, if the husband were to sell the property privately to a private purchaser, he might well receive for it a lower price than he would have received if the wife had not been in occupation.
The sponsors of the Bill have devoted a great deal of attention and consultation to this matter. They feel that the public ought not to be called upon to pay more than the private purchaser would be called upon to pay in that kind of situation. The principle running through the whole of compensation on compulsory acquisition is that the public should pay precisely what a private purchaser would pay, and in those circumstances we feel that the husband ought not to receive more because the property has been acquired compulsorily than he would have received if he had sold it privately to a private purchaser.
It is fair to say that the wife's problem, as the hon. Gentleman was fair enough to indicate, would almost certainly be met from the fact that she would probably receive alternative accommodation from the local authority. No doubt the hon.
2716
Gentleman will acknowledge that we could not write into the Bill legislation which would fetter the discretion of the local housing committee, but there is every reason to believe that the wife's problem would be solved.
If both husband and wife are sensible, they can dispose of the whole problem. If the husband were minded to sell privately to a private purchaser, he would no doubt say to the wife that it was in both their interests that they should receive the highest possible price for the property, and that it would therefore be sensible for the wife to realise her right and for them to make their own arrangements as to the financial situation between them. Equally, one hopes that the husband would do precisely the same thing if there were any likelihood that the property would be acquired compulsorily. If in these circumstances and contrary to her own interests the wife still held out and refused to surrender her interests, it would be open to the husband to apply to the court to terminate her interests under Clause 1, and the court would be entitled to take into account all the conditions arising.
In the circumstances, there does not appear to be any risk of injustice to anyone. There would be a risk, if the new Clause were accepted, that the public would suffer injustice, because it would be called upon to pay more than a private purchaser.
Mr. Graham Page: It is quite untrue that the public would be called upon to pay more than the private purchaser. The hon. Gentleman has missed the point and I have probably not explained it carefully enough.
If there is a sale to a private purchaser by the husband and the sale is subject to the wife's right to occupy, the private purchaser pays a price less than he would pay for vacant possession. If he wanted vacant possession, he would have to buy out the wife, to buy her right to occupy, and he would then have paid full vacant possession value of the property.
If the sale is to a public authority, is that authority bound by the wife's right to occupy? I have had no answer to that as yet. I think that it would not have to buy the wife's right to occupy, but could acquire vacant possession without paying for it.
Mr. Archer: It is quite true that I did not answer that question. The advice which the sponsors of the Bill have received is that the authority would not be bound by the wife's right of occupation but in practice would almost certainly rehouse her, so that it would not be a question of buying her out, but of arranging alternative accommodation.
Mr. Graham Page: This is a shocking position. In this case a public authority is lot paying more but is paying very much less. It is acquiring property at an investment value and is then able to turn it into a vacant possession property. It is the public authority, or the public through the authority, which is gaining the benefit of there having been a squabble between husband and wife.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that what he is really suggesting is that, in a case where a husband has the fetter of the obligation to provide a home for his wife, the local authority should pay the husband a sum which does not reflect that fetter but which compensates him as though he had no such obligation in any shape or form—and that, having done that, the local authority should accept the obligation of rehousing the wife?
Mr. Page: When a local authority acquires property which is occupied and proposes to demolish it, it has the obligation of rehousing the tenants. Certainly it is under at any rate a vague obligation to do so in that it must obtain the consent of the Minister to a compulsory purchase order and, in doing so, the necessity to rehouse is there. While there may be no obligation, the Minister is told that the authority will be able to rehouse them.
There is no getting away from the fact that, in a case where a husband and wife have had a squabble of this sort, the local authority will be able to acquire the property at half its value. I said in my opening remarks that I did not mind if the Measure contained a provision stating that the authority should pay the wife her right to occupy, but—
Mr. Archer: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the local authority should pay the wife the value of her right to occupy and then rehouse her?
Mr. Page: This must happen in the case of an ordinary owner occupation. If the house is owner occupied and is not subject to a clearance order, when the local authority must pay only the site value, then the authority must pay the value of the property to the owner occupier—and it is under an obligation to rehouse that owner occupier. It should he remembered that, in such a situation, the local authority is taking away from an owner occupier the property in which he is living rent free and is giving him accommodation in a council flat or somewhere else.
Mr. Archer: In which case?
Mr. Page: I am talking about the ordinary owner occupier of a house. On acquiring that property, the local authority must pay the value of it, regardless of the fact that it is also under an obligation to rehouse the owner occupier. It rehouses him in a council flat, for which he must pay rent, when, in his own property, he was not paying rent.
Exactly the same should apply if the owner occupiers are husband and wife who have become estranged. The local authority should not be allowed to acquire the property at less value than it would be able to acquire it if the couple were living together in a happy matrimonial home. Just because the two people are estranged the local authority will, under the Bill as drafted, be able to acquire the property at a lower value. Since there is no provision in the Bill to prevent this from happening, I cannot withdraw the new Clause.
Question put and negatived.

New Clause No. 4.—(RIGHTS OF OCCUPATION NOT TO BE BREACHES OF OBLIGATIONS.)
Neither the creation nor the existence of rights of occupation under this Act or any orders or charges in pursuance of them shall in themselves be any breach of obligations contained in conveyances, transfers, leases, tenancies. mortgages, settlements, trusts or other similar acts or deeds or documents relating to the dwelling house.—[Mr. Graham Page.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause deals with rights of occupation and breaches of obligations.

2719
When moving previous new Clauses I described the rights of occupation I have in mind. I refer to the right of the wife to occupy adversely to the husband-owner of the property, or the circumstances may be the other way round; the wife might be the owner and the husband given the right of occupation.
The property may be freehold and subject to a restrictive covenant to be used as one dwelling house. The order of the court settling the rights of occupation as between the parties may divide the house into two homes. Indeed, it might divide it into more than two. If the in-laws were staying there it might be advisable to divide it into three homes. We cannot anticipate what the order of the court may be in settling the rights as between the parties when there has been this breach in the matrimonial home.
The property might not be freehold but leasehold. It might then be subject to a covenant by the lessee not to assign, sublet or part with possession of the property. If the wife has the right of occupation and the husband is the lessee, and the husband has gone out of occupation —perhaps in obedience to a court order defining the wife's right of occupation—the lessor in that case might say, "There has been a breach of covenant and you have parted with possession". In these circumstances the husband, if he went to the court for relief against a breach of covenant, would probably get relief granted to him. The lessor would not be allowed to forfeit the lease. But we do not want to create litigation; to force either side, in these circumstances, to go to court to get the relief of the court against the forfeiture of the lease.
These are just two examples of where a right of occupation granted under the Bill may cause a breach of obligation by the owner or lessee of the property; that is, the spouse who is given the right to occupy under Clause 1. It should be made clear that no person who is entitled to the benefit of a restrictive covenant—no lessor who is entitled to the benefit of covenants under a lease—may use this occasion of domestic difficulties to claim damages for breach of a restrictive covenant or forfeiture of a lease for a breach of covenant in the lease. I am sure that the sponsors of the Bill do not have the intention of opening the door
2720
to a difficult landlord in a case like this. But it would be far better to say so definitely in the Bill, so making the position clear and avoiding future litigation.
Mr. Archer: The sponsors of the Measure confess that they were considerably puzzled, when a similar new Clause was moved in Committee, to envisage the kind of situation the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) had in mind; what kind of rights of occupation arising under the Bill might give rise to breaches of obligation.
It was unfortunate that when the matter arose in Committee the hon. Gentleman was unavoidably absent. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) moved that new Clause in his absence, but without having had the advantage of knowing precisely what the hon. Member for Crosby had in mind. Until today we were in the difficulty of wondering what sort of obligations the hon. Gentleman envisaged. I am grateful to him for pointing out two examples of the sort of obligations he has in mind and, so far as I know, those examples are exhaustive.
The hon. Gentleman's doubts are possibly unnecessary because it is inconceivable that a court would hold that an involuntary situation such as would arise under the Bill could constitute a breach of an obligation under a lease or mortgage not to part with possession or to use the dwelling as a single dwelling house.
In the very short time available, some research has been carried out, and it appears that there is authority for saying that breaches of obligations in leases would refer only to situations which have been voluntarily brought about by the tenant. Unhappily, I am not in a position to specify the authority. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the sponsors have no intention of opening the door to action of this kind by a landlord, but it appears that no court would countenance that kind of action or so interpret a breach of obligation as to cover a completely involuntary situation of this kind.
2.0 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: The courts will not take as gospel truth what we say here. They will look at the Act and construe its words.

2721
If I did not give enough examples, let me give one or two more. A mortgage from a building society requires the premises to be occupied by the mortgagor. I have mentioned in the Clause settlements, trusts, and so on. There may well be a settlement or trust for sale under which the beneficiary is entitled to occupy the house, but if the occupation ceases the property is to be sold. One frequently finds this in wills —I have drawn the clause many times—and the trustees might be obliged, if the sort of arrangement contemplated by the Bill took effect and the beneficiary went out of possession of the House, to exercise the trust. They might have no alternative. The fact that it did not come about voluntarily would not excuse them from carrying out the trust.
How do we know that this is voluntary? It will be very difficult to say that this is a forced right against the owner. It is a declaration in a Bill that the injured spouse will have a right to occupy. When a marriage becomes estranged the two parties will recognise this and act in the way that the law requires. It is not involuntary if one obeys the law. It is a voluntary act following from estrangement of the marriage.
Throughout our debates we have had the benefit of the presence of the Solicitor-General. He did not intervene on the tax matters earlier. I will excuse him for that, since he is not in that Department. But, being a Law Officer, I think that he might give us the benefit of his knowledge on these legal subjects.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): I intervene at the hon. Gentleman's invitation. I should have done so earlier if he had intimated a desire to hear any advice which I could give.
I agree entirely with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer). His argument was not fully understood by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). In effect, my hon. Friend was saying that for there to be a breach of an obligation contained in a conveyance, transfer, lease, tenancy, mortgage, settlement, trust
"or other similar acts or deeds or documents"
there must be the voluntary element. Somebody must bring about a breach. Here there is no voluntary breach of the
2722
conveyance, or whatever it may be. There is the separate operation of an Act of Parliament.
Having studied the matter, I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which a court would hold that the statutory creation by the Measure of a right of occupation could be construed as such a breach as that referred to in the new Clause. I therefore advise the House that the danger which the hon. Member for Crosby foresees is quite imaginary.
Mr. Bernard Braine: I rise with great trepidation merely to say that I thought it a little unfair of the Solicitor-General to chide my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for not inviting him earlier to intervene. For those of us who are not lawyers, this is an extremely difficult Bill to follow.
My hon. Friend made a strong point when he said that it was not what we in the House said, however sincere and well founded it might be, which mattered in legislation of this kind. What matters is the letter of the Statute and how the courts interpret it. I trust that the Solicitor-General will not wait for invitations but that, when it is clear that there is a difference of opinion between two Members whose opinions we respect greatly, he will intervene and, out of his great wisdom and experience, enlighten the rest of us as to where the truth lies.
Question put and negatived.

Clause 2.—(EFFECT OF STATUTORY RIGHTS OF OCCUPATION AS CHARGE ON DWELLING HOUSE.)
Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 13, at the beginning to insert:
(1) This section shall not apply to a dwelling house the legal estate in which is vested in persons who are spouses of one another either alone or jointly with other persons.
Clause 2 deals with the registration of the right to occupy as a land charge against the property. The remainder of the Bill flows from the registered right in Clause 2. I should have hoped that the Bill would be used on very few occasions and that in future the matrimonial home would be taken in the name of the husband and wife jointly.

2723
But that means that all the rather difficult provisions and procedure in the Bill might be avoided. It is not clear from the Bill that if the property is taken in the joint names of the husband and wife or in the names of themselves and other trustees the rights and procedure in the Bill are avoided.
Clause 1 refers to the spouse who is entitled to occupy a dwelling-house as against the spouse who is not. If a husband and wife own the legal estate jointly, subject to a trust for sale, it is not clear whether either of them can say, "I am entitled to occupy the property." They may both be entitled under the trust, or it may be a trust in favour of one of them. There may be innumerable ways of vesting the property in trustees for the benefit of those who it is intended shall reside in the property.
It is necessary that the Bill should make it clear that when the property is vested in the husband and wife all this trouble about registering land charges, and so on, can be avoided. If that is clearly said in the Bill, the practice will prevail of the legal profession advising the husband and wife, or the intended husband and wife, that the right thing to do would be to take the property in their joint names.
That does not mean necessarily that they share the value of the property or have to contribute to the purchase price in equal value. It merely means that the legal estate will be held by them jointly and that if any sale or other dealing with the property takes place, it can be done only by means of the execution of a deed by both spouses and not by one over the head of the other. I am sure that that is the right way to deal with the matrimonial home and I hope that this will be the way in which matrimonial homes are dealt with.
If that is to be the case, let us say clearly that the Bill does not apply to that sort of tenure of property. By the Amendment, I endeavour to say so at the opening of Clause 2. Clause 1 is left intact: it describes the rights of occupation of the injured spouse. I say "injured spouse" because these rights are likely to occur only in the event of estrangement and difficulties in marriage. Clause 1 describes those rights fully. Only after Clause 1 comes the machinery
2724
for creating, by means of a land charge, something which the public will then know exists.
My Amendment would leave the definition of the rights of occupation as they are given in the Bill. It then states that if the legal estate of the property is held by the husband and wife, there is no need to proceed with the registration of the right of one spouse to occupy. The right of that spouse to occupy will be fully protected by the fact that no conveyance or other disposition of the property could take place other than over the signature of both spouses.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am still not clear about the situation which the hon. Member envisages. The essence of Clause 1, to which he referred back, is that there must be a situation in which one spouse is entitled to occupy by virtue of an estate or interest and the other spouse is not so entitled. Those are the express words. That, presumably, is the condition precedent to the whole of the Bill. In other words, it applies equally to Clause 2 as to Clause 1. If that is so, I am still not clear—the fault is, no doubt, entirely mine—how the situation can arise in relation to Clause 2, to which the hon. Member has addressed his argument.
Mr. Graham Page: I can satisfy the hon. and learned Member by referring to a case—I do not think it matters that I am now disclosing the facts of a client's case, because it is some public knowledge —in which there is a compulsory purchase order on a matrimonial home. The home was bought by the parents when the wife was an infant under the age of 21 on the occasion of the marriage. The parents were not very certain about the boy whom she was marrying, so they bought the house as a gift to their daughter. They put it into their own names and the wife was the beneficiary under the trust. That is an occasion when property was put into the names of trustees other than the husband and wife.
The same situation could arise if the parents had been satisfied of the husband. They might well have put the property into the legal estate and the names of the husband and wife but named the wife, their daughter, as the beneficiary. That is an example.
That being so, whether or not they are beneficiaries, either party has the

2725
right to occupy; the legal estate is vested in the two of them. The whole purpose of the Bi11 is that the legal estate in the property shall not be conveyed away without the consent of both spouses. If the legal estate is already vested in both spouses, there is surely no need for either of them to go to the extent of registering a land charge and all the palaver and increased cost of conveyancing which would result from Clause 2 onwards of the Bill. I want to relieve those who already hold the legal estate jointly from any further trouble under the rest of the Bill.
2.15 p.m.
Mr. Archer: Bearing in mind the elegance and precision of the customary draftsmanship of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), I must confess that when I first saw the Amendment it gave me a nasty turn. I tried to imagine
"persons who are spouses of one another either alone or jointly with other persons".
For a shocked moment, I thought that the hon. Member was contemplating polygamy. I now appreciate what he had in mind, and I agree entirely with his first point.
Normally, a solicitor will be able to avoid all the difficulties which the Bill is designed to meet by advising a husband and wife who contemplate acquiring a matrimonial home to take the legal estate in their joint names. If that happens, the difficulties which the Bill is designed to meet will not arise and there is no need to worry. If there is no problem, we do not have to argue about the solution to it.
There are, however, situations—for example, in the instance cited by the hon. Member to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin)—in which, for one reason or another, those who supply the money are opposed to the principle that the parties shall take the legal estate jointly. That is the situation which the Bill contemplates.
Perhaps I may respectfully add my voice to those who, on occasions throughout these debates, have invited the intervention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I am aware that the practising profession would welcome guidance as to the kind of advice which they might give to clients in this kind of situation and I would welcome
2726
it if my right hon. and learned Friend saw fit to intervene.
The difficulty which the hon. Member for Crosby contemplates does not, however, appear to me to arise, because the first words of the Bill exclude the situation which he has in mind. If the legal estate is vested jointly in the two spouses, the Bill does not apply. That is stated precisely by its opening words. The example given by the hon. Member to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich does not take the matter any further, because in that example such rights as they were—rights of the beneficiary under a trust—were in one of the spouses and the other had no similar rights.
Clearly, in that kind of situation, we would not want to exclude the operation of the Bill. That is the situation which the Bill contemplates. If the two spouses had taken rights in their joint names, the problem would not have arisen and there would be no need for the provisions of the Bill.
There are, however, two possible situations. One partner might need protecting because he or she does not have a legal interest in the property. In that case, the Bill operates or the partner does not need protection, in which event the operation of the Bill is excluded by the opening words. I do not see the difficulty.
The Solicitor-General: I intervene in response to the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer), though I think there is very little I can add to what has been said by my hon. Friend and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). I would agree with them that where we have a legal estate vested in two persons, as contemplated here—and I take it that the wording of the Amendment means simply a husband and wife—then the protection which is afforded by this Bill is unnecessary, and indeed the Bill does not apply. Clause 1 contemplates a state of affairs where one spouse is entitled to occupy the dwelling-house
"by virtue of any estate or interest or contract or by virtue of any enactment giving him or her the right to remain in occupation, and the other spouse is not so entitled.…"
It is simply to meet this state of affairs that the Bill has been introduced.

2727
In Committee, and throughout, we have been considering the most common case, which is where the husband leaves the matrimonial home, the legal estate in the house is vested in him, and then he requires the wife to leave; and the purpose of this legislation is to give her a statutory right to remain. Of course, if there is a joint legal estate it means the husband and wife are both owners, and if the husband leaves the matrimonial home the wife already has a right to remain there, because she is one of the owners of the house.
The Bill has no application to that state of affairs. Therefore, while I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in bringing forward this Amendment, I would advise the House that the Amendment is quite unnecessary.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: Far be it for me ever to attempt to gild the lily which sits on the Treasury Bench, but since my right hon. and learned Friend referred specifically to the legal estate may I say that it seems to me, at any rate—I say this in answer to a point made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) —that what he said applies just as forcefully to any equitable estate. Clause 1 applies to one spouse being entitled to occupy the dwelling-house
"by virtue of any estate or interest of contract"
and "interest" must, include a beneficial interest arising in equity.
Therefore, whoever may be the owner of the legal estate, if in equity, as a result of the sort of causes he referred to, one spouse has entitlement to occupy and the other does not have entitlement to occupy, then we have a situation which Clause 1 contemplates, but if the equities are such that both have a right to occupy then we do not have that situation and the Bill does not bite on that situation at all. Therefore, with very great respect to the hon. Gentleman, it does seem to me that both in the legal and the equitable situation his Amendment is wholly misconceived.
Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: I am trying to visualise a house where there are separate legal estates—where, for example, the freehold estate is
2728
owned jointly by the husband and wife. As I read the Amendment the fact that the freehold estate was owned jointly would exclude that dwelling from the operation of the provisions of the Bill. There might be in existence a leasehold estate owned by the husband only, a separate person entirely. If that be so and my premises are right, the wife of the leaseholder would not be able to register the estate because the dwelling house would be excluded from the operation of the Bill.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Graham Page: I beg, to move, Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 29, to leave out 'unless' and to insert:
'or
(c) the delivery of an application for the cancellation of the charge in accordance with subsection (2) of section 4 of this Act, unless (in the case of (a) or (b) above)'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): With this Amendment we can also consider Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 27, Clause 4, after 'charge' insert:
'that charge shall thereupon be cancelled and shall cease to have any force or effect (notwithstanding that particulars thereof remain upon any register of charges) and shall not be renewable; and'.
Mr. Graham Page: Clause 2(2) sets out the occasions on which the spouse's rights of occupation come to an end and are described as
"the death of the other spouse, or the termination (otherwise than by death) of the marriage".
Then there is a restriction or limitation of that:
"unless in the event of a matrimonial dispute or estrangement the court sees fit to direct otherwise …"
Elsewhere in the Bill the right comes to an end also on the wife's making an application for cancellation of the land charge and handing over that application to some third party in the transaction.
It seemed to me that the Bill is rather contradictory, that in a later part of the Bill the wife's right of occupation or her charge evidencing that right of occupation is cancelled by her handing over an application for cancellation, for the fact is not mentioned in Clause 2.
If I could explain by the circumstances which are most likely to arise, the husband owns the property, he wishes to

2729
sell it, the wife has a right to occupy — I imagine the marriage has broken up —and she has registered a charge to make certain that anyone dealing with the property knows she has got that right, but the husband is providing her with other accommodation and so they have agreed amongst themselves that she shall release her right. The husband enters into a contract to sell the property
By another Clause in this Bill there will be an implied term in that contract, that he shall see that the wife's charge is removed from the register. So on completion at the office of the solicitor to the vendor, that solicitor, having obtained an application for cancellation signed by the wife, hands over to the solicitor for the purchaser the conveyance of the property and the application to cancel the charge. The solicitor for the purchaser probably accompanied by the solicitor for the mortgagee who also wants to see that the property is clear of the wife's charge and to see that at that moment it is clear. All this, of course, does not happen at the Land Registry itself or the land charges registry. What is the period of time when the application for cancellation is handed over to the purchaser? Where the mortgagee may get a right to the property, that charge is still registered.
Taking Clause 2 on its own it did not appear to be clear at what moment the charge is cancelled. I think it possible that by a later Clause a cancellation takes place immediately upon the handing over of an application to cancel to the purchaser's solicitor or the mortgagee's solicitor, or the lessee, for example, if there is a lease.
My problem may be solved if I can ask the hon. Gentleman if he can give me an assurance, and then I shall be happy. The assurance I hope he can give me is that the wife—again, we are taking an example of the wife who is deserted, and the husband wishes to sell the property—having handed over the signed application, that having been handed over to the purchaser on the completion of the sale, she will not have any right to take that back or cancel it before the charge can be removed from the register. If there is any chance of her
2730
being able to do that it would cause great confusion in conveyancing.
Mr. Archer: I can treat the hon. Gentleman even more handsomely than he has invited me to do. Not only can I give him that assurance but, because Clause 6(2) was introduced in Committee at his own instigation, it is clear that once the application by the wife has been handed over, it is irrevocable and she is deemed to have released the right of occupation from that moment. I am quite happy to read it if the House wishes, but I think that it would be taking up time unnecessarily. The result is that the hon. Gentleman has provided the solution to his own problem.
Mr. Graham Page: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.30 p.m.

Clause 4.—(CONTRACT FOR SALE OF HOUSE AFFECTED BY REGISTERED CHARGE TO INCLUDE TERM REQUIRING CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION BEFORE COMPLETION.)
Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 17, to leave out from 'interest' to 'that' in line 19.
Clause 4 provides that, in a contract or sale of dwelling house which is subject to the wife's charge for her right to occupy, there shall be an implied term of the contract that the vendor—assuming, again, the husband—before completion will procedure the cancellation of the registration of the charge.
Again taking the example of a husband and wife, with the husband owning the property and the wife the injured party, this is all plain sailing when the husband seeks to sell the property with vacant possession. He so arranges with the wife that she will go out of occupation and cancel her land charge on the property. When the application is handed over on completion, as we have heard in connection with the last Amendment, the wife's right is thereby cancelled.
The transaction may not be quite as simple as that. Suppose the spouses have

2731
become estranged some time previously, the husband has gone out of possession, and the wife has remained in occupation. Perhaps she does not wish to remain in occupation any longer, although she has registered her charge against it. It may be that she is going overseas for a holiday or that her work takes her somewhere else and that, for a time, the husband and wife arrange between them that the property shall be let.
Let us say that it is let for six months but that the wife's charge is left on the register so that she can return to the property if she sees fit. While it is let, assume that the husband and wife agree that it shall be sold. A contract is entered into for the sale of the property, subject to the tenancy. The tenancy may have three months to run, and the purchaser decides to take on the tenant for that time and then have vacant possession for himself. Why, on such an occasion, should there be any difference? Why should there be this restriction in Clause 4 that the terms of the contract obliging the vendor to remove the land charge should not apply?
Clause 4 is restricted at the moment to the case where the property is being sold with vacant possession. But that is not the only occasion on which the land charge may be registered in favour of the wife. It may have been registered previously and still be on the register, and the purchaser who has acquired the property and perhaps mortgaged it will want that removed.
It may be said that on such an occasion it can be provided for in the contract, all that Clause 4 is doing is to imply a term in the contract, and that when the property is sold without vacant possession and with a tenant in for some time, there should be a special clause in the contract saying that the vendor must remove the land charge. That seems to be an unnecessary trouble which could be provided against in the Bill. Surely there would be no harm in removing these words from Clause 4 and implying the term in any contract obliging the vendor to remove at his own expense a charge registered in favour of some one who has rights of ocupation.
I would like to see Clause 4 apply to any contract and not merely to one for vacant possession.
Mr. Archer: With his customary fairness, the hon. Gentleman has provided the answer to his own argument.
The standard situation is that either the purchaser expects to acquire vacant possession or he does not. If he expects to acquire it free from encumbrances, the Clause says that he shall have the benefit of that understanding, and the obligation is imposed on the vendor accordingly. If the purchaser does not expect to acquire the property free from encumbrances, there appears to be no reason why this undertaking should be implied.
Where the situation is more complicated, such as that which the hon. Gentleman outlined, the proper thing to do is for the parties to provide expressly for it in the contract. It is always open to them to do that. As a general rule, there seems to be no reason why one should imply such an undertaking into a contract in a case where the purchaser does not expect to obtain the property free from encumbrances.
It is right that I should say that the terms of the Clause have been discussed with the Law Society which has expressed itself completely satisfied. In those circumstances, it may be that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept that the Clause deals simply with the normal case, falling on one side of the line or the other, and that more complicated situations should be left to the parties to make their own arrangements.
Mr. Graham Page: The case which I put forward was in no way complicated. It is the ordinary case of property being acquired with a tenant in it with a view to possession being taken at a later date. If it is thought desirable to include an implied term when property is being sold with vacant possession, I see no reason why it should not be implied on all occasions when there is a charge registered in favour of one of the spouses for the right to occupy. It is whether that charge is registered which is important, not whether the property is sold with vacant possession, and the vendor is responsible for getting that charge removed. Why should it be written into one contract and merely implied in another?
Mr. Archer: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, does he acknowledge that the Amendment goes very much further

2733
than the situation which he has exemplified to the House? What he is saying in his Amendment is that the undertaking should be implied in every case and not merely where there is some limited benefit which the purchaser expects to acquire. In those circumstances, it seems a little hard to put upon the vendor the obligation of excluding this in cases where the purchaser expects nothing better.
Mr. Graham Page Mr. Graham Page rose—
Mr. Speaker: We are not in Committee.
Mr. Graham Page: I took that as an intervention before I had resumed my seat.
Mr. Speaker: It was lengthy enough to be something like a Committee speech.
Mr. Graham Page: I shall try not to repeat that offence.
The Bill will require a great number of further requisitions by the purchaser's solicitor, to try to find out the facts. The more implied terms there are in the contract to dispose of these difficulties, the less will be the requisitions. In the case which I envisaged, the solicitor will have to make requisitions about whether there is a right of the wife, and so on. I can see no reason for dividing contracts up in this way, and I had hoped that the Amendment would be accepted.
Amendment negatived.
2.41 p.m.
Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am conscious that the House has other business to discuss, but I cannot let this moment pass without breathing an audible sigh of gratitude that the Measure is approaching the end of its progress through the House. It is an unpretentious piece of legislation, but it may avert real personal tragedy for many people who are unaware of our deliberations.
I would not like the moment to pass without saying that on many occasions we have had to consider the balance of fairness between a spouse and her children on the one hand, and on the other a third party who spends money in good faith on the expedition of acquiring a home.
2734
Sometimes this involves dealing with a situation with the only weapons available, which are blatant legal technicalities. Where we have arrived at a conclusion on one side of the other of the line, the most that we can plead is that after careful consideration we have done our best.
I express my personal thanks to those who, both in and out of the limelight, worked very hard to achieve this Measure, to right hon. and hon. Members who took part in our deliberations, and to one other person who acquires more brickbats than bouquets, the Leader of the House, for having it made it possible for us to consummate our deliberations today.
2.43 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I offer my sincere congratulations to the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) for piloting the Bill through to this stage, particularly because, in my view, the intentions of the Bill are wholly good, and I support them entirely, but the Bill itself is wholly bad. It will cause an increase in legal work, to no purpose. We could have achieved the principals of the Bill in a much simpler way.
At a time when the legal profession is being accused of increasing the costs of conveyancing, the Bill will contribute to increasing them still further, and will be harmful to the desire to streamline conveyancing. All this could have been done in a much simpler way. I think that this is a bad Bill, and this makes me congratulate the hon. Gentleman even more for his success in getting a bad Bill through on a very good principle.
2.44 p.m.
Mr. Braine: In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has said about the Bill, I feel that I should rise on behalf of this side of the House to express our support for its principles. Unfortunately, the Bill did not get debated in second Reading, but, thanks to the searching Amendments put down by my hon. Friend, both in Committee and today, and thanks to the extremely able, courteous, and skilful handling of the Bill by the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer), it has since been given a thorough scrutiny.

2735
I mean no disrespect to an honourable profession when I say that the argument has been conducted, on both sides, almost wholly by lawyers. The Bill is none the worse for that. It involves considerable legal technicalities, and from time to time it has been very difficult for some of the laymen to follow the arguments. Nevertheless, it is important that we enact legislation which is capable of being implemented and understood, and is clear and fair. This is why I thought that at an earlier stage my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby was right in saying that it is not what we say here about the provisions of the Bill that matters, so much as what the courts will say—because this is going to be very much a matter for the courts —about the actual words in the Statute.
The Bill is concerned with removing—happily for not a large number of people—a serious defect in the existing law with regard to the rights of a spouse who has become estranged, and especially those of a wife with young children. The hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton said that it was an unpretentious Measure. That is a modest way of putting it. I think that it is an extremely valuable Bill. Something like this had to be enacted. We all know of tragic cases—I have had a number of them brought to my attention—in which a wife, very often with a number of young children, has been deprived of her right of occupation of the matrimonial home. Whatever the rights or wrongs which have led to the break up of the marriage, one's heart bleeds for the innocent children, already deprived as they would be of the love of both parents. It must be wholly wrong that in such cases there is no adequate safeguard for them. The Bill seeks to provide that safeguard, and to the extent that it does so it is deserving of our support. I pay my tribute to those who, with skill and pertinacity, have guided it through the House.
2.47 p.m.
The Solicitor-General: I join hon. Gentlemen opposite in welcoming the Third Reading of the Bill. This Measure has the support of the great majority of hon. Members, very much for the reasons which the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) has just expressed. It deals with a social evil,
2736
and many of us are familiar with the sort of matter with which the Bill is concerned.
I join in the congratulations which have been offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) for the way in which he has marshalled his arguments and carried the Bill through all its stages.
I extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). He was in a minority, though I know that that does not worry him very much. He was in a minority on this occasion, and a very small one, but he made a very useful contribution to the proceedings on the Bill, and it is a very much better Measure because of that.
I would like to refer to one matter which has arisen during the discussions on the Bill. The hon. Member for Crosby, and others, and some outside the House, have expressed a certain amount of apprehension about what will be the position of solicitors who have to advise their clients after the Bill becomes law. Where, for example, a solicitor is advising the husband, will he be under a duty to advise the wife, even though the wife may not herself be his client?
It is not possible for the promoters of the Bill, or the Government, to say what view the courts may take of the duty of a solicitor in an individual case should one ever arise, but it is evident that the courts would be bound to have regard to the facts of the case, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend in Committee. If a solicitor is consulted by the husband alone, it seems to me that it will be very difficult to argue that the solicitor owes any duty to the wife to inform her of her rights under the Bill, still less to protect them by the registration of a charge.
If solicitors were consulted by both husband and wife it might come to be regarded as their duty to inform the wife of rights conferred on her by the Bill, but it by no means follows that he should go on to advise the wife to register a land charge if the solicitor had no reason to suppose that the marriage was anything but a happy one.
This is borne out by the fact that solicitors at present do not appear to regard it as their duty to advise husbands arid wives to take a conveyance of the matrimonial home in their joint names,

2737
although the advantages of doing so may be thought to be even more important than those attached to the registration of a class F land charge, not least because of the considerable saving in Estate Duty in the event of the husband dying first.
It seems to me that in the case of the results of occupation conferred by the Bill a solicitor, like any other person, is entitled to take account of the practical realities of the situation with which he has to deal and should be under no obligation to advise a wife to register a charge when there is no reason to suppose that the marriage is likely to go wrong.
I thought that I should say something on that subject, but I rose mainly to join in the general welcome given to the Bill, and the congratulations which have been offered to my hon. Friend.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed with Amendments.

CIVIC AMENITIES BILL
Lords Amendments considered.
Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 28.—(INTERPRETATION—GENERAL.)
Lord Amendment: In page 22, line 34, at end insert:
"'the Common Council' means the Common Council of the City of London".
2.45 p.m.
Mr. Duncan Sandys: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
On the last Amendment to the Bill I take the opportunity, once again, to thank my hon. Friends who have sponsored We Bill with me, and other hon. Members who have helped to improve it and also, in particular, once again to thank members of the Government who have
2738
been so helpful and so co-operative in its drafting and in helping to see it through.
Question put and agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL
Lords Amendments considered.

Title
Lords Amendment: In line 6, at end insert:
"and to remove doubts about the extent of the power to make Orders under the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Act 1952".
2.48 p.m.
Mr. William Hamling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mr. Speaker: There is remarkable unanimity which I have not experienced for some time.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): In supporting the Motion, I take this opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall), who is not able to be here this afternoon but who is the sponsor of the Bill, and his hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) who has been good enough to move the Lords Amendment, upon their success in getting through this very useful and valuable Measure.
Question put and agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Howie.]
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Catering Staff (Wage Rates)
  Catering Staff (Wage Rates)
  Typewriters (Maintenance)
  Typewriters (Maintenance)
TECHNOLOGY
  Sonic Bang
  Sonic Bang
ROADS
  Ringway Airport (Access)
  Ringway Airport (Access)
  West Country (Lorry Traffic)
  West Country (Lorry Traffic)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Bank of England (Subscriptions)
  Bank of England (Subscriptions)
  Social Services (Expenditure)
  Social Services (Expenditure)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Value)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Value)
  Selective Employment Tax (Hospitals)
  Selective Employment Tax (Hospitals)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Powers and Procedures
  Police Powers and Procedures
  Aden
  Aden
  Mr. Shahid Ali
  Mr. Shahid Ali
HOSPITALS
  Psychiatric Social Workers
  Psychiatric Social Workers
POST OFFICE
  Commemorative Stamps
  Commemorative Stamps
BOARD OF TRADE
  Pit Closures
  Pit Closures
  United Kingdom Airlines (Gross Investment)
  United Kingdom Airlines (Gross Investment)
  Airports (Public Investment)
  Airports (Public Investment)
  Teesside Airport Authority
  Teesside Airport Authority
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Harlequin Ballet Trust
  Harlequin Ballet Trust
MINISTRY OF POWER
  North Sea Gas
  North Sea Gas
SCOTLAND
  Sheriff Courts
  Sheriff Courts
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
DEFENCE
  Durham Light Infantry
  Durham Light Infantry
  HONOURS SYSTEM
  HONOURS SYSTEM
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Pit closures
  Pit closures
HOUSING
  Fair Rents
  Fair Rents
  Cost Controls
  Cost Controls
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Caravan Sites
  Caravan Sites

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
11.5 a.m.
LORD COBBOLD: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message reads as follows:
"I have received your Address, praying that the draft Summer Time Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament. I will comply with your request."

ROYAL ASSENT
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to notify the House that, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, Her Majesty the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Finance,

Road Transport Lighting,

Matrimonial Causes,

Control of Liquid Fuel,

Criminal Law,

Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Orders Confirmation (Buxton, Stockport and York),
Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (West Hertfordshire Main Drainage District),

Metropolitan Water Board,

University of Bradford,

Newquay Urban District Council,

Guildford Corporation.

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EPPING FOREST (WATERWORKS CORNER) BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, in moving the Resolution that stands in my name on the Order Paper, I should explain to your Lordships that its purpose is to continue the progress of this Bill through Parliament next Session. The Bill was opposed and went to a Select Committee of this House on July 4. On July 13 the Committee reported that the Bill should proceed with Amendments. I am satisfied that it would be impossible for the Promoters to complete the proceedings on the Bill in both Houses before the end of this Session. I am therefore asking the House to agree to allow the Bill to be carried over until the next Session. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that point be paid;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT 1932
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONFIAM): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move that the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Urban District Council of Driffield be approved. This is the normal form of Order under the 1932 Act. All the statutory requirements have been properly complied with. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Urban District of Driffield be approved.—(Lord Stonhani.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING INSTRUCTION) BILL
11.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Commitee.—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Exemption of police instructors from prohibition imposed by section 1 of this Act]:
LORD LINDGREN: It may be to the convenience of the Committee if with this Amendment we consider also Amendment No. 2, because they are connected. These are technical Amendments to ensure that the exemption in Clause 2 for police driving instructors will include civilian driving instructors employed under the Commissioner of Police or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, to give driving instruction to members of the Metropolitan Police. The employment of such civilians is recognised by the Metropolitan
506
Police Staff Superannuation Act 1875, and is not covered by Section 10 of the Police Act 1964, on which the existing Clause 2 is based. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("person") and insert ("civilian").—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LINDGREN: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) In the application of subsection (2) above to the metropolitan police, for the reference to a civilian employed by a police authority, there shall be substituted a reference to a civilian employed under the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.")—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [The register and registration and duration thereof]:
LORD LINDGREN: Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are also connected with this Amendment No. 3, and I suggest that we should deal with them together. It has been suggested that lines 16 to 20 on page 3 of the Bill might be interpreted as meaning that throughout the period of four years preceding the date of his application an applicant must have held both a current licence of one of the kinds mentioned and a current foreign licence. The intention is that on every day during the four-year period mentioned the applicant should hold either a current licence of one of the kinds mentioned, or a current foreign licence. These are drafting Amendments. They do not alter the substance of the provision; they are there really for clarification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 6, as beginning insert ("that")—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LINDGREN: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("has he held neither") and insert ("did he not hold one or other of the following licences, namely")(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LINDGREN: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("nor") and insert ("and")—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"( ) Regulations shall provide that persons who have passed the Royal Automobile Club test for registered driving instructors shall be exempt from the condition mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above."
The noble Lord said: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I think I should first say that I regret very much that I was unable to take part, as I had intended, in the Second Reading debate on this Bill, and I should like to apologise to your Lordships for the last-minute adverse circumstances that prevented my doing so. Had I done so, I should have got up to welcome and support the principle of the Bill and indicate the welcome and support of my organisation, the R.A.C. It has been argued for many years that good professional driving instruction is a major factor in contributing to road safety. I repeat the assurance that we are in support of this Bill, and the Amendment I have put down is only an attempt to improve it in one certain respect.
It is a slightly double-barrelled Amendment, in that it seems to me that subsection (3) of Clause 3 is a little deficient, for it gives the Minister power to exempt any chosen body from only part of the conditions referred to in the Bill above—that is in subsection (1) paragraph (a)—and it seems to me that the Minister might just as well have power to exempt from the whole of that requirement. But that is not the real substance of my Amendment. I hope your Lordships will not think I am doing a wrong thing in any way in moving this Amendment with a direct reference to the R.A.C. in it. I do so because I am convinced it is a reasonable thing, and, after all, I think I may claim that at least I know as much about it as anybody else.
I do not think I need delve very far into the history of this matter, because my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford on Second Reading gave your Lordships a certain amount of information about the attitude and activity of the
508
R.A.C. in this regard. I would remind your Lordships that since 1935, a period of 32 years, we have put the principle into practice by operating our scheme for registration of driving instructors in order to encourage learner drivers to be trained by suitably qualified and properly professional experts. Your Lordships may wish to know that we have some 5,000 such qualified instructors on the register at the present time. An association of those registered instructors was formed in 1958 in order to protect and promote the interests of instructors. One of the declared objects of their scheme is to secure that persons giving driving tuition in the course of business shall be properly qualified so to do. So your Lordships can see that our views coincide completely with my statement that we are quite in support of the principle of the Bill.
Your Lordships will also know that since 1964 the Ministry have operated their own scheme for voluntary registration of approved full-time driving instructors, on very similar lines to the scheme which we have run for so long. They brought it in after close study and a good deal of willing co-operation from us at the time. I understand there are now about 5,000 instructors also on the Ministry's voluntary register, and I understand that quite a number of them are also R.A.C. registered instructors. It may be a point of interest that so far as we are concerned we still get a very substantial number of applicants for our test, the Ministry test notwithstanding.
This matter was discussed fairly fully when the Bill was going through another place, and a number of rather astonishing things happened, to which I think I am bound to draw your Lordships' attention. In the course of that discussion the Parliamentary Secretary said:
"On a number of occasions the R.A.C. has claimed that the standard which instructors have to obtain before being included in its register is at least as high as, if not higher than, that required for inclusion in the Ministry's voluntary register. There is, however, no evidence to support this. I wish there were."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Commons, Standing Committee C. col. 95; l0/5/67]:
To put it mildly, I thought that was an astonishing statement to come from the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Transport. As I have said, since 1959 we have been in constant discussion with the Ministry regarding the setting up of

509
their own scheme, and we have from time to time, quite often—and many meetings have been held—provided detailed information concerning our own scheme. And, as I have said, the Ministry scheme is closely based on ours and we were pleased to help with these matters, even if we had at the time no prospect of any form of exemption. The Ministry really must know everything there is about these two schemes because of those discussions. So it would seem strange for them to say this.
I myself over the last twelve months have had a number of opportunities to discuss these matters with the Ministry, and I certainly had no idea that the whole of the evidence was not well known to the Ministry. I have upon my file a detailed assessment of the differences between the two schemes prepared by the Ministry, and without the evidence I do not see how that could have been made. In fact, happenings of the past bring it to my own personal knowledge that the Ministry were fully aware of everything there was to know about it in 1962, when the whole subject was under consideration and the question of exemption for R.A.C. registered instructors was discussed at that time; and I must admit that even then I personally thought that the decision made not to do so was the wrong one.
The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say:
"I wish the honourable Member had been able to adduce evidence to support this. If there were evidence, we might have had it this morning. I do not blame the honourable Member for this. Repeatedly, the Ministry has asked the R.A.C. to adduce evidence on this and it has not so far done so."
again, an extraordinary statement, to my way of thinking. Just for the sake of the Record, if nothing else, the evidence is coming in a moment. But to say that repeated requests have been made and it has not been forthcoming is really rather odd.
I do not know about these repeated requests, but I should not have thought there was even any necessity to make them in the circumstances; and it is probably the reason why the honourable Member whom the Parliamentary Secretary was at that time addressing did not bring all the evidence forward, because it was considered to be already so well known. I do not think he could have
510
anticipated such a reply, that the evidence was not there, when I should have thought that obviously it was abundantly there.
The Parliamentary Secretary then referred to evidence being required to substantiate the R.A.C.'s claim. Well, the evidence has been there. There have been many discussions on this basis. I suppose that substantiation must be a matter of opinion, because so long as you are determined not to consider anything as substantiated it is difficult to think what more evidence can be produced that will change the situation when all is already known.
Your Lordships will know that in the course of proceedings in another place it was announced that there would be partial exemption from the Ministry's test for R.A.C. registered instructors and also those who were on the register of the Motor Schools' Association. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the R.A.C. were willing to accept the compromise. I suppose that is true; but in my view it is stretching the point a little. We are indeed glad to have this compromise, because I have always understood that half-a-loaf is better than no bread. I am also quite willing to concede that this is a full half-loaf. But I think it in no way detracts from the force of my argument on the standard of our test. Incidentally, I wondered how one could come to a conclusion on partial exemption when there was no evidence on which total exemption could be considered; but perhaps that is not an important point.
We continue to regard the R.A.C. registered instructor as a man who is demonstrating to the public that the services of one who belongs to the cream of his profession are available. We are going to do our best, by tightening it if necessary, to make certain that our test remains the best that there is to offer. If I may take a couple of minutes, I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice various points which I claim are in favour of our test. The first one is that the Ministry do not set out the motoring offences which make a candidate ineligible for registration under their scheme. The R.A.C., on the other hand, provide in a quite forthright way for the rejection of candidates or the cancellation of their registration if they are convicted of careless driving or any more serious offence. That I score as a point for the R.A.C.

511
The Ministry test the candidate's teaching ability with the examiner taking the place of the learner driver. The R.A.C., on the other hand, has a separate pupil who is not necessarily a learner but is certainly not an expert driver, and that, I submit, is a more practical test and scores another point. The Ministry re-test instructors at regular intervals. We can only conduct a limited number of re-tests because our availability of manpower and resources is less. So I would score a point for the Ministry, making two to one so far.
With regard to fees, I may mention that the Ministry's fees are £10 for the test and £5 every two years for re-registration. Our charge is four guineas, and two guineas for re-registration each year, plus two free plates to put on the instructor's car. Because of the sample retesting basis that I mentioned, I would score that one at half-a-point each. The Ministry require records of tuition and driving test pass rates to be kept by the instructors. The R.A.C. does not. But I do not score more than half-a-point to the Ministry for that. We have a positive control over advertising concerning R.A.C. registration. This the Ministry do not do, beyond providing that it is an offence for an instructor to represent improperly that he is Ministry of Transport approved. I have scored half-a-point to the R.A.C. there. The Ministry of Transport do not examine and register schools. The R.A.C. does—another point. The R.A.C. test of driving and tuition is certainly more extensive and covers higher speed techniques with a practical test on motorways or a suitable dual carriageway road. That is another point.
The Ministry's theoretical test covers some matters which do not seem to us to be an essential requirement for all registered instructors; that is, a detailed technical knowledge of car construction and design. The Ministry also has what I gather is a highly prized asset; namely, the Civil Service standard of invigilation when an examination is taking place. It is often spoken of in hushed whispers, and consequently I will give the Ministry half-a-point for that. Over the years we have accepted part-time or full-time instructors. The Ministry has only recently decided to accept part-time instructors, though professional, of course.
An important point is that the R.A.C. requirements in regard to the character of an applicant are, I think, a good deal more stringent than those of the Ministry. This is important, because under a compulsory registration and compulsory test it is much more difficult for the Ministry to be selective about the personal and moral background of an applicant than it is for us. A refusal on the part of the Ministry can deprive a man of his livelihood; and it will be much more difficult for them to insist on that kind of standard. Then I score another point to the Ministry, for the reason that in these circumstances the R.A.C. is burdened with something called selective employment tax; whereas, of course, as and when necessary the Ministry have the weight of the Exchequer behind them. The score card at the moment adds up to: R.A.C. 7½, Ministry 4.
I have another point which it is relevant to mention. The failure rate of the Ministry's test is 45 per cent. It was quoted not very long ago that that was the rate of failure in the R.A.C. test, but I can tell the Committee that at present the failure rate in our test is something over 50 per cent. I do not know whether, when the compulsory test comes in, good thing as it is, the Ministry will be able to maintain the same standards as they can under the voluntary scheme, for the reason I mentioned; namely, that the person will be deprived of his livelihood. We shall continue as a voluntary scheme, and therefore we should have no difficulty in keeping up the very high standards which we maintain at present.
It is our intention to impose even higher standards in future to keep our test the best of the lot. That is worth a point, and I consider that 32 years' experience and enthusiasm for this business is worth a point. I feel justified in saying that if your Lordships accept my Amendment, considerable economies for the Ministry will result from the operation of the test, because so many of the tests will be carried out by us. That, it seems to me, is a very valid reason. It leaves the score cards at 10½ to 4. I hope that I have explained the score cards in a sufficiently detailed way to convince your Lordships that you should accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD SOMERS: It is with the greatest reluctance that I rise to oppose my noble friend's Amendment. I have the greatest respect for him as a motorist and for his organisation, but the question of exemptions is always rather tricky, since if one starts making exemptions in one place, the question must inevitably arise: where does one stop? There will doubtless be other organisations which will also claim exemption; and on what grounds will they be refused? Although my noble friend has made a very good and strong claim for the R.A.C., one does not know, for instance, what conditions prevail in the A.A. or in other motoring organisations, such as the British School of Motoring. Therefore I feel—and, incidentally, these are also the opinions of the Institute of Advanced Motorists—that it is better and safer to make no exemptions at all. I hope that my noble friend will not feel that I am making any direct attack either upon him or upon the R.A.C. when I ask the Committee not to agree to this Amendment.
I had another point to raise, in relation to dual control which does not arise under this subsection at all; but, as the Bill is going through all stages today, I should like to have some instruction from the Lord Chairman as to how I am to put it. I have not put down any Amendment, not even a manuscript Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: If the noble Lord cares to draft a manuscript Amendment on the subject of dual control, I can accept that manuscript Amendment. I am afraid that I cannot accept an oral Amendment.
LORD SOMERS: I understand.
11.34 a.m.
LORD LINDGREN: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for his intervention and for his opposition to this Amendment. We have heard a lot of special pleading on behalf of the R.A.C. I should like to make it quite clear to your Lordships that in this matter the R.A.C. are completely out on a limb and that no section of the motor instruction profession supports them. I take the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that there should be no exemptions
514
whatever. This is a Ministry standard and a Ministry test for the protection of the public.
But during the course of the Committee stage in another place, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has said, a concession was made that the R.A.C. and the Motor Schools' Association should be exempted from the written part of the examination. I take it that that was a concession intended to placate people and to assist the progress of the Bill. However, I should like to make it quite clear that the Motor Schools' Association themselves would much prefer that there were no exemptions. They took the view that if the R.A.C. were going to have it why should not they, because they were both in the same position. The R.A.C. are a non-profit-making organisation who are not engaged in the profit-making profession of giving driving instruction. But the same is true of the Motor Schools' Association. They would prefer that there should be no exemptions, but their attitude was that if the R.A.C. were going to have this treatment, they should have it too.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, mentioned the British School of Motoring. They have a very high standard of teaching instructors, but they are training instructors who will be professional instructors carrying out the job of instruction for their weekly salary and in order that their School may make a profit. They are in a different category from the R.A.C. or the Motor Schools' Association. Where does one draw the line? The British School of Motoring equally would claim that their standards of instruction and their standards of testing are far higher than those of the R.A.C.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, is an ex-Parliamentary Secretary, and in that we have something in common. But there is a phrase that, "Dog doesn't eat dog"; and, as the noble Lord went for the present Parliamentary Secretary, I must come to his defence. I have just been handed a note which states that the R.A.C. were asked in January and February of this year to substantiate their claims. But neither a reply nor an acknowledgment has been received at the Ministry. That was before the Committee stage in another place, and therefore the Parliamentary Secretary was quite right to say that the Ministry had no knowledge of the standards. I want to make

515
it quite clear that the whole of the profession are against the exemptions.
When it comes to the practical test, it is the Ministry, of course, who are setting up the standards, and they must have the examiner to test those standards. It is not only the content of the examination which is important; the standard of testing is of equal importance in giving the profession the standard required. After all, whatever the content of an examination, the pass rate may even be 5 per cent. and not 90 per cent., but the Ministry do not know the standards so far as the R.A.C. are concerned.
I must make this point—I shall be accused of making a debating point, but it is a very good one. If the R.A.C. are confident that their standards are so high, that their qualified instructors whom they have passed are of such a high standard, what is the worry? If they go in for the Ministry examination they need have no fear of failure. If we are to have this Bill, which is a Road Safety Bill to protect the public, there should be one standard and the Ministry should be responsible for it.
Even the Press are against the R.A.C. on this issue, and I should like to quote them. The People said:
"It will be possible to improve tuition standards only if all driving instructors are obliged to take the examination set by the Ministry of Transport before they can be licensed to operate."
Then the Yorkshire Post, quoting a Mr. Lewis Radcliffe, an instructor in the Goole area, said:
"To qualify for Ministry of Transport registration one has to pass a very rigorous test—much stiffer than the R.A.C. test. Driving instructors who take pride in their work have taken this test; some qualify but many fail."
Then I have one quotation which is not quite Parliamentary but, after all, it is made by a driving instructor. According to the Birmingham Evening Post, Mr. John Lee, an instructor in the Birmingham area, said:
"The R.A.C test is a lot of codswallop."
That is descriptive, if not Parliamentary. The motoring correspondent of the Daily Sketch said:
"I consider that the 4,000 R.A.C. registered instructors are wrong in trying to dodge a Ministry of Transport examination. They want to be exempted from the official register of approved driving instructors' examination, because they claim they have already passed an
516
R.A.C. test. There is no reason at all why every driving instructor should not be forced to sit the Ministry examination."
In view of all these facts, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, to withdraw, or not to press, his Amendment. If it is not withdrawn, I must ask the House to resist it, because we are trying to set national standards with a Ministry test, in exactly the same way as we have national standards and a Ministry test for the driving test itself. The driving test will be a national test with a national standard, and the instruction will be of a national standard with a national test. I must resist the Amendment.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): May I rise briefly to support my noble friend? The Government believe that his arguments are sound, and they support them. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has also supported my noble friend in making the point that almost all organised motoring associations, other than the Royal Automobile Club, do, in fact, hope that there will be one standard of testing in the country and that the R.A.C. will not receive special treatment.
I should like to add only one point to the argument. I think this Committee will agree that it is extremely difficult to make valid judgments about standards. How exactly does one measure the quality of instruction of testers and so on? What is happening now is difficult, but the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, would automatically exempt all future R.A.C. instructors. As the Bill stands, it governs them now; it will govern them in the future. Although the noble Lord has asserted—and I accept this—that it is the intention of his organisation that standards will always remain high, and if possible higher than those of other organisations, this is not certain. I believe that, for reasons of justice and sound administration, it is much better that we should have a single set of standards for the country, and that the R.A.C. should not have special treatment in this matter.
LORD CHESHAM: May I deal for a couple of minutes with what has been

517
said? This whole debate seems to have been confined to past and present members of the Parliamentary Secretaries' "union". I do not think I can really be accused of eating any of my fellow "dogs", but when you have a responsible position which you are trying to maintain, if somebody says something with which you disagree you have a right to say so. I do not in the least feel the pangs of indigestion on the subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, asked (and this has some bearing on what was predictably said by the noble Lords, Lord Lindgren, and Lord Winterbottom): if you have any exemptions at all, where do you stop? Where you stop is very easy: you stop with the R.A.C., for the very simple reason that there is nobody else who does the same thing in a comparable way.
The noble Lord asked what was the situation with the A.A. and the B.S.M. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, mentioned that the B.S.M. trained people up to good professional standards for employment in the B.S.M., which is a commercial organisation. The A.A. do not do anything of this kind at all. So there is no comparison there. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said that there is nobody who supports the R.A.C. in this proposal. I am not particularly surprised. When you do something different and better than anybody else, I do not think you can look for very much general support. I was not in the least surprised to hear him draw attention to that. Neither was I surprised to hear him draw your Lordships' attention to a well-selected quantity of Press cuttings. I noticed that they all condemned the R.A.C. test in this respect, but he left out all those Press cuttings—of which we have a considerable collection in the office—which said precisely the opposite. I cannot claim that there were far more of them, but there were probably just as many.
The noble Lord drew attention to two letters which he claimed had been written, and I admit that he has scored a debating point. There was a letter written in January at the time to which he referred. It was written at an official level, and it demanded an explanation for a statement made by somebody else about the R.A.C. at somebody else's
518
meeting. It did not seem a very serious request, The second "letter" (I say this just for the noble Lord's information) was a manuscript P.S. at the end of a letter about something quite different. That can possibly be described as two applications for evidence, but in view of the Ministry's knowledge it can be described as no serious failure to produce evidence. They knew it.
The noble Lord asked what is our worry about instructors taking the Ministry test. We have no worry whatsoever. Our point is just that it seems such a waste of time and effort when this good test, the R.A.C. test, already exists. Much has been made of a national standard. I maintain that the R.A.C. standard is as good as, or better than, a national standard; and it can be used by the Ministry.
At the end of the Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, made a remark to your Lordships about the motor rallies organisation in which he is the chairman of the Advisory Committee. He pointed out to your Lordships, with what seemed to be emphasis, that this was running at a deficit because of the R.A.C.
LORD LINDGREN: No.
LORD CHESHAM: He said:
"I must tell the noble Lord that the motor rallies scheme, as far as the R.A.C. is concerned, is very heavily in deficit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13/7/67, col. 1278
LORD LINDGREN: I did not mean to imply that the deficit was the fault of the R.A.C. at all. As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, drew attention in his speech to the fact that the Ministry had allowed the R.A.C. to provide the organisation for motor rallies in this country. He then said that they were carrying out that organisation at a low cost. I made my interjection only because at that moment, as the noble Lord knows, there was a deficit. It was not the fault of the R.A.C.; it was due to the amount that was originally charged and the number of applications. The charges are now being revised. But in my remarks there was no criticism of the R.A.C.
LORD CHESHAM: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, for saying that, because, of course, the

519
R.A.C. do this work simply as an agent of the Ministry; and they do what the Ministry want. Of course, we do not want the scheme to be in deficit. But it is, I repeat, a Ministry scheme, though we operate it—no more than that. My real reason for moving this Amendment is not worry about the Ministry test, but because here is an opportunity for the Ministry to save some money without losing any efficiency. I do not know what your Lordships will think of this, but I think that perhaps I ought not simply to withdraw the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Extension of duration of registration.]:
LORD LINDGREN: The Amendments to Clauses 4, 5 and 6 are purely drafting Amendments to make the Bill a little clearer. With your Lordships' permission, I will move each group en bloc, first of all, those to Clause 4. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 33, at beginning insert ("that")
Page 4, line 37, at beginning insert ("that")
Page 4, line 42, at beginning insert ("that")
—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Removal of names from register]:
LORD LINDGREN: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 10 to 14.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 4, at beginning insert ("that")
Page 6, line 8, at beginning insert ("that")
Page 6, line 11, at beginning insert ("that")
Page 6, line 13, at beginning insert ("that")
Page 6, line 14, at beginning insert ("that").
—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD CHESHAM: If I may cheat, rather, perhaps I may take this opportunity to say that, regardless of what happened to my earlier Amendment, as far as I and my organisation, are concerned we wish nothing but well to this Bill.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Licences]:
LORD LINDGREN: I bee to move the next three Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 43, at beginning insert ("that")
Page 7, Page 8, line 1, at beginning insert ("that")
Page 7, line 4, at beginning insert ("that").
—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 14 agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I have been handed a manuscript Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, which is in the following terms:
"After Clause 14, insert the following new clause: Dual control on a car which is used for instruction shall be mandatory only when the handbrake is on the offside'".
LORD SOMERS: In rising to move this new clause, I must apologise to the Committee for having put it forward so late, but I think noble Lords will agree that pressure of business has been so heavy during the last two weeks or so that it has been a little hard to see where one was. However, this new clause is very simple. It proposes that dual control—that is to say, merely an extra brake pedal on the instructor's side—should be necessary only when the handbrake is on the offside, or the driver's side, where the instructor cannot reach it. Personally, I am not sure whether, in the case of some types of handbrake, particularly the umbrella type with which some cars are fitted, it would not be a good thing for the clause to apply there as well. But for the sake of simplicity I thought the best thing was to put down the clause as I have it here, which says that on cars which are being used for instruction dual control shall be mandatory only when the handbrake is on the offside. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Somers.)
LORD LINDGREN: As the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said—and I accept his explanation—he has given no notice of this Amendment. I am therefore talking quite "off the cuff", because, having had no notice of it, it is not a point I have looked into. So far as I know the

521
standard of cars to be used for instruction is not laid down by the Ministry. There are a number of views held among those carrying out instruction. There certainly is a view amongst instructors that, in the initial stages of instruction, from the point of view of road safety and the protection of instructors, too, it is desirable that there should be dual control; but it is felt by many instructors that at the later stages of instruction the person under instruction should be carrying out the driving under the conditions in which he will be carrying it out when he has passed his test. I have now been advised that the question of dual control is beyond the scope of the Bill.
Another point is that to compel all cars in which driving instruction is given to have dual control would mean that no private instruction could be given in family cars. The position therefore is very much as I have said. The Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, and I think must be resisted.
LORD SOMERS: I rather question the noble Lord's statement that this is outside the scope of the Bill, since dual control is necessary only during instruction; and since the Bill is to increase safety on the road and to improve the standard of instruction, I should have said it came very much within the scope of the Bill. That is merely my personal opinion, and I stand open to correction.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I think the intervention of the noble Lord is helpful when we are thinking about the problems of instruction as a whole. But I agree with my noble friend that it is beyond the scope of this Bill, which deals directly with driving instruction rather than with the construction of cars used for that purpose. While I am certain that those drafting future legislation will bear this point in mind, I think it is true to say that this is outside the scope of this Bill, and perhaps the noble Lord would be so good as to withdraw his Amendment—although, as I have said, I think his intervention has been valuable.
LORD SOMERS: In that case, I very gladly withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Report received.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, may I briefly thank all noble Lords for the manner in which the Bill has been dealt with and for the expeditious way in which it has been aided to the Statute Book.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (No. 2) BILL
12.2 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. This is a little occasion, and perhaps I may say a few things. When we first debated these affairs—and how long ago it seems!—I said that your Lordships had it in your power to remove fear from the hearts of men. This you have done. It was this House which gave the lead. Because of the Bill now to be enacted, perhaps a million human beings will be able to live in greater peace. I find this an awesome and marvellous thing. The late Oscar Wilde, on his release from Reading Gaol, wrote to a friend:
"Yes, we shall win in the end; but the road will be long and red with monstrous martyrdoms.".
My Lords, Mr. Wilde was right: the road has been long and the martyrdoms many, monstrous and bloody. Today, please God! sees the end of that road.
I ask one thing and I ask it earnestly. I ask those who have, as it were, been in bondage and for whom the prison doors are now open to show their thanks by comporting themselves quietly and

523
with dignity. This is no occasion for jubilation; certainly not for celebration. Any form of ostentatious behaviour; now or in the future, any form of public flaunting, would be utterly distasteful and would, I believe, make the sponsors of the Bill regret that they have done what they have done. Homosexuals must continue to remember that while there may be nothing bad in being a homosexual, there is certainly nothing good. Lest the opponents of the Bill think that a new freedom, a new privileged class, has been created, let me remind them that no amount of legislation will prevent homosexuals from being the subject of dislike and derision, or at best of pity. We shall always, I fear, resent the odd man out. That is their burden for all time, and they must shoulder it like men—for men they are.
Now, my Lords, I feel that I should single out some of those who played a big part in bringing about this reform. The palm, goes, of course, to Mr. Leo Abse, the lion-hearted, whose Bill this is and whose name, I hope, will be given to the Act. But of course there have been many others? It is due to Sir Robert Boothby (now the noble Lord, Lord Boothby) and to Dr. Desmond Donnelly that the Wolfenden Committee was set up; and, after its Report was published, it was our noble Leader himself who inaugurated the first debate in either House. The first full-scale attempt at reform was made by the present Minister of Health, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, and a Motion was tabled in the other place by the Father of the House, Sir Thomas Moore. My Lords, you see what an all party effort it has been. Later, too, Mr. Humphry Berkeley bravely introduced this Bill in the other place where it had a Second Reading. I say "bravely" because sometimes I think that we Peers are inclined to forget just how lucky we are to have no constituents but our own consciences.
So much for the Members of the two Houses. There are two other people that I must mention. One is Mr. Antony Grey, Secretary of the Homosexual Law Reform Society, who has done more than any single man to bring this social problem to the notice of the public; and the other, that great man whose name has been mentioned more often than any other in these long debates. I refer, of
524
course, to Sir John Wolfenden. It is my strong hope that we shall one day see him a Member of your Lordships' House.
For my own small part, just this. In the last two years I have been navigating in deep and troubled waters, so deep and so troubled that at times I feared I would be engulfed. At such times I have been strengthened and sustained by the knowledge that I had the approval and support of the majority of this House, including the Lords Spiritual and, in particular, of my new and neutral friends, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to whom I owe so much. These things have meant much to me. I count myself privileged to be a very minor member of this generous and, in the true sense, noble assembly. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Arran.)
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I want to say only two sentences. Whatever views we may hold on this subject, I think we should pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Arran for his sincerity and his great courage. He has really seen this Bill through, and I think we ought to be grateful to him.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, before this Bill passes, I should like to add one word from these Benches. Some of my noble friends have taken differing views on the merits of this Bill, as have noble Lords opposite, but I think we shall all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, in one thing: that this Bill would not be reaching the Statute Book in the very near future but for the devotion and dedication which my noble friend Lord Arran brought to his task, his self-appointed task, in these last two years or so. I should like to add my tribute to my noble friend and navigator.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, briefly I should like to add a word on behalf of the Government, but first may I thank the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for the remarkable description he applied to me of his new and neutral friend. My Lords, I do not think there is such a thing as a neutral person, certainly not on an issue such as this where everyone has a feeling, probably a deep feeling, either way. Neutrality, therefore, is not possible.

525
Neither do I feel "new", because this is the third time we have considered this Bill since 1965 and some of the newness has worn off. I always seem, on behalf of the Government, to have to adopt a cloak of neutrality in relation to such Bills as this, and I can only hope that I have discharged that obligation.
The Government have, of necessity,—and I think quite properly—regarded this matter as one which Parliament itself should decide, free from any kind of pressure; and it is to the credit of Parliament that it is about to reach a decision on this extremely difficult matter. I should like to add my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble Earl, Lord Arran, upon his efforts in this matter. They have been inspired throughout by the highest motives of compassion, and all his efforts have been infused with a feeling of sincerity. It is true that, as the Minister, as it were, looking after the Bill for the Government, I have perforce been in close touch with the noble Earl on many occasion, and I know how deeply he has felt over this problem, and how much it has taken out of him. Now that it is over, or almost over, I hope that he will soon recover his health.
My Lords, there is one thing arising from the remarks of the noble Earl on which I feel I must comment. He said that the prison doors are now opening. I have no knowledge of whether there are at present any persons in prison who would come within the confines, the somewhat narrow confines, of this Bill. But I would remind your Lordships of something I said when this point was raised on the earlier Bill. I said:
"If this Bill becomes law the Home Secretary would be prepared to look at the cases of those who are serving terms of imprisonment for conduct which had ceased to be an offence, and consider in each case the possibility of recommending the use of the Royal Prerogative of mercy to remit the remainder of the term."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, June 16, 1966: col. 152.]
As your Lordships will be aware, my right honourable friend gave an assurance in another place on December 21 of last year that he would look into the matter sympathetically if the Bill became law. The only other thing I have to say is that, because the Home Office
526
always tries to be up with events, steps are already being taken to identify any cases which may be affected.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I wonder whether I might add a word from these Benches. I think we recognise the great issues of morality, and while we are not divided in our upholding of that morality, or in our desire to maintain it, we are deeply divided as to the ways in which we conceive this should be done. This has led to the most acute discussions in this House, and in the process of the passage of this Bill and all that preceded it, we have been through some agonising debates. Speaking from these Benches, I should like to say how deeply I, and others, have been aware of the depth of sincerity and concern, not only of those who have upheld this Bill but of those who have opposed it. For there is no division between us in our desire for the maintenance or the protection and upholding of that morality for the well-being of the community. I would endorse very much the recognition which has been given to the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for the deep sincerity and conviction which he has displayed and the assistance which he has given in helping us through to this point.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, from these Benches we, too, would wish to be associated with the expressions of praise for the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and also to recognise the great work done by Mr. Leo Abse in this matter. Many of us have campaigned for this reform for many years and I think that this House, in particular, may be extremely pleased with what it has achieved in the last few years.
On Question, Bill passed.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ADEN, PERIM AND KURIA MURIA ISLANDS BILL
12.18 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord ST. HELENS in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Relinquishment of sovereignty over Aden, Perim and Kuria Muria Islands
1.—(1) On such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint (in this Act referred to as "the appointed day") the territories to which this section applies shall cease to form part of Her Majesty's dominions; and on and after that day Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of those territories.
(2) This section applies to the territories which, immediately before the appointed day, are comprised in Aden, Perim and Kuria Muria Islands.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON)had given Notice of several Amendments to Clause 1, the first being, in subsection (1), to omit all words from the first "On" down to, and including "applies", and to substitute:
"the day which, in relation to any territory to which this section applies, is the appointed day that territory".
The noble Lord said: I have put down a number of Amendments—in fact, all the Amendments on the Order paper, except the one in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—and they are all to the same end and stand or fall together. During the Second Reading debate I told your Lordships that I was proposing to move Amendments to the Bill so as to enable different days for the relinquishment of sovereignty to be appointed under Clause 1 in relation to each of the three Territories. It has been strongly urged that if arrangements for the internationalisation of Perim are on the point of being concluded we should not frustrate action of this kind by being obliged to relinquish sovereignty over Perim on the same day as sovereignty
528
is relinquished over Aden. The Government accept this. Nevertheless, I must make it perfectly clear that the Government do not intend to retain Perim after the date on which South Arabia becomes independent. It is the Government's firm intention to bring independence to South Arabia on January 9 of next year and to appoint that date for the relinquishment of sovereignty over all three territories covered by the Bill, but we agree that a certain flexibility should be retained and that the Government should not bind themselves so that they have no alternative but to relinquish sovereignty on the same date for all territories.
This arises from the Amendments which were moved in another place and which we discussed in relation to the possibility of the internationalising of Perim, and this introduces the necessary flexibility into the Bill. In handling these long and, if I may say so, not very easy Amendments, it is astonishing what a lot of words are necessary to achieve what seems to a layman to be a simple business. None the less, we are experienced enough in your Lordships' House to know that the Parliamentary draftsmen often find it difficult to do even simple things. This is no reflection on their draftsmanship, and I am sure that they have made a good job of these Amendments.
The purpose of the Amendments to Clause 1 is to enable different days to be appointed, and this is spelt out in the last proposed new subsection. The other changes are consequential upon this. It has been urged that it should be possible to have separate Orders under Clause 1, and although this is not spelt out this is one of the consequences of the Amendments. In conclusion, it may be convenient for the Committee to take Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 together and then, after we have dealt with the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to take Amendment No. 6 by itself and then Nos. 7 to 16 together. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, leave out from ("On") to ("shall") in line 7 and insert ("the day which, in relation to any territory to which this section applies, is the appointed day that territory")—[Lord Shackleton.]
EARL JELLICOE: I greatly welcome the Government's decision on this matter. As the noble Lord has generously said,

529
the Amendments are to meet the arguments which were strongly advanced by the Opposition in another place when the Bill was before them. I am sure that the Government are right about this—they are always right in meeting the Opposition's point of view—and I am grateful to the noble Lord for these Amendments. I would echo his tribute to the ingenuity of the Parliamentary draftsmen. They have managed to make complicated what I had thought was a very simple matter.
I do not know whether this is the right moment to ask the noble Lord this question, and he may prefer to answer it on Third Reading rather than now, but can he tell the House anything more about the progress of the consultations which his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has told us he is having both within the United Nations and the Federal Government about the proposal to internationalise the island of Perim? If the noble Lord can give us any information on that, I shall be much obliged.
LORD SEGAL: If the island of Perim will be passing over to the territory of the South Arabian Federation, could the noble Lord also state what defence forces are likely to be placed on the island?
LORD SHACKLETON: I am afraid I have little to say to the Committee on these questions. Clearly it will not be a rapid process in the United Nations. I can well understand the noble Earl and all those interested in the proposals for Perim wanting to know how they are going. The fact that I cannot report anything does not denote any lack of interest on the part of the Government. This is going to be a bit of a long haul. We are not going to get United Nations to move quickly and there has to be a lot of preparation. I cannot really say anything in reply to my noble friend Lord Segal. I think it would be premature to talk about the forces that would be on the island. I can only say that, whatever else there may be, there will be no British occupation force after South Arabia becomes independent unless it should be part of some United Nations occupation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move the second Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("those territories") and insert ("that territory").—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out from ("to") to ("Aden") in line 12, and insert ("the following territories, that is to say").—(Lora Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move the fourth Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("as each of those territories is constituted immediately before the appointed day.
( ) Subject to the next following subsection, in this Act 'the appointed day', in relation to all the territories specified in subsection (2) of this section, means such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint.
( ) Different days may be appointed by Order in Council under this section in relation to different territories specified in subsection (2) of this section; and, if different days are so appointed, any reference in this Act to the appointed day, in relation to any such territory, shall be construed as a reference to the day so appointed in relation to that territory.")—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
12.27 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved to add to the clause:
"( ) Any Order in Council under subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble Earl said: I made the purpose behind this Amendment clear on Second Reading. Many Bills relinquishing sovereignty over what was until quite recently a very large Empire have been before your Lordships' House in the last two decades, and there will be more, but none so important in future as this particular Bill. There will be many Orders in Council foreseen of the type envisaged in this Bill and so far as I know none has been made subject to either the Negative or the Affirmative Resolution procedure. On the ground of precedent, therefore, the noble Lord may feel justified in resisting this

531
Amendment. Precedent is not necessarily an infallible guide, however, and certainly not when the circumstances are totally unprecedented.
I would suggest that in this case the circumstances are unprecedented. Independence is being gained by Aden and these off-shore islands in unusual circumstances, unusual so far as Aden is concerned and unusual in so far as the islands are concerned. In the Colony of Aden there is, as yet, no agreed Constitution. No free elections have been held and no majority rule is applied. So far as the islands are concerned, a real uncertainty hangs over their future. We have no idea of what their final destination will be. When the Bill was before another place the Government gave a firm undertaking—and I am very glad they did so—that before the precise and future destiny Of the peoples was decided they would be consulted; and that undertaking was repeated by the noble Lord on the Second Reading earlier this week. But as yet we have no idea when those consultations will be held; we have no idea (at least I have no idea) how they will be carried out, and we have no idea of what the results will be. And, of course, it will be very different so far as the Kuria Muria Islands are concerned. They may go to neighbouring Muscat; they may wish to become part of the South Arabian Federation, or they may conceivably opt for independence or for a continued association with the United Kingdom. There is an equal uncertainty about the future of Perim, potentially a very important decision.
In each case I would suggest that the precise date for independence could very well be affected by the decision about the island's future destiny. It seems right, in these quite unusual circumstances, that Parliament should not be denied the chance of a sight of these Orders in Council before they come into force.
On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, suggested that this Negative or Affirmative Resolution procedure—and I only suggest the Negative Resolution procedure—would import an undue flexibility into the Order-making machinery. I find this a little difficult to accept. The requirement is not very onerous. It is only that the Order should
532
lay for some 40 days. Surely the Government will know more than 40 days in advance what date they are proposing for these territories. The noble Lord also argued that, provided Parliament was sitting, and so desired, we should have a further chance of scrutinising what may be important decisions, perhaps—I do not think I exaggerate here—vitally affecting the future security of Southern Arabia. But the proviso which the noble Lord made, "provided that Parliament is sitting", is important. Parliament may not be sitting when the Order is made, and my Amendment, if accepted, would ensure that it is.
I was encouraged by the noble Lord's acceptance of the points made by the Opposition in the other place, and which have been met by the Amendments which the noble Lord is moving, and I am therefore confident that he will, after reflection, be able to accept the Amendment which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD ROWLEY: I am bound to say that I do not see how the Government, with all the good will in the world, can accept this Amendment. It seems to me to strike at the very roots of the Bill. The effect of the Bill is concentrated in the provisions of Clause 1. The Amendment which the Committee has just accepted provides that for each of the three territories the appointed day may be, so to speak, staggered. If after the first appointed day, say, in respect of Aden, any criticism were to be levelled against the policy of the Government, it is true that that would not affect the appointed day in respect of the first of the three territories. But, none the less, to some extent it meets the apprehensions—and I can understand them; there is a difference between each side of the Committee on major policy—expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
I fail to see how the Government can accept the noble Earl's Amendment, because, as I say, the whole object of the Bill is to make provision for and in connection with the relinquishment of Her Majesty's sovereignty over Aden and the Perim and Kuria Muria Islands. Parliament, therefore, is doing this with its eyes open. This Bill will go through

533
both Houses, and in a sense Parliament approves the intention of the Government to relinquish sovereignty over these three territories.
The noble Earl admitted that there was no precedent for this. I have had a good deal to do with the granting of independence to many of the former territories which came under United Kingdom Government, and I think it would be a bad precedent to start. I think we must leave it to the wisdom and judgment of Her Majesty's Government to operate this Act, bearing in mind the apprehensions of those who sit on the opposite side. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I hope that the Government will resist this Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may make one point clear to the noble Lord, Lord Rowley. My Amendment is not in any sense intended to strike at the principle of independence incorporated in the Bill. I made it clear on Second Reading—and I will repeat it, if I have the chance of speaking on Third Reading—that the Opposition welcome the Bill as such. All that the Amendment is designed to do is to give Parliament another chance of reviewing the dates, if it so desires, for these three separate territories. It is a much narrower purpose than I think the noble Lord was suggesting in his intervention.
LORD ROWLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I intended to express the view that the noble Earl's Amendment would strike, not at the basis of the Bill, but at the operation of the Bill. In other words, I do not suggest for one moment that he is opposed to the relinquishment of sovereignty, but the operation of the Bill would, in my view, be prejudiced by the acceptance of this Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Earl is perfectly right to put this Amendment down and, so to speak, have a try. I agree that the fact that there is no precedent for independence dates to be fixed by Order is not an overwhelming argument; but it is quite a considerable argument. The reason why this has not been subject to Parliamentary control at the Order stage is simply that it is inappropriate. I am bound to say that I rather agree with my noble friend Lord Rowley, because if Parliament were to
534
annul an Order, or failed to pass the necessary Resolution, this would nullify the effect of the Bill.
There is no scope for amending a date in an Order that is put forward. It would then be necessary for the Government, if they were defeated, to bring forward another Order with a different date. If the difference of date is a short period of a few weeks, surely this is a matter that should be left to the Government. If there were a change from the date that we have in mind, this would be a matter of very delicate judgment. The support of my noble friend Lord Rowley, with his wide experience as a former Secretary of State who carried heavy responsibilities just after the war in regard to Burma and India, strengthens the feeling that I have, indeed the conviction that I have, that it would be wrong to accept this Amendment.
I agree that in a matter of supreme importance one ought not to overstress the convenience of the Government. But in this case Parliament has been fully consulted. It has been told the dates; it has been told what the Government's firm intention is. The noble Earl has indicated his support for the Bill and the granting of independence, and it seems to me that we have had a good bite at this cherry. We have announced the date. It is, in my view, unlikely that there will be a change from this date. But if some situation arose which led to some acute crisis (which we do not anticipate), and to the Government's taking a different view, I feel that the Government should be trusted to go ahead and do what they think right. If Parliament is sitting—and the actual making of the Order is much more likely to happen when Parliament is sitting, though I cannot give an absolute promise of this—there are means for Parliament to raise the issue; and the Opposition, or anyone else, is not lacking in the Parliamentary skills to make it possible to challenge the Government's decision.
The annulment procedure does not really help. Whereas annulment procedures can be more flexible in other cases, it would clearly be, I think, a nonsense. You could not proceed for 40 days if there was a danger that the Order would be annulled. We could have

535
some practical difficulties in the Parliamentary timetable in the short period between the resumption of Parliament in October and the Christmas Recess. And the arguments of the noble Earl, which have been so strongly advanced in relation to Perim, also strengthen the case, in my view, for the Government's having the necessary flexibility to fix this themselves. We have adopted what is the normal procedure. I suppose that when every country comes to independence—and other noble Lords, particularly Lord Rowley, will have wrestled with them—it has peculiar problems. Parliament, obviously, because it is interested and feels responsibility, would like to cling on and control to the last moment. I assure your Lordships, with the utmost firmness, that I do not believe that the passing of this Amendment would add anything useful to the situation; and I hope very much, therefore, that the noble Earl will feel, after what I hope is a fairly full explanation, that he can withdraw his Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the careful consideration which he has given to this Amendment. I was finding myself in some agreement with him until he came to the point in his remarks where he said that the Government should be trusted in this particular matter, when I am afraid I found myself in somewhat less agreement. I also found myself in far from total agreement with the noble Lord's point that we know what the Government's intentions here are as they have made their intentions absolutely firm. This is not the position. It is certainly not the position so far as the off-shore islands are concerned. The Government's intention, as I understand it, is to consult the people of the islands, and thereafter to decide their destiny; and we do not at this precise moment know what is going to happen to these islands. I think this very much reinforces the argument for some such exceptional procedure as is envisaged in my Amendment being adopted in this particular case.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Consequential modification of other statutory provisions]:
12.43 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: This Amendment is consequential upon the Amendments to Clause 1. The point here is that it may be desirable to relate any modification of statutory provisions (noble Lords will recall that Clause 3 relates to the modifications of statutory provisions by Order under Parliamentary control) back to the date of relinquishment of sovereignty. As there is now provision for more than one appointed day, it may be found necessary to make use of the powers under Clause 3 if the day appointed for Aden has passed but the day for Perim has not arrived. The purpose of this Amendment is to allow for just that, so that the consequential Amendments can, if necessary, be made retrospective to the appointed day or some later date. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, leave out from ("Any") to end of line and insert ("provision which, in consequence of the operation of subsection (1) of section 1 of this Act in relation to a territory to which that section applies, is made by Order in Council under this section")—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: Would the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman put the Amendments to the Schedule? I am not sure that we are not in slight difficulties, having passed the Schedule, but, if so, I should like to move that the Schedule be reconsidered.
Moved, That the Schedule be reconsidered.—(Lord Shackleton.)
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I beg your Lordships' pardon. The Question is, That the Schedule be reconsidered.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule [Modifications of British Nationality Acts]:
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, in paragraph 1(1), to leave out the words after

537
the first "on" down to and including "applies,—", and to insert instead:
"such date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
The noble Lord said: I am not sure that we did not get into a little bit of irregular procedural difficulty, though I am sure that we can rely on the House authorities to sort us out on this difficulty. I must apologise to the Deputy Chairman, because I ought to have been quicker when he put the Schedule: so it is really my fault rather than his.
The proposed Amendments to the Schedule (perhaps we can just forget that small episode) are again consequential upon the Amendments to Clause 1. Under paragraph 1 of the Schedule as it stands, it would not have been possible to specify the same nationality or citizenship more than once. This was all right so long as there was to be only one appointed day. However, once more than one appointed day is possible, then in theory various possibilities start creeping in and it is necessary to make provision in the Bill for all the possibilities which may arise as a result of the Amendments to Clause 1.
One example is if Perim were to be retained. Citizenship of South Arabia is specified, and a person who possesses that citizenship, in consequence of his connection with Aden, or with the South Arabian State of which Aden is part, loses his United Kingdom citizenship, subject to the other provisions of the Schedule. It might be that at that moment the negotiations for internationalising Perim came to nothing, and Her Majesty's Government would not be prepared to retain Perim any longer; so a day is appointed for Perim, and Perim joins up with South Arabia, and its citizens acquire South Arabian citizenship. In those circumstances it is right that the citizenship of South Arabia should again be specified, so that a person who acquires South Arabian citizenship will also lose his United Kingdom citizenship, subject to the provisions of the Schedule.
The purpose of the Amendments is to permit a citizenship or nationality to be specified more than once to take account of the possibility that the relinquishment of sovereignty over the three territories may take place on different dates, and that it may in that event be necessary to apply the provisions of the Schedule on
538
more than one date. The Amendments in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Schedule follow from the changes in paragraph 1. I have again pointed out that the Amendments appear rather complicated, but I assure your Lordships that the purpose is the very simple one on which we are all agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 5, leave out from ("on") to end of line 6 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Shackleton.)
EARL JELLICOE: I should like again to express my gratitude to the noble Lord for these Amendments, and for having cast light on what was, for me, a rather obscure part of the Schedule. I am grateful to him for his explanation, and should like to say that I strongly support these Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 7, leave out ("that territory") and insert ("a territory designated by the order")—(Lord Shackleton).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 8, leave out from ("by") to ("whether") in line 9 and insert ("the order").—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert—
("( ) Subject to the next following subparagraph, the territory designated by an order under this paragraph shall be a territory to which section 1 of this Act applies, and the date specified in the order shall not be earlier than the appointed day.
( ) The territory designated by an order under this paragraph may be so designated as being a territory in which a territory to which section 1 of this Act applies which is specified in the order (in this sub-paragraph referred to as the specified component territory') is comprised on or immediately after the day which, in relation to the specified component territory, is the appointed day; and in that case the date specified in the order shall not be earlier than that day.
( ) An order may be made under this paragraph specifying a nationality or citizenship and a date, as mentioned in the preceding provi-

539
sions of this paragraph, notwithstanding that one or more orders, specifying the same nationality or citizenship but an earlier date or earlier dates, have previously been made thereunder.")—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 28, leave out ("to which that paragraph applies") and insert ("designated by an order under that paragraph")—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 30, leave out from ("date") to end of line 31 and insert ("specified in the order")—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 4, leave out ("if on the relevant date") and insert ("in consequence of his connection with a territory designated by an order under that paragraph if on the date specified in the order")—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 18, leave out from ("to") to end of line 19 and insert ("a territory designated by an order under paragraph 1 of this Schedule")—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21, leave out from ("territory") to ("and") in line 25 and insert ("to which section 1 of this Act applies or any territory (not being one to which that section applies) which has ceased to be a colony before the date specified in the order")—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 31, leave out ("relevant date") and insert ("date specified in the order").—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Report received.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Perhaps I may take a few moments to speed the Bill on its way, and to deal with certain of the points to which I should like to give answers which were not fully dealt with at an earlier stage.
At the Second Reading of the Bill on Monday I set out the objectives of Government policy in South Arabia. I will not go over the ground again now, but I will take this opportunity to answer a number of points which have arisen. The first of these related to the defence of the Eastern Aden Protectorate. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, raised a particular point on this matter, and I should like to give him a little more of the Government's thinking on this. He asked whether the aircraft from the carrier force and the V-bombers at Masirah would be used in defence of the States of the Eastern Aden Protectorate against open aggression. I explained at the time that the main threat to the Eastern Aden Protectorate arose from the possibility of internal subversion, and it was for this reason that we were continuing to finance the Hadhrami Bedouin Legion for two years. Of course stability on their Eastern frontier is of great importance to the Federation of South Arabia, and to my mind this also was a particularly strong case for continuing to finance this Legion, which is a very fine force. For historical and geographical reasons, the threat of open external aggression is very slight. The Yemen has never advanced territorial claims in respect of the Eastern States, and the only part of the frontier of the Eastern States which borders the Yemen is short and in a fairly remote desert area. But the Eastern Aden Protectorate States, of course, border upon the Federation, and it is difficult to see how any aggression from the Yemen against them could fail to involve the Republic of South Arabia as well. In this case our guarantee to defend the Republic in the way we have stated, by the threat of air deterrent, against external aggression, would apply.

541
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, also asked what would happen if the threat of external aggression against South Arabia arose, not in the sixth month after independence, but in the seventh or ninth month, and whether therefore planning for the use of the carrier force could not be more flexible than the present limit of six months implied. I certainly would not wish to exclude the possibility that the carrier force could be brought back after six months if the need arose and if it were possible in practical terms. The noble Earl knows as well as I do—indeed very much better than I do—the problems of maintaining these highly sophisticated and complicated pieces of machinery at sea without having some maintenance. It is not like an aircraft, which can fly back to its airfield and be maintained, and I think it is a great tribute to the Royal Navy that they are able to undertake this onerous responsibility. I would not rule out the possibility, but I certainly give no undertaking. As I explained on Monday, the period was limited to six months for these technical reasons, and because there was not a great deal of flexibility I was anxious that there should be some continuing deterrent against the aggression that we all hope will never take place. It was for this reason that the Government decided to station the V-bomber force at Masirah, not only for the six months that the carrier task force will be in South Arabian waters, but for as long thereafter as the Government think necessary. This force will continue to be a powerful deterrent to aggression.
May I turn again to the islands, and the consultations with the inhabitants of the islands, which we have touched on briefly. The question of Perim is being taken up with the United Nations. The Government have undertaken to consult the inhabitants of the other islands as well as Perim, but it is true to say that the time and form of these consultations have not yet been decided. It may in practice prove to be advantageous to the islanders to leave these consultations until nearer independence, so that they may have a clearer idea of what the alternatives are and of the way things are shaping. I see a positive advantage at this stage in not pressing this particular matter too quickly. All timing in these matters of independence involves great delicacy. It involves people waking
542
up to the fact when they have not, perhaps, believed that certain things were going to happen, and therefore I think we want to approach this carefully.
In conclusion, may I say a word about the latest situation in Aden? As has been reported in the Press, Mr. Hussein Bayoomi has presented his list of Ministers to the Supreme Council. Discussions are still continuing there, and I can only say that I hope the outcome will be satisfactory. I do not minimise the difficulties, but none the less it is encouraging that an actual list of Ministers has been presented.
On the United Nations front, now that the situation in Aden has eased a little, the High Commissioner will fly to New York to meet the United Nations Mission early next week. On the way, Sir Humphrey Trevelyan will take the opportunity to spend a day or so in London for consultations and to give a first-hand report. As noble Lords know, the United Nations Mission has had meetings with Mr. Makawee, the FLOSY leader. Sir Humphrey Trevelyan wishes to explain to the United Nations Mission what is happening in South Arabia (and I personally attach the very greatest importance to the fact that they should be given first-hand information so that they may be aided to a realistic appreciation of the situation) and to explore with them the possibility of other nationalist leaders joining in a central caretaker Government as called for by the United Nations resolutions. If there are any further questions the noble Earl or any other noble Lord wants to ask, I will try to answer them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Shackleton.)
1.0 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is, I think, aware of the high and admiring value I place on his intervention in the South Arabian problem. He did a very great deal and played a critical and most beneficial part in transforming the deep, dismal prospect of which I was made aware when I went to Aden at the end of April. Thereafter I think he recognised by implication—and this was really statesmanlike—that Nasser's defeat at the hands of the Israelis did not reduce the Egyptian threat to the Aden Protectorate,

543
to the South Arabian Federation, but indeed might well increase it. And whereas he mentioned a few minutes ago the fact that the Yemen has never advanced territorial claims on the Eastern Protectorate, the fact is that Nasser's claims and ambitions are absolutely limitless throughout the Middle East.
I should like to put it briefly to the noble Lord, in a very few words, that the situation has now been changed by a new and horrible factor, and that is the use of gas in the Yemen. I believe the noble Lord was the first British Minister to recognise publicly in Parliament the fact that gas is being used. Now it is indeed so widely known and recognised that even the Egyptians have admitted their intention to continue this bestial form of warfare. So far as the Egyptians are concerned, the Yemen operation and the Aden operation are a part of each other. Aden, in their intentions, is to be a continuation of the conquest of the Yemen. I therefore put to the noble Lord that if we can frustrate South Arabia's enemy in the Yemen we shall frustrate him also on behalf of those we have promised to protect in the Federation. Also, we shall be taking action on behalf of the Government of the Yemen which we recognise, against the usurpers of power in their country, against a foreign invader of that country and a prospective invader of South Arabia.
Bravely as they have fought, the loyal Yemenis cannot resist this new weapon; nor, of course, could those whom the noble Lord wishes so much to set on the path of freedom and safety. I spoke at some length last night and again this morning to the Yemeni Foreign Minister, Said Achmet el Charmy. He described how last Saturday in the Haggah area 150 were killed in a gas attack, and how in the Mide area three days ago there was another attack with many deaths which have not yet been counted; and there is no territorial limit to which this form of warfare can be carried. I am not intentionally stretching the ambit of the debate on this Bill, because I have described my belief that the Egyptians regard South Arabia as merely a stage of conquest after the Yemen. One small thing I think we could do—and I will not ask the noble Lord to answer this to-day—is to provide the people of this
544
territory with gasmasks in very large numbers, so that they are not so utterly defenceless as they are to-day.
What I believe we should do, as a nation led by the present Government, is to think again about the date and manner of our departure from Aden, instead of leaving it, as now appears even more clearly than before, at the mercy of an enemy who will use the vilest weapons of warfare against which those people will have no protection at all. The Bill, after all, does allow latitude as to the form and degree of help we continue to give after our departure, and I would plead with the noble Lord to regard this new and hideous factor with due importance after the Bill is passed.
1.7 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I should first of all like to congratulate my noble friend on his handling of this Bill, apart altogether from the service he has rendered to the country in the carrying out of his mission in Aden. What I rise to bring to the attention of the House is related to the visit of Sir Humphrey Trevelyan to the United Nations. I found myself in agreement with the strictures of the noble Lord who has just spoken with regard to the use of gas in the Yemen, and I do not think he would be exaggerating if he were to suggest that after we have, as we must do, relinquished our sovereignty of the South Arabian Peninsula the Egyptian Government might be tempted into an adventure which involved the use of gas.
As my noble friend knows, the use of gas is a breach of the Geneva Gas Convention. Some people say, and maybe they are right, that the United Nations are impotent to deal with any country which breaches that Convention, in view of the fact that it has not been given the power and authority to deal with such problems. May I ask my noble friend—I do not expect an answer now, but I hope the point will be considered—whether the Governor is to discuss, not only with our representative Lord Caradon but no doubt U Thant, the Secretary-General, this use of gas in the Yemen. It is a crime against humanity and it is a breach of the Geneva Convention, which has been signed by practically every country in the world that was a sovereign independent country at the time the Convention was signed. I would be very much surprised if the

545
Government of Egypt is not a signatory of it. But whether or not that is so, this is in direct conflict with everything the United Nations stands for.
Therefore, I hope that Sir Humphrey Trevelyan and our permanent Representative at the United Nations will seek to discuss this problem with the Secretary-General, U Thant. I do not disagree with the view expressed by the Foreign Secretary in another place yesterday, that it is difficult to see what our own Government can do beyond expressing their condemnation of these atrocities. But it would not rule out at least discussing the matter with the authorities of the United Nations and, if necessary, raising it at the Security Council.
The other point I would ask my noble friend relates to the possible intervention of the United Nations or the assistance of the United Nations in bringing a successful end to what I might call the Aden problem. The unfortunate visit of the sub-committee of the Committee of 24 is fresh in all our minds. Is it intended that the visit of Sir Humphrey Trevelyan should be restricted merely to the possible internationalisation of the Island of Perim, or is there a possibility of his discussing the return of the sub-committee—in other words, a United Nations presence in the Peninsula, in Aden, during the forthcoming weeks? I think it is extremely important that the United Nations should be represented while the denouement of this Aden problem is taking place—at least, we hope it is the denouement. Therefore I would ask my noble friend—perhaps he cannot give a reply now—to consider whether or not it is possible to invite the United Nations to send representatives to Aden during the forthcoming weeks.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed a word or two to reinforce the remarks of my noble friend. We have read in the last few days that a threat has been made of a wider use of poison gas against the inhabitants of the Yemen. If at any time this threat should be made beyond the borders of Aden, and if this threat should ever be made to the present inhabitants of the South Arabian Federation, I cannot help feeling that we in this country should bear a terrible responsibility for having abandoned this territory to the risk of
546
even the threat of the use of poison gas against its inhabitants.
1.11 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the careful consideration which he has evidently given, between our Second Reading on Monday and these remaining stages of the Bill, to a number of questions which I put to him on Second Reading. I welcome what he has said about the external protection of the States of the East and the Aden Protectorate. I welcome what he said, although I had hoped that he might have been able to go further. I welcome what he said, so far as it went, about flexibility in naval planning.
I was interested in what he had to say about the Government's plans for consultation with the local inhabitants and I was most interested in his statement about the forthcoming visit of Sir Humphrey Trevelyan to this country and to New York. I should like to take this opportunity of reinforcing with all the power at my command—and I do not use that phrase lightly—what has been said by my noble friend Lord St. Oswald, by the noble Lords, Lord Rowley and Lord Segal, about the threatened use of gas, or the possible threat of the use of gas against the inhabitants of South Arabia. I am sure that the noble Lord will have taken due note of this point, and I am certain that this whole matter should be fully explored with Sir Humphrey Trevelyan during his forthcoming visits both here and to New York.
This is, I suppose, the last major act of decolonisation in our Imperial history. It is sad that it should be taking place in such fluid and uncertain circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, expressed some hope on Second Reading that a way forward in peace and independence might still be found for Aden. We all sincerely hope that the measured optimism which he expressed earlier this week will prove to have been well founded. We also hope that it will prove possible for Mr. Bayoomi to broaden the basis of the Federal Government.
I certainly believe that the measures announced by the Government on June 19 improve the chances that our relinquishment of sovereignty over Aden, over Perim and over the Kuria Muria Islands will not be enacted out in circumstances

547
of bloodshed and chaos, and, indeed, of shame for ourselves. They certainly give us some assurance that the life of the new-born independent State will not be snuffed out, or that there will not be a threat of snuffing it out, at birth. But for this major announcement on June 19, it would hardly have been possible for us to extend to the Bill the welcome which we from these Benches have given it. I sincerely hope that the Government—who have been known to deviate from their decisions—will not be blown off their new course in South Arabia. I have noted and fully endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said on this subject on Second Reading. I quote his words from column 37 of Hansard of July 17 last:
"We have to pursue the policy we have adopted and make it a success."
My Lords, I echo that sentiment.
That said, I should like, in conclusion, to emphasise that we sincerely support this Bill. I think we have been extremely lucky in having the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to pilot it through your Lordships' House, given the fresh and intimate knowledge which he can bring to this matter. I am glad that the Government have seen their way to make Amendments, for which we have pressed and to which we have just agreed. Finally, I am glad from these Benches to extend on the eve of the passage of this Bill into law, our good wishes to the future independent State of South Arabia, and to the peoples of Aden, of Perim and the Kuria Muria Islands, with whom we have been for so long so closely associated.
1.15 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. I am grateful especially to those who have been kind enough to make some complimentary remarks. Lord St. Oswald's eloquence is always of the highest, whether he is praising or attacking me. But, as he knows, I appreciate very much what he said and also what has been said by my noble friend Lord Rowley and other noble Lords, and by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
I do not think much more is called for from me at the moment. But I should like to deal briefly with this subject of
548
gassing. Certainly it arouses great horror, and as one who has seen the details (not all of which have been published, because it has not been possible to confirm them) of the awful suffering and the effect this has, I share greatly the sympathies of your Lordships' House. It was for this particular reason that I attached so much importance to giving this continuing air guarantee of the V-bombers; it was precisely to meet that danger. There have been many criticisms of this decision, on the ground that there will not be this sort of threat. But it is a fact that gas is a major weapon of warfare in the Yemen at the moment. Indeed, it is not only a major weapon, but in certain areas it is decisive in the policing of areas into which troops could not otherwise penetrate easily. We have given this V-bomber guarantee because of the fear that such methods might be used in the mountainous and wilder areas of South Arabia, where gas can penetrate into caves and create much more harm and suffering, and be more effective, than ordinary relatively clean high explosive.
I do not think I ought to follow the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, into discussing the progress of events in Aden. Nor do I think it would necessarily be right for the High Commissioner, when he meets the United Nations Committee on South Arabia, to discuss it with them, although it is a matter which I am sure he will have continually in his mind; and certainly I have had it in my mind when I have talked to people. None the less, I think that this strong expression of feeling from your Lordships' House should be taken note of by Her Majesty's Government; and I will certainly see that the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, our Permanent Representative at the United Nations, is made aware of this.
To me, it seems extraordinary that one country can get away with doing this sort of thing. As noble Lords have said, it is sometimes galling and upsetting to the British and those who have, we think, achieved a certain level of civilised behaviour, that a small deviation brings down upon us the condemnation of large numbers of nations, while other much grosser assaults on humanity are ignored. I have made clear my own attitude, and I will certainly see that the attention of Lord Caradon, who also may shortly be in London, is drawn to this matter.

549
When it comes to the question of Egyptian strategy with regard to South Arabia, again this is a matter that I would rather not discuss. I know well the noble Lord's views on this matter, and that many people share these views; and there is strong evidence to support what he says. It is true that the situation in South Arabia since the Arab/Israel war has been more difficult, but I am also hopeful that it may become easier and that the Arab/Israel war and its results may not be in the long run as damaging to South Arabia as they appeared in the short run. None the less, even if a Nationalist Government were installed, and even if some of the more extreme parties were in the Government of South Arabia, it does not necessarily follow that a Nationalist Government which starts off under the protection of one country goes on being sympathetic to that country. This is rather the story in the Yemen where many of the original Republican leaders have had to be displaced—
A NOBLE LORD: Despatched.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord said "despatched". Some terrible things have happened in the Yemen. All the same, I think that we must look to the greatest measure of conciliation. If the Egyptians and the Egyptian Government see the dangers of the situation to them, it may well be that they will appreciate the advantages of a stable situation in South Arabia; and I believe that this will be much easier to achieve. There is no course without danger in front of us, but I believe that, in this sense, the removal of the British base will make this easier of achievement. However, I do not propose to rehearse the many arguments we have had, and I appreciate the restraint of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the fact that this Third Reading debate has been conducted with a measure of agreement and certainly with an absence of any partisan expression.
The noble Lord, Lord Segal, also referred to gassing. I hope he will feel that I have dealt with this subject as fully as is possible at the moment. I would only say that when the High Commissioner goes to the United Nations he
550
will be talking to the United Nations authorities. I expect—though I do not know—that he will see U Thant; but he will certainly (this is the primary object) be meeting the special United Nations Committee. Whether or not that United Nations Committee will return to Aden, I do not know. My own feeling is that probably for the moment it will be better if they did not, and that they can better conduct their activities by trying to bring people together outside Aden—possibly in Geneva or in New York. I am told that they are looking forward to their meeting with Sir Humphrey Trevelyan. I would stress that it is important that people in this situation must "talk". There are too many people who have taken up frozen positions. It is this flexibility, based on a stronger attitude, which may lead us to a peaceful solution.
I end by giving the strongest assurance to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that we will make the greatest efforts to bring about the internationalisation of Perim. Obviously I cannot guarantee this, since I can see all the difficulties against it, but I know that it will not fail by any lack of personal determination on the part of the Foreign Secretary with regard to Perim.
There are a number of other points I could have dealt with, but I will not delay the House further. It always tends to be a nostalgic moment when we pass an Independence Bill. I remember the debates on Malaysia in your Lordships' House, the final stages of which were almost conducted in Malay by old Malay hands. I do not know that there is anyone, except the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, who could have conducted the debate in Arabic. But I am sure that those who know South Arabia, despite the agonies and difficulties which confront that country, will wish it well, and hope that it will achieve the happiness, stability and peace to which the British hitherto have made an important contribution. Whatever mistakes anybody, whoever they may be, may have made in the past, let us not underrate the contribution made by the British in South Arabia.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

POST OFFICE (DATA PROCESSING SERVICE) BILL
1.27 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14):
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. In order not to delay the House, all I will say now is that I understand the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, wishes to make a few points. I will reserve my remarks until after he has spoken.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Shackleton.)
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to speak first. I thought that a few words should be said before the Bill passes your Lordships' House. Although the Opposition in another place did not succeed in getting the Bill altered, they did, as my honourable friend Mr. David Price pointed out, receive some important undertakings from the Postmaster General which we feel certain he will honour. They come under five heads: accountability; concern about unfair competition; the question of confidentiality; the problem of restrictive practices; and the question of standards. My honourable friend also raised in general discussion the problem of the future and the key importance of the efficiency of the transmission network. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that these undertakings will be binding on the Postmaster General's successor. It is clear that any successor will find it difficult not to be bound by them, but I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reassure us on that point.
There are only two other points I should like to make. The first relates to the accounting procedures which the Post Office adopt. On the rather weak grounds that these already provide for the debiting of common services to each of the different branches of the Post Office, the Postmaster General stated in his Second
552
Reading speech that charges will be made to other Government Departments. This is important, because the services will be in competition with private computor bureaux. If, therefore, the Post Office are operating on a truly commercial basis, as no doubt they will claim they will do, it is essential that the sums received should be kept in a separate fund and that the accounts should be entirely separate, so that Parliament and the public may judge whether or not the Government are fulfilling their pledge and not operating unfairly. We on this side of the House might have put down an Amendment at Committee stage here to ensure this, but I hope your Lordships will feel that the Government's assurances in both Houses, and anything further which the noble Lord may say to-day, meet this point.
We might also have put down Amendments regarding confidentiality. However, during the Committee proceedings in another place, as we know, the Government were so impressed by the general fear of breach of confidence that a new Clause 2 on the obligation of secrecy was inserted and the Postmaster General agreed to discuss this problem further. It must be remembered that the data processing service described by the Postmaster General and by the noble Lord, on the Second Reading in each House, will provide not only for the use of Post Office computers but also for the provision of a data programming service and storage in data banks. Not only, therefore, will the computer itself store up much secret information, but the officials of the service will inevitably have to learn a lot about any particular business. I think my noble friend Lord Ferrers made this point during the Second Reading here, and I was very sorry not to be present myself.
There is also the danger of wrong numbers, whereby a mechanical fault might accidentally disclose secret information. It is true that Clause 2 now provides penalties for unauthorised disclosure, but there is still a danger that a future Government might insist upon such information being disclosed. One has only to consider the recent disclosure in connection with the "D" notice affair to have doubts as to how effective secrecy may be in regard to any information supplied to a Government Department. Therefore, it seemed necessary to us to have some

553
impartial body, to whose opinions the Postmaster General would have to listen to advise him on this vital matter; and that was the point of an Amendment which we might have put down.
However, a similar Amendment was rejected in Committee in another place on the grounds that there are a number of pieces of information which must inevitably be communicated if the service is to work; for example, from one official to his successor. This could have been covered by exceptions detailed by the kind of Computer Confidentiality Council which we contemplated in that Amendment. Since, however, the Amendment was rejected in another place, I did not think there was much point in pressing it upon your Lordships towards the end of our long Session; and we made our protest yesterday about the congestion of business with which your Lordships are faced in the last week of our deliberations. Therefore I hope that the assurances given, both by the Postmaster General and by the noble Lord in this House, will be found to be reasonably satisfactory to your Lordships. For these reasons I do not propose to object to the passing of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has many qualifications and many skills. One or two, perhaps, we share in common. I think we are both what he describes as new-fashioned men. We have both studied the use of computers in many different fields, and both of us are professed readers of science fiction, some of which, by and large, so often comes true. I think we are both certainly concerned about the "Big Brother" aspects of our communications system. But perhaps "Big Brother" may not always be a bad man—some, indeed, rather presumptuously confuse him with God. If "Big Brother" is always watching us we may, they say, be more likely to keep out of mischief. But even if I cannot consider the kind of services provided under this Bill to be completely satisfactory—and they could certainly be abused—I think this Bill can be very useful. I hope that "Big Brother" will not be tempted to exceed his functions, or to make illegitimate use of the information which he will inevitably acquire.
1.35 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has spoken
554
with his usual eloquence. I do not know whether I am a new-fashioned man; I am afraid that at the moment I feel rather old-fashioned. I think the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was leaning on a stick on the last occasion. But I am glad we are all agreed that this Bill, should go forward. I did not quite understand the noble Earl when he said that the Government have been unwilling to accept Amendments, when later on he admitted that in another place they had dealt with a confidentiality Amendment.
The noble Earl is worried about "Big Brother". The important thing about this Bill is that "Big Brother", even if he is tempted, will not be allowed to indulge himself, because we have put in a clause which is very stringent; and, as I pointed out, not even the Postmaster General himself will have access to the information contained in the data bank I should like to emphasise that I believe, so far as this Bill and its purposes are concerned, that the protection is absolute. No information acquired by any officer of the Post Office, from the Minister downwards, in the course of the provision of services and facilities for the processing of data by computer, may be disclosed by that officer. That means that it cannot be disclosed to another Department of the Post Office, or to any other Government Department or agency, or to any other outside user. I am afraid, therefore, that "Big Brother" is really out in the cold on this occasion. The only exceptions permitted are where the person to whom the service is being provided actually consents, or where the law requires; and that is, of course—I stress again—the law and the protection of Parliament. I am not saying that this information could not be got at, but Parliament has to protect the citizen from a misuse of this kind.
Here let me stress that of course this difficulty could in theory arise not only in regard to the Government. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to the interest which he took when he saw B.E.A.'s computer with which they were booking various places, and he wondered who was going abroad with whom. There is a second order problem, in that it is supposed that this information might be processed and the result used for purposes quite different from the original intention.

555
Looking at another case, a wine merchant's ledger, for instance, could be processed to find out the people who consumed a bottle of whisky a day. The information could then be fed to the credit-making file of a hire-purchase company to be used in some way quite unknown to that person, to assess his credit-worthiness. This goes on now in relation to credit-worthiness, although I doubt whether there is access to the wine merchants' files. But I should be surprised if, in certain cases of people assessing credit, questions of reliability did not come in. In case the wine merchants or the wine victuallers complain, let me say that I do not suggest for one moment that wine merchants are other than the most discreet of men as regards the accounts of their customers. I think we are all agreed on this. I think it has been very useful to get this question of confidentiality—or, as my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead would have it, confidence—discussed. It may well be that a future historian will pick on these little debates, which we have had here on this subject, as of importance in showing an awareness.
The noble Lord referred to the financial aspects of the National Data Processing Service. The essence of the matter is that the National Data Processing Service will be run on commercial lines, will be expected to make a profit, will bear all the charges proper to it, and will not be subsidised in any shape or form by either the telecommunications or postal service. Speaking as a former Departmental Minister, I know how closely one looks at the services one provides to other Departments, and how one tries to refrain from subsidising them. When I was Air Force Minister we were jolly careful about letting the Foreign Office use our aeroplanes without paying for them. This, I think, is part of the proper attitude in an effort to make sure that charges are properly deployed and properly shown; and I am quite certain that the existing Post Office accounts, which show in commercial form all the appropriate information for the telecommunications and postal service, will likewise show it for the National Data Processing Service.
The noble Lord said that he accepted the assurances of the Postmaster General,
556
and hoped that they would be binding on his successor. A great deal of our practice is not in certain respects covered in legislation. There is always great argument whether somebody is bound or not, and whether it is necessary to put certain things in legislative form. But here the practice is already established, and there are strong watchdogs in the shape of the various committees and the Auditor General. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will join with me in wishing the Bill well. It is an important measure. It indicates the Government's clear intention that this service should be developed to implement in the fullest possible way not only the letter but the spirit of all the explanations and assurances which have been given, not only in your Lordships' House but in another place. I think this will be an interesting development, and we shall be able to look back in a few years' time and see it adding usefully to the efficiency and prosperity of the country.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL
1.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have it in command from her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Dangerous Drugs Bill, has consented to place Her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 1 [Control of drug addiction]:
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (1)(a), to leave out "whom" and insert "who". The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who has an important engagement elsewhere and therefore cannot be

557
in his place, I beg to move this Amendment. Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) makes use of the expression,
"a person whom … is addicted … to drugs".,
If this Amendment is accepted, it will refer to,
"a person who … is addicted … to drugs".
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("whom") and insert ("who").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was delighted earlier this week to see that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, was back in his place. When I saw this Amendment on the Order Paper I felt that your Lordships' House was back to normal. He has, of course, prevailed on a like-minded noble Lord to move this particular Amendment in his absence. I confess that when I first read it and then read out how the clause would read when and if amended, I was struck by the fact that the sound of two "who's" was a bit like an owl hoot, whatever the actual meaning was.
The usage of "whom" adopted in the Bill is not uncommon, although I of course agree it is arguable that "who" is to be preferred. Fowler's Modern English Usage, in the Second Edition, at page 708, in the second column, paragraph 2, examines this quotation from The Tempest, Act III, Scene iii, lines 91 and 92:
"… while I visit
Young Ferdinand, whom they suppose is drown'd",
Shakespeare has been almost good enough for most of us as an authority for the English language, and I must confess that at first there seemed to be something pernickety in this particular Amendment. But when I studied further the authority from which I have just quoted I noted that they said that this was an instance of a form
"now so prevalent that there is danger of its becoming one of those sturdy indefensibles of which the fewer we have the better".
I have regarded the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, as one of those "sturdy indefensibles" on some occasions, but I am quite sure that none of us would think that the fewer of his like that we have the better.
558
Fowler's Modern English Usage concludes that "who" may have become "whom" by attraction immediately before an active verb; or by confusion with another (for example, parenthetical) way of expressing the same thing; or because the writer has a vague impression that "whom" is more likely to be right. On behalf of the Parliamentary draftsmen I utterly reject that last explanation, but I think this is something that we can quite safely leave in your Lordships' hands, and I leave the decision to the House.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I was very interested indeed in that delightful speech. I do not think I can possibly withdraw this Amendment, because if I did I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, would ever speak to me again.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
Increase of certain penalties under Customs and Excise Act 1952. 1952. c. 44
".—(1) In relation to offences in connection with a prohibition or restriction imposed by section 2, section 7 or section 10 of the principal Act (importation and exportation of certain drugs and other substances), being offences committed after the commencement of this Act, sections 45(1), 56(2) and 304 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 shall have effect as if for the words 'imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years' there were substituted the words 'imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years'.
(2) In section 283(2)(a) of the said Act of 1952 (mode of trial of offences punishable with imprisonment for two years), after the words 'two years' there shall be inserted the words 'or more'."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause will increase from two to ten years the maximum period of imprisonment for smuggling drugs to which the principal Act applies. Sections 45, 56 and 304 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 create offences in relation to the importation and exportation of goods contrary to any prohibition or restriction for the time being in force under or by virtue of any enactment with regard to the goods. Each of these sections provides for a penalty of either three times the value of the goods or £100, whichever is the greater, or imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both; but in each case the penalty is stated not to apply in the case of an offence in connection with a prohibition or restriction for which a penalty is expressly provided by the enactment

559
concerned. Sections 2, 7 and 10 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 provide that "It shall not be lawful" to import or export (as the case may be) certain drugs; and Section 26 provides that for the purpose of any proceedings under Sections 45, 56 or 304 of the 1952 Act, Section 16 shall not be taken to provide a penalty.
Illegal possession of dangerous drugs is an offence punishable, under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965, by up to ten years' imprisonment, but smuggling drugs, in the ways I have specified, is, under the appropriate sections of the Customs and Excise Act, an offence punishable by no more than two years' imprisonment. Usually, a drug smuggler commits the offence of illegal possession. In such cases—and they form the large majority—it is the practice of the enforcement authorities to bring proceedings under both the 1965 and 1952 Acts. Cases however occur (there were 17 in 1964) where proceedings can be brought only under the 1952 Customs and Excise Act, which means that the maximum penalty would be two years. Although in most of the recent cases the penalty imposed has been a fine, the present law would prevent those who might organise drug smuggling but who are not actually handling the drugs, from being punished by a heavier sentence than two years' imprisonment, although their agents in possession would be liable to ten years' imprisonment. This is an anomaly which subsection (1) of the clause removes by substituting ten years for two years.
I think we are all agreed that the evil human spider, sitting at the centre of the foul web of drug trafficking, is the man we should most dearly like to stop. We cannot often catch him; but when we do he should be put out of action for a long time. This Amendment would help to achieve that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure that this, the last Amendment, will be very much welcomed on all sides of the House and elsewhere outside. I should like to thank the noble Lord for explaining its purpose. I shall say no
560
more on this Amendment; but I should like to make a few remarks when he moves the passing of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1.53 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I think that at least the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will remember that when I spoke at Second Reading I said:
"… although this Bill is short and its substance mainly concerned with the conduct of doctors, it foreshadows great changes in the organisation and treatment for addicts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1281; 20/6/67.]
Since then the Government have proposed, and your Lordships have accepted, new clauses strengthening police powers of search and the customs penalty for drug smuggling and extending the Home Secretary's powers to regulate safekeeping of drugs. These provisions should greatly help on the deterrent and defensive side of our effort against drug trafficking and abuse. But the heart of the Bill continues to be the provisions giving effect to the Brain Committee's recommendations for dealing with the formidable problem of heroin addiction.
As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already indicated, the Government hope to introduce regulations on notification of addicts in the autumn of this year; and to brine in the regulations restricting the prescribing of heroin in the new year, by which time the new treatment facilities should be completed. The Government fully appreciate that the Bill does not deal with the problem of the so-called "soft" drugs—an expression which I hope we shall eventually be rid of—except by strengthening the powers of the police and the powers to control the custody of drugs. They are, of course, deeply concerned about the misuse of pep pills, LSD and cannabis. And they are watchful for new dangers, of which we seem constantly to be hearing.
But they do not believe that the time is yet ripe for considering new legislative action about drugs, other than the hard ones I have mentioned. There is as yet no general agreement on what new provision might be required. The Brain Committee's proposals on hard drug addiction will not do for the others. The Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, under the Chairmanship of

561
Sir Edward Wayne, is studying the problem of LSD and cannabis and will extend its review to other drugs in due course. The Government will be keeping a close watch on developments. So long as hard drug addiction continues to increase, it seems right to be cautious in judging the dangers of the other drugs.
My Lords, a few moments ago, in considering the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, we were considering the use, or abuse, of words; and I do not wish to be misunderstood. Much of our present difficulty springs from uncertainty about the precise dangers of certain drugs, and from uncertainty about the real challenge of drug abuse to society. That is, I hope, an immediate and relatively short-term difficulty which will be resolved when the present search for authoritative guidance is complete. In the longer term any debate about drug abuse cannot avoid looking at the values to which our society attaches importance, and in the longer run still it will be these values which will be the best antidote to the spread of drug abuse.
In my view, these values are constant and will stand up to the so-called values of the false world of drug-induced imagination. Its insidious influences are at work on the young; but I have been encouraged, in my personal contacts with people in all walks of life, to see how quick most of them have been to detect the appropriation by the "pop" world of the language of sensory experience used by drug takers. For example, there is Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds a song title which is a naïve cloak for the initials "LSD". People have been quick to deplore this for the contamination it affords to genuine values everywhere. My Lords, legislation cannot deal with social phenomena of this kind. Our defence must be in more personal influences, and in constant vigilance and responsible organisations so as to discourage the trivial and eliminate the false.
In conclusion, I should like to thank noble Lords opposite, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for the encouragement they have given to the Bill, and I look forward confidently to their support. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure that we should like to thank the noble Lord for the penetrating words with which he has moved the passing of this Bill. As an aside I should like to assure him that if he had not said that "soft drugs" was a phrase that he would like to be rid of, I would have reported him to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. I am sure there is support from every side of the House and from everywhere outside for every positive step which is taken to check the rapid growth of drug dependence that is now upon us. This Bill is a significant and positive step in that direction, and for that reason I wish it well.
But it is as well to bear in mind that this Bill on its own will achieve nothing. First of all, regulations are needed to define the addict, to specify the drugs to which it will apply, to regulate the licensing of the doctors who may prescribe under it, and so on. It has been good to get the noble Lord's assurance—I took it as such—that these regulations are, in fact, ready and that the Government have worked out the timing of their introduction. But even when the Bill is enacted and the regulations are in force, no real benefits are going to flow from this legislation until the rehabilitation centres—a word with which we have become very familiar during the passage of this Bill—and treatment centres are set up and running, and known to the addicts.
It is two years exactly to the month since the Brain Committee recomended the provision of these centres, among other steps which were recommended in its Report. Despite continuous questioning and probing in this House and in another place—and here I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his Answer to my Written Question in so far as it goes—we have as yet no firm assurances in any detail of the precise way in which these centres are now running or the plans for their further development. We have no details of any plans about rehabilitation centres except Spelthorne St. Mary, which has been going for eight years, and the All Saints Centre in Birmingham, which was started by local initiative before this Bill came before Parliament.
The other thing that must temper our good wishes for this Bill (I only wish I did not have to make this criticism to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who, as

563
his last remarks revealed, is the very last person to deserve such criticism) is the feeling that in this, as in so many other things, the Government are moved too much by expediency and the crises as they develop, and not enough by a well thought out policy. My Lords, just consider this Bill. It passed through all its stages in another place, despite the most detailed consideration and the moving of a large number of Amendments by my honourable friends, without a single Amendment. It was discussed here on Second Reading as a Bill dealing solely with heroin and cocaine addiction, and prescribing for the addicts to those two drugs.
Then note what happened. On Committee the Government tabled Amendments, desirable in themselves, concerning the custody of drugs and security, and Amendments which included an extension of the powers of search given to the police. On Report, nine days later, we got four Amendments to the previous four Amendments. At this final stage we have one further Amendment dealing with a quite separate topic, the smuggling of drugs, and dealing with it adequately, I hope. This again is desirable in itself. All these things taken separately are desirable additions to the powers of the Home Office. Any positive steps to deal with this matter are welcome. But this sort of procedure cannot but leave us with the feeling that Her Majesty's Government have not yet thought out this problem thoroughly and are not yet developing a well-based policy towards it.
Another criticism is that so far, I regret to say, Her Majesty's Government have not, in our opinion, succeeded in giving a lead in dealing with this matter. In the course of the proceedings on this Bill and in preparation for them I have moved in a number of circles where people are very concerned with this problem, and I found little evidence that the Government have yet succeeded in mobilising the effort required, either in the Health Service or the resources which are available in the community at large. The Churches, voluntary bodies and local authorities are all doing what they can, so far as they can see the problem. Only to-day I received a copy of a background paper from the Church of England Council
564
for Social Aid, of which I have given the noble Lord and his colleagues copies. At first reading it looks to me to be an extremely helpful document which the noble Lord might like to read himself and make available to other Members of your Lordships' House. But all these people who are dealing with the problem could do with very much more guidance, encouragement and financial support from the Government.
My Lords, no one in this House or elsewhere underestimates the complexity, difficulty or urgency of dealing with this problem. Thank God!, it is not yet too large a problem. But we beg Her Majesty's Government to grasp it firmly now, before it gets out of hand and does more damage to our society than it has already done.
2.6 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Stonham on introducing this Bill and piloting it through to the final stages with which we are dealing to-day. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I do not propose to throw cold water on the efforts of the Government in this direction. I think the Government have acted admirably, with imagination and with a spirit of realism. Had a similar spirit been shown by the preceding Government this Bill would not be necessary to-day.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, on two points. I hope that my remarks were not taken as pouring cold water on this measure. I welcome it; we all welcome it, and we all wish it well. But the last thing I want to do is to leave your Lordships' House with any feeling of complacency, and I am sure that is not in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. The second point I should like to make relates to the first matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. Everything we are referring to now has resulted from the Second Report of the Brain Committee, and that Committee did not report until July, 1965.
LORD LEATHERLAND: And, my Lords, the preceding Government had been in existence—for thirteen years, was it?—without taking any specific legislative action to deal with what is admitted

565
to be a grave social evil. The present Government, in less than two and a half years, have taken that action. We want action and we do not want talk—if the noble Lord wishes to rise again, I will resume my seat.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but it is quite untrue to say that the previous Government enacted no legislation to deal with this problem. The principal Act to which this Bill refers, the Dangerous Drugs Act, was fathered by the previous Administration, as was the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act.
LORD LEATHERLAND: And, my Lords, whatever legislation the previous Government enacted left on our doorstep the very evil with which this Bill is intended to deal.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will forgive me for saying, for the sake of the Record, and without wishing to inject any partisan feeling whatever into the debate, that this problem of heroin and cocaine addiction has assumed its terrifying proportions only in the last five or six years. Before then it was a comparatively minor problem and, as I feel very strongly, under complete control.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, it was evidently not under complete control or it would not have been necessary to take the action which the Government are taking to-day. I was about to say that this is a good Bill, and I welcome it. I hope that it will stamp out much of this evil. I recognise that the Bill has limited application, but it goes to the centre and the core of the problem.
Having said that, I wish to digress for a moment or two to refer to a point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stonham concerning soft drugs. He seemed to indicate that the Government did not attach so much urgency to dealing with soft drugs as to the urgency of dealing with hard drugs; and naturally, that is quite correct. But this evil of the soft drugs is spreading throughout our society. Young people hear so much about it on the radio; they read in the Press about it and about the effects of it—which are sometimes good and sometimes bad—that they are getting curious. As a result, they are beginning to experiment
566
with these soft drugs, and the experiments are covering a gradually widening circle.
I was going on to say that I am sure (although apparently one must not be too sure in your Lordships' House about what one says) that it would be a very good thing for the community, and particularly for our younger generation, if some urgency were devoted to this question of so-called "soft" drugs—marijuana, LSD, and the new one that was publicised a few days ago. The great danger is that if the Press, the wireless, and your Lordships' House, create the impression in the minds of young people that these drugs are not really very harmful, that they are the equivalent of taking a dry Martini or smoking a cigarette, then I am sure that more and more of these young people will be indulging in these habits, which many medical authorities have admitted are harmful. The longer we delay any action to deal with drugs of this kind, the worse it will be for the young people who are following us.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am always grateful for the speeches of my noble friend Lord Leatherland, and particularly grateful for his support; but on one point I must disagree with him. He said that I gave the impression that the Government did not attach so much urgency to the problem of the so-called "soft" drugs. If I gave such an impression—and I do not think I did—it is wholly wrong. What I did say, and would repeat, is that the Government are getting as quickly as we can the utmost information and the best possible advice available in this country and elsewhere in the world; and when we have that advice—not before, because it would be utterly stupid to jump before there was need—we will ask Parliament to take such legislative action as is necessary.
My noble friend mentioned the new drug. Anyone who takes the trouble of reading carefully what I said, in moving, That the Bill do now pass, will have an indication that we are aware of this. The Home Office received a sample on Monday and it went to the Government analyst on Tuesday. But until we receive a report from the analyst, we do not know whether this drug is controlled, or

567
deserves to be controlled, under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act. This is the kind of point I have in mind.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if my noble friend would pardon my interrupting, may I say that I should like to have it on the Record that I am delighted to hear what he has just said.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will accept my assurance that on this matter we are moving as quickly as humanly possible, but we are not going to move without knowledge.
The fact that three short speeches have expressed sharply different points of view reflect two things: first, that the great and proper anxiety of your Lordships reflects the great and proper anxiety of the general public; and, secondly, that people are so anxious that they are looking for different forms of action. It is for the Government, on the best information available to them, to reach decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, reproached the Government for being moved too much by crises as they develop. As evidence of that, he instanced the fact that in another place the Bill went through without a single Amendment and here we had Amendments of substance in Committee. I make no apology for that. In fact, I take credit on behalf of the Government.
The Amendments moved in your Lordships' House were for the greater safe keeping of drugs and for increased power of search by the police. Of course, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary knew that he wanted greater powers of safe keeping in the Bill, but there had to be lengthy consultations. He wanted the Bill to become an Act of Parliament this Session, and therefore started it in another place. The noble Lord will remember that I gave notice in my Second Reading speech that I should move these Amendments and stated precisely what they were. As for the Amendment moved to-day, the need for that was known when the Bill came to your Lordships' House, but again there were many preliminary investigations to be made before a decision could be reached.
This is a new situation, not only in the sense that it is vastly greater than it was before but also because it is an
568
extremely fluid and developing situation. At no time legislation-wise shall we be able to be abreast of it, but I think that we should be thinking-wise and action-wise abreast of it, if effort counts for anything. Legislation alone cannot deal with this. As I tried to convey in my earlier speech, it must be a movement by the whole body politic, by the whole people of this country, realising what the true values are and playing their part in ensuring that this menace does not become a scourge.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL
2.17 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Before we conclude our proceedings on the Bill, I should like to put on record the answer to a point raised in Committee on Clause 2 by the noble Lord, Lord Denham. The noble Lord asked whether the Post Office intended to provide publicity material, for use in television shops, to explain to the customer that his name and address will be given to the Post Office by the dealer. The answer is, I am glad to say, that this is my right honourable friend's intention. Hand-outs will be made available for dealers to give, if they wish, to their customers to explain why new measures against licence evasion are needed. These hand-outs will make it clear that, in giving the customer's name and address to the Post Office, the dealer is discharging a statutory obligation. These points will also be put across in the Press publicity to be mounted by the Post Office. My right honourable friend and I are glad to have this opportunity of making these plans known.
I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Denham, Lord Airedale, Lord Strabolgi, and other noble Lords, for

569
their constructive and helpful approach to our proceedings on this Bill. There may still be some evaders who do not yet realise what the implications of this Bill are for them, if they persist in their evasion, if they persist by their cheating in extracting a subsidy from the law-abiding majority who have licences for their sets. There are two things the evader should realise. First, he must expect to be found out, and secondly, he will be liable to a fine of up to £50 for a first offence. The Bill provides a deterrent of the right order. My right honourable friend does not want to prosecute evaders. He wants them to get licences. That is why he has said that no evader need fear prosecution if, before he is detected he goes and gets a licence. He will not be prosecuted. He will not be asked awkward questions. But, for those who will not comply with the law, the passing of this Bill will give my right honourable friend the means of catching up with them and the courts the means of imposing appropriate penalties on them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness for what she has said. We are grateful, too, for the charm with which she accepted some Amendments, even though they were only drafting Amendments. I hope she will not think me churlish if I say that, acceptable though the acceptance of these Amendments is in itself, it does not really make up for the intransigence that she and her right honourable friend sometimes show over Amendments of more substance.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, as this is a Third Reading and not a Second Reading debate, I shall be brief. I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Denham, has said, and to congratulate my noble friend Lady Phillips on steering this ship safely to port. I should also like to thank her for the considerable interest that she has taken, often extending far beyond the brief, and for the co-operation that we have received. I think we have been able to improve this Bill to a considerable extent. It is a good Bill, and now that it will shortly become law I wish it well.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to express my appreciation on behalf of my right honourable friend both to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. One realises that they both have very special knowledge of the matters under discussion, particularly in relation to this Bill, and this was greatly appreciated by my right honourable friend. As has been said on behalf of the Government, the Amendments were of a constructive character. I hope that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Denham, can take heart from the fact that there may be more modifications in the future if he persists, as I am sure he will, with Amendments to Bills of this kind. I am grateful to both noble Lords for enabling me to take this important piece of legislation fairly swiftly through the House. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

BERMUDA CONSTITUTION BILL
2.23 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. At an earlier stage of the Bill, I undertook, in answer to a question from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to clarify the position with regard to Government industrial employees in Bermuda who may wish to present themselves for election to the House of Assembly. I can now confirm that it is the intention to allow Government industrial employees not only to stand for election, but also to retain their employment while serving in the House of

571
Assembly. The question of a guarantee of re-employment, therefore, in which the noble Earl was interested, does not arise. I am very glad to be able to give this assurance, because I think it can be considered as an important, although a small, part of the process to which we referred on Second Reading of the liberalisation of the Constitution in Bermuda, and a process which I believe will continue.
With this acceptance of the need to progress steadily towards a more liberal Constitution, there is every reason to anticipate that in this beautiful island we shall see established a multi-racial society which is not only politically content and economically prosperous, but embodies all the ideals, which we all hold, for the prospects of multi-racial harmony. To build upon what has been achieved is, I think, our expectation, and I should like again to pay tribute to the contribution that has been made by the Governor—politically experienced, most approachable, the ideal man for the significant transitional period through which Bermuda has been passing. Under his guidance, and with the most able men of all races—men not only of ability, but of good will—I am sure that we can now hope to realise in Bermuda a happy, enlightened and prosperous multi-racial society. I would echo the words of the then Colonial Secretary on an earlier occasion, that if we cannot see this multiracial harmony established in Bermuda, the prospects elsewhere are very dim indeed.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before we part with this Bill, as one who has a close family connection with Bermuda I should like to echo the hopes that the noble Lord has expressed, and join with him in his good wishes for the future to this oldest of our Colonies. I should like, also, to join with the noble Lord in the tribute he has paid to the Governor, whom he and I, at any rate, know very well, and for whom we have a great respect and affection. Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the explanation he has given about the industrial workers. It is good to know that there will be no obstacles to people
572
standing and playing their part in public life. With those few words, we wish this measure a fair wind.
On Question, Bill passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL
2.28 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sorensen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD STRANG in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Amendments as to benefit tinder Old Cases Act]:
LORD SORENSEN LORD SORENSEN moved to add to the clause:
"( ) In section 14(1) of the Old Cases Act, in the definition of pneumoconiosis ', after the word 'treated' there shall be inserted the words for the purposes of any scheme under section 2 or 5 of this Act'; and in section 14(2) of that Act for the words 'an allowance under the said section 2 or 5' there shall be substituted the words any such scheme'."
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in the debate last week, referred to the fact that "old cases" constitute a very complicated question; and this is indeed so. As a matter of fact, the complications have been so intense that they have confused even the experts; and this takes some doing. In June of this year the Old Cases Act tidied up the "old cases" provisions in a way which I am sure was welcomed by all those concerned with workmen's compensation and industrial injuries matters. In the process, however, there was a slight error of drafting which could work to the disadvantage of certain claimants. The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Amendment) Act 1967 provided that schemes in respect of "old cases" be extended, so that where the extent of disablement from pneumoconiosis or pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis would, if the man's physical condition were otherwise normal, be equal to 50 per cent. disablement, then the effects of emphysema and chronic bronchitis could be treated as if they were the

573
effects of the pneumoconiosis. This applies both to life and to death benefit claims. Unfortunately, the word "allowance" was used when this provision came up to be consolidated, and since a lump sum is payable by way of benefit in death cases, in line with the Workmen's Compensation provisions, and not a continuing pension or allowance, death cases are excluded. The Amendment remedies this. Very few widows are likely to be affected, but it is clearly wrong that a subsequent drafting error should deprive any widow of the benefit which Parliament intended she should have when the Amendment Act was passed. I there-
Amendment moved—
fore beg to move.
Page 3, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. I am sure we are indebted to the vigilance of the Ministry for having spotted this slight error. Of all the parts of legislation that had to be dealt with in the Ministry of National Insurance (as it was), I remember that by far the most complicated and difficult was this particular area. Therefore we shall certainly not hold it against the Ministry in any way that there was a slight oversight in this matter. I am glad that it has been put right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Supplementary schemes—setoff of overpayments]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: On Second Reading I asked whether an explanation could be given of the meaning of this clause. I do not know whether the noble Lord is in a position to give it now. If he is not, perhaps he will write to me and explain it. Perhaps this way of legislating is an extraordinary one, but this again is a very complicated field. I do not suppose that many of your Lordships would be wiser if you were given the explanation, but I might be.
LORD SORENSEN: May I assure the noble Lord that I was about to write
574
to him on this matter, and he will have all the information very shortly.
Clause 4 agreed to.
2.33 p.m.
Clause 5 [Temporary power to increase family allowances by order]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think I ought to say a word about this clause. It is really very unfortunate, I think, that we are having to pass legislation of the character of that in Clause 5 without any knowledge whatsoever of the type of scheme that is to be proposed, and which is to be proposed, as we understand it, in the course of next week and set out later in an Order subject to a Negative Resolution Procedure, an Order which will probably be brought into effect before the House has any chance of negativing it. This is, I think, the effect, because if this provision is to be subject to a Negative Resolution, the House will probably not resume in time for a Prayer to be made against it. In any case, it would be a very tight run thing. It seems to me that it is not a very happy way of legislating, particularly when, as I understand it, a great deal of money indeed is involved.
It was the noble Lord himself who, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, gave me an indication of the kind of sums involved. There has been some indication that this Order may affect third and fourth and subsequent children. As I understand it, for every shilling of increase there is upwards of £4¼ million involved for all third children; and about £2¾ million, for every shilling of increase for the fourth and subsequent children. So if it is confined to only third and subsequent children, the amount of money is very considerable indeed; and to proceed by an Order subject to Negative Resolution procedure really is not a satisfactory way, when the House may not have an opportunity of considering the Order but only the bare statement that is to be made next week. I think it would be quite wrong if a protest on this matter were not made.
In view of the fact that the Report, on which, no doubt, the measure which the Government are going to introduce was based, was made some weeks ago, it is

575
very difficult to see why a decision could not have been reached in time for the whole of this matter to be considered in the context of the National insurance Bill, and indeed of the Order with which we are now dealing. I feel bound to make that protest at this point, although, of course, we would not oppose this particular clause at this stage.
LORD SORENSEN: May I assure the noble Lord that I fully appreciate his concern on this matter, but mine is "not to reason why". I will see that his admonitions are passed on to the right quarter, and I hope they will be fully considered.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Further Amendments of Insurance Act]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 4 shall be agreed to?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I asked, again on Second Reading, whether I could have an explanation of paragraphs l and 4 of this Schedule, which do not perhaps cover a great number of people. The sickness benefit provision, however, certainly covers a very great number—millions in a year. Paragraph4—on child's special allowance, alternative condition of entitlement—is the other paragraph I referred to. I beg your Lordships' pardon: I mean paragraph 3, dealing with retirement pensions of certain widows. I asked about this. Again, if the noble Lord would prefer to write to me I should be glad if he would do so, so that we can perhaps pursue this matter at a later time. It is not one's intention to amend this Schedule, but it is unfortunate that there is no explanation of these particular measures, small as they are, in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill or in the White Paper that accompanied the Bill.
LORD SORENSEN: May I assure the noble Lord again that these matters are well borne in mind, and I will see that he gets all the information he is asking for.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having being suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), the Report received: Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT (DETERMINATION OF REQUIRE-MENTS) REGULATIONS 1967
2.40 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN LORD SORENSEN moved, that the Draft Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1967, laid before the House on June 28, 1967, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is now some eight months since the new scheme of Supplementary Benefits was introduced in place of National Assistance. The object of the new scheme was to provide a noncontributory benefit to which there was a clear, statutory entitlement, with straightforward rules so that older people, in particular, should the more easily understand, and so be encouraged to claim, what was their right. Judging from the response so far, the new scheme has enjoyed a very real measure of success. There are now some 430,000 more people over pension age receiving a supplementary pension than were receiving assistance before the new scheme, and altogether over 2,600,000 weekly benefits are currently in payment. These are arresting figures because they indicate that large numbers of people either could have secured assistance and were igncrant of the fact, despite the publicity, or, for various strange reasons, did not apply for it. We are gratified to know that these people are now benefiting.
One of the improvements made when the new scheme was introduced last November was an increase in the basic rates for requirements which, together with an addition for rent, and the standard addition of 9s. for special expenses in long-term cases, represent the levels to which other income is brought up. Your

577
Lordships now have before you draft Regulations providing for further increases in these basic rates. The main changes are increases of 5s. in the rate for a single householder, which will go up from £4 1s. to £4 and of 8s. in the rate for a married couple, which will go up from £6 13s. to £7 1s. These rates, as I have mentioned, are exclusive of the long-term addition of 9s. which was introduced last November for those over pension age, and others (apart from the unemployed) who have received a noncontributory benefit for two years or more. Thus the net income level guaranteed to those over pension age, and for other long-term cases, will be £4 15s., plus rent, for a single householder, and £7 10s., plus rent, for a married couple. The new rates represent increases of about 6 per cent., which compares with an increase of about 1½ per cent. in the prices index since the current rates were introduced. It is proposed that the new rates should take effect from October 30; that is, at the same time as the increases proposed for National Insurance pensions and benefits.
My Lords, the Ministry of Social Security Act requires that any National Insurance pension or benefit shall be taken fully into account to arrive at the Supplementary Benefit payable. The increases to be made in these payments will therefore reduce the amount required to bring a person's income up to the appropriate Supplementary Benefit level. But since these levels are being raised at the same time the effect will in general be that people with Supplementary Benefit will have their total income increased by the amount of the Supplementary Benefit increase.
Your Lordships may ask why the increases in National Insurance and Supplementary Benefit rates are not the same, so that, for example, the supplementary pensioner can receive the full benefit of the increase proposed in the retirement pension. The answer is that this is the second increase in the Supplementary Benefit rates since National Insurance rates last went up, in March, 1965, the first being, as I have mentioned, when the new scheme was introduced last November. Taken together, the two main increases in Supplementary Benefit rates—10s. for a single householder and 15s. 6d. for a married couple—are virtually the
578
same as the increases now proposed in the main National Insurance rates of 10s. single and 16s. married. I should mention that subsidiary Regulations, which are subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, will ensure that the exact Supplementary Benefit increase can be paid where this could be otherwise prevented or delayed by the provisions of existing Regulations.
I now come finally to the question of cost. The draft Regulations by themselves would lead to an increase in expenditure of about £40 million in a complete year; but because of the concurrent improvements in other social security benefits there will be a net saving of about £23 million a year. This, however, has to be considered against the background of the improvements made last November which cost over £50 million for those already receiving noncontributory benefit, apart from the cost for the new beneficiaries. I beg to move that these draft Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1967, laid before the House on June 28, 1967, be approved.—(Lord Sorensen.)
2.46 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having explained the draft Regulations. These Regulations are always brought in whenever there is up-rating legislation for National Insurance benefits, and the question that the Ministry always have to consider is by how much they are going to increase the Supplementary Benefits—or National Assistance, as it used to be called. At the time of last year's legislation, when the Supplementary Benefits were raised to a level slightly higher than the National Insurance rates, I remember asking whether this was done deliberately as a matter of policy, and whether it was intended to keep the Supplementary Benefits slightly above the National Insurance rates. I remember also that I did not get a clear answer. Now, of course, we have the answer: that that was not intended to be done. So that, in effect, on this occasion we have increases of about half the amount of the increases in the National Insurance.

579
As the noble Lord rightly said, if we take the present increases, together with the increases made last time, they are pretty well equivalent to the increases in National Insurance levels. It would be strange, of course, if we on this side of the House were to complain about this, because it is what has happened in the past. So far as Supplementary Benefits are concerned, we are always up against the problem that it has been considered right in the past never to allow Supplementary Benefits or National Assistance rates (or whatever we like to call them) to fall too far behind the cost of living as the cost of living increased, so that Supplementary Benefits have often been increased. In fact, it has been the general rule to increase Supplementary Benefits once during the period within which National Insurance arates have remained stable. This, of course, has always had an awkward effect, but this has had to be accepted.
It has been a matter of great criticism in the past—and I am sure it will be on this occasion, too—that people who receive National Insurance benefits and who, because Supplementary Benefits are added, receive a total amount in excess of National Insurance benefits, will not in this case get the full increase of the National Insurance benefit and will accordingly feel disappointed. Those of us who have had to do with the Ministry of Pensions have tried very hard to find a way round this difficulty but one has to accept the lesser of two evils, and I think it is certainly the lesser of two evils to give increases in Supplementary Benefits as frequently as possible and not to wait every time until National Insurance benefits are increased.
At the same time, I am not certain in my own mind that it is right now, and I am even less certain that it will always be right in the future, that National Assistance benefits should be below National Insurance benefits. They were just about level before. I think it was £4 1s. 0d. Supplementary Benefit last year for a single man, as against £4 under National Insurance benefit. It was just a little higher, but it was so close that I was somewhat deluded into thinking that this was a deliberate act of policy. It now appears that it was not; it was just that the amount was
580
considered at the time to be the amount that it was desirable to add to the Supplementary Benefit. This being a decision of the Government, I do not think there is any reason to dispute it, because it is in line with precedents, and, as the Select Committee have said, the Regulations do not depart in any way from precedent. Therefore I think your Lordships can safely pass them, and indeed welcome them.
2.52 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for many moments this afternoon, but there are one or two points I should like to put to the Minister, and one or two matters to which I wish to refer. I listened with a good deal of interest to the figures the noble Lord gave. We have certainly not succeeded in abolishing poverty. We may have succeeded in relieving it, but certainly not in abolishing it as the Party opposite so often claimed that they would. I do not blame them. I restrict my criticism to saying that certainly this matter was pursued and pursued very vigorously when they were in Opposition, and it is interesting to see, after two years of Labour rule, that the numbers on benefit have substantially increased.
The noble Lord told us that the crease in the benefit rates was 6 per cent. as against an increase of 1½ per cent. in the cost of living index figure. That is a wide margin. But I think it is wise to have a margin when one is estimating the rates that would be required, because before you have time to introduce another set of rates the cost of living index figure may have moved again. When I was at the National Assistance Board I had a good deal of experience of this, but I think we succeeded in maintaining the rates, as apparently the Supplementary Benefits Commission is going to do, with a comfortable margin for any increase in the cost of living index. But it does not seem to me to indicate any very great confidence in the Government in their ability to stabilise the index figure in the months to come.
May I turn for a moment to another matter. The noble Lord referred to the fact that it was known that there were a number of persons who appeared to be

581
entitled to supplementary benefit but who had not claimed it. That is true, and I think we always knew that there were a large number of persons who for different reasons, reasons, perhaps, of pride—and I must say that I rather respected the independence of these old people—and recollections of past days and so on, did not apply for assistance. We know now the dimensions of that problem. I always believed that there was not really a very large number of persons in those circumstances as against the very large number of persons who came to the Assistance Board. We have the figures now in the Report on The Financial and Other Circumstances of Retirement Pensioners, which was published by the Ministry of National Insurance with the co-operation of the National Assistance Board last year.
The figures are, I think, instructive. It was found that there were 700,000 pensioner households who could have received assistance if they had applied for it. But a large number of those people appeared either to have income of one kind or another which would be disregarded for national assistance purposes, or to be living in households where there were other adults who made amenities available. When one deducted that class of person it reduced the total number to 300,000. Of these 300,000 households over two-thirds had some other resources in cash or were in households in which there were other people. Only about 85,000 appeared to have no resources other than the national assistance. Of course, 85,000 is a very large number. But compared with 850,000 it is not so many, and it has, I think, been described as manageable. But the figures which were used when this controversy began have proved to be completely exaggerated, and indeed when the Election was at its height I believe the figure bid up to over one million. At any rate, we know now how far this problem has gone, and I am very glad to hear the Minister say that the experience of the Supplementary Benefits Commission has been that the new methods have overcome these difficulties, and these people are now applying for the assistance to which they are entitled.
I was always told that the reason why persons would not apply for assistance was because of the name of the National Assistance Board. I never myself
582
believed there was very much in this question of the name. I am old enough to remember seeing the name changed more than once. Outdoor relief became public asssistance in 1929. Public assistance became national assistance in 1948, and national assistance became supplementary benefit in 1966. I do not believe that the name has had very much to do with this. What has really deterred persons from applying has been the means test.
The National Assistance Board and the Supplementary Benefits Commission, succeeding them, have been at some pains to build up a staff which is devoted to the work they have to do, dedicated to the relief of poverty and who understand the manner in which the Commission desire that this work should be administered. That has gradually over the years eliminated persons who associated the means test with the old tests that were carried out by the Guardians or in the early days of national assistance. I believe we are now in a position to say that a means test is not the deterrent which it used to be considered to be. But I would say this. I think it calls for a conscious effort on the part of a great many people to ensure that the old stigma is eliminated.
I think that at any rate the national newspapers could have helped us a great deal to get rid of the old background of the Poor Law and of the early days of assistance. We did not get much assistance from them. Too many papers reported their police court cases as though the receipt of assistance was in itself some sort of offence. Persons who claimed national assistance were represented as belonging to the class of "corner boys", layabouts and idlers whom the papers desired to expose. I hope, that in the years that are coming we shall get a better aproach to this question.
I do not believe that we can have an adequate system of social security without the use of the means test. We rely on many different agencies to help us to get it accepted. I believe it is to-day nearly accepted but not quite.
Payment of benefits paid on a means test, or as I prefer to call it, a test of needs and means, is a means test of particular importance at the present time. One of the major difficulties which I

583
think the Board encounters is the case of the man whose earnings are so low that he is actually receiving less than he would receive if he were unemployed and applied for supplementary benefit. It goes hard to say to a man, "Your earnings are actually less than you would get if you were on supplementary benefit." I think the Supplementary Benefit Board has no alternative but to scale down this man to the sum which he would take home if he had been in full employment at his normal trade.
When I was at the Board I was often approached on this subject. Members of another place would sometimes write to me rather indignantly asking me why this man was paid less than the standard rate. But they always, I think, accepted the explanation. It is exceedingly difficult to say that a man ought to be paid more when he is unemployed than when he is working full-time at his own trade. There it is. That, I think, is one of the major difficulties of our social security system to-day. I think the Government recognise that, and I understand that there are proposals under consideration for dealing with this particular matter. Whether it will be dealt with by permitting the Supplementary Benefits Commission to supplement the earnings of those men, or whether it will be dealt with by some change in the system of family allowances, we shall know when the Government's proposals are published.
I do not think that it makes much difference which way it is done. The question is, will it be done on a means and needs test basis? That the Government will have to consider for themselves and make up their mind about. If relief is given in that way, we shall be supplementing from public funds the earnings of a man in full-time employment. It was one of the most firmly held principles of administration of the old Poor Law and of the Assistance Board and, indeed, of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, that you ought not to do that. It had been an inflexible canon of the old Poor Law. Poor Law reformers from Sir Samuel Romilly to Lord Beveridge all held firmly to that principle.
Ought we to hold firmly to it to-day? That is the question that I think the
584
Government must ask themselves. It may well be that the time will come when by other means we can avoid the demoralisation which it has always been feared will be created by supplementing a man's wages from public funds. I do not know which course the Government are going to adopt. I do not think it matters much, because the problem that they have to ask themselves is whether one ought to adopt a method of supplementing wages which has been condemned for so long.
There is one other thing that I should like to say. I have seen it suggested that the cost of improving family allowances, not, I think, supplementary benefit, might be made by withdrawing the allowances for children which are now made in the assessment to income tax. I hope that the Government will not adopt that course. I can think of nothing more unfair than that proposal. I have never been frightened of spending public money on the Social Services, and I am not now. But I think it would be most unjust that a new Social Service should be paid for by one section of the community and not by all. If we are to make payments to relieve the position of the man in the lower earnings group, then the community as a whole should contribute to those payments, and they should not be fastened round the necks of one class of the community alone. I profoundly hope that the Government will not adopt that solution of the financial problem which the low wage earner presents. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the statistics which he gave us at the beginning of his speech, and I shall listen with great interest to what he has to say in answer to the few points that I have ventured to raise.
3.8 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, we are all most appreciative of any comments and remarks addressed, and scrutinies made, by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, in view of his great experience in this matter. But I am equally certain that the House as a whole would appreciate it if I did not explore the same ground to any extent this afternoon. My own assessment of the feeling of the House is that it is better for us to get on as quickly as we can with the business; and as what the noble Lord has said does not bear directly on the immediate proposals, he will forgive me if I say no more than that

585
I shall myself reflect, as I am sure all members of the Government in this Department will reflect, on the observations that the noble Lord has made.
I will, however, say just a brief word by way of explanation. All retirement pensioners receiving Supplementary Benefit will have a leaflet sent to them explaining why Supplementary Benefit rates are on this occasion being increased by less than the National Insurance benefits. In comparing the two rates, it must be remembered that for Supplementary Benefit recipient's rent is added to the scale rates. There is also for the old and other long-term cases, the new nine shillings addition.
I agree with what the noble Lord has said with regard to the name. It is not the name that is so important, as what the name signifies and its associations. One hopes that the names we are now employing and the general nomenclature have a much warmer and more human association than some of the names covering this field in the past. "Poor Law Relief" has a very grim association. It takes us back to the days when poverty was looked upon as a crime and those who were poor, in addition to being subjected to their poverty, were punished, just for being poor. I believe there was a time when those who were enfranchised could have their franchise taken from them if they sought Poor Law Relief. Many Members of this House at that time no doubt supported that as being a moral principle. We have now moved far beyond that in this House, in the other place, and in the country as a whole. Our moral conscience has grown considerably. That is why it is a good thing that we should discard entirely the terminology of Poor Relief. Now, with the better term "Supplementary Benefit", we have surely reached the stage where we recognise that we are all bound together, we are members one of another, and therefore the assistance which we are rendering is the assistance of the nation to members of the nation who desire it.
There is much more I could say by way of reflection on this very important subject, but I want to say to the noble Lord opposite and to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, that if there are any particular points on which they would like
586
further information I will see that the information is given to them. I appreciate that all have concerned themselves with this matter in a spirit of real humanity, and once more I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, for drawing on the resources of his own experience to contribute to our greater knowledge to-day.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION (CHANGE OF NAME) ORDER 1967
3.13 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft National Steel Corporation (Change of Name) Order 1967, laid before the House on July 5, 1967, be approved. This is a simple Order, the purpose of which is to change the name of the National Steel Corporation to the British Steel Corporation. I think that this change will be welcomed. Provision was made in your Lordships' House that such a change could be made when certain difficulties had been got out of the way, and it is now proposed that the Order should come into operation on July 27. This is the day before vesting date, and the Corporation will be able to use their new name on and from the day on which they actually assume ownership of the nationalised steel industry. The change, therefore, will come at the most convenient moment.
Moved, that the Draft National Steel Corporation (Change of Name) Order 1967, laid before the House on July 5 1967, be approved.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as the Minister has just said, the possibility of a change of name for the National Steel Corporation to the British Steel Corporation was discussed when the Iron and Steel Bill was going through your Lordships' House. We on these Benches agreed at the time that the name British Steel Corporation might be more appropriate, particularly in regard to overseas trading operations. But, having said that, I should say again from this side of the House that we do not like the Corporation any more under this new name than we did under its old name.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

KENYA: BRITISH FARMERS AND LAND SCHEME
3.15 p.m.
LORD WEDGWOOD LORD WEDGWOOD rose to call attention to the difficulties facing British nationals farming in Kenya, with particular reference to the present 400,000 acre land purchase programme, and to ask Her Majesty's Government to make a statement on the future of the scheme. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, I do so for two very good reasons. The land purchase programme in Kenya is apparently running into trouble and, partly as a result, some of our British nationals are being deported; and it may be—though I hope very much it will not be so—that if things continue in the same way others may follow. I will be as brief as I can, and I appreciate that this Question comes at the end of a long day's business and a long week's work, and that there is much pressure on your Lordships' time. But this was the most suitable opportunity to raise these matters, which are of some urgency, before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
As some of your Lordships may be aware, I have had a direct connection with Kenya agriculture for 25 years and more, though I have no pecuniary interests in that country to-day. My sole aim in bringing these matters to your Lordships' attention is to air some of the difficulties which are facing British farmers in Kenya and to seek some greater understanding and response from Her Majesty's Government in handling what is undoubtedly a delicate but, nevertheless, not insoluble problem. As we are all aware, the old political order in Kenya altered for good at Lancaster House in January, 1960, when Her Majesty's Government announced their intention of leading Kenya to independence on a basis of majority rule. Consequent upon that decision, the economic order also changed, and the security of land values disappeared. From that date the value of a farmer's investment in land and its capital assets was much depreciated.
It is no part of my case to comment or dwell on the political aspects of that decision, except to remind your Lordships of the financial implications that followed
588
and how they affected land values. So virtually from that time on there has been no ready market for European-owned land at anything approaching the investment value of 1959; indeed, titles to land in the former White Highlands were no longer acceptable to the commercial banks as security for borrowings. This created an entirely new situation for British farmers, whose loans and borrowings remained exactly the same but whose assets were seriously reduced in value. Since that year, apart from limited sales at drastically reduced prices to African farmers, generally through the media of the Kenya Land Bank, there has been no market for ordinary mixed farming land—and by "mixed farming" I do not include ranching, coffee and other specialised plantation industries.
Various proposals were made to Her Majesty's Government for underwriting land values which were ignored, but assurances were always forthcoming of the continued desirability of European settlement and sound farming to underpin the Colony's economy. Furthermore, on the achievement of African self-government, the Prime Minister of Kenya, Mr. Kenyatta, met European farmers and assured them of their future and good treatment if they would stay in Kenya I and farm well. However, all these assurances from Her Majesty's Government and the Kenya Government did not take full cognisance of the rapidly expanding African population and the pressure building up for land.
There was put into operation, financed by Her Majesty's Government, the first one-million-acre resettlement scheme, under which European farmers were bought out in certain areas adjacent to African land units. This scheme had its anomalies, but by and large it was put through without too much unfairness to the European owners.
By 1965 it was recognised that a further land purchase scheme was required to cover those who wished to dispose of their farms and to enable the Kenya Government to continue to meet the unfulfilled demand for land. The present 400,000 acre scheme was conceived following the visit to Kenya of what was known as the Stamp Commission, which reported to Her Majesty's Government—a report which, incidentally, has never been made public.

589
Subsequently, terms were negotiated between Her Majesty's Government and the Kenya Government for an £18 million interest-free loan for the purchase of land and "other development aid" over a period of four years. Of this £18 million about £6 million was earmarked for the actual purchase of British-owned farms. I emphasise this as many statements have been made about the total sum of monies provided for land purchase, but the loan included large elements for African resettlement and other purposes not directly connected with the actual buying out of the former owners of the land.
At this point I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the varying viewpoints of British farmers in Kenya after the completion of the million-acre purchase scheme. There were, roughly, four groups of farmers. There were those who did not wish to sell their farms and go, and who intended to remain permanently in Kenya under the new African Government. Secondly, there were those who wished to sell and leave, but were unable to do so as they could not find purchasers. Thirdly, there were the Settlement Board farmers, mainly tenants, who had gone out as soldier-settlers after the last world war and invested all their capital under the direct sponsorship of Her Majesty's Government in 1946 and 1947. Lastly, there was the group of what was loosely termed the "compassionate cases", comprising, principally, the elderly and widows and those who, for one reason or another, were unable to continue farming but could not find a market for their farms.
As regards the first group—those who did not wish to leave—there is no problem except in cases where their land is definitely required by the Kenya Government. Under the present 400,000 acre scheme they do not have to accept an offer and are free to refuse it, though in some cases it may be difficult for them to continue indefinitely, and they have to weigh those considerations at the time of the offer. The second and third groups are those with which I am most concerned to-day—
LORD DRUMALBYNa: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question for information on that point? Is there any provision for the exchange of land, where land next door to African-settled land is
590
to be acquired by the Kenya Government? Is there any provision of arrangements for the exchange of land for land which could be held by Europeans?
LORD WEDGWOOD: I understand, my Lords, that there are no provisions: but that is subject to anything the noble Lord may say when he replies. Perhaps he has further information but, so far as I am aware, there is no provision for exchange of land.
I refer again to the second group of farmers—those who wish to leave but naturally cannot do so unless they get a fair consideration for their farms. As I indicated earlier, for the past seven years they have been, to all intents, economic prisoners of circumstances far beyond their control. It was to enable these farmers to sell that the present 400,000-acre scheme was initiated, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, pointed out to the House last month when replying to an earlier question of mine on the working of the scheme.
I come to the point where the trouble is really emerging, for it is in the terms and conditions of the agreement between the two Governments for the operation of this scheme and in the actual methods of implementation on the ground that there is so much disagreement, such great bitterness and sense of betrayal, leading to pressures which must inevitably force the British farmers into conflict with those who administer the scheme, and ultimately through them with the Kenya Government.
I wish to make it quite clear that the quarrel is not with the Kenya Government for requiring the land; their needs are fully recognised. The quarrel is simply with the terms under which offers are made to the farmers; offers which in some cases are fantastically below the real value of the farms, by any method of calculation. A number of offers have been refused and a number of others have been accepted with the greatest reluctance, and only under duress of circumstances. Efforts have been made by a number of individuals to obtain fairer treatment for their fellow Britons which have led, in my opinion, and there is substantial evidence to support it, to the recent deportation of at least two farmers in circumstances which we all know are thoroughly deplorable and must inevitably

591
increase ill-feeling. If unfair methods of valuation and the resultant offers continue in the next year of the scheme, which is due to start next month, there may well be further protestations and a repetition of recent events.
There are a number of pertinent facts which your Lordships should know, on which you may judge for yourselves whether methods of valuation are fair. The procedure is this. The valuer visits the farm and values everything on it—the land, the stock, the machinery, the lot. He then gives his figures to the Valuations Committee of the Agricultural Development Corporation, but those figures are not made known to the farmer concerned. The Government chief valuer then makes an offer based on the valuation which is never made known, which may vary, under the terms of the agreement, by as much as 20 per cent. either way; but naturally it varies only one way—downwards. This is a comprehensive figure with no breakdown of any figures for stock or the land. The farmer has 21 days in which to accept or refuse, and often a shorter period due to the vagaries of the post. Is it suprising that these methods leave much to be desired?
Yet another factor which the House may appreciate is that under this scheme payment may be made in London, whereas other potential farm sales are all subject to Kenya currency control, which restricts capital exports to £5,000 a year and £2,000 in each subsequent year. So your Lordships will realise that this factor is a very considerable one in encouraging a farmer to accept the offer, as he knows that it is indeed his last chance to get his money out of Kenya in one lump sum if he wishes to do so. The A.D.C. know this very well when the offer is made, and it is no stretch of the imagination to see this as a factor in their calculations.
There are many other disquieting features of the manner in which this scheme is being handled, but it would take too much of your Lordships' patience which I know I must not stretch too far. I should now like to bring to your Lordships' notice the report which has been prepared by Mr. Peter Trumper, references to which have been made in the daily Press, following his visit to Kenya in May this year to investigate the
592
workings of the scheme on behalf of some 150 British farmers in Kenya.
This report has now been made public and a copy has been handed to the Minister of Overseas Development. Mr. Trumper's conclusion, in his own words, is:
"I have reached the conclusion that the method used is tending to unfairness, in some cases to a serious degree".
He goes on:
"What in fact is happening is that the farmers are getting less than a fair deal, both in terms of the procedures adopted and in terms of the offers made".
It may be of some significance that Mr. Trumper was forbidden access to the Kenya Government chief valuer and his assistants to discuss the methods of valuation in use.
He then makes in his report a number of recommendations with which I find myself in entire agreement. Amongst them are that the Kenya Government valuer should disclose to a representative of the British farmers concerned the method of valuation which he is using; that a breakdown of figures should be given so that there is a fair opportunity for negotiation; that the valuer should give a single figure as his total valuation, and that this should be the amount of the offer; and that fresh offers should be made to those who have refused previous offers which they believed to be unreasonably low. I do not think that these are unreasonable recommendations, and I should like to know from the noble Lord when he replies whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to make effective recommendations on these points before making available further finance, which is being provided by the British taxpayer.
There are two further matters to which I hope the noble Lord may be able to reply and of which I have given him advance notice. One concerns the third group of farmers that I mentioned earlier, the Settlement Board farmers. This country indeed has some special obligation here, more particularly so in that these men were directly encouraged to settle in Kenya after the last war by Her Majesty's Government—a Labour Government—and that, as tenants, they are in an even more vulnerable position than those who own their land and have at least some option over its disposal. These

593
farmers have contributed financially the years to the capital value of their farms, and they should be secured in their share of this capital in any future reconstruction which the Kenya Government may have in mind; and everyone coming under this British post-war settlement scheme should have the opportunity of realising his investment. This is a debt of honour which we cannot possibly ignore. Can the noble Lord reassure the House that these men will not be forgotten?
Finally, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will confirm what was stated in another place by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development last August, that all those British farmers in Kenya who wish to realise their assets and leave will have the opportunity to do so during the last three years of the present Land Purchase Scheme.
My Lords, I have spoken at some length, but this is a complex subject to cover, and I trust that I have described, in however abbreviated a fashion, the salient points of what has become an unhappy situation. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will take due note of the anxiety felt by many of us over possible further developments, and will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that British nationals in Kenya will receive in future a fairer and a squarer deal over the sale of their land and other farming assets in Kenya.
3.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, for having raised this very serious matter before your Lordships to-day, and for having explained the difficulties and the problems arising out of the Land Purchase Programme in Kenya which, as the noble Lord has said, has certainly run into very considerable trouble. The noble Lord's extensive experience as a farmer in Kenya for so many years makes him an eminently suitable person to introduce this subject—which he has done with great objectivity—and I should certainly like to support him on the points which he has made. I was most distressed recently to learn of the arrest
594
over of these honourable men, these farmers, and of their deportation without money.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, has himself referred to the report by Mr. Peter Trumper, which I think, as he says, is now in the hands of the Government As your Lordships may know, Mt. Trumper was instructed to examine the method of valuation used by Kenya Government valuers in pursuance of the Land Purchase Programme, and to give an opinion as to whether this method was equitable and consistent with the policy which was, after all, agreed between the British Government and the Kenya Government. The fact that Mr. Trumper was refused permission to meet the Kenya Government valuer is certainly distressing, and it is not surprising that this refusal led Mr. Trumper to the conclusion that the proceedings were not being conducted oil an entirely fair basis.
Mr. Trumper certainly gives good reasons for considering that the procedure falls short of the standards implied in the British Government's policy towards British settlers in Kenya, and it seems to have been less fair than the procedure which I understand was adopted in the million acre scheme. I gather, however, that in spite of these shortcomings the British settlers would have been willing to accept the present procedure if they had felt that they were being offered current market values; and I should particularly like to re-emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, that the farmers seem to be getting less than a fair deal both in terms of the procedures adopted and in terms of the offers made.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will look very closely at the recommendations contained in Mr. Trumper's report, particularly the recommendation that the Kenya Government's valuer should be instructed to meet a representative of the British farmers to discuss the method of valuation he is using and, if possible, reach agreement on a code of values to be used in the remainder of the programme. I hope that the noble Lord, although he is not in his place at the moment, will take note of what I am saying. It would certainly seem desirable also that the valuer should be instructed to give a breakdown figure in each case, in order to afford an opportunity for fair

595
negotiations. There would also seem to be considerable point in the valuer being instructed to give a single figure as his valuation, and that this should be the amount of the offer. It is, I believe, normal British practice that Government valuers should open negotiations by offering the figure which they believe to be right, and not a figure below it. It would also seem to make sense that fresh offers should be made to those who have so far refused offers which they believed to be unreasonably low. But I understand—and in this I think he has been very reasonable—that there would be no question of re-opening cases which have already been settled.
The noble Lord has made his case so well that there is nothing further that I think I need add, except to express sympathy for those who have suffered so severely in these circumstances. I ask the Government to give these matters their very serious consideration, and to take appropriate action in the form of positive representations on behalf of these farmers, whom we must not forget.
3.40 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I should like to endorse what my noble friend Lord Bessborough has said regarding the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood. I do not want to bring any emotion into the subject to-day, but I have been in a country which gained its independence, and I know what Europeans feel in such circumstances. They wish to associate themselves with the countries for which they have formerly been responsible, and they wish, in a very large number of cases, to participate in helping them along the road to their own self-government.
It has been my privilege to meet the gentlemen, all three of them, who were deported by the Kenya Government, and I listened to the story that they had to tell. What one tries to do in circumstances of that kind is to assess whether the people who are giving an account of an event through which they have passed are doing so dispassionately; whether they are telling the truth; and whether they are representative of a community which respected them. So far as I was concerned the three gentlemen fell into all those categories. I
596
think the House should know of some of the circumstances through which those men passed. I should like to emphasise, in giving a very brief story of the circumstances, that they were most respected members of the Kenya European community. They were elected representatives; they had decided to stay in Kenya and to assist the Kenya Government in farming matters; and they had got into some sort of negotiations with the Kenya Government in which there were differing points of view.
I do not wish to enlarge on what happened after that, but, to put it briefly, in the middle of the night these men were faced with armed guards and told to pack their bags. Some of them (I am repeating all this from memory; I made no notes) requested permission to get into touch with the British High Commissioner and to consult their lawyers, but they were told that there was no time for that. When it was pointed out that it was unreasonable to request that they should go so quickly, they were told that if they did not go then armed force would be used.
Such circumstances as those—which I think should be on record in your Lordships' House—constitute a matter which we all greatly deplore. I have sympathy with those in control of the Government of this country in these circumstances; and I have sympathy for the men concerned. But in their case I think that a great deal more than sympathy is necessary. I think that we should become more respected if we were to lodge a grave protest with the Kenya Government about what has occurred. We should point out to them that the British taxpayer is contributing something like £18 million to this fund; and that while this country wishes to co-operate with the Kenya Government and to do all we can to help, there are limits to the insults we will stand; there are limits to the insults our nationals can be expected to stand from people who are not honourable and straightforward with us. If only we could use our voice in that direction, I think we should gain far more respect in Kenya and in other parts of the world.
3.44 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I say that I recognise the sincerity and

597
interest of the noble Lord, Lord Wedge-wood, in raising this Question this afternoon. I think he puts his case with persuasion and moderation; and certainly what he said I undertake to consider further, after I have read in Hansard the exact terms that he used. I regret somewhat his initial sentences about the possibility of further expulsions from Kenya. The implications of what he said I thought were rather unfortunate. Certainly it is our hope that there will be no occasion for further expulsions—and certainly not by the methods used on this recent occasion. If I do not go further into this matter—although the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, dealt with it at some length—I hope it will be understood that it is simply because the terms of the Question did not relate to these incidents but to the question of land transference in Kenya, and, in particular, to the most recent scheme.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, said, since 1961 there have been several schemes for the transfer of land in Kenya from European to African ownership. The British Government first provided £17¼ million for the so-called Million Acre Scheme. This was followed by a further £7 million to support other schemes. At the end of 1964, the new British Government agreed with the Kenya Government that the problems involved in land transference should be examined on the spot by an expert mission, which, as Lord Wedgwood said, was led by the Honourable Maxwell Stamp. After the report of this mission the British Government agreed in November 1965 that something over £6 million from an £18 million interest-free loan, should be used to finance the transfer of 100,000 acres a year for each of the following four years. It is this scheme about which the noble Lord now asks his questions.
The noble Lord is particularly concerned—as was the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough—about the method of valuation; and this I understand. When the new scheme was discussed between the two Governments it was agreed that a joint United Kingdom/Kenya working party of professional valuers, under the impartial chairmanship of the valuation member of the Stamp Mission, should consider this aspect of the problem and make recommendations. The outcome of this examination was announced in the
598
House of Commons in August, 1966. The two Governments had agreed that the basis of valuation would be current market values as assessed by the professional valuers of the Kenya Lands Department. Purchases were to be as previously on a willing buyer/willing seller basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, has suggested this afternoon that the valuer should be instructed to give a single figure for his valuation instead of a range of prices within which negotiations could take place. I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, thought this was a reasonable proposal; but if that was done it would cut out the accepted principle of negotiation which they have agreed upon and I cannot see that this would necessarily assist the seller. The noble Lord also asks that the valuer should provide a breakdown of his figures. This would not be in accordance with the agreement reached between the British and Kenya Governments. Moreover, the valuations are now made known to the British High Commission so that they can satisfy themselves that the transaction is taking place in accordance with the agreed arrangements. I say that, although we regard the negotiations of individual purchases as primarily a matter between the farmer and the Kenya Government. Generally speaking, the purchase programme has proceeded satisfactorily and of 31 offers made 20 have been accepted.
Let me emphasise that the British Government have full confidence in the impartiality and professional integrity of the Kenya Government's valuers. We recognise that theirs is not an easy job, but we believe that they are, in accordance with the agreement reached between our two Governments, negotiating the purchase of these farms at what they have assessed to be current market prices. If in any instance—and no such case has arisen yet—the Agricultural Development Corporation as purchaser is not prepared to pay current market values so assessed, then the Agricultural Development Corporation is obliged under the agreement to refer that case to the British High Commission.
As the noble Lord has said, some farmers, dissatisfied with offers made to them, recently commissioned a professional valuer from Britain to investigate the situation on their behalf. The Kenya

599
Government raised no objection to this visit, although they refused to allow this private individual to discuss with the Kenya Lands Department the method and conduct of valuations. The attitude of the Kenya Government in this respect can be understood, for, as they say, their agreement was with the British Government and they were not prepared to discuss what had been agreed with any third party. The British High Commission at the time expressed the view that there was advantage in allowing Mr. Trumper, the valuer concerned, to see for himself the procedures that were followed from the standpoint of the Lands Department. We still believe that some of the difficulties might have been resolved if there could have been this discussion at a professional level. Nevertheless, the Kenya Government have not been prepared to vary their decision, but there is no reason to suppose that, if a representative of the British Government asked for a discussion of the scheme with the Kenya Government valuers at professional level, this would not be agreed. Moreover, discussions on the implementation of the scheme are continually taking place between the Kenya Government and the British Government.
The noble Lord has asked whether fresh offers can be made to those who have already refused offers. I think I am right in saying that the valuers are in all cases expatriate employees of the Kenya Government, British professional valuers. On the information available to us all valuations have been made in accordance with current market values arrived at by these qualified Kenya Government valuers.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords—
LORD BESWICK: Under this scheme the farmers—
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, has tried to intervene twice.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I think I am in order in asking the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, whether Her Majesty's Government realise that the fact that the figure of the valuations for the farm is not made known to the farmer is a considerable drawback in any subsequent negotiations over the sale of his
600
farm. Would the noble Lord agree with this?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I certainly agree that if one is negotiating, it is always better to have the advantage of the full figures on which one's opponent, as it were, is basing his own side of the negotiations. But I would emphasise again here that if there is any claim of unfairness, the British High Commission, it is agreed, shall have the opportunity of seeing the figures and therefore judging for itself whether the particular valuation is on the basis of the agreed procedure. I was going on to say—I am sorry that I did not notice before that the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, wished to intervene—that under the scheme farmers who refuse an offer under the present programme are not ordinarily eligible for a further offer during the four-year period.
Maybe I can answer at this point another of the noble Lord's specific questions. He asked whether, under the Agricultural Settlement Trust, farmers should not all have the opportunity to realise their capital investment. The answer is that it has never been conceded by this Government or their predecessors that Agricultural Settlement Trust farmers had a valid claim to preferential treatment.
I was also asked whether I could confirm that all British farmers who wished to sell and leave Kenya will be able to do so. The noble Lord referred to the Statement made in another place. Mr. Oram's statement was, I understand, an "off the cuff" opinion given in answer to a supplementary question, and without up-to-date information. As he subsequently explained in a letter to Mr. Wall, the best possible estimate which could be made of the mixed farming acreage in the hands of British farmers at the commencement of the present programme was 800,000 acres. On the assumption that the land transfer programme goes as anticipated, some 400,000 to 500,000 acres will be bought out in the 1966–70 period. That is 400,000 acres under the new programme, and some 95,000 acres as the completion of the Million Acre Scheme. Of course, it is not known how many of the United Kingdom citizens will in fact choose to sell, but if towards the end of the current

601
programme problems still exist, there is provision for a further review of the situation.
The noble Lord was kind enough to refer to a Statement which I made in answer to a Question he put on June 20 about the purpose of the scheme, and he indicated that I had said that the scheme was for the benefit of the British farmers. It is true—and I do not complain of the noble Lord quoting this; he quoted it quite fairly—that I gave as my opinion that in the first place the possibility of enabling British farmers who wished to leave to realise their capital was a factor in the scheme. I said, I think, that that was the first and foremost priority. But having had the opportunity of further considering this point I have to say that I was going wrong in placing the emphasis in this way. Certainly the scheme we are now considering, this 400,000-acre scheme, could not possibly be justified to the British electorate as being a scheme to enable those who went to Kenya to realise their capital, and I must make clear that the 400,000-acre scheme is not designed to compensate British farmers.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I never at any time used the word "compensate". It is I think a word which is generally in disuse these days.
LORD BESWICK: All right, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, is not using the word because it is not applicable, and he will therefore agree with me that the Scheme is not designed to compensate British farmers. Nor, of course, were the previous schemes. It is a programme directed at the development of Kenya's economy. The British Government are providing funds not only, and not primarily, for the benefit of their own citizens, but for the benefit of the economy of Kenya. For this reason it is necessary to ensure that the prices paid by the Kenya Government for European farmers' land are not excessive in terms of Kenya's economic potential.
Equally, I agree with the noble Lord that the prices must not be so low that a British farmer cannot willingly accept them. But the evidence suggests that this balance is being maintained, though there will always be arguments about figures in individual cases. Similar arguments,
602
after all, are not unknown in this country. In the last two seasons or so farming conditions have been favourable and profits satisfactory and thus there is clearly a possibility of farmers putting a higher value on their land than they would have done in, say, 1963 or 1964. But of course the farmer, if he does not like the price offered, is under no obligation to accept it.
My Lords I feel that the British Government, and the British taxpayer, can take some credit for generosity in their support of land transfer schemes in Kenya. Over the past few years they have provided, or undertaken to provide, some £30 million for this purpose in loans and grants. Equally, we should pay a tribute to the Kenya Government who are borrowing funds to buy out British farms and committing themselves to a large outflow of capital from Kenya. The noble Lord and his friends would be well advised to reflect that there is criticism in Kenya itself of this scheme. There are those in Kenya who argue that the prices paid for British farms, based as I say on valuation by expatriate valuers, are too high. Others increasingly argue that in Kenya's present circumstances a land transfer scheme of this nature is not the best way of using scarce development funds.
It has been to the substantial advantage of the British farming community as a whole that their interests and those of the Kenya people have so far coincided to the extent that the Kenya Government have felt able to pursue a programme of land transfer with funds made available by Her Majesty's Government for their development. I do urge the noble Lord to realise the need to be careful lest by excessive criticism of particular, priced paid we do arouse emotions—and land prices in Kenya, as noble Lords will know, have always been an emotional subject. The danger is that excessive criticism may lead the Kenya Government, forced by its own public opinion, to have second thoughts about this scheme. It would not be in the interests of farmers if we caused that Government either to drop the scheme altogether or to substitute something less satisfactory. So far as we are concerned, we support the 400,000-acre programme;

603
modifications may be made in it to ensure its more efficient implementation. Certainly I agree with that, and I say to the noble Lord that we are considering the Trumper report. There may well be points in it which we could usefully pursue with the Kenya Government. It is a private document; it has no official status. But, nevertheless, if there are criticisms that have an element of justification we are always ready to consider them. So with this readiness to consider any justifiable modification, I can say that our earnest hope is that the 400,000-acre scheme will successfully be implemented. I hope that nothing will be said here or elsewhere that will prejudice this hoped-for success.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, fore the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I am in some difficulty. I asked him a question about the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary in another place that the scheme was designed to cover all those who wished to sell. Does the noble Lord now retract that statement? I understand that he has retracted to a certain extent what he said in your Lordships' House last time about the principal priority for the 400,000-acre scheme. I can understand the difficulty the noble Lord is in over that, but I should like to know whether he is also retracting the statement which was made in another place in August last year.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, so far as my own answer to a supplementary question is concerned, I have said this afternoon that, having looked at this matter again, although there was an element of truth in what I said, I was wrong in placing the emphasis in the way I did in the first place. So far as the statement made in another place is concerned, I have carefully quoted what the Parliamentary Secretary wrote to Mr. Wall, and if the noble Lord would be good enough to see in Hansard to-morrow what I said, he will see how far this is a modification of the original undertaking.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord was good enough to mention
604
in his speech that the present Kenya Government would not be prepared to receive a valuation under the Trumper report, but that they would accept any negotiation or contact with the British Government. Would it not be helpful if the British Government could suggest that somebody went to Kenya, particularly in view of that report?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think that the words I actually used—I have to be careful about these words so that there may be no further retraction—were that we have no reason to suppose they would not allow a representative of the British Government to discuss this matter. That is one of the points which I think must be considered in the general consideration of the Trumper report.

EPPING FOREST (WATERWORKS CORNER) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, yesterday, with Amendments.
ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (CANVEY ISLAND APPROACHES ETC.) BILL
Reported yesterday, with Amendments.
  OVERSEAS STUDENTS' FEES
  OVERSEAS STUDENTS' FEES