Sitting of 26 July 1973

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

TRUANCY AMONG SCHOOLCHILDREN
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government

(i) whether, in view of the recent allegation that nearly half a million schoolchildren play truant each week, they will conduct an inquiry into the causes of truancy;

(ii) whether they can supply weekly truancy figures for the boroughs within the ILEA area and for the outer London boroughs;

(iii) whether any attempt has been made to correlate levels of truancy with housing conditions and other factors making for family instability.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, the right reverend Prelate's Question is in three parts and my Answer is too. Part (i): the Association of Education Committees is at present conducting an inquiry into school attendance and allied problems, and I understand that the National Association of Chief Education Welfare Officers has more recently set up a working party to look into the main causes of irregular attendance and absence from school. My right honourable friend and I are considering whether any further investigation is called for.
Part (ii): My Department has never collected statistics about absence of pupils from school, and has no figures relating to the areas of individual local education authorities. Such figures would not in any case necessarily reveal
1930
the rate of truancy; that is, absence with out the permission of the school or the knowledge of the parent.
Part (iii): It is generally supposed that there is no single cause of truancy. Factors which make for family instability may well affect the incidence of truancy, but they are seldom the only factors in the situation; and in the absence of comprehensive figures and other data it is not possible to say whether there are any correlations.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply may I ask whether he would consider that his Department might get some facts and figures? There are so many allegations going around with regard to truancy, but in view of the risk that schoolchildren may become chronic truants if the school does not have an urgent procedure for immediate inquiry into the reasons for absence, can the noble Lord say whether there is any statutory obligation on local education authorities immediately to inquire into the reasons for a child's absence?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I confirm that we are doing what the right reverend Prelate wants us to do, namely, to consider whether any further investigation is called for; and of course it is the duty of the education welfare officers to inquire into the reasons for absence from school.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the most serious aspect of this problem is that truancy is often the first stage in juvenile delinquency, and that a great many of those children who begin as truants end up in the juvenile court? Will he also look at this aspect of the problem?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that this is often thought to be the case, and it may well be so; but I should not be able to confirm that it was so without this further investigation which my right honourable friend and I are considering.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would it not be true to say that many educationists are seized of this problem and are already looking into new ways of dealing with the children in classes, and that there is actual proof that a certain amount of delinquency is due to the fact

1931
that the ordinary academic, grammar-school type eduction is not suitable for some children?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that too may well be so; but, again, one cannot be certain or say anything very authoritative about it without further investigation.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, in view of the Minister's reply is he not surprised that his Department is completely ignorant about this problem? He was unable to answer a single part of this Question. Surely this is an astonishing situation. Further, is there not likely to be a relationship between the discontinuance of free milk in schools and truancy?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think there are much closer links than that. The main point is that the whole sphere of this important subject and the responsibility for ascertaining the causes behind it and dealing with them lies primarily with the local education authorities, and that is the reason why my Department does not have statistics.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, can the Minister state the percentage of truancy in the L.E.A.s in the provinces as compared with London?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, certainly not without notice; and for the reasons I have given, I doubt whether I could do it even with notice.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any special provision is made in the education priority areas for children who are persistent truants, in view of the fact revealed in the general household survey that, on the whole, educational opportunities are poor in working class areas?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I should prefer not to answer that particular question without notice, but I will certainly write to the right reverend Prelate.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, is not this topic more suitable for an Unstarred Question?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, I think it would certainly serve as a good topic for an Unstarred Question.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, will the Minister agree that these truant children are often the victims of their social circumstances, particularly in appalling housing and overcrowding where they cannot do any homework in the conditions in which they are living?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that might be so in some circumstances, but I should not like the House to conclude from that question that it is the sole cause.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the report which will be issued as a consequence of this inquiry will be made available in the Library? I think this is a subject which is worthy of debate because I hope the noble Lord will agree that the question is not purely one of the social conditions of the home but of many other factors of the great cities, including the very great pressures that our teachers are now undergoing. If more information were made available it would certainly be worthy, not of an Unstarred Question but perhaps of a major debate.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, my right honourable friend and I very much welcome the concern which noble Lords have expressed in this subject, and the present position is that neither of the two inquiries that is on hand, nor the one which my right honourable friend and I are undertaking, has been concluded; but I understand that the Association of Education Committees will publish their report.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's answer to my supplementary question—I can understand his inability to answer it this morning—would he undertake to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT comparative figures as between London and the Provinces?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I cannot speak for the exact form in which the Association of Education Committees will publish their report, but I would hope that it will go some way to answering the noble Lord's question?
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords may I ask the noble Lord this further question: Is he aware that there are areas in London where some children have not been to school for two years, and where the truancy rate is between 20 and 30 per cent.? In view of this sort of fact, what steps are being taken in such areas, now that the school age is being raised to over 15, to ensure there will be adequate attention given to this particular problem of the children aged 15-plus?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I certainly cannot confirm those figures, nor can I answer the question, without reference to the ILEA, the authority chiefly responsible, but I will make inquiries and write to the right reverend Prelate.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that these figures are readily available in the Provinces? They are brought up in magistrates' courts when parents are prosecuted because their children have not been to school. Is there any reason why London should be an exception?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am not surprised to know that the figures are available in the Provinces, and probably in a number of other areas. What I was saying is that they are not collected centrally in my Department.

SECURITY AND MINISTERS OF THE CROWN
11.15 a.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any Ministers of the Crown in the present century have been considered to be security risks; whether any have been dismissed from office or resigned because there were doubts about their integrity in security matters; how many persons in the Civil Service, or employed in Government service were discovered to be security risks, and what action was taken in such cases.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I cannot
1934
answer for any former Administrations, but under the present Administration no Minister has been dismissed from office. The House will appreciate that it is not for me to elaborate on the reasons for resignation given by Ministers in published correspondence with the Prime Minister. Each Department in the Civil Service is responsible for security within its own field. Centralised records about security risks and the action taken about them are not kept. It may, however, be helpful for the noble Lord to know that since the war there have been some twenty important cases of prosecution under the Official Secrets Acts of persons with access to Government secrets who were discovered to be security risks.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, does not that Answer disclose that throughout the whole of this century not a single Minister has been involved in a security matter, and that Ministers leave the court without a stain on their character? On the other hand, can the noble Lord explain why the Government accepted the recommendation in the recent Report on the Lambton case, which provided that, instead of Ministers' keeping an eye on civil servants, the Permanent Under-Secretary in each Department responsible for its own intelligence should keep a watchful eye on the Minister? Does he suppose that we are prepared to accept recommendations of that kind, which seem to indicate that Ministers are suspect? Can the noble Lord also explain why, subsequent to the submission of the Report, it was stated that Lord Lambton was not accused of any misdemeanour because he went with call girls but because he took drugs? Was this not known when he was in the Department?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Prime Minister asked the Security Commission to verify that no breach of security had taken place, and their Report is available. We discussed it at some length when I repeated the Prime Minister's Statement. I also said then, and I can repeat now, that while the Prime Minister has an overall responsibility for security, each Departmental Minister has a responsibility which he accepts for the security in his own Department. It is not left to civil servants.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, does not the noble Lord recall that he

1935
undertook to consider the desirability of having a Minister specially charged with this responsibility, rather than leaving the responsibility to civil servants to keep an eye on Ministers?
LORD WLNDLESHAM: My Lords, I think there is some misunderstanding on this point. Each Departmental Minister has a responsibility for security within his own Department, and the Prime Minister himself has accepted an overall responsibility for the security of all Ministers in all Government Departments. It has not been left to civil servants.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to explain why the Government have accepted recommendations in the Report that the Permanent Under-Secretary in the Department should guide the Minister, should keep a watchful eye on the Minister? If not in the Report, why does not the Prime Minister, who is primarily responsible for security over all Departments, make it abundantly clear that Ministers have as much right to keep an eye on the civil servants as the civil servants have to keep an eye on the Minister?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, civil servants can give guidance to Ministers on all manner of matters, but Ministers remain responsible.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that the implication of the Report is that civil servants are to keep an eye on their Ministers? Will some direction be given as to how this can be done, and also advice to Ministers as to the changing questions and conditions of security? Am I safe in continuing to collect durable cigarette cards while the Minister is collecting ephemeral French butter? If a civil servant sees his Minister in the Place Pigalle or at Kempton Past in the absence of Her Majesty are those matters he must enter on the table? Is it not rather more important to know whether we have a security report on Mr. Brezhnev or Mr. Nixon? Is the Minister aware that when I was a boy—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDSSpeech!
LORD HALE: I am extremely sorry if I am offending my noble friend in
1936
front, but I have listened to him often with great attention and at some length. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the act of copulation used to be a legitimate objective of male ambition when I was a boy? Why has the attitude now changed, and why is payment in the form of a mink coat acceptable and payment in money disreputable? Is not payment in floating currency rather more of a security risk to the recipient?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am not aware of the circumstances when the noble Lord was a boy, and I do not think I ought to comment on them. Nor am I aware that the words "keep an eye on" appear in the Report of the Security Commission. I can only repeat that the highest priority is given throughout the Government to this question of security. That has been the position in the past; it is now, and it will continue to be in the future.

TERRORIST MOVEMENTS: PRECAUTIONS IN BRITAIN
11.21 a.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the public statements which have been made that El Fatah, the Palestine Liberation Organisation and kindred movements are actively engaged in the promotion of terrorist action throughout the world; and what steps they propose to take to ensure that branches of these movements or their agents or groups of their members shall not be tolerated in Britain.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, I do not know what particular statements the noble Lord has in mind. But my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it clear in another place, and I myself have several times made it clear in your Lordships' House, that he will not hesitate to use to the full his powers to keep out or to expel any alien who seems likely to

1937
engage in acts of violence or to encourage or incite such acts.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that there was very great publicity given by the Sunday Telegraph to particulars of an appalling nature relating to the participation of El Fatah and other organisations in the conspiracies that are taking place to create violence and acts of terrorism, and to continue what I have already described, to help this cancer which is growing on civilisation? Does not the noble Viscount think that very careful attention should be paid to those who are conspiring in this country, as part and parcel of organisations which have been exposed time after time as participating in these conspiracies, and that something should be done about them? May I further ask the noble Viscount whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Doot and Others, which was an appeal heard in this House, in respect of conspiracy charges in relation to matters which were arranged first of all abroad, and with the help of people in this country? And will he please see to it that something definite is done to stop these villainous persons, these criminally-minded persons, from carrying on their activities?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think the Government have made it plain, not only to those in this country but to Governments abroad, that we utterly abhor this sort of violent approach, these acts of terrorism, and we certainly condemn them as strongly as we possibly can. The noble Lord said that there are people conspiring in this country. If that is so, they are subject to the criminal law in the same way as anybody else. If the noble Lord can inform me of the details of this conspiracy, I shall certainly see that they are passed on to the police, who are in charge of prosecutions. This is the way we operate, quite apart from the powers of my right honourable friend to deal with aliens. As to the case to which the noble Lord referred, I am afraid I have not read it, but I certainly will do so and see whether it gives us extra powers; but I think in fact the law as it is does give us very strong powers.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, while appreciating and thanking the noble Viscount for that answer, is it not perfectly clear, if people here are prepared to say that they are part and parcel of organisations which are carrying out these terrible activities, that they themselves are admitting, by being members of these organisations, that they are participating, either directly or indirectly, in their work? Will the noble Viscount see to it that proper investigation is made into the activities of those who openly declare themselves to be members of the organisations?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think to answer a question on the hypothesis that somebody may have said something, when we are dealing with matters that could be criminal in nature, would be very dangerous. I think one ought to be specific and look at the particular case concerned. As to doing something about it, while I think it would be quite wrong for me to go into the details of what is being done, does not the noble Lord understand that when my right honourable friend says that he will not fail to use his powers to expel aliens he means it? He has got this fear very much in his mind. I do not think I can go into the details.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that when I was a delegate at the United Nations, though I constantly defended the free and democratic right of organisations, I was always instructed to add that these organisations were not allowed to be formed if they incited people to violence? I should like to ask the Minister how many more Jumbo-jets are going to be blown up before the Government realise that El Fatah is an organisation which incites to violence?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, so far as I understand, the connection between the blowing up of the latest Jumbo-jet and El Fatah is very far from established; I certainly should not like to endorse that there is a connection, because I genuinely do not know. But the noble Baroness is quite right; we do have a check and a balance here. We have certain freedoms and we must see that they are not abused.

1939
But we work at the moment on individuals and not on organisations. This is how we have always done it in this country, and this is the way my right honourable friend at the moment thinks he can keep the matter under control.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of these replies, and in view of the serious loss of life, white as well as black, which is occurring in all parts of the world, particularly in Southern Africa, could the Government use their widespread intelligence services to learn to what extent these massive funds for such terrorism come from charity organisations in this country, of a character similar to the Rowntree Trust or the English section of the World Council of Churches?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I know that one can go very wide in your Lordships' House at Question Time, but I think that really is another question.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, would your Lordships permit me one further question? Is the noble Viscount saying that if a person openly admits that he is a member of Murder Incorporated or of a society—a matter that has been raised in this House—which has as its object promoting cholera or a similar disease in this country, that person would be allowed to be such a member without being prosecuted?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it is not an offence to belong to an organisation. What I am saying is that there is criminal law in this country which bites specifically upon acts of individual people. I really think it is most dangerous to hypothesise on a notional situation of this sort and try to get the Government to say, yes or no, this is a criminal offence. It is for the police to prosecute, and it is for the courts to decide.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Viscount bear in mind that it is written:
"As a man sows so shall he reap"?
The terrorism being perpetrated to-day by the Palestinians has its origin in some of the acts which led to the establishment of the State of Israel, and at this time of year particularly it would be in
1940
the noble Viscount's mind because two British sergeants, Sergeants Martin and Paice, were hung in an orange grove outside Natanya and their bodies were booby-trapped by the same agencies which are complaining to-day.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, that may or may not be so, but I am afraid that it really is another Question and it is not one I can answer to-day.

E.E.C.: SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS TO FARMERS
11.30 a.m.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the circumstances in which they have agreed to pay an additional £33 million to the E.E.C. as part of the cost of making supplementary payments to European farmers.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, this results from acceptance on July 24 by the Council of Ministers of a supplementary Community Budget for expenditure consequential on decisions previously taken under the Common Agricultural Policy.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, will the noble Earl be kind enough to tell the House why this Statement was not made in this House yesterday, since at noon yesterday the Minister responsible for the negotiations made a Statement in the House of Commons? Is the noble Earl not aware that at three o'clock yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said (this was in answer to my noble friend Lord Blyton) he had no knowledge of the Statement that had been made in the House of Commons but that he would make inquiries? Is he not aware that there is a strong suspicion that the Government wanted to keep this quiet for the simple reason that the agreement by the Minister at Brussels, reached only the night before, to pay £33 million as part of £400 million to subsidise the storage of cereals and butter which is eventually going to Russia was directly contrary to every-

1941
thing that was said from the Government Benches the previous night, because the policy is directed not to giving the people of this country cheap food but to making their food dearer?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on the noble Lord's question as to why the Statement was not repeated in this House, I must take some blame for this. When Statements are notified there are, as a rule, discussions through the usual channels as to whether or not a Statement to be made in another place should be repeated in this House. That does not in any way absolve me from deciding. If the other Parties would like the Statement repeated, then it is always done; if they do not particularly require it, then it is left to me to decide whether or not it should be given. These are the circumstances that arose yesterday. If I did wrong, then I must take full responsibility.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, what the noble Earl is saying in plain English is that he consulted with the Opposition Front Bench and they agreed that the Statement should not be made. That statement absolves him and is an honourable one; but so far as my noble friends are concerned it is disgraceful. It is a disgrace that will rest on their shoulders, and reflects on the rights of this House as a whole. I submit to the Government—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD WIGG: My Lords, then I ask the question: do not the Government agree that this House has a right as a whole and that it should not be left to the convenience of the few because they have followed contrary policies here and they want to keep it quiet?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, before my noble friend replies—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord wishes to intervene to stop what might become a rather embarrassing situation. Since, in a sense, this question, in its present form, is addressed as much to the Opposition Front Bench as to the Government, perhaps I may have the leave of the House to reply and speak not in the form of a question. The noble Earl the Government Chief Whip was extremely fair in
1942
his statement, and he took, as my noble friend Lord Wigg admitted, the major responsibility. It is quite true that the major responsibility rests on the Government, and the consultations through the usual channels do not absolve the Government from their responsibility to the House. At the same time, it is exceedingly difficult, either for the Leader of the House or for the Government Chief Whip, to decide whether or not repetition of a Statement is desirable. The House has in fact charged the Leader with this responsibility.
I was not aware of what transpired yesterday, and it so happened that I was not consulted. However, this is not the point, because my noble friend Lord Wigg seemed to imply that it was the fact that a different policy was followed here from the one that he himself wishes to follow that influenced the decision. I must rebut this. In fact, my noble friend Lord Beswick—with whom I have not discussed this matter—no doubt took into account the usual considerations, including the fact that the Statement had been made in another place, that there was an urgent debate and that, on the whole, the House does not like its debates interrupted more than necessary.
It may well be that there was an error of judgment in this matter, but I must say to noble Lords that this is an onerous responsibility which I think the usual channels try to discharge in the best interests of the House, and very much taking into account the views of those with whom they are not in agreement. This was a factor that I, when I was Leader of the House, used to pursue. One often asked whether a Statement was wanted when one may not have wanted it, but one would agree if there was a demand. I do not know the precise circumstances in this case, but I must defend my noble friend Lord Beswick, and indeed the Government Chief Whip, and conclude that they acted in what they regarded as the best interests of the House.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, leaving aside the silting up of the usual channels, a matter which might be dealt with on another occasion, does not the Minister agree that the matter of an additional expenditure of £33 million is a worthy subject to put before your

1943
Lordships' House? Will the Minister recall that only the other day, when the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, asked the Government to agree that those whose suffer from the affliction of blindness should be relieved from the imposition of V.A.T. on the cost of a wireless licence, the Government declared that they could not afford it? They could not afford that, but they can afford, at the behest of the Commission in Brussels, to subscribe another £33 million.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, will my noble friend the Chief Whip and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, accept that most of us in this House feel that the usual channels perform a difficult job with exceptional success?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, will the Minister—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, there is no question of "Order!". I want the noble Earl to reply to my question. I see no reason for the intervention of the noble Viscount opposite.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I answer the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell? The answer is simply that under the European Communities Act we have our obligations to the European Economic Community, and one of those obligations was to accede in the supplementary budget which was requested; and this is what was done.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, as perhaps the only person in this House who does not agree with the noble Viscount who spoke, may I ask, in an interrogative form—although I notice that the rules of order are applied somewhat unevenly—whether the noble Earl is aware that I, for one, do not agree that the two Front Benches do a good job? What they do is a job of convenience to themselves.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD WIGG: Shout as much as you like, that is my view and I shall express it inside this House and outside it. This House represents a certain number of sectional interests—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD WIGG: My Lords, the noble Lord from the Front Bench was allowed to make a small statement and I ask for the same right, to make a similar statement. The issue here is one of transcendental importance. Noble Lords may dissent, but it was a Statement by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the House of Commons. Are the Government aware that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a Cabinet Minister, went to the House of Commons and made a Statement which was acutely controversial, in which he was expressing the residual power that remains in the joint Houses of Parliament? He was saying that, without the Cabinet being consulted, at the instance of the French, £33 million had to be paid by the British taxpayer as part of a sum of £400 million.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD WIGG: Are the Government aware that this is what he said: that part of the £400 million, expressed in Monetary units, was to store butter and to store wheat to prevent its coming on the market, in order to keep prices high, and that this House only passed—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
LORD WIGG: Is the Minister aware that this House and another place passed the European Communities Act only on the affirmation by the Government in both Houses that the residual powers, or some residual powers, rested in this House and in another place? In fact, this House is nothing more than a rubber stamp.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, before anyone answers, may I ask my noble friend whether he recollects that the Companion to the Standing Orders states that neither Starred Questions nor supplementary questions must contain expression of opinion?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I brought my copy of the Companion to the Standing Orders into the Chamber with me to-day, because I thought that we might have some exchanges of this sort. The Government Chief Whip has said that if he slipped up in this matter after making consultations he takes responsibility for that, and I certainly share that responsibility. As Leader of the House, my job is to help the interests

1945
of all Members—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and to the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, who has put down a Private Notice Question to-day—and it is extremely difficult to reconcile all the interests of the Front Benches and the Back Benches. But I assure the noble Lord that my job is to try to do that, and if we slip up we shall try to discuss the matter in a friendly, responsible way. It seems to me that we have taken this Question as far as we can to-day. The noble Lord may wish to return to it on other occasions, but I think we should move on now.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, before we move on, is it now possible to ask about points of fact arising out of the Question? Because so far we have delivered ourselves only to speeches on procedure.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, that is a perfectly fair point. We have now spent 45 minutes on four Starred Questions, but if there are a number of questions on points of fact I know that by noble friend Lord Ferrers is prepared to answer them. But if noble Lords wish to proceed with the rest of the Business, I think it would be a good idea to do so.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can my noble friend who answered the Question originally say what, to date, is Britain's total net contribution to the E.E.C. Budget this year?
EARL FERRERS: Not without notice, my Lords.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: Is my noble friend aware that there is a question here of whether or not the Government's forecast in paragraph 93 of the White Paper (Cmnd. 4715), issued before we passed the European Communities Bill, has been exceeded? Some of us are very anxious about that.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I know that my noble friend will accept that the costs of the Common Agricultural Policy are not precisely predictable, as indeed were not the costs of the agricultural policy which we used to support in this country. That is the reason why a supplementary Budget has been requested, and the Council of Ministers have decided that this is the right course to adopt. With regard to the other part
1946
of my noble friend's question, there will be an opportunity of debating this matter when the public expenditure White Paper is considered.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House will accept my personal thanks to him for the courtesy he has shown me to-day. I should much prefer to play the game in that way, and I always try to play it according to the rules. But I am not having one set of rules for me and another set of rules for everyone else.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, will the noble Earl include in Hansard the percentages of this Community Budget which we shall be expected to pay by the 1980's, because my information is that it is an opened-ended arrangement? Finally, will the noble Earl agree that now we are trapped, as some of us predicted, and have we not thrown away the great asset of the largest food producing and buying country in the world for this shadow, rather than substance, of joining the Community?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, if he is prepared to put down a Question, either for oral Answer or for written Answer, I will certainly provide the information. With regard to the second part of his question, I cannot agree that the Government have been trapped by a shadow, as he described it. We have our obligations to the Community, and the noble Lord will be glad to know that in discussing the agricultural policy with the Community earlier this year, my right honourable friend was able to get agreement that the whole of the Common Agricultural Policy should be reviewed.

NORTH SEA GAS: PURCHASE AGREEMENT
11.45 a.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the prices and conditions contained in yesterday's agreement between the Gas Council and the operators of

1947
the Frigg field and why the powers of arbitration possessed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in respect of the British portion of the field were not invoked.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, prices and conditions negotiated for the purchase of gas from the Frigg field are a matter for the British Gas Corporation and the operators.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, will the Minister agree that his Answer is strictly contrary to the spirit of the promise that the Government will not issue licences and tolerate agreements before the review of the whole North Sea gas and oilfield question has been completed and the results have been debated in both this House and the other place?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we are not talking about new licences here; we are talking about supply from an existing licence holder. It may help the noble Lord if I say that the Government were aware of the limits within which the British Gas Corporation intended to negotiate, and we saw no reason to disagree with the British Gas Corporation's commercial judgment.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is it not quite evident that if the Gas Council has agreed to a price which did not make the Frigg field operators appeal to the Minister for arbitration, then that price must have been too high?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should not have thought so, because both parties have to judge where the commercial interests lie. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that I should have expected him to welcome very much—as I am sure we all do—the announcement that was made in the Press this morning that the British Gas Corporation had successfuly negotiated for the entire supply of gas from both the United Kingdom and the Norwegian sectors of the Frigg field, to come to this country. It is a matter for great gratification.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, while I am sure that the Minister is correct in saying what he has said about the price agreed between the Gas Council and the operators of the field, may I ask whether
1948
it has not always been the practice hitherto for Ministers to answer direct questions put to them on prices? Is he not aware that we all know how much was paid for the gas from Hewitt and Indefatigable; and why should not the House be given the same information in respect of Frigg?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, for one thing, this is a matter which has appeared in the papers only this morning. It would be very unusual for information about prices to be given at that stage. In fact, in this case it is not possible to give it because the contracts between the British Gas Corporation and their various suppliers are subject to confirmation. So far as the Norwegian side is concerned, I understand that they are subject to the consent of the Norwegian Government, because of the fact that the gas is not going to Norway but is coming to this country.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Financial Times has stated this morning that we are going to pay about twice the price which we have paid hitherto? Is he also aware that the Russians have just re-negotiated their Persian purchases, in respect of which they agreed to only a 3 per cent. increase, and in effect, the price is about half of what the old price was?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, but circumstances differ. In his Question the noble Lord referred to "prices and conditions" and the terms involved are inseparable from prices. I am told that the contract is a very considerable document.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
TILE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)TILE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL) rose to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. LIBRARY
A Report from the Sub-Committee on the Library for the year 1972 was laid before the Committee and agreed.
The Committee authorised payment of an annual subscription fee for representative membership of the London Library.
2. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Leader of the House laid before the Committee the Report on the Parliament Office made personally to him by the group of Peers consisting of the Viscount Hood, the Lord Mancroft and the Lord Champion which, on the proposal of the then Leader of the House, the Committee had agreed should be set up on 10th February 1972.
The Committee considered and agreed to the following recommendations:—

(1) to entrust to the Civil Service Commission the sifting and selection of candidates for appointment by the Clerk of the Parliaments to Clerkships in the House of Lords;

(2) to increase the authorised complement of Clerks in 1974 to 15 plus two seconded;

(3) to set up a House of Lords Appeals Board consisting of the Viscount Hood, the Lord Mancroft and the Lord Champion, on lines similar to those which operate in the Civil Service, to consider cases of premature retirement under the provisions of the Civil Service Pension Scheme 1972;

(4) to set up a Sub-Committee consisting of the Viscount Hood and the Lord Champion, and that the Lord Mancroft be co-opted to the Sub-Committee, to concern itself with all staff in the service of the House, with special reference to the well being and efficiency of the Parliament Office;

(5) the creation for not less than two years of a temporary post of Head of Establishments at a salary equivalent to Senior Principal in the Civil Service.

The Committee took note of a personal undertaking by the Lord Chancellor, reaffirming the established practice of his predecessors, to carry out appropriate consultations before seeking the approval of the House for appointments to the Table; and a similar joint undertaking by the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House before making recommendations in relation to the appointment of the Clerk of the Parliaments.
The Committee also considered a recommendation that the retiring age in the Parliament Office should be reduced from 65 to accord with the Civil Service practice of retirement after 60, but agreed to take no action on this recommendation.
3. REPORTING STAFF
The Committee took note of an oral report by the Clerk of the Parliaments relating to the industrial action by the House of Lords Reporters.
4. SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE 1973–74
The Committee were informed of the presentation of a token Supplementary Estimate for 1973–74 to provide for the expenses of supporting services to members of the European Parliament for the purpose of attending Meetings of the European Parliament and its Committees.
5. ACCOUNTANT'S DEPARTMENT
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee that he had appointed Mr. E. W.
1950
Field, the Assistant Accountant, to be Receiver of Fees and Accountant on Mr. R. W. Hill's retirement, Mr. R. A. Devin as Assistant Accountant and Mr. C. G. Osborne to the Higher Executive post with effect from 1st April, 1973.
6. REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee confirmed the application of EC/82, dated 16th May, 1973—General Pay Increase—giving revised rates of pay from 1st April, 1973 to applicable staff of the House of Lords.
7. DEPARTMENT OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD
The Committee authorised the appointment of an additional Doorkeeper and two additional Housemaids on the staff of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and Serjeant-at-Arms.
The Committee also sanctioned additional provision for Doorkeepers' dress suits.
8. EXPENSES OF SELECT COMMITTEES
The Committee approved a revised scale of subsistence allowances payable to Specialist Advisers, Research Assistants and Witnesses.
9. MEAL ALLOWANCES
The Committee approved an increase in the rate of meal allowance payable to certain officials working late in the evening after normal day's duty.
10. SUPERANNUATION AWARDS
The Committee gave authority to the Chairman of Committees and the Clerk of the Parliaments to apply the benefits of the 1972 Pension Scheme to eligible House of Lords staff immediately at the end of their service and to report accordingly to the Committee at their next Meeting.
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a preserved pension and lump sum to Mr. Frederick James Goodhill, Office Assistant, who resigned on 30th April, 1973.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to. —(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS BILL
11.50 a.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, we now return to usual business, and I beg to move that the Government Trading Funds Bill be now read a second time. This is a short Bill, almost entirely concerned with finance. It provides that a restricted range of Government organisations may be financed through trading funds rather than from

1951
Votes. This change in the method of financing is not an end in itself. With a number of other changes which are being introduced in the managements of the organisations, it is designed to enable them to carry out those activities more effectively. These changes are known in management jargon as the creation of "units of accountable management". The impetus for the development of this idea in Government came from the Report of the Fulton Committee. They found that the system of consultation and committees, which are an essential part of the policy-making task and stem from the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, were not well-suited to other activities since they abscure responsibility and accountability. They argued that relevant parts of Departments should be reorganised so that responsibility and authority was defined and allocated more clearly, and so that the output of the organisation could be measured in relation to its costs. "Accountable management" means holding those individual management units responsible for their performance.
I need hardly remind the House that the previous Government created the Civil Service Department to carry through the Fulton reforms generally, or that the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, was in day-to-day charge of that Department during its very critical first two years. The previous Government in particular started work on the application of the concept of "accountable management". We, for our part, have carried this work forward, particularly in relation to the executive activities of Government—minting money, for example, or making maps—for which the concept appears to be particlularly well-suited. The concept is being applied in different ways in different areas. This enabling Bill is directed to applying it in a relatively small number of cases, but important ones, where it appears that a change in the method of financing would make an important contribution to effectiveness.
The Government consider that trading funds may be appropriate for organisations which have two principal characteristics. The first would be in situations where trading activities form a significant part of their functions, as in the ex-
1952
amples I gave; secondly, where the nature of their activities overall is such that the Government consider that they ought nevertheless to remain the direct responsibility of Ministers and not be hived-off as statutorily distinct bodies, in the way that, for example, the Manpower Services Commission will be a statutorily distinct body. This may be because their trading activities are so directly involved with the main process of Government, or with the achievement of Government objectives, that direct Ministerial control is required. The Royal Ordnance Factories are an example of this, and another, of course, is Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I should emphasise again that the Bill is an enabling one, and that the Government are not committed to introducing trading funds for all the bodies named in the Bill. But we thought that it would help Parliament if we named on the face of the Bill the organisations for which trading funds are being seriously considered, rather than just naming the two to which the Government are committed, at the Royal Ordnance Factories and the Royal Mint, leaving the others to be dealt with if need be under general powers. The Government will take their decisions on the individual cases when the preparatory work of itemising future tasks and developing suitable management systems have been completed. If they decide that a switch to trading fund finance is desirable, they will table the draft Order in each case and seek the necessary Affirmative Resolution. Here, of course, is where Parliamentary approval comes in.
As I have said, the Bill will change the method of financing activities and innovations which we have been talking about. I need hardly remind your Lordships of the principles underlying the present system of financing these services; namely, the Parliamentary system of Supply. Over the greater part of the Government's expenditure this system is simple, appropriate and effective, and we certainly do not wish to propose any general change in it. But there have been two respects in which the simple Vote and Appropriation Account system does not match the characteristics of a trading activity. The Appropriation Accounts by themselves do not provide an adequate basis for assessing the performance of a trading organisation, and

1953
a system of management control suitable for a trading operation is not readily reconcilable with the cash system inherent in Votes. It is possible to get over the first difficulty to some degree, at any rate, by producing trading accounts, and this is already done in some cases. But experience has shown that management does not pay sufficient regard, perhaps, to improving its performance in relation to these acounts if it has to look over its shoulder all the time at the cash controls imposed by our present system. The Supply procedure is such that Ministers and acounting officers are more likely to pay attention to remaining within their authorised cash outlay than to obtaining an adequate return on their assets, which is surely at least as important. The Bill is intended to bring the method of financing for these trading activities into line with known desirable methods of managing organisations which have significant capital assets. By giving a standing authority to apply receipts to expenditure, it removes the inhibitions on management caused by the existing control on cash expenditure on inputs. The fact that all the costs entered in the trading accounts will correspond to actual outgoings, especially the servicing of the capital, should help to focus management's attention on the trading and management accounts, and on the return which it is obtaining on the capital employed. This will be reinforced by the requirement to meet a financial target.
I now turn to the Bill itself. It provides that Orders may be made introducing trading funds for each of the six services named in the Bill, and for any other trading service within the Government. The Order introducing a trading fund for a particular service would require an Affirmative Resolution in the House of Commons. It would specify the borrowing limits, and whether there should be any element of public dividend capital in the initial capital structure. As I explained, we thought it right to name explicitly in the Bill all those organisations for which the Government at present consider there to be a serious possibility of a trading fund. We have also included as a matter of contingency a provision in Clause 1(3)(g) for the extension to other trading services. We have no particular services in mind for this at present, but it would seem wrong to exclude at
1954
this stage the possibility of extending the trading fund method of finance to other services, which will probably be relatively minor, in case further work on their organisation and management suggests that a trading fund would be sensible for them also. Because of the Affirmative Resolution procedure Parliament would have an opportunity to consider the merits of every case.
Now given the enabling nature of the Bill and the fact that the Government have not yet made up their mind in many cases, I will not attempt to justify now the full arguments for a trading fund in each case; but the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has very kindly given me notice that he is concerned about the implications of the reference in the Bill to Ordnance Survey. I shall therefore concentrate my remarks on that case, but before doing so I should perhaps refer very briefly to the others. The Government have accepted the recommendation of the Mallabar Committee that the Royal Ordnance factories should have a trading fund. The factories already have an "arm's-length" relationship, as it were, with the rest of the Ministry of Defence: they supply, and are paid for, armaments under fixed-price contracts. On the other hand, the Government have also accepted the conclusion of the Committee that the work of the Royal Ordnance factories is so involved with Defence requirements that it is right that they should continue to be directly responsible to Ministers.
The Royal Mint is the other organisation in respect of which a firm decision has been taken and announced. As noble Lords will be aware, it is not only responsible for the United Kingdom coinage but also for developing export sales, where, as your Lordships know, I may say, it has an altogether excellent record. It has in fact just received, for the second time, the Queen's Award for Industry. Arrangements have now been developed to introduce an appropriate customer/supplier relationship between the Treasury and the Mint for the United Kingdom coinage. In another place the Public Accounts Committee have welcomed the move to a trading fund for the Mint. In two other notable cases trading fund finance is being treated as a planning assumption although a final decision will not be taken until the full implications of that assumption

1955
for the future management of the services has been properly worked out. These cases are Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Supplies Divisison of the Property Services Agency. The Government have also accepted in principle the recommendation of the Mallabar Committee that the Royal Dockyards should also have a trading fund. But the position in the dockyards is very different from the Royal Ordnance factories and much more work has to be done before a decision can be taken—for example, on establishing a clear customer/contractor relationship between the Fleet and the dockyards.
Finally, there is the important case of the Ordnance Survey. I say "finally" not because it is the least important of the organisations named, although it is one of the smaller ones, but because the Government have not yet reached any decision on its future method of financing beyond the decision that trading fund finance is a possibility to be examined after certain other work has been done. Like the other organisations, it has a fine tradition of service; we can be very proud as a nation of the quality of our mapping, the global standards set and the invaluable service it has supplied to our scientific community.
The Secretary of State for the Environment announced in February of this year that the Ordnance Survey will continue to function as the central survey and mapping organisation in the public sector. He said that further inquiries would be made on the future scale of provision of some maps and services and that further work had to be done on the development of accounting systems. Only then would the final decision be taken on the appropriate form of financing.
My Lords, I should make two points absolutely clear in this respect. The first is that a decision to finance Ordnance Survey from a trading fund, if it were taken, would not make it wholly into a trading body or one that was bound solely by commercial criteria. If that were the case, the organisation could be better set up as a private company—and there are no plans for that. The concept of a trading fund requires only that a significant part of the operation of the organisation should be of a trading nature. The Secretary of State's announcement recognised that the Ordnance Sur-
1956
vey are carrying out a national role. The point of the Government's proposals is that the Ordnance Survey is discharging both a national role and acting as a trading organisation but that at present the two are inextricably intermixed. It is impossible to say how far the deficits are being incurred on operations which merit support from the public purse and how far on activities which do not merit such support. In the future, whether or not there is a trading fund, there will be a conscious decision as to which operations can be assessed by commercial yardsticks and as to which operations merit continuance, even though there is no prospect of "breaking even" in commercial terms. If there is a trading fund, it is envisaged that there will be explicit payments from the Department of the Environment to the Ordnance Survey under a "contract"; for example, to carry out a defined programme of large-scale survey to a specified standard. This should both clarify decision taking and improve accountability to Parliament.
The second point is that the Secretary of State's announcement and the subsequent statement by the Director General of Ordnance Survey did not mark the completion of a review of the individual map series but the beginning of a consultation process about certain services. The Government will take full account of the representations which they are now receiving as the result of those very extensive consultations before final decisions are made, particularly on the 2½-inch map as a national series. The decisions on what products and services should be continued, even though they cannot fully recoup their costs from normal sales revenue, will not be affected by the decision on what should be the future method of financing the Ordnance Survey. This Bill is concerned mainly with method. The decisions will be taken in the light of what the consultations that I mentioned have established to be the benefits of the product or service and the likely costs of continuing it in various possible forms.
My Lords, to sum up, the inclusion of Ordnance Survey in this Bill in no way prejudices the decisions on map series and other matters now under consultation. It merely keeps the options open on the ultimate method of financing the Survey. I would make a few last general points. First, the timing of

1957
the introduction of trading funds will also vary from case to case since it is dependent on a number of other changes in the organisation and management of the services concerned. We hope, if Parliament approves this Bill this Session and subject to completion of the necessary preparatory work, to lay a draft order providing for a trading fund for the Royal Ordnance factories from April 1, 1974, at about the turn of the year. Work on some of the other services might take up to a further two or three years to complete. Secondly, Clause 4 provides that the trading fund organisations will remain the direct responsibility of Ministers. It will be possible, as now, for Members of either House to put down Questions or to write to a Minister about their activities. The accountability to Parliament of a service transferred to a trading fund is likely, if anything, to be made more rather than less effective. The answerability of the trading funds to Parliament will be reduced only to the limited extent that they will no longer produce Estimates and Appropriation Accounts. But we should expect that the whole group of measures which go together under the title of "Accountable Management" would offset this. I therefore commend this Bill to the House as one which will make a modest but useful step in the direction of improved management and accountability of certain organisations within Government. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Gowrie.)
12.7 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl has given a very clear and reasonable account of the purposes of this Bill. If I have to raise certain criticisms of the Government in regard to it, I assure the noble Earl that my doing so is not in any way determined by Party feelings. Indeed, I know of no other Bill of such importance which has received so easy a passage in another place—which, on the whole, is a little more inclined to Party politics than are we. It is true that, as the noble Earl has said, as a former Minister in day-to-day charge of the Civil Service Department I was involved in these policy considerations. I am bound to
1958
say that I have been perhaps a little more sceptical of such concepts as management by objective, accountable management or the other fashionable management jargon of the day. My reason for scepticism is not in regard to the principles set out by Fulton but in regard to the manner of its implementation, in regard to the degree of Parliamentary control over such decisions as might be taken in this field and dependent also on the most thorough consideration before any decision was taken. It is all too easy, for cosmetic reasons, to say, "Let us hive off this lot. This is consistent with general Government policy." No Government are immune, I regret to say, from this sort of tendency.
I was encouraged in certain respects by the noble Earl's saying that Parliamentary Questions could still be asked about the activities of these trading fund organisations; although I am bound to say that if that degree of Parliamentary accountability exists, it militates precisely against the type of accountable management that the noble Earl is speaking about. There is a real conflict here. Parliamentary accountability is a very different thing from accountable management in the sense that the noble Earl has spoken—which was to create a degree of independence and to judge results largely on the success of the operation in financial terms. We could talk at great length on the philosophy of this matter. I only mention it to show that the theory behind the concepts of units of accountable management could fill a whole university seminar for a very lengthy time.
My Lords, there is another anxiety that I have with regard to this Bill. The noble Earl has said that no decision has been taken, for instance, with regard to the Ordnance Survey. I think he said that the Royal Mint and the R.O.Fs. would become units of accountable management under the Trading Funds Bill, but it is not good enough for the Government to say that no decision is taken, that this Bill is purely enabling; because if we pass the Bill in this form we are, to a very large extent, deciding in principle, subject to a little more examination, that those listed in the Bill will in fact be the subject of the operation of the Bill. The fact that there will be a further opportunity for Parliament to consider this is not as convincing, when

1959
one comes to examine it, as at first appears, because in fact all that Parliament will be able to do is to say "Yea" or "Nay" to an Affirmative Resolution. It may be that they can say that they will not have it, but generally the process does not work in this way and once again—and it is an inevitable legislative tendency—we have an example of an enabling Bill which will allow the Government to go ahead without the ordinary safeguards and procedures that exist in dealing with a matter of this kind by Bill rather than by Order. There will be no opportunity to discuss safeguards, there will be little opportunity even to quiz whether the thinking behind the decision is correct. Therefore on principle, though I am not in any way opposing the Bill, I do not think your Lordships ought to think of it as being as simple as perhaps the noble Earl made it sound.
There do exist important Parliamentary principles, and going back (as some of us do) to the days just after the war the Labour Government were under continual criticism—and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will remember this—for proceeding by what one called enabling Bills or enabling Acts and thereafter just being able to pass an Order. I think these criticisms are to some extent valid to-day, and I would hope that it might be possible for the Government between now and the Committee stage to give some consideration to devising a procedure by which Parliament, before being asked to approve an Order, was given the opportunity to examine it, perhaps by Select Committee or in draft, to be able to go thoroughly into the appropriate nature of the proposal and to judge in fact that it meets the criteria which it appears the Government are setting, though we do not know precisely what those criteria are. For instance, I think the noble Earl said that it depended to some extent on there being sizeable trading activities. I have no idea what "sizeable" means. Is it 10 per cent., or must the majority of this fund be capable of being financed outside the Treasury and public finances? I do not necessarily expect the noble Earl to answer to-day, but these
1960
are the kinds of matters which, when an Order is made, it would be desirable for Parliament to have an opportunity to check.
It is partly because of the way that the Government have proceeded in regard to this Bill that such deep suspicion has been aroused, particularly in the scientific world. If I may, I now declare an interest as President of the Royal Geographical Society; none the less, I do not speak in a representative capacity. I am glad to see the President of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society here also. The very deepest anxiety has been caused in scientific and geographical circles with regard to the Bill, and it is not good enough for the Government to say that they just misunderstand; it is for the Government to tell people what they are proposing. The Minister's statements were made earlier in the year and this Bill was introduced, almost flung, into the Commons on May 17. There was no White Paper and practically no consultation with outside bodies. It is this sort of thing that causes real anxiety. I have warned the noble Earl that he will almost certainly be receiving representations from the Royal Society, the Royal Geographical Society, the Geographical Association and, for all I know, the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, the Geological Association and many other bodies —and it may well be that the Government will have an answer for them. But the Government have created the type of anxiety and suspicion that they could well have avoided.
The decisions or the proposals with regard to the Ordnance Survey have been taken as the result of consideration by an internal review committee. Its report has not been published—there are probably good reasons why it should not be reported—but I must say to the noble Earl that sitting at the Council of the Royal Geographical Society surrounded by admirable and distinguished Conservatives, the language they have used about a Government which claims to follow a policy of open government was of a great deal more vigour than much of the argument put out by my Party. I must stress to the noble Earl that there is real anxiety and real feeling.

1961
What are we told in regard to the Ordnance Survey? We are told in the statement that the 1/25,000 map series is at risk. The Statement was:
"A review will be undertaken of the need of the public sector for maps of the scale of 1/25,000."—
this is the two-and-a-half inch map—
"If the public sector requirement does not justify the continued production of this series it will be open to the Ordnance Survey to consider the publication of individual sheets or composite sheets where it considers the market can support them."
My Lords, the reason why this country is as well mapped and as well surveyed and has set such a leading example to the world, is that in an age of tremendous private enterprise motivation, the 19th century, this area was dealt with by those who were publicly motivated in this matter. I do assure noble Lords I am not trying to make a Party political point. I could give the list of users of the 1/25,000 series. I am sorry to go into such detail but it is necessary to explain why we have anxieties about this Bill when these statements are made. The two-and-a-half inch map is a post-war publication; before the war we did not have it. It has become extremely valuable, not only to geographers but certainly to a very large number of geographical students. A figure has been given of about half a million people who use it, or who may at some time need to use it. Certainly the geologists need it. They have recently been producing geological maps of this scale based on the Survey. Road planners and others need it. The Government will say, "That is fine; if there is a public demand, then it will pay". But it will not necessarily pay; it does not necessarily become a commercial operation. It may well be that the Government will have to take account of a good deal of demand which is not easily measurable. At any rate, there is great concern about this, and that is one of the reasons why this Bill is Prefaced by a statement of that kind.
The second area of concern is with regard to the tertiary levelling. Here again there was a statement that:
"The provision of tertiary bench marks will, after an appropriate transition period, cease to be a routine service and will become a repayment service."
I will quote what was said in the record of the Institute of Photogrammetry and
1962
here again I will not read the whole. It states:
"A series of large-scale plans, or a tertiary levelling system supplies a need that cannot be treated to the same commercial assessment that accountants give to Lyons Dairymaid."
I quote that to show the strength of feeling there is in this matter. I should have thought that tertiary levelling was not likely to be a commercially justifiable undertaking, but it is vital to geologists and geophysicists and others. So I hope that before we come to the Committee stage of the Bill the Government will do certain things. First, will they undertake to receive representations from the various scientific bodies, and to take time to consider them and, above all, to answer them? Secondly, would they consider the possibility of certain additional protection in the Bill; for instance, by way of requiring that a candidate under the Trading Funds Bill, whether listed in the Bill or not, should be the subject of a special procedure? Again I warn about the danger of enabling legislation, which is so attractive to Governments but which reduces the area of public scrutiny.
Thirdly, will the Government be able to give some of the information which led to the particular decision to include some of the candidates that they have already put in the Bill? The noble Earl did give some, and I do not disagree. These have been subject—the Royal Ordnance Factory, and the Dockyards—to exhaustive consideration by Committees over a number of years. The same thing applies to the Royal Mint. But there are others, not even listed, and the Ordnance Survey—I am sorry to keep coming back to this point—is classically one which has not been the subject of the sort of consideration which is desirable. We shall need a great deal more information about this before the autumn.
I apologise to your Lordships for taking up so long on what may seem to some people a small matter, but the Government have had a pretty rough time following the report of the Rothschild recommendations; they are going to be in for more trouble and they had better get a move on and think out the implications. And, please, will they show goodwill and answer satisfactorily, and themselves be intellectually convinced of the criticisms that are put to them? I

1963
have had previous discussions with Ministers, and particularly with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who is always sympathetic, but I do not as yet trust the knowledge of Government Departments in every area of life and I am nervous of a change of emphasis in some of these matters, however logical it may seem, without a great deal more consideration than has been given to it.
12.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I recall that many years ago I was responsible for two of these services, and that leads me to say that I think that in general the proposals here are very sensible. There are cases of semi-commercial operations of this sort where the ordinary financial and accountancy and cash control procedures and the Vote system are inappropriate. On the other hand, one sees that bodies of the kind mentioned here cannot be hived right away from the responsibility of the Ministers concerned. I go with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in saying that always we ought to be vigilant about enabling legislation; and perhaps because, with the multiplicity of Government activities nowadays, it may be inevitable that we shall have more and more of it. That does not mean that on every single occasion we ought not to look at it very carefully to find out whether it is necessary. In this case it is probably a sensible arrangement, but no doubt when we come to the Committee stage we shall want to talk about it.
With the lapse of time, my Lords, what I cannot remember is whether I had direct responsibility for tertiary levelling. My memory is a little dim about that. If I did, I do not remember its having kept me lying awake at night. But no doubt when we come to the Committee stage I shall understand. Regarding the Ordnance Survey, the last thing I should want to do would be to quarrel with anything said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I agree entirely that the standards of this service are standards of which we in this country have every reason to be extremely proud. I do not believe that applying the trading fund system to the Ordnance Survey need in any way diminish or put those standards at risk. Our maps in this country are uniquely excellent and it would be a
1964
tragedy if anything were done by over-emphasising immediate profit and loss considerations to reduce their quality. I remember during the war hearing soldiers who had to fight in other countries saying that if only we could let the Germans invade this country so that we could take them on with the benefit of the Ordnance Survey maps victory would be more assured. I am not saying that the main purpose of our Ordnance Survey maps is a military purpose; they are for many purposes. I think that in general this Bill is right, that we should be wise to give it a Second Reading, and that we should be wise also to look at it in Committee to see that the powers we are giving are in fact sensible.
12.28 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I want to add one or two words in support of the two noble Lords who have spoken on this question of the Ordnance Survey. I do not think that it is a small question; it is probably the main one that we shall explore in Committee. Therefore one need make no apology for raising it on Second Reading and giving the Minister notice that he will be required to deal with these questions in somewhat greater detail. In the meanwhile he has the opportunity to accept some of the very reasonable points put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, which I can tell the Minister, from correspondence I have had with geographers, mean a great deal to them. If he can satisfy them—and I think that his speech this morning went some way to do so—it will ensure the better progress of the Bill and the Ordnance Survey under its new role, if and when it becomes one of the trading funds.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, it is unfortunate that we got off here to a bad start, first because of the limited range of the organisations consulted at the stage of drafting the Bill. I should like to reinforce the plea made that there be the widest possible consultation before any Order is laid, or indeed before the Bill becomes law. If representations are made by the Royal Society, or any other organisation, I hope that the Minister will give them a detailed answer at this stage instead of waiting until after the Bill becomes law. Secondly, there is the question of the private review conducted by the Secretary of State for the Environment which has never yet seen the light

1965
of day. Governments always say that Departmental reviews are not supposed to be published and that if the documents were prepared on the basis that they were to become public knowledge they would be very differently put together. I do not accept that. On the few occasions when these documents have been published finally, in response to pressure in Parliament or in the outside community, one is always astonished at the motives of the Ministers in holding back. It is purely a Civil Service convention that because something has been undertaken by means of a Departmental Committee you have an absolute rule that it is never thereafter published. I think it is time this was changed, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, pointed out, we have a Government now that prides itself on openness. Surely, in a scientific matter such as the future of the Ordnance Survey there cannot possibly be any reason of a commercial or other nature which would debar the Secretary of State from allowing them to have that information.
My Lords, the only other point I want to make is on the question of what is, to use the noble Lord's words, a significant proportion of expenditure of a trading nature. As I understand it, only about one-third of the costs of the Ordnance Survey are recovered in the charges that they make. The fear of many geographers is that the charges are going to increase out of all recognition, notwithstanding the fact that some of their expenditure may be met by the Department of the Environment. I think it is extremely important for him to be able to reassure users, particularly in the academic community, that they are not going to be charged "through the nose" simply in order that the trading fund, when it is established, can break even. We owe it to the academic community, the universities and the schools, as well, that they are provided with these services at reasonable cost. I must say that I am absolutely horrified at some of the increased charges which have taken place over the last few years amounting to as much as 400 per cent. in some cases. One can see the period over which this has occurred, because the maps generally have the cost expressed on them in the old units, and they are overstamped several times as the increases have taken place. Inflation in the charges for the
1966
Ordnance Survey maps has been far greater than that in the cost of living as a whole. One is afraid now that if a trading fund is established, a greater burden is going to be put on users in the academic community, and that is a source of considerable anxiety to them. But, as I say, I think the noble Earl has gone some way to reassure us in the remarks that he made about the grant towards this fund. We shall require further details of that, and I am sure that if he can give them in the Committee stage this Bill will go through smoothly.
12.32 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, having been drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I feel that as President of the Royal Geographical Society he cannot be allowed to be the only voice of the geographical organisations of this country in this debate. I speak as President of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society to inform your Lordships and the Government that the professional geographers, geologists and cartographers in Scotland view with considerable apprehension the consequences that the Bill may have upon the Ordnance Survey. I support the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in all that he has said, and I do not want to repeat any of it because he has said it so much better than I could. However, there are two points that I wish to add. The first is that, in addition to having a lively and rather native Scottish form of geographers, and very lively geographical departments at the universities which have made some notable contributions outside Scotland, we have in Edinburgh I think the biggest, and I would say certainly the best, private firm of cartographers in the United Kingdom, if not in the whole world. The interest there in what may be happening is considerable. I am sure that geographers in Scotland, hearing this in mind, would like to know what are the implications of the Bill in that direction. This firm has probably done more in developing the science of cartography certainly than any private firm, and while they have naturally taken from the Ordnance Survey, equally it is true that the Ordnance Survey has taken a great deal from that firm.
My Lords, the second point relates to that made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, about the 2½-inch map. The

1967
noble Lord gave a list of users, including geologists, and I should like to add to it undergraduate students. Undergraduate students in geography are expected to produce a thesis in their final year on some particular part of the country. It is usually some form of a social survey, and for that the larger 2½-inch map is extremely valuable. It would be a great pity if it were to go out of use.
I have one final thing to say. I should like to take this opportunity of testifying to the very high quality of the young surveyors that the Ordnance Survey send out into the country. If it is ever the good fortune of any of your Lordships to encounter them on survey, I advise you to make contact with them, and you will appreciate how they are working, their imagination, energy and resourcefulness. I just want to take this opportunity to let it be known what a magnificent job they are doing, socially, as well as scientifically.
12.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, it is always rather formidable to be faced with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition across this table, and it is particularly formidable in this case because among his many distinguished hats is that of an ex-Civil Service Minister, the Minister responsible for the Civil Service, the Lord Privy Seal and President of the Royal Geographical Society. All are covered by this Bill, and so the noble Lord knows with a vengeance what he is talking about. I hope I can give him reassurances that this is a continuation of a process set out when he was Minister, that the Bill before the House at the moment is primarily concerned with methods of financing: and we feel that there is a considerable degree of agreement between the Parties—the noble Lord made it clear that this was not a Party matter—that management objectives should be more clearly defined and good management incentives defined and rewarded. However, because the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and other noble Lords who have spoken dealt principally with the Ordnance Survey question, I just want to make a few closing remarks about this area, which I think would be the wish of the House.
1968
My Lords, I totally take Lord Avebury's point on the specific matters that we can take up in Committee. I must say to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that between now and then I am of course only too happy to receive every kind of representation from the Geographical Society, though I must warn him and them that these will be principally and best directed towards my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. At some point in time I acknowledge that it will fall to the Government to decide whether they are prepared to subsidise a map series with limited sales demand. I recognise the noble Lord's concern about this, and that of other noble Lords, and I will relate it to the Secretary of State for the Environment. Lord Shackleton's views are already known, as he said, but they are always listened to with particular respect as he speaks on this subject with great authority. Because the possibility of establishing a trading fund for the Ordnance Survey is covered by the Bill, it is of course only right for the noble Lord and other noble Lords to give voice to concern for the future of the survey, but what I think I must make clear in connection with this Bill is this. Nothing in the Bill, which is in the main about methods of financing, gives the Secretary of State for the Environment greater powers than he already has to make changes in Ordnance Survey policy. In short, if there is concern about Ordnance Survey policy, I will of course relay the concern that I receive to my right honourable friend, but it is not directly in connection with this Bill.
The noble Lord asked me one or two questions. I have already said that I shall be pleased to receive representation, and I will look at the possibility of adding certain other protections in the Bill between now and the Committee stage and will see what can be done. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—and his point was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—what considerations had led to particular candidates for trading fund activities to be let into the Bill. There is no rule of thumb on this. As I said in my opening speech, we thought it right to put down the type of category that we were considering. The percentage of Treasury finance involved is not itself critical. The critical factor,

1969
surely, is how far the national requirement justifying specific support leads to putting a significant constraint on the freedom of action of management. If this can be dealt with by general arms-length directives, then it is consistent with the trading fund. I must say briefly to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, that if tertiary levelling (and I have a note here which I will not read out at this point) did not keep him awake at night when he was Chancellor, it certainly has been keeping me awake at night recently.
I welcome the considered criticism of the Bill; I look forward to the Committee stage; and look forward to receiving representations between now and then.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
12.42 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ROYLE in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Employment of teachers]:
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("(and shall be deemed always to have included power on and after 1st Novembr 1965)").
The noble Lord said: In discussing this Amendment I think it may be for the convenience of your Lordships also to discuss the other two Amendments standing in the name of my noble friends and I since they all deal with one subject, the retrospective nature of part of this Bill. I much regret I was unable to be here on Second Reading, having then been taking a small rest-cure in the tranquil retreat of the Isle of Ely. My noble friend Lord Wade put forward much better than I would have done, albeit more mildly, our fundamental objection to this part of the Bill. The
1970
general principle is clear and, I think, would be accepted by all Members of your Lordships' House. The principle is that retrospective legislation is always bad and if it can ever be justified, which to my mind is doubtful, it can only be justified by the very strongest possible reasons.
If I may, I should like to recite the position as I understand it. In 1963 the Wheatley Committee recommended the establishment of a General Teaching Council for all teachers in Scotland, modelled very broadly on the General Medical Council for doctors. In 1965, the then Labour Government passed the necessary legislation with all-Party support. However, there was a substantial section of the teaching profession who were not happy about the G.T.C, and had every intention of ignoring it; so in 1967 a regulation was issued to the effect that all teachers must register, on pain of dismissal. In the end 20 teachers were so dismissed and at this point one of them, a Mr. Malloch of Aberdeen, decided to contest the right of the Government to take away the existing vested rights of a teacher who was already in the profession and whose qualifications were uncontested. Finally, the Inner House of the Court of Session (the highest court in Scotland) ruled, as had all lower courts, that the Government could not force Mr. Malloch, or indeed any other teacher, to pay a fee to preserve his or her existing rights as a member of the profession. This Bill before us to-day has now been introduced to say that from henceforward the Government have this right in this respect, that is, the right to insist—which is tolerable legislation—and also to declare that it has had that right, contrary to what all the courts said, since 1965—which I submit is intolerable legislation. It is this latter part of the Bill which our Amendments are designed to remove.
Various reasons are given for this legislation. The first is that it was what Parliament always meant should happen. I maintain that this argument is both irrelevant and untrue. It is irrelevant because if that is what Parliament meant, it is certainly not what Parliament said and, as the Lord Ordinary said in his judgment:
"I start from the premise that it is necessary to find in the 1962 Act"—

1971
to which reference is made in Clause 1(1) of the Bill—
"clear and unambiguous language evincing Parliament's intention to empower the Secretary of State to encroach on the vested rights of teachers in the way which he has done".
It is quite clear that there is no such clear and unambiguous language. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron, said on June 1, 1973, that if Parliament had intended to make registration compulsory under pain of loss of employment for failure to register, Parliament could have said so, and it would have been easy to do so; but Parliament has done nothing of the kind. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, said that we were not referred to anything in the Teaching Council Act of 1965, and I have found nothing to indicate any intention that registration should be made compulsory or that it should be made conditional for the continuing employment of certified teachers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said:
"I find it hard to believe that it could really have been intended that men and women validly qualified by certification before the regulation was enacted were ipso facto to be deprived of employment without regard for vested rights."
I repeat that these are all parts of judgments delivered by the noble and learned Lords in their judicial capacities, and I think they establish beyond any doubt that Parliament did not say that it intended this to happen, whatever various Members of Parliament and of the Government at the time had intended.
I said earlier that I maintain the argument that Parliament always meant this to happen was irrelevant, because in fact Parliament did not say that. I also believe it is untrue and, as Mr. Bruce Gardyne most trenchantly pointed out in another place, the then Secretary of State, Mr. William Ross, did not believe that he was so empowered, on all the evidence—that is, to take away these rights. The critical evidence for this statement is to be found in the minutes of the General Teaching Council on October 28, 1966, which state:
"The Secretary of State was perfectly willing to implement this recommendation…"
that is, the recommendation in paragraph 128 of the Wheatley Report that registration with the Council would be obligatory on all teachers—
1972
"without reservation as far as the new entrants were concerned, but was of the opinion that existing teachers must be registered either free of charge or for a merely nominal fee. In reaching this decision the Secretary of State was mindful that teachers had reserved rights and that he considered it inequitable that they should be asked to pay to preserve these rights."—
and so say I.
Another reason that is given as justification for retrospection in this case is that if you do not have it the local authorities, which since 1971 have been required by the Government to deduct the registration fees at source from teachers in their employment, could be held to have been acting illegally and could be subject to possible action for damages. It is a point. But if the Government concede, and if they have any decency and respect for the rule of law they must do so, that retrospective legislation in principle is wrong, I do not believe it is beyond the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and myself to devise an additional clause for this Bill by the time the next stage is reached to deal with this point. If there are any objections of a technical nature to these Amendments I should be happy to come back at a later stage; and I have some suggestions which we can possibly discuss before the next stage.
My sole aim to-day is to get the Government's agreement in principle, or, failing that your Lordships' agreement in principle, that the retrospective part of this legislation should be exercised. Finally, we are told that it is all right because the dismissed teachers will be compensated. This is nonsense. There is no such thing as adequate compensation for the destruction of a career which in many cases is also a vocation. Retrospection is an evil; it is a breach of the rule of law which, in its turn, is an essential element of our civilisation. I should be most interested to know the private thoughts of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about this Bill.
These Amendments were put down in another place and were defeated. It is unusual and, I firmly believe, undesirable to make a practice of repeating in your Lordships' House a point which another place has already decided. But I maintain among many useful roles that your Lordships' House can play not least is that of making another place look again when

1973
they transgress, as all sovereign bodies are tempted to transgress, the bounds of constitutional propriety. Miss Mary Holt in another place pointed out the implication of this Bill: any time anybody successfully challenges the pretensions of the Government in a court of law and is proved to be right, the Government can merely come back and pass retrospective legislation to change the situation. This would be intolerable if it became a practice; I maintain that it is intolerable in any one instance. I beg to move the first Amendment.
12.52 p.m.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: I find myself in the rather unusual position of supporting the Amendment moved by the noble Lords on the Liberal Benches. Although on the face of it this is a rather small point, it is a matter of principle and is a good deal bigger than it looks. Mr. Malloch fought the might of the Government, as I understand it, right through to the Court of Session, which found in his favour. We in your Lordships' House are now to change the law retrospectively so that the Government will have won after all. Mr. Malloch and his colleagues are being offered compensation—and so they should be, if we are going to do this. For all that, I do not like it. Compensation and bribes seem to be rather similar in the context of what we are deciding to-day. I can hear somewhat less reputable people than your Lordships saying, "Do not insist on your rights, old boy, and we will see you are all right and that you do not lose by it". I am sure that that is not what Her Majesty's Government have intended and I would not impute base motives to anybody in your Lordships' House. However, that is how the Bill comes out, and what people might be led to think was intended.
We are told that the law is not what the Government thought it was. Any of your Lordships who have been to law may have found that the law is not what they thought it was: and, having found that the law was not what they thought it was, they have lost. Her Majesty's Government are in the unique position of finding that the law is not what they thought it was and then being able to change it back for five, six or 10 years, or whatever they like, so that the law becomes what they thought it was. It seems to me that on
1974
this matter the Government are appearing to take the attitude of, "heads I win, tails you lose", and that an individual citizen who takes the trouble to challenge the Government in the courts of this country is embarking, if this principle is allowed to be established, on a rather futile exercise. It is a very expensive and worrying business; it is no use pretending that going to law is anything else. Mr. Malloch won and now he is going to be told that he has lost, anyway. I thought that we had established the principle in this country that the law stood, and that people could go to it for justice. This case concerns only a £1 registration fee, but the next time we may have retrospective legislation which covers far more than a £1 registration fee. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will seriously consider what they are doing. It shows —and I must say this—a staggering disrespect for the rule of law which we ought not in this House to allow. I hope Her Majesty's Government will see the danger of the road which they have chosen; if they do not, I urge your Lordships to support the Amendment.
LORD SOMERS: I cannot say that I often agree with the views expressed from the Liberal Benches; but on this occasion I think there is a certain amount of truth in them. I have never liked retrospective legislation; it always seems an easy way of getting over things which should have been dealt with in the past. In this case I should be grateful if the noble Lord, when he replies, would say exactly what good this is going to do—because it is not going to make good any defective teaching that may have taken place since November, 1965. That is done and it cannot be helped. If it is not made retrospective, it is most certainly desirable that there should be the power to avoid defective teaching in the future. But I cannot see what can be done to remedy the past. Therefore, it seems to me there is no point in having retrospective legislation.
12.58 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: On personal grounds, there were particular reasons why I did not want to attend this House to-day, and Scottish education is certainly not one of my subjects, but anybody who carts about the rule of law must support the principle behind these Amendments.

1975
A relative handful of Scottish teachers, having correctly taken the view that they were not bound to register, and that view having been upheld by the courts, have now lost their livelihood and vocation in life. This is something which cannot be justified unless it can be said that there would be such administrative difficulties in taking another course that this is the only practical thing to do. I do not believe that retrospective legislation is ever justifiable in the criminal field; and I believe there is a heavy onus on anybody who contends, as we did when I was in office in the case of the Burmah Oil Company, in the civil field.
One case in which on the grounds of administrative difficulties I thought retrospective legislation was justified was when some years ago it was discovered that for a few years everybody had been paying their television and wireless licence fees unnecessarily because the Ministry had forgotten to make the order. There were only two possible courses to take. One was to introduce retrospective legislation providing that the order should be deemed to have been made some years before; the other was to pay everybody back what he had paid out in television and radio licence fees for a number of years and then to impose taxation so as to provide from the taxpayers the same amount of money—because the B.B.C. could not be run without money. Then it would have been necessary to impose additional taxation to provide for the vast administrative task of paying these relatively small sums of money back to millions of people throughout the country. That I think was a case in which—while those who pay taxation and those who have television and wireless licences are not necessarily the same people, broadly speaking they are the same people —the course taken was in a sense the only sensible course to take; otherwise those people would have had to pay to the Government, in the form of additional taxation, more than they would have received back.
This is a difficult case to justify. It suffers of course one common feature with the Burmah Oil Company case, in that they were both cases in which, whether or not under the influence of their Department, Ministers when in office in both the major Parties took the
1976
same view. So of course when it comes to retrospective legislation the two Front Benches supported each other. Your Lordships may remember that in the Burmah Oil Company case the then Conservative Government had gone so far as to tell the claimants that, while the Government were certain their view of the law was right, if the Company persisted in court action, and if by any chance the Government were proved to be wrong, legislation would be introduced of a retrospective character. I can well believe that there are some administrative difficulties here. We have not been told much about them, but I understand there would be some administrative difficulties if we did not have retrospective legislation.
Of course, it is said that those concerned will be compensated. The points I would make about that are these. First, why is there nothing in the Bill about compensation? Secondly, of what exactly will the compensation consist? Thirdly—and to this point I attach much more importance than to either of the first two: What steps are the Government prepared to take to ensure that these men get their jobs back? If I understood correctly what has been said so far, all that is said is, "Well, if they register they will be entitled to apply for a teaching job again to their education authority." But, as I understand it, the Government do not propose to take any step at all to see that they get their jobs back. Upon whom will they be dependent? They will be dependent on the very people with whom they have been in litigation and who have been defeated by them in the courts. Is it not very unlikely that those local education authorities will not enable them to return to teaching unless the Government are prepared to put considerable pressure on them to do so? In general, therefore, I support these Amendments—and in the Division Lobby if the noble Lord who moved this Amendment proposes to take it to a Division.
LORD ELTON: I came to this Chamber as a spectator because I have an interest in education, having taught for ten years, and I thought that that fact would principally keep my attention. But, on inspecting this Bill and these Amendments, I find that my attention is much more keenly drawn to the point of law

1977
which has already been made several times. I merely want to say that, deep as is my concern for education and for the children who undergo it, and warm as is my sympathy with the causes which unite those who sit on these Benches, it will be very hard indeed to convince me that to try to alter the past—something that is impossible—can be justified by the Government. Therefore I hope that we shall have the most cogent and compelling reasons why this should be done. It is a process which has much more in character with totalitarianism than with democracy. I do not believe that it is the intention of the Government either to give that impression or to proceed along that path; but as a practising teacher I feel that considerations are at stake here which go far beyond the case to which this particular Bill applies. I ask your Lordships to consider those very wide implications as well as the important and emotive position of the people to whom this Bill now applies.
1.6 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: The whole of this debate has been directed to the substance of these Amendments, which is that retrospective powers are undesirable and (I think the noble Lord in moving it said) should virtually never be used in any possible circumstances, or, at any rate, not without the strongest possible reason. I will endeavour to convince your Lordships that in this case there is the strongest possible reason why we should seek these retrospective powers. I cannot say that I rise to oppose this Amendment with any enthusiasm, or indeed that I rose to move the Second Reading of the Bill with any enthusiasm. It is not the kind of Bill about which one would wish to wax enthusiastic. It is in some ways an unpleasant Bill. But, of course, medicine is frequently unpleasant. Nevertheless, circumstances may arise where, for the general good of the patient, he must take unpleasant medicine; and there are cases when principle, however strongly adhered to, must take second place to practicalities. Of that I will endeavour to convince your Lordships in as brief remarks as I can make. Nevertheless, a number of points have been raised.
With great respect, I submit that the statement of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, that the Secretary of
1978
State knew in 1965 that she did not have these full powers, is not correct. In another place (and your Lordships will forgive me if I quote), in Committee on February 16, 1965, the then Minister, now the Right Honourable Member for Lanark, expressed the view clearly, as well as leaving no doubt that registration for all teachers would be introduced. She said:
"Let me first clear up the extent to which registration by the council will affect the employment of teachers in different types of school. For permanent employment in an education authority or grant-aided school, a teacher must be certificated"—
and that was the previous requirement—
"and we expect that in future he will have to be registered. All this is a function of the Secretary of State under his power to prescribe standards for education authorities or on governing bodies under the 1962 Act."
That was said in another place and is clear evidence that the Minister then responsible was firmly of the opinion that this was the position.
Moving on, the noble Lord, Lord Somers, asked to be assured what good this provision would do. The relevant question to ask is: what evil will it avert? I submit, and will try to explain to your Lordships, that these powers are necessary to avert what could be a near state of chaos; and that, surely, must be to the good. I will come to that aspect a little later. It is not a question of teaching method or practice but a question of the regulation of the affairs of the profession. I wholeheartedly agree with the principle that we dislike retrospective legislation; and we try to avoid it on every possible occasion. However, it is necessary to consider the interests of, in particular, the education authorities and the General Teaching Council, and how they would be affected if the provisions of the Bill did not include the retrospective item.
First, I will take the education authorities. In the first place, these authorities would be at risk, as the noble Lord who moved the Amendment has recognised in regard to claims for damages by teachers who refused to register and were dismissed because, under the regulation that has been found to be defective, they were no longer eligible for employment. The noble Lord suggested that it should not be beyond the bounds of possibility —and he did me the honour of suggest-

1979
ing that it should be with my collaboration—to find a way around this point. I can only say that an enormous amount of thought and research has gone into how this can be dealt with. There has been ample time during the passage of the Bill through another place and since it was introduced into your Lordships' House, and I humbly submit to your Lordships that it will be very difficult at this stage to find a means of getting round this point.
The education authorities acted in good faith in implementing a regulation which they and the Government of the day believed to be valid. I suggest to the Committee that those authorities would have serious cause for complaint if they were now left to face the consequences of what was undoubtedly a technical error on the part of the Government. A number of noble Lords have rightly implied that if we are prepared to protect the education authorities from the consequences of an error that was made by their predecessors in office, and made in all good faith, we should show similar concern for the teachers and their future. Undoubtedly this is a matter of great importance. At the previous stage of the Bill I referred to the proposals for the payment of compensation to teachers who had been dismissed, and these points I will not go over again. They will be reimbursed the amount by which their earnings since that time have fallen short of what they would have earned had they remained in their then posts.
I think that the view that these teachers should have a right of reinstatement is disregarding the practicalities of the situation. Places will have been filled by other teachers in the meanwhile. We cannot insist on local authorities placing these teachers back in positions which may no longer be free. All I can say is that the remedy for the teachers, if their livelihood is concerned, is in the first place to register with the General Teaching Council, which they are perfectly free to do, just as any doctor to-day is expected to register with the General Medical Council. That is their remedy and, with the demand for teachers in Scotland to-day, I cannot believe that it will be all that difficult for them to find employment.
LORD GARDINER: Before the noble Lord leaves that point can he give any assurance that the Government will use their best endeavours and persuasion with the local education authorities in relation to these jobs, because as he will appreciate, while what they have lost financially is made up to them, if men lose not only their means of livelihood but a vocation like teaching, the essential thing, if any justice is to be done to those who were in the right in law throughout, is that they should get their jobs back. I ask the noble Lord whether the Government will be prepared to use their influence with local education authorities, bearing in mind that, these being the very people they have been in litigation with, there might well be a disposition otherwise not to reappoint them.
LORD POLWARTH: I am perfectly prepared to consider the noble and learned Lord's suggestion, though the extent of the powers of the Government to influence local authorities in these appointments I suggest is somewhat limited; but of course the first prerequisite must be registration. I will take that point separately.
There is then the fact that for the last three years local education authorities have been deducting the renewal of registration fees from the salaries of teachers who are required by this legislation to be registered, and this is being done by virtue of the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1971. The validity of the 1971 regulations has never been called in question, but the point is that they apply only to teachers who by virtue of some other enactment are required to register. Here we come up against the recent finding of the court that registration is not required for certificated teachers who were already employed before April 1968. If that ruling stands, there must be doubt about the legality of the deductions made from the salaries of between 30.000 and 35,000 teachers, and possibly even about the validity of their registration itself. In this matter, too, the educational authorities acted in complete good faith and we must not now leave them at risk.
I turn to the possible repercussions on the General Teaching Council of the enactment of this Bill without the element of retrospection. This body has

1981
had doubt cast on its actings because the court ruling has struck at the validity of registration which is crucial to the concept, the role and the standing of the Council. Over the years the Council has exercised powers with regard to professional discipline which should properly only be exercised in relation to registered persons. It has received funds from education authorities in terms of the 1971 Act, and it has thereby purported to renew the registration of registered persons. Again, all this has been done in good faith, but its validity could be challenged if the regulation which the court found to be defective is not put right retrospectively.
The idea of a teaching council and its functions was strongly supported by educational interests and, with great respect to the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, I doubt whether it would be fair to say that a substantial proportion of teachers were opposed. It is difficult to say, but perhaps it is some evidence of the support for it, that in the first elections to the Council in 1965 over 88 per cent. of teachers took part in the voting for the membership of the Council. I think that is some evidence of the high degree of support for the idea of the Council as such. Again, the Council has acted in good faith and we cannot allow them to be exposed to charges of illegality because the Government, and indeed Parliament, failed on a technical point.
I have tried to explain the clear reasons—and I think they are convincing —why retrospection is justified in this Bill. But even with retrospection I submit that in this case it is not an offensive use of Parliament's right to legislate retrospectively. It does not introduce any novel proposition; it seeks only to regularise what all along has been accepted by the vast majority of people to be the position. It does not introduce any retrospective statutory offence. It does not deprive anyone of damages already pronounced by a court or already settled. It does not make illegal an act which was legal when it was committed, and it does not interfere with common law principles. Finally, contrary to the views which have been expressed in some quarters, there is no question of the authority of the courts being disputed. In fact by this Bill we are acknowledging
1982
their authority and seeking to cure a defect which they have established.
I have done my best to explain the background and I hope I have succeeded in satisfying your Lordships that in this case the retrospective provisions are not offensive. I think it would be wrong to insist on the unbending adherence to principles, however right in general they are, when these provisions—and I am convinced of this—are for the greatest benefit of all the organisations and the vast majority of individuals concerned in the teaching profession in Scotland. Therefore I must ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: Before my noble friend sits down, may I raise just one small point. It seems to me that many education authorities, not being lawyers, have committed a tort in good faith. Many ordinary individuals sometimes commit torts in good faith and have to suffer for them. Why should these bodies be exempted? How much money is at stake in damages should these people sue?
LORD POLWARTH: The noble Lord is endeavouring to lead me into legal by-ways that I am not qualified to pursue. As to how much money is involved in subscriptions, I cannot give an exact figure, but with the number of teachers I have mentioned and the number of years which have elapsed the figure would be very substantial.
LORD BALERNO: We have heard many criticisms and only the one defence. I remember quite vividly the passing of the 1965 Education Bill through this House, and as one who was a bit doubtful about it, I am not quite clear that everybody in this House at that time considered that the Bill made the registration of teachers compulsory. There was no shadow of doubt at that time and it was not until long after that this mistake —if you like to call it that—in the drafting of the Bill was discovered. All of us in Scotland like a bonny fechter and Mr. Malloch who has taken the case right up to the House of Lords is a very fine exemplar of that. But the question before us now is not so much the individual case, which is going to be looked after, but all the difficulties

1983
that my noble friend Lord Polwarth has described to us.
I cannot believe that with the present shortage of teachers the education authorities, or many of them, would be in any way vindictive to Mr. Malloch or the 20-odd teachers who have held out. I do not think this is at all likely to happen. Mr. Malloch and his friends will get adequate financial compensation, and I am quite certain that they will get a good start again. Probably they would not wish to be employed in the same education authority, but with the shortage of teachers I think things will be all right for them.
The points made by my noble friend in relation to Lord Beaumont of Whitley's use of the word, "substantial" I would entirely corroborate. But only a relatively small proportion of the teachers of Scotland opposed the Bill and the fact that 88 per cent. of them voted at the beginning shows what an overwhelming number of teachers wished for this Bill to go through and to be implemented. Their position, and the position of the education authorities who acted in all good faith, should not be put in jeopardy, as it certainly will be if this Amendment is adopted. With all respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I see a very close parallel between this and the case of the television licences which he mentioned. It is for those reasons that I would most certainly support the Government against this Amendment.
BARONESS SEEAR: We are not really discussing the administrative problem of the local authorities or the inconvenience of the General Teaching Council. Let us be quite clear that what we are discussing is the question of the rule of law. It makes not the slightest difference to the issue whether the gentleman concerned is going to be compensated or whether or not some local authority will take him on and give him a teaching position—that is not what the issue is about at all. What the issue is about is whether, when an Act of Parliament is interpreted in the courts, the ordinary individual citizen can rely on the fact that if he wins his case, he wins. It is always easy to say that in a particular case it is inconvenient,
1984
it is costly, it is not a serious matter if the Government and the Executive override the courts. But it is on the rule of law and on the certainty of the judgment of the courts that all our liberties depend. I know it may seem to be a great fuss over what to your Lordships appears to be merely an individual case of one Scottish school master, but all the great issues of libertarian principles have had to be defended over one particular case again and again and again. This is a slippery slope. If whenever it is inconvenient or costly we say that on this occasion the Government must introduce retrospective legislation and the rule of law defended by the courts has to be sacrificed to immediate convenience, then some day it may be that Governments less well intentioned towards the rule of law will find what will by then be an established precedent—very convenient indeed to undermine the position of the courts on which all our freedom depends.
LORD AIREDALE: With regard to the unlawful deductions which the Minister told us about, could we be told what the deductions amount to approximately in each individual case, as distinct from the global sum after you have multiplied each individual case by 30,000? Because I should have thought that the least we could do, these deductions having been unlawful, would be to make them good. If we are to be told that it is administratively inconvenient to do this, all I can say is that it apparently was not administratively inconvenient to make the unlawful deductions at the time. I would hope that these deductions could be repaid to the teachers concerned.
LORD FERRIER: I have listened most carefully to what has been said, and have no particular brief for Mr. Malloch who may be an angular personality. But at the same time I appreciate the great difficulties that my noble friend the Minister ant my noble friend Lord Balerno have outlined. What we are being asked to do is not only to approve retrospective legislation. My mind goes back to the case of the oil company which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, mentioned, which legislation I strongly opposed. But we are also going to enact legislation for something of which I disapprove; namely, the closed

1985
shop, and for that reason, and the difficulties in which I find myself, I believe that unless my noble friend Lord Polwarth can tell us that there is any other way out, I personally will have to abstain.
LORD HOY: I should not like it to be thought that we did not have opinions about this matter and I think we have to get it into perspective. When this Council was established, it was established on behalf of the school teachers. They wanted it. They wanted it to give to their profession a standard which was equivalent to no less than that of the medical and other professions of this country. So it was done at their request. When the legislation was going through —and I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for pointing it out—there was no misunderstanding in the teaching profession about registration. Indeed, when I think of it, my right honourable friend the Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison), who later became Lord High Commissioner of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, was a teacher herself, so she understood what was being done.
There is no doubt that nobody likes retrospective legislation. I cannot think of anyone who has ever said they care for it, but on this occasion thousands of teachers in Scotland were prepared to abide by what they thought were the rules. Mr. Malloch—and he was entitled so to do—found a flaw and was quite right to take it up because that was the way he felt. But indeed the Council does represent the overwhelming majority of teachers in this country. You can be very selective in taking a speech from somebody next door. I will not do so, though I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, chose the only speech from the Committee that could be made to square with his case. So far as I am concerned, much as I regret its having to be done, I think it would land the Council, the education authorities and everyone else in sheer chaos unless we agree to do what we do with a little repugnance.
LORD ELTON: Forgive me for intruding again, but a solution occurs to me which doubtless has occurred to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Would it not be possible for the Government to
1986
indemnify the authorities for their wrongful acts undertaken in good faith, and on a test case to pay compensation to those who have suffered therefrom on that scale? Does this not avoid the necessity of retrospective legislation?
LORD POLWARTH: Perhaps I could deal with these points. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, raised the question of compensation. I dealt with this matter fully at the previous stage of the Bill and I made it quite clear that there would be compensation to those who had been dismissed. I do not think I should go over that ground again. With regard to the amount involved in repaying fees, which was one other specific question I was asked, I may say that it is not substantial; it is a total for the three years concerned, at £1 a year, of £3 for the years 1971, 1972 and 1973. But this is not just a question of the amount. Surely your Lordships would agree that it would be quite wrong that because a small handful of teachers have opposed the existence of this body and said they do not wish to join it, the State should refund subscriptions to every teacher registered, the vast majority of whom are in support of the aims of this body and have paid their subscriptions willingly. It would be wrong that they should be entitled to be handed back their subscriptions and that the cost of the work of the body during that period should be met from State funds. It is not a question of the amount concerned, but surely a question of principle.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Indeed it is a question of principle, and I think my noble friend Lady Seear was absolutely right to point that out. I am not going to weary your Lordships by contesting, as I might, some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. What Parliament thought it was doing has been in dispute all the way through the passage of this Bill, and it is certainly not entirely true, as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said, that everyone was aware that it would have this effect, because there are plenty of people who have gone on record in saying that they were not aware of it. It may be that they were mistaken, but they were not aware of it. Nor shall I try to delve into the inner recesses of Mr. Ross's mind. The noble Lord, Lord

1987
Polwarth, has produced one quotation from the Committee stage of the proceedings on the Bill to show that Mr. Ross thought that it would have the effect that the Government afterwards tried to make it have. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has not tried to explain away, nor, I think, can he, the minute of the General Teaching Council which I quoted.
There is another quotation with which I will not weary your Lordships at the moment but which comes from a memorandum in October, 1966, from the Scottish Education Department to the General Teaching Council on the subject of the registration of teachers already in employment in the schools. On second thoughts I will read it, because it would be wrong to say that it exists without telling your Lordships what it says. It is not very long:
"If steps were taken in advance by the Secretary of State so to adjust various statutory regulations governing employment, salary and superannuation as to make the consequences of failure to register the deprivation of benefits under these regulations, such teachers might contest the propriety of such action on the ground that it infringed their existing rights."
The memorandum goes on to say:
"It will be borne in mind that this conception of the inviolability of existing rights is an essential feature of regulatory provision regarding both teachers' salaries and superannuation, and indeed contributes largely to the complexity of the provision."
I would suggest to noble Lords that at the very least the minute of the General Teaching Council and that particular passage from the memorandum show that the question of existing rights and their inviolability had not been thought through, and that in so far as it had, the Scottish Education Department had come to the conclusion that there was no real power to take away existing rights in this particular way.
But now I think I get to the nub of the case. I agree with my noble friend Lady Seear that this is a matter of principle. I should like to make it quite clear that I am in favour of the General Teaching Council, that I am in favour of this Bill, that I accept that a very large majority of the teachers in Scotland
1988
wanted it. When I said it was a substantial minority which objected, I am not going to quarrel about what is a substantial minority or what is not. The fact is that there were rather more people who objected than the teachers' unions or the Government of the time expected. That is quite clear. But I think my noble Friend Lady Seear would agree with me that in a case of this kind "substantial" can well mean one. John Hampden does not have to have too many supporters in his protest to make it worth while.
There are two administrative cases which have been put up against this Amendment. The first I find peculiar; although I in fact said at the beginning that it had some validity, the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, in fact leads me to think perhaps it has not. He said, quite rightly, that it does not deprive of damages anyone who already has been awarded damages by the courts. That is admitted. It does of course deprive of damages the 19 other people who, on that ruling of the court, could feel that they were entitled to damages. Either those 19 people are going to be satisfactorily compensated by the Government, in which case they are not going to sue for damages, or they are not; in which case they should be supported and allowed to sue for damages, because they are entitled to them according to the ruling of the court. So I think that argument fails.
The argument about the administrative chaos, about the repayment of registration fees and dubiety about registration, is, I feel, again quite reasonable, but I think it has been fairly overstated, and I am immensely impressed by the cautiousness of the Minister's words—"could be", "might be challenged", "may be at risk". It is quite clear that the advice from his Department does not show that this will necessarily happen. I do not think that this kind of rather weak argument is a serious reason why your Lordships' House should pass retrospective legislation of this nature against the rights of individuals, and I am afraid that I must take this matter to a Division.
1.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

NOISE INSULATION REGULATIONS 1973
1.48 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON rose to move, That the Draft Noise Insulation Regulations 1973, laid before the House on July 16 be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, during their comprehensive review of the compensation code, the Government concluded that
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 76.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Amulree, L. [Teller.]

Glasgow, E.

Seear, B.

Avebury, L.

Hale, L.

Simon, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Stamp, L.

Killearn, L.

Stocks, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thurso, V.

Boothby, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Byers, L.

Longford, E.

Willis, L.

Faringdon, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Foot, L.

Rusholme, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Monck, V.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Northchurch, B.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gainford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Allerton, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Phillips, B.

Amory, V.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Polwarth, L.

Arwyn, L.

Goschen, V.

Porritt, L.

Balerno, L.

Gowrie, E.

Reigate, L.

Balfour, E.

Grenfell, L.

Royle, L.

Berkeley, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Hailes, L.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shepherd, L.

Carnock, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hoy, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathspey, L.

Crook, L.

Janner, L.

Terrington, L.

Davidson, V.

Limerick, E.

Teviot, L.

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

Thomas, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Derwent, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Diamond, L.

McLeavy, L.

Vernon, L.

Effingham, E.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Merrivale, L.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Ellenborough, L.

Milverton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

sound insulation should be available for works. The Land Compensation Act therefore contains a section, Section 20, which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing a duty or conferring a power on authorities to sound insulate buildings against noise caused by the construction or use of certain public works.
Whereas powers already exist enabling properties to be insulated against aircraft noise, and schemes are in operation around Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Manchester airports, nothing could be done about road traffic noise. The Government's resolve to do something was reinforced by the report of the Urban Motorways Committee, New Roads in Towns, which concluded that it may not in all cases prove possible to achieve

1991
acceptable noise levels by measures associated with the design of the road. For these cases a sound insulation scheme should be introduced. The Government recognised that this first set of regulations under Section 20 of the Land Compensation Act would be of considerable importance, and it was right that they should be laid in draft and not be made unless the draft had been approved by a Resolution of each House; and it is this approval which I am seeking from your Lordships to-day. The draft has already been approved in another place.
The Regulations provide for the insulation of dwellings and other residential accommodation, such as old people's homes, against noise caused, or expected to be caused, by traffic using new highways and certain altered highways. The Regulations impose a duty on highway authorities to carry out sound insulation, or to make a grant in respect of the cost of insulating these buildings against noise from new roads, and roads to which a carriageway has been added, opened after October 16, 1972. That is Regulation 3. They confer a power to do so in the case of roads opened or altered after October 16, 1969 (Regulation 4), and in so far as the Department is a highway authority we shall operate this power as though it were mandatory on us. The level of noise at or above which Regulations 3 and 4 come into play is 68 dB(A) on the L10 scale; that is, where 68 dB(A) is exceeded for 10 per cent. or more of the hours from 0600 to 1800 on a normal weekday. This is a more generous level than that previously proposed by, for example, the Noise Advisory Council and is about the lowest we can go, given the present state of knowledge on the prediction of noise. Perhaps I might add that Part 1 of Schedule 1 defines both dB(A) and L10.
The Regulations also prescribe the procedure governing the making and acceptance of offers to carry out insulation work. The highway authority is required under Regulation 6 to produce a map or list showing eligible properties within six months of the date when the road is first opened, and under Regulation 8 to make an offer of sound insulation to residents at the same time. Twelve months is allowed for the production of this map
1992
and the making of the offer where the road has been opened before September 1, 1973. The map or list could of course be produced before construction commences, and residents could then have the benefit of insulation against construction noise. There may nevertheless be some properties which are severely affected by construction noise, but which are not likely to be so badly affected once the road comes into use. Regulation 5 thus provides a power to sound insulate properties likely to be seriously affected for a substantial period of time by construction works, but which will not be eligible under Regulations 3 or 4 once the road is opened. This power is an alternative to temporary re-accommodation or acquisition by agreement under Part II of the Land Compensation Act.
The offer of insulation against construction noise has to be accepted within two months since a protracted period would not be appropriate, but otherwise the offer can be accepted up to twelve months after the date when the road was opened or alteration completed. A resident who is not offered sound insulation may appeal to the highway authority under Regulation 13 within 12 months of the opening of a road to which the Regulations apply. The highway authority is then required to review its calculations of the noise level and to provide a reasoned explanation if it does not accept the appeal.
The Regulations provide two methods of calculating noise levels—prediction or measurement. Both take account of future traffic growth over a 15-year period, and both enable the calculated figure to be rounded up to the nearest decibel. This is provided for in Schedule 1. Schedule 2 provides a specification which the sound insulation treatment is required to meet. The treatment consists of double glazing, the supply of a ventilator unit and permanent vent, both fitted with sound-absorbing material, and, in rooms which might become over-heated due to heat from the sun, the provision of venetian blinds. These specifications have been drawn up with the help of the Department's Building Research Establishment and have been discussed with interested bodies, such as the Gas Council. The installation has been tested in a flat kindly lent by Birmingham Corporation alongside the M.6 motorway, where it

1993
has proved very satisfactory and has reduced noise by 35 dB(A)—about 80 per cent.
My Lords, I should like, finally, to reaffirm the line which the Government have always taken on these Regulations; that is, that we are breaking new ground and, as with all such innovations, only time will show whether changes are necessary. We shall keep the level of entitlement, the noise prediction techniques and the technical specifications under review. But I believe that these Regulations will enable us to deal with the cases which need priority attention. The Regulations are part of a comprehensive approach aimed at minimising nuisance and safeguarding the interests of individuals within the community. Your Lordships gave a warm welcome to the principles behind our Land Compensation Act; I hope you will similarly welcome these Regulations. Accordingly, my Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Noise Insulation Regulations 1973, laid before the House on July 16, be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
1.56 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I at the outset thank the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, for the care with which he has explained these Regulations? The form in which they are presented is a rather bulky one, and the Regulations themselves seem to me to be somewhat complex and certainly call for very careful study. They follow the publication of the Urban Motorways Committee's Report, New Roads in Towns, and the White Paper, Development and Compensation: Putting People First. The powers to make Regulations for sound insulation of buildings affected by public works were, as he stated, established by the Land Compensation Act 1973, which was so recently before this House. They are of such consequence that it would be very wrong indeed that they should go by "on the nod", and there are a number of points which I wish to raise. I shall concentrate on a few of major importance where it seems desirable that further, and indeed urgent, consideration might well be given. These are matters where the public interest is adversely affected, and where concern exists as to the adequacy of the proposed Regulations.
1994
My first point is on noise levels. As the noble Lord said, the Regulations specify 68 decibels measured externally, which are not to be exceeded for more than 10 per cent, of an 18-hour period. This is well in excess of the Greater London Council's interim level of 65 decibels over a 12-hour period which, as I understand it, is equivalent to 63 decibels over an 18-hour period.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if I may correct the noble Lord on one point, I said between 0600 and 1800 hours—a 12-hour period.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I noticed that the noble Lord said that and I checked page 3 of the Regulations. If the noble Lord will look at the middle of that page, he will see that it states:
"'specified level' means a noise level of L10 (18 Hour) of 68 dB(A)."
If I am wrong, then my argument is still good, because the G.L.C.'s interim level is 65 decibels over a 12-hour period. But I doubt whether I am wrong. I hope the noble Lord will take steps to ensure what is the exact position. Be that as it may, as I say, the level laid down in these Regulations is substantially in excess of what the Wilson Committee recommended; and, as the Layfield Panel Report points out (and, if the noble Lord has the Report with him, it is in Volume I, page 384; I checked it this morning before I came to the House), even the Wilson levels were unacceptable to many objectors at the Greater London Development Plan Inquiry. So I find it a little difficult to accept what the noble Lord claimed, that the level of decibels is generously low. I put this point to the Minister: that the noise levels specified in these Regulations are too high, and ought to be reduced.
Secondly, touching on the range of buildings to which the Regulations apply, as I understand it the original expectation was that hospitals and educational establishments would be covered in separate Regulations. I would ask the Minister: is this still the intention? I ask because there is some genuine doubt, not merely on my part but, I think I can claim, in the mind of the largest local authority in the country. I hope that the intention is still there; and, indeed, further, that other highly sensitive buildings, such as libraries,

1995
places of worship, concert and assembly halls, will also be included if further Regulations are to be issued. It is a little odd to reflect on the fact that nurses' hostels are eligible under the present proposals while, as I understand the position, hospital wards are not. I would ask for an assurance that where it is agreed that buildings such as I have mentioned can be given a top priority rating, they will be covered in future Regulations.
My Lords, I should like to touch on the matter of specifications, which I think is dealt with in Regulation 9 and Schedule 2. I am advised that these are too rigid, and are unlikely to meet the varied needs of many different types of dwelling to be found in London and other large towns. I am informed that the Greater London Council would welcome some discretionary power to vary the specification where it is professionally considered desirable having regard to the nature and quality of individual buildings. I should like to ask the Minister whether he can say that it is intended that some flexibility will be allowed. Will there be permitted such variations of the standard specifications in cases where those specifications are impracticable? The Wilson Report had a great deal to say on traffic noise. I do not want to elaborate on that Report and what it had to say, but it prompts me to inquire whether it is in mind to extend the Regulations, or to make further Regulations, to cover traffic management schemes. If so, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, can indicate what kind of timetable is being considered. There is no indication that the Government intend to make Regulations covering adverse acoustic effects on such major public developments as power stations, and I wonder whether the noble Lord can say anything about that.
I hope the noble Lord is in a position to be forthcoming on these matters, since I feel sure that the Department of the Environment will be well aware of the concern which exists on them. I look forward with interest to his reply, and trust he will be able to give assurances that will adequately meet the position. Of course, I have no intention of
1996
pursuing this matter to a vote. One of the difficulties is that this kind of procedure, where we have Regulations, makes it impossible to amend anything and forces one to pursue the line that I have taken this afternoon. I do not know how far we shall go with more and more of these Draft Statutory Instruments, with such Orders as this one. It is very difficult to check them, since we are so limited in what we can do by way of getting them improved. I do not suppose for one moment that the noble Lord will indicate that the Orders will be withdrawn to give consideration to the points I have raised. I would not expect him to do that, but I hope he will be able to give me assurances that will be satisfying; and I think he will not be surprised if I say that among local authorities the Greater London Council, in particular, will be extremely interested in what he has to say.
2.8 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, may I point out that if these Regulations (which are due to come into effect this September) are amended or voted against in this House, their benefits to the people of this country, benefits which I think we are agreed are considerable, would be lost. In my speech I indicated that we were aware of the fact that this is the first venture into this field, and we accept that it may need alteration in the light of experience. I think that Lord Garnsworthy, who has put a lot of painstaking work into it, has put his finger on some of the points concerned. I must apologise to the noble Lord: he is totally right. It is an 18-hour period. I should have said "from 06.00 hours to 24.00 hours" and not "to 18.00 hours". My speaking notes contained the latter figure; but of course, that is no excuse. I thank the noble Lord for drawing my attention to this point.
I know there are arguments whether we should have come down to 65dB(A). Some of these habitations (such as the one we had at Birmingham where the Corporation helped very much) were subjected to 83 and 84dB(A) outside. This was reduced by 35dB(A) inside. This represents an 80 per cent. reduction. We

1997
may find this is not enough. I pointed out that 68dB(A) is less than the noise level the Wilson Committee recommended. They recommended 70dB(A) as being a practical proposition. We have gone to 68dB(A). There will always be people who wish to carry it further one way or the other. We have taken a mean which we think should be tried out. In any case, it will be a great improvement on the position in the past.
Regarding hospitals and schools, I am informed that discussions are in progress with the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security but the problems are considerable. One of the major problems in hospitals is to determine a desirable internal noise level. This may differ considerably between an operating theatre and a ward. We are going to bring forward the necessary regulations when our discussions with the two Departments are complete.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the other class of building to which I referred will be considered at the same time?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Is the noble Lord referring to concert halls and assembly halls?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, to places where it can be agreed that the matter ought to be regarded as having a top priority.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I have no authority at this moment to say that this is in the pipeline, but I can say to the noble Lord that I will personally see that the other Ministers in my Department know his views. I will find out their views and let him know. I think his views will be listened to as they know he speaks for his Party on this matter.
The noble Lord asked about Regulation 9. If the Greater London Council find that Regulation 9 is unsatisfactory, the Department will be prepared to consider any representations made. At the moment the case must be proved one way or the other; and I think we have it right. Power stations normally are not in the remit of this Order. We were not thinking of power stations but of
1998
roads and road construction. Power stations are normally sited away from major units of human habitation. I cannot give any assurance on that at this moment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he said. I have an idea that I asked one or two questions he has not answered. I will not press them this afternoon. We are already delayed beyond the point that anyone expected. If he will drop me a line about them I shall be grateful.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I will certainly guarantee to do that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS) (MARRIED WOMEN AND WIDOWS SPECIAL PROVISION) REGULATIONS 1973
2.14 p.m.
THE MINISTER or STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE)THE MINISTER or STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE) rose to move, That the Draft Social Security (Contributions) (Married Women and Widows Special Provision) Regulations 1973, laid before the House on July 19, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the debates on the Social Security Act 1973 we had opportunity to discuss the so-called married women's option—the right of a married woman or a widow to choose not to pay the full contribution to the basic scheme and thereby forgoing some of the benefit. We expressed the view from this side of the House that this was a useful option for married women and widows and we believe that it should be retained. I know very well that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and a number of your Lordships do not agree with this view. However, the option is now incorporated in Section 42 of the Act and this is not the occasion for us to debate it further. These regulations are necessary as a first step in the implementation of Section 42 of the Act. They need to be made now in order to give sufficient time to employers to plan for the changeover in April, 1975, to the new social security system.
In general the Regulations are similar to those that exist at present, and perhaps all I need do is to draw your Lordships' attention to three main points of difference in principle. First of all, the option will apply to a minimum period of a year, not a week as at present; secondly, liability as an employed earner will apply equally to liability as a self-employed earner; and, thirdly, self-employed married women were not liable under the National Insurance Act unless they opted in, but under the Social Security Act they are liable unless they opt out. I know that the noble Baroness takes particular interest in the welfare of widows, and we have tried in these Regulations to make the best possible arrangements for them. They will have six months after their husband's death during which they will have the choice whether to pay full contributions and enjoy full benefits, or to exercise their option and pay a reduced contribution which covers industrial injuries and a small amount towards the cost of the National Health Service.
My Lords, there is one other point that I should like to make finally, to put on record that there is a small misprint which has been corrected in the draft Regulations. This is the reference in Regulation 2(1)(b) to "the requirements of paragraph (4) below". This should read, "the requirements of paragraph (5) below", because it is paragraph (5) that lists the requirements for a qualifying widow. My Lords, this Amendment has been made in the draft Regulations but I should like just to draw attention to it. I beg to move.
2.18 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his brief and clear explanation. As he rightly said, this is not the moment to debate the merits and demerits of this matter, as we did so very thoroughly earlier. He referred to a misprint which I had not noticed—it could have been worse. I had a misprint this morning in a statement of a very high-ranking personage which was intended to read, "We must safeguard our rights" and this came out in my typed copy as, "We must safeguard our tights"—so I feel that some misprints can be much worse than this one. In the principal Act we had a list
2000
of definitions in the interpretation section but I notice that we did not have "regulations" defined. We now have it here:
"'regulation, means a regulation of these regulations…"
I think I award that one the prize of the week.
There is just one small point that I should like to raise. Will these Regulations have to be prepared every year? As I read the Act it does not seem to me to be necessary. There is a second point, on Regulation 10. Article (2) refers to women whose marriages have ended other than by the death of the husband—which I assume to refer to divorced women, who therefore would not have the option. I am wondering how long they will be given, because a divorce goes through two periods. I hope that the option of six months will also apply to them as I can imagine that it would be very difficult for a woman if she was divorced and was then immediately confronted with the possibility, if she was working, of having to pay the full contribution. If the Minister cannot reply immediately I shall naturally be happy to have a reply in writing.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. As always, I enjoyed her speech, especially the misprint to which she drew attention. The little curiosity in Regulation 1:
"'regulation' means a regulation of these regulations",
is in fact an attempt to simplify the rest of the regulations. For example Regulation 3 reads:
"Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) below, every election made in accordance with regulation 2 shall continue as an election…".
If we did not have that little piece in the front, every time we mentioned a regulation we should have to say "regulation 2 of these regulations". It is merely a method of trying to shorten the main body of the Regulations.
In answer to the noble Baroness's inquiry about annual regulations, the answer is: No; these regulations will stand. But we are, as I said in my opening speech, moving them now so that employers may get on with the necessary work. The Regulations are very complex. I shall be bringing forward further Regulations about married women and widows in the autumn, particularly on the transitional aspects of the matter, and we can

2001
then make any modifications that are necessary. On the noble Baroness's third point, regarding divorced women, it is my understanding that this six-month waiting period does not apply. But I should be grateful if I might look into that in more detail and write to the noble Baroness. I wish her a happy holiday.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WELSH NATIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ESTABLISHMENT AND CONSTITUTION) ORDER 1973
2.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE)THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE) rose to move, That the Draft Welsh National Water Development Authority (Establishment and Constitution) Order 1973, laid before the House on July 19, be approved. The noble Lord said: Although the Welsh Authority will not assume responsibility for its functions until April 1, 1974, it will need to undertake a great deal of preparatory work as a matter of some urgency. Article 1 of the Order therefore provides that it shall come into operation on August 1, 1973, and Article 3(2) that the Welsh Authority shall come into existence on August 6, 1973. The noble Baroness, Lady White, on Report stage, urged us to get a move on, and were the noble Baroness present this afternoon I think she would agree that we have done so.
The constitution of the Welsh Authority is described in Article 4 of the draft Order. This is an interim constitution which will have effect until May 31, 1977, by which time consideration of the Report of the Commission on the Constitution will have enabled a decision on a final constitution of the Authority to be made. However, the interim constitution implements the undertaking given during the passage of the Bill through Parliament that if a majority of local authority members was agreed for the regional water authorities, the same would apply to the Welsh Authority, and this has been done. Article 4(1) provides for the apopintment of a chairman and 14 members by the Minister and 20 members by local authorities. I am sure that your Lordships will have noticed with pleasure
2002
that the Secretary of State for Wales has announced his intention to appoint my noble friend Lord Brecon as Chairman of the Authority. His wide experience and knowledge will be a great asset.
Of the 14 members nominated by the Minister, 4 will be appointed jointly by the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for their experience in respect of agriculture, land drainage or fisheries. In view of the close association of agricultural interests with the water supply in Wales it seems appropriate to have four members, which is the same as that for the largest of the regional water authorities. The remaining 10 member appointed by the Secretary of State will he chosen for their experience in such matters as industry and management, labour relations, amenity, recreation and sport, tourism and consumer affairs. Various bodies representing such interests in Wales have been consulted about possible appointments. In providing for local authority membership the proposed constitution, broadly speaking, follows the criteria set out in Section 3 of the Act although not following completely the population criteria set out in Section 3(6). It has been considered more appropriate to treat all counties alike, and the draft provides that each of the Welsh counties and the two English counties lying wholly or partly in the Welsh Authority's area shall appoint one member, and districts within each county shall between them appoint one member. I am sure that with the constitution provided in this draft Order the Welsh Authority will be able to carry out, efficiently and with proper regard to all concerned, the management of water in Wales and I ask the House to approve that the Order as drafted be made.
Moved, That the Draft Welsh National Water Development Authority (Establishment and Constitution) Order 1973, laid before the House on July 19, be approved.—(Lord Aberdare).
2.25 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I first express an apology on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady White, who is unable to be present this afternoon. I think that the only reason she asked me to speak was because I worked with

2003
her and with the noble Lord, Lord Champion, on the Water Bill. Had I not been asked to speak by the noble Baroness I do not think that I should have had the temerity to speak on a Welsh matter. May I, from this side, express a warm welcome to this Order. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said regarding the request for urgency made by my noble friend Baroness White. We appreciate the care with which the noble Lord has introduced this Order and we are grateful to him for fulfilling an assurance that he gave at an earlier debate. We are appreciative of the speed with which he has moved. We are glad to see that this is an interim Order, effective until only 1977, by which time we hope we shall have the Report of the Crowther/Kilbrandon Commission on the Constitution, and in the light of that Report will possibly be able to consider afresh the position of the Welsh National Water Authority. My saying that may give an indication that that issue will be raised.
In taking note of what the noble Lord said with regard to the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, as Chairman designate, we would offer to the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, our felicitations, and our hope that he will find the appointment not only congenial, but thoroughly satisfying, and that he will be as successful as anyone could hope. However, I must say from this side that we regard his appointment, with all the good wishes that we have expressed, as a straightforward political appointment. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has told us the name of the Chairman; I wonder whether it is possible for him to give us the names of any other members, because this body comes into being as early as August 6, which is very close. Even if local authority nominations are not settled, at least one would hope that ministerial appointments could be announced, if not to-day, within the next day or two. Having said that, I repeat that we welcome the Order and express appreciation to the noble Lord for the way in which he has introduced it.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should just like to say croeso to the noble Lord—welcome to the select band of
2004
those of us who speak on Welsh affairs. Having broken the ice, he will, I hope, continue to join with us. I know that my noble friend Lord Brecon will be pleased to have the good wishes of the noble Lord. I can only briefly assure the noble Lord that it is not a political appointment. We considered that my noble friend was outstandingly well-qualified to do this particular job. I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord the names of the members of the authority as yet, but I can assure him that as soon as they are known I will (it is probably more appropriate) convey them to the noble Baroness, Lady White.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATY) ORDER 1973
2.29 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSM UIR OF BELHELVIE)THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSM UIR OF BELHELVIE) rose to move, That the Draft European Communities (Definition of Treaty) Order 1973, laid before the House on July 16, 1973, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there were extensive debates in the House last year about the mechanism contained in Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act which provides for certain treaties to be specified as "Community Treaties" as defined in that Act. Your Lordships will also recall that the first Order in Council under Section 1(3) was approved after debate on December 14 in this House. Therefore the nature of the mechanism is already known to the House. It might, nevertheless, be useful if I briefly review it again. Under the terms of Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act, any new treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after January 22, 1972, cannot be regarded as a Community treaty as defined in the Act unless it is specified in an Order in Council. The draft of such Orders in Council must be approved by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. An Order in Council under Section 1(3) of the Act may specify any number of treaties entered into by Her Majesty's Government. As on the occasion of the Order approved last December, it is proposed that the present Order should

2005
deal with a number of treaties listed in the Schedule—six in all.
The House will recall that Section 1(4) of the European Communities Act defines the term "treaty" as including:
"…any international agreement and"—
such as in this case—
"…decisions and exchanges of letters."
Included in the Schedule to the present Order is, first of all, the European Coal and Steel Community's Agreement with Norway. It was signed on May 1, 1973, and the text was laid before Parliament as Cmnd. 5347 in June. It will come into effect on the first day of the second month following notification by the contracting parties that procedures necessary to this end have been completed. The conclusion of the Parliamentary and Privy Council procedures in relation to a proposed Order in Council will enable formal notification to be made by this country.
Two decisions of the representatives of Governments of the Member States of the European Coal and Steel Community, establishing supervision of imports of certain products originating in Austria and Sweden, are included in the Schedule to the Order. They were signed on January 22, 1973, and cover imports during the current year. Texts of the decisions are contained in the Official Journal of the European Communities, Volume 16, No. L59, dated February 5, 1973, which is available to Members of this House.
The last three items on the Schedule relate to exchanges of letters between the head of the United Kingdom delegation to the European Communities and the heads of the Austrian, Swiss and Swedish delegations concerning duty-free quotas of paper products. These exchanges took place on July 22, 1972, with the exception that the acknowledgment from the Swiss delegation was made on August 22, 1972, These exchanges are shown in Cmnd. Papers 5159, 5180 and 5181, which were laid before Parliament in December, 1972. The Draft Order in Council follows the precedent set in December last and, as on that occasion, the terms of Section 1(3). There is no doubt that all six items listed in the Schedule are new treaties within the scope of that section, and therefore I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft European Communities (Definition of Treaty) Order 1973, laid before the House on July 16, 1973, be approved.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for having explained this Order and for the manner in which she has done so. It is a matter of regret that the Government yesterday were not equally forthcoming, in view of the Statement made in another place in which it was made clear that some £30 million must now be paid across the exchanges because of an E.E.C. Agreement entered into by Her Majesty's Government. I see nothing in the Schedule that I could consent to. It may be that next year we shall have procedures within your Lordships' House and it will be possible to look into these matters in some detail and for a report to be made to the House as to whether they should be looked at more thoroughly than we are doing this afternoon.
We have now been in the European Community for some seven months. I cannot help but reflect on the speeches of the noble Baroness to the effect that we were to offer to Europe political leadership and a strong and sound economy. Since we are now going into Recess for some months, one cannot help but feel—at least from this side of the House—that that political leadership is far from satisfactory. One cannot help but reflect also that when this Government came into office the Stock Exchange Index then stood at close on 500. To-day it is 418—not much sign of confidence by those who invest. Investment in the pound is a subject with which we shall no doubt deal more thoroughly under the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Alport. It is a matter of signal regret that the pound to-day is at its lowest ebb. No one, certainly not the noble Baroness, could speak with any confidence about when a firm base will be achieved. We therefore do not appear to be making the contribution that the noble Baroness had in mind when we entered the European Community. This is a matter which no doubt we shall have to debate with a great deal more thoroughness when we have the gracious Speech, unless of course someone higher

2007
comes to our aid and we are able to have an Election and sweep the present Government Front Bench from our view.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I did not intend to speak twice, but I feel the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, invites me to do so. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was perfectly explicit yesterday in his Statement. I understand that there was a little exchange and it was agreed that that Statement should not be repeated here because another place met early in the day and we met in the afternoon. So far as the procedures of the Select Committee are concerned, no doubt the noble Lord, who is a member, will be reporting to the House in due course. As the House will be aware, treaty-making is the prerogative of the Crown rather than that of Parliament. It would be open to such a Committee, if it were established, to scrutinise proposals for decisions or regulations of the Council to bring such treaties into effect.
The noble Lord questioned whether in the seven months of our membership we have given political leadership to the Community and whether we had a sound economy. We had a stirring debate on this subject only this week. We have an underlying growth of over 5 per cent.; and it was expected at the time that there would be certain difficulties of acceding to a Community which had already been in existence for ten years. That does not mean to say that we have not helped to create with our colleagues a sense of community in only seven months. I believe that in the months to come, long before the next Election to which the noble Lord looks forward (I cannot think why, because he is going to lose it) confidence in sterling will be restored.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE AT OTTAWA
2.38 p.m.
LORD ALPORT LORD ALPORT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they consider should be the objectives before the forthcoming Commonwealth Conference at Ottawa. The noble Lord said: I should like to start by assuring the noble
2008
Lord, Lord Shepherd, that I do not intend to cover some of the topics which he mentioned during the Order which we have just considered. I felt it right before we dispersed for the Summer Recess to invite your Lordships to spend a brief period of Parliamentary time in considering Commonwealth affairs. Within a few weeks the leaders of the Commonwealth—or, at any rate, those who feel themselves secure enough to absent themselves from their countries —will meet at Ottawa to continue the process of periodic consultation which was begun nearly a century ago. Looking back, I cannot help contrasting the Commonwealth as it is to-day with the Imperial Commonwealth of 25 years ago. It happened to fall to me, under the guidance of the late Captain Oliver Stanley, and with the authority of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, and Sir Winston Churchill, as leader of the Tory Party, to compile the Imperial Charter which was published in the late 1940s. This sought to interpret to the British people one of the basic principles of the Disraelian policy as transformed by wars, social and political evolutions, and by far-reaching technological change. Little or nothing of what was written in that pamphlet or book, which represented the policy of a major Party in this country at that time, only a quarter of a century ago, has any relevance, or any real relevance, to the present day, except perhaps for a somewhat tepid reference to Western European Union. Since then so many flags have been ceremonially lowered; so many defiant attitudes have been struck in the interests of emergent nationalism; so much has changed in the relationship between the various members of the Commonwealth, and indeed in the composition of the Commonwealth itself, that an observer might be justified in assuming that the forthcoming Conference at Ottawa represents simply another stage in the winding-up, decently, of a great historic institution which is no longer relevant to the politics and power structure of the modern world.
Institutions, like kings, can take an unconscionable time a-dying. Some, like that of Alexander the Great, have dissolved with the death of the genius who created them; others, like the Holy Roman Empire, have lingered on century

2009
after century until some new concentration of power and personality sweeps them out of existence, like the operation of a bulldozer on an historic building site. The Commonwealth could continue, sustained by sentiment and association from the past, until perhaps the end of the 20th century, or even longer, and then be decorously dissolved. Or, my Lords, we could at Ottawa in 1973 witness the start of something new. When historians come to assess the significance of the British Commonwealth they will, or I think should, apportion responsibility for its transformation, or as some would consider its dissolution, to two principal influences: to the United States of America and to Soviet Russia. Between them, not as accomplices in some international conspiracy, those two super-Powers achieved the withdrawal of British power from positions of influence and responsibility in the space of a single generation which had given previously stability and order to areas of the world of intense political volatility: to the Middle East, Southern Africa, South-East Asia, and the Indian sub-continent. They accomplished this, let me be frank, successfully, partly as the result of the exhaustion of the people of the metropolitan heart land of the Commonwealth after the blood-letting and the squandering of resources occasioned by two world wars.
I say all this in no spirit of recrimination. I believe that we in this country understand the inevitable flow of history and the natural changes which take place in the distribution on a world scale of political power. I sensed during a recent visit to Vienna that the Austrians were happy to be relieved of the burden of the Hapsburg imperialism. I think that we in Britain are to-day content, so to speak, to show our medals and leave others to shoulder the responsibilities of world government and order. But no one, certainly not I, underestimates the material power of the super Powers. But, apart from their manpower and their ability to crucify most of the rest of us in an atomic holocaust, I am less certain that Russia or the United States have to-day the moral capability which would entitle them to exercise successfully world leadership in the latter part of the 20th century.
I think there are certain spheres in world affairs in which the leadership could still be exercised by the Commonwealth of nations. I believe the responsibility for taking initiative in this field rests very much in the leaders of our own country here in Great Britain which still maintains a very close association with all the other countries of the Commonwealth. And this of course on this occasion rests particularly with my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Our membership of the European Economic Community is now an accomplished fact. There is no reason why any of our leaders should feel himself, as would seem to be the case at Singapore, on the defensive. We no longer have direct responsibility for more than a handful of scattered islands and archipelagoes. Only Rhodesia which is, to be quite frank, at most a peripheral problem, remains to trouble and disturb our overseas relations within the Commonwealth of nations.
To all intents and purposes, therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that the way is open for a new initiative by Britain in Commonwealth affairs. It is of course possible that the Commonwealth Conference will get bogged down by some confrontation between Mr. Heath and General Amin or be forced to accommodate the Byzantine irrelevances of Maltese politics at the behest of Mr. Mintoff. It may be that the sole achievement of the conference will be to enable some of the least responsible and most insignificant members to strut and posture for a few days on a world stage. In such an event, if that is allowed by the leaders to happen, the value of the Commonwealth and of these conferences in the future will be very small indeed. On the other hand it might be, under the influence and inspiration of British leadership, that this conference could signify the start of something new; that Ottawa could be, as I have said, of the very greatest importance.
Let me therefore pose my question to my noble friend the Minister of State. What do the Government consider should be the objectives before the forthcoming conference at Ottawa? I hope that our representatives will not, as at Singapore, seek to emphasise the self-evident and

2011
accepted independence of Great Britain—as independent as any country can be at the present time—or slap down the critics of our colonial past and our present policies in the interests of our national ego. I hope the Conference will not be regarded as simply an opportunity for bilateral horse trading on such matters as immigration or compensation for the nationalisation of firms, or the price of sugar or soya beans. If this conference is to be of service to the countries which comprise the Commonwealth, and of significance internationally, I suggest that it must seek to show that those who are ranged round the conference table can rise above narrow nationalism and self-interest and seek to establish standards of conduct and behaviour on an international scale which commend themselves to the conscience of responsible people the world over.
The Commonwealth is better placed to do just this because it possesses in common certain ideas and institutions inherited from its historic past, which are embodied in and understood by this generation of its ruling cadres and which may not outlast the death and disappearance from the scene of this generation. I do not think that British representatives at the Conference should be diffident about the right of this country to take some new initiative or to propose some new initiative or the extent to which that initiative would be welcomed by other leaders of Commonwealth countries. I suggest that the objects of the conference should be to establish certain codes of conduct to which all the countries of the Commonwealth could conform in their relation with each other, however big or however small they may be. I suggest that these codes should seek to regulate relations within the Commonwealth in the first place, in the hope that, in time, they may become more widely accepted internationally as they are seen to be applicable and acceptable to the great cross-section of nations and races which comprise the Commonwealth at the present moment. I suggest that these codes should in the first place aim to revive and strengthen the security and the facilities for operation of Commonwealth diplomatic representatives and staff in all Commonwealth countries.
Secondly, I suggest there should be a code to regulate the activities of elements based in Commonwealth countries which seek to subvert and overthrow the régimes of other Commonwealth countries. Thirdly, as the Economist noted in an article last week, the terrifying power of the H-bomb and the escalation and destructiveness of conventional weaponry has produced a new form of warfare represented by the terrorist and the urban guerrilla to which none of the old principles, the old controls, conventions or whatever we call them, such as they were, now apply. I suggest that we should try to find whether it would not be possible to evolve a code between Commonwealth countries to control this form of political activism in the interests of order and security. I think this should apply in addition specifically to the hijacking of Commonwealth aircraft and piracy on the High Sea.
My Lords, there is one more form of Commonwealth co-operation that I would like to suggest. I think some Commonwealth agency should be evolved able to provide the organisation and with access to predetermined resources to help in a natural emergency, a drought or famine in West Africa, a cyclone in Bangladesh, a hurricane in the West Indies or a cholera epidemic in Sri Lanka. In this way I suggest the Commonwealth could contribute, as it is well equipped to do, both to order in the field of international relationships, which has broken down so drastically during these last years, and at the same time to the amelioration of human misery among some of the most vulnerable populations in the world.
My Lords, I think that Ottawa provides a special opportunity for British statesmanship. I cannot help getting the impression, and I hope I am wrong, that the Commonwealth is no longer a matter of serious political concern to Her Majesty's Government. There are President Bhutto's disparaging remarks of this week; there is the belief that Britain is so committed to Europe that she now regards the Commonwealth as a serious embarrassment. There is the serious allegation circulating in Commonwealth circles that the British Government made strenuous efforts to alter the time of the holding of the Commonwealth Conference in order to prevent it clashing with some

2013
sporting event in this country. I must make it clear that I hope my noble friend, when she replies, will be able to answer these allegations and give us reassurance on these points.
Now perhaps more than at any time in recent history there is, I suggest, a need for those who speak for Britain on the occasion of the Ottawa Conference to show that they appreciate historic values. If in Ottawa, preferably as a result of British initiative, the Commonwealth could receive a new meaning and purpose, I think that nothing could be better calculated to restore our confidence in ourselves as a nation, and to introduce a new and effective instrument of stability in a troubled world. If this opportunity is thrown away or diminished as a result of any failures on our part at this stage, I can only say that history tends to impose a very severe penalty on those who do not match up to the standard it demands. I can only pray, and I am sure that I have the whole House with me, that Ottawa will not reproduce the mistakes of Singapore but, on the contrary, will see the start of a new era of influence and usefulness in the history of the Commonwealth of Nations.
2.54 p.m.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord has just said. I saw with considerable pleasure his Unstarred Question on the Order Paper because I thought he had chosen a matter of the first importance which ought to be discussed in the House. I want to make only a simple, local, but, I think, important contribution. It almost adds to my embarrassment because he made so important a speech and so effective a speech, and one in which I think no man of goodwill could find a word with which to quarrel. He has made the occasion one of Parliamentary importance. I rise, not to follow him, because he has said what it is necessary to say and it would be an impertinence for me to try to dot the i's and cross the t's of a speech of that calibre, but to turn merely to local issues, an issue that effects an area about three times the size of France, and that is the position of the East African community.
Having decided to do that, I hesitated for two or three reasons. The first was
2014
that the number and complexity of the problems that confront this Conference are so great that I have a horrid feeling that the Conference may well be diverted, perhaps for too long, on issues which are highly controversial but not of great future importance. The Times, which was spoken of with the approval it deserves from the Liberal Party the other day as an authoritative newspaper—an observation which I was astonished to hear received with somewhat indecorous laughter from the Benches opposite, because all its mistakes are corrected in the Sunday Times once a week—was perfectly right, perhaps a little in the style of Sir Boyle Roche, when they observed that the French nuclear explosion cut no ice in Polynesia. They might have gone on in the same genre and said that the ice-cutting industry in Polynesia had been in the doldrums for some time.
However important this issue, and whatever its moral importance, the issues to which the noble Lord referred are the issues. Of course, one of these issues is the Yaoundé Convention, and without trying to make any political capital out of it or any anti-Common Market capital—because I remained seated firmly and uncomfortably on the fence over this matter—the conflict with France over the interpretation of the Yaoundé Convention is becoming a more grave one. It is a whole difference of opinion. The former French Colonies are in a singularly unhappy position at this moment. We talked at one time of making the Kalahari Desert flower and now we are seeing the Sahara Desert move southward like a glacier over lands increasingly devastated by famine. But the problems of East Africa are serious ones, and the importance of East Africa to the Commonwealth cannot be underestimated.
I hesitated whether I should refer to the position in Uganda. I do not know at this moment whether President Amin is going to the Commonwealth Conference. I do not think there is anyone in the House who can doubt the magnitude of the horror of the reign of terror in Uganda, but it may well be that no useful purpose is served at this precise moment by going into details. And the tragedy of the situation is that there appears to be at this moment no rival claimant. President Obote, I think, has rather talked himself

2015
out of the position, if he ever really occupied it.
The East African community is also a Common Market. It also has its own consultative Parliament at Arusha. It has to make decisions. It is faced with the same problem of different currencies. Let me say quite frankly that they are virtually valueless in this country. If one is lucky one can get ten shillings in the pound for Kenyan currency and with Tanzania nothing at all, because there is no market in Tanzanian currency. If you flew from Dar-es-Salaam to London you would find that when you passed Nairobi you could not use Tanzanian currency to buy anything on the East African Airways plane. The East African Airways is almost on the verge of bankruptcy. The union of the old Tanganyika and Zanzibar is increasingly one on paper.
There remain the two other problems. I want to say a word about the tribal problem. I claim no special knowledge of these matters at all, and there are many people in this House—perhaps not at this moment—who know a great deal more than I can ever hope to know on these subjects. However, it is often thought that the tribal conflict is something like it is in Kenya; a conflict of custom, of practice, and of habits. As it was in Zanzibar particularly, and as it is in Rwanda Burundi and as it was in Uganda, it was a conflict of the old feudal system. It was a conflict of the rural landowning, educated tribes and the ex-slave race, generally of Bantu origin. Of course in Zanzibar the ruling party, which is called the Afro-Shiraz, and which is constantly spoken of as of Persian and not of African origin at all, at least arrived in Zanzibar before the Norman Conquest, and therefore, after 1,000 years, they can claim some right to be treated as indigenous.
Yesterday The Times made some belated and rather confusing observations about the position of justice in East Africa. With our own troubles in Northern Ireland we have no right to pontificate on imprisonment without trial. I observed in the Spectator, which is generally a rather more enlightened paper than it used to be, some criticisms of the President of Zanzibar, President Junbe. Remember, of course, that Zan-
2016
zibar is a Moslem country, not Arab. One might even say it is anti-Arab. They emphasise very much they are religious Moslems and not racial Moslems. The union with the Christian country of Tanganyika presented problems. Perhaps at this moment the main island of Zanzibar is closer to Mombasa—not geographically, but in spirit—than it is to Dar-es-Salaam. The Spectator says that President Junbe has been involved in a great deal of very black deeds and very atrocious things since 1963, when they got their independence. It might be true. The position of the second in command is never an easy one, and he was second in command. But since the assassination of President Karume he has given new hope that this country, with its pretty black and controversial history, is facing a new future. He has spent some of the money that Karume assembled on the welfare of the people, on the provision of food, and the development of housing and the building of roads. I appreciated the courtesy with which I was received by him on the day when "The Thunderer" was saying that British lawyers take very little interest in trials abroad. However, I have perhaps diverted a little from what I had intended to say.
As regards the position of these three great nations, Kenya is very prosperous and there are more Europeans in Nairobi to-day than ever there were in the time of British rule, even if they are transients. President Nyerere—with a country more than half as big again as Kenya and one-and-a-half times the size of France; with refugees pouring over distant frontiers; on the whole, a slightly more backward people who have not quite come into touch with what we presume, somewhat boldly, to call European civilisation—faces almost insoluble problems, and everybody sympathises with him in his efforts. It is rather sad to read that the Colonial Development Corporation, or whatever they call themselves now, are spending money on building large hotels, with the usual addendum that these have not proved quite so profitable as was anticipated—which I have read somewhere about the Colonies for the last twenty years or so. But Commonwealth participation, Commonwealth understanding, Commonwealth tolerance, Commonwealth unity could do a very great deal to make this vast country,

2017
with its small population, continue with a united future; and I do not believe there are many problems which are more important at this moment in relation to the preserving of the unity of the Commonwealth.
I call myself a Francophile, and have been one for many years, but the continual clarity of the diversion and the divergence of our interest on almost every subject from that of France, is one of the problems which the Commonwealth and this Government have to face in the years to come. If one word can be said on behalf of those held in prison, it is very sad that in Tanzania Ali Muhsin, the former premier of Zanzibar, one of the distinguished men against whom no allegation has ever been framed, against whom no charge has ever been made, has been gravely ill in distant Tanga prison, on "remand" for ten years, and that that should be done under the rule of one whom my noble friend and I know and admire tremendously, and whom most people who know him believe to be basically a great Christian, a great statesman and a man who means well, but who is faced with problems which are almost insoluble.
3.9 p.m.
LORD PORRITT: My Lords, it is not my intention to delay your Lordships very long at this late stage in our Session, but I should like most strongly to support the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in his suggestion that the objectives of the Conference at Ottawa which is shortly to be held are matters of prime importance to this noble House and to the country as a whole. One can only regret that the time has not been available for the whole subject of Commonwealth relations to be discussed at length and in detail, for I should like to suggest that we have probably reached a turning point, and I would suggest a crucial turning point, in these relations, and that the outcome of the Ottawa Conference may well have a vital and an enduring effect—not only economic, but also political and constitutional—on the wellbeing both of this country and of the other thirty-two countries which now comprise the Commonwealth, and therefore, probably, of the world at large.
My Lords, I feel that perhaps I should declare an interest at this stage, because
2018
I was born and bred in part of that Commonwealth—at that time an Empire—and I am very conscious of the fact that, in to-day's terminology, I stand here with a certain definite immigrant status. Fortunately, in the past I have had personal experience of visits to most parts of, and to many countries in, the Commonwealth. That experience, of course, was greatly broadened during my last five years in New Zealand. But as a result of this knowledge I believe, a little more optimistically than does the noble Lord, Lord Alport, that we have reached the stage of a new (and I would emphasise the word "new") Commonwealth. The days of colonisation are history. The days of Empire departed during the last world war. But, in passing, I would venture to say that however much we may query, and probably rightly query, the methods that were used, the British Empire did more good for more people all over the world than any other institution in recorded history. The Empire faded because, as the result of two world wars and a difficult interim, Britain was neither strong enough nor wealthy enough to retain it, far less to maintain it.
The first war-time Commonwealth then developed, with its series of emancipations—so-called Independence; attempts, very understandable attempts, at self-expression, founded on national pride and the desire to establish national entities. This was essentially a divisive period, when the pessimists and the Jeremiahs confidently expressed their belief that the Commonwealth was finished. But what has happened in the meantime, my Lords? A good many things, but two facts I should like to put on record. In the first place, Britain has accepted the fact—and it has been generally accepted in other countries, not least by Commonwealth countries—that she is no longer in the first league of World Powers. Secondly, Britain has, for better or for worse, joined the European Economic Community. As a result of these two things I would suggest that in the Commonwealth the days of patronage are over: the days of partnership all lie ahead. Britain is now one, and admittedly the most senior one, of a group of equal partners.
Your Lordships may well ask: Partners in what? Only a few years ago some

2019
of the more senior and more forward-looking of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers decided that to co-relate the activities of the rather sporadic Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences there should be set up a Commonwealth Secretariat. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, rather suggested that there was no such central body. But there is now a central body, set up in London—not because Britain is the "leader of the gang", if I may put it that way, but because its communications systems and its geographical facilities were better than elsewhere. It is, however, worthy of note, as the noble Lord has pointed out, that the actual Conferences are tending to be held in other Commonwealth countries rather than in Britain—the last in Singapore and now in Ottawa, the 19th meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, the first being held as far back as 1944 before the war ended. So I would suggest that a new concept of Commonwealth has been born and is developing faster than is generally recognised, certainly in this country.
I was amazed—and I would underline the word "amazed"—at what I saw happening in the South Pacific while I was in New Zealand. A series of small Commonwealth countries on their own initiative linked up with Australia and New Zealand to produce what they called a forum, a group of Commonwealth countries with common interests in such matters as travel, tourism, communications, air and sea travel, education, health and so on. But, even more astonishingly, in that short period of time they had set up a group which on an economic basis was already getting together with very definite results. This new Commonwealth that one pictures has no constitutional basis. It is simply a giant club, a colossal voluntary consortium which consists of the various nations in the Commonwealth at the moment. They are independent States but all interdependent. It is a matter of people; and, I would suggest, of people more than of politics; 900 millions of them, a quarter of humanity.
These people form a cross-section of the world: every race, every creed, every colour. They are united, if they are united at all, which is open to question, by a mutual desire to help each other
2020
and a basic belief that they can do so. After all, the very word "Commonwealth" means "comprehensive wellbeing". It is towards that goal that the new association is, I believe, setting out. This demands increasingly mutual understanding, trust and co-operation, but this objective is no longer a matter of airy-fairy principles that are so easy to enunciate and so difficult to implement.
The new Commonwealth, now that it has rid itself of the post-war series of multiple bilateral contracts of Anglocentricity which bedevilled and frustrated it in the post-war era, is becoming a hardheaded, practical, pragmatic association, the members being linked by the relatively small but highly efficient Commonwealth secretariat. This is headed by a Canadian with Ambassadorial status, with a New Zealander as his deputy, and has almost every country in the Commonwealth represented on the staff. The secretariat, which basically arranges joint consultations at all levels and provides international and Commonwealth information for its members, has quite recently associated itself with the Commonwealth Foundation which promotes exchanges in the professional fields and, within not much more than the last year, the Commonwealth Foundation for Technical Co-operation which does likewise for industrial, commercial and social interests. The very extent to which these facilities are increasingly being used is a good indication of their value to the Commonwealth members and the desire of those members to do something together.
Let us remember always that this is not an impoverished association of which we are speaking. One very much doubts whether it is generally recognised that the Commonwealth has more raw materials and greater resources than those of Russia and America put together. This is surely one of the most important aspects that should receive due emphasis at the Ottawa Conference, especially in view of Britain's new E.E.C. commitments, a matter which is bound to arise in discussion although, as your Lordships know, there is no set agenda at these meetings.
Time sadly does not permit me to go into the factors which link, if they do not necessarily unite, this heterogeneous, amorphous but nevertheless international society. These factors are of very great

2021
importance for the future not only to this country but one hopes for the development of world peace. They would to my mind include such considerations as the rÔle of the Monarchy, the influence of the English language, the adoption and the use of the British legal system and the enormous value throughout the Commonwealth as a whole of British knowhow in pretty well every field. In the Commonwealth, my Lords, we have a ready-made association of nations with no veto, where sovereign independence is assured, a global nonalignment that provides no one voice speaking for or against war or peace, which has no joint commitment but which, by fostering interdependence, while very naturally still paying due attention to national interests does much to promote international prosperity in trade, economy, education, health, culture and in social service.
I believe that qua Commonwealth we have come to the end of a chapter, but I would hope, optimistically, that we have also come to the beginning of a booklet. The new global experiment, if nothing else, which is exciting and stimulating and involves, nationally speaking, the enthusiasm of youth mixed with the maturity of experience, cannot come to fruition in a day or much longer. There are certain to be, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hale, many aberrations; there have in fact been such already. But surely can we not see the great potential for communal democracy in the Commonwealth as against Communism. One hopes, therefore, that in Ottawo this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has said, will show more than a perfunctory interest in the affairs of her other 32 partners. I can assure your Lordships from personal experience that this is, sadly, a fear of many of those countries—that the interest of Britain in their affairs is now perfunctory. I hope with him that she will again give a positive lead, as the senior partner, in constructive and practical ideas, and let it be known that her vista still extends over the great waters of the world as well as across the English Channel. In these distant fields and far flung lands, with a fresh and a sympathetic approach, I believe there lies a great potential for world wellbeing and for world peace.
3.24 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I have been much moved by the speeches of both the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, on the subject of the Commonwealth. I propose to deal more with the developing world, the developing countries of the Commonwealth, than with the more affluent countries. This most important and urgent Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, confronts us with a major world problem of to-day—the huge inequalities between the rich and the poor nations. Her Majesty's Government would do well to start from the strong and firm statement made by Her Majesty the Queen on her recent visit to Canada when she said,
"I am Queen of the Commonwealth".
The first objective of the Government could be a resolve to make this statement meaningful, and even practical. The speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Alport and Lord Porritt, have guided us to this.
During the last Commonwealth Conference the Prime Minister showed little understanding of the feelings of the Commonwealth countries or their difficulties. He was affronted by their attacks and criticisms; and I can sympathise with him when I look back on my own reactions during my first six weeks as a delegate to the United Nations. It was an eye-opener and an education about the feelings of the less affluent peoples of the world; and we should bear it and grin, which is what I learned to do. I can recommend a short apprenticeship at the United Nations for politicians before they take part in any Commonwealth Conference in order to immunise them against the anger which the vulnerable countries feel against the stronger countries.
My Lords, the Commonwealth Conference is inevitably a curtain-raiser to all the problems of aid and development. As the Western World becomes richer as a result of advances made in science and technology, the poorer nations worry about their chances of getting fair shares. Our entry into the Common Market aggravated these anxieties, as does the continuing pattern of trade among the affluent countries where we see the richer countries showing indifference, competition and greed—which, after all, exists among human beings. Though member countries of the E.E.C. are aware of the

2023
dangers of a capitalised "closed shop", and though their record of aid to developing countries is not a bad one, their own institutions militate against the poorer countries. Most forward-looking economists are aware of the problems in the poorer countries of the world. The "unacceptable face of capitalism" is evident throughout the world—as shown, for example, in the protectionism which the E.E.C. member countries apply to their own agricultural products when such products (which are often primary products in the poorer countries) have to compete with them. That is why sugar and butter are the test cases.
Aid by itself is never enough. Occasionally it is ill-used; and it is always bad for the morale of these countries when it is inadequate. The Conference in Ottawa should take as its main objective the stimulation of trade between developed and developing countries. The Commonwealth Development Corporation still continues to make a commercial success of its development projects. Self-interest, my Lords, is never absent in the dealings between Governments, but I would stress that our colonial experience makes us particularly well fitted to help the now independent members of the Commonwealth.
My Lords, I must repeat what has been said often: that development is a positive requirement of peace between nations—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Porritt. However one looks at development and aid, it rests on the moral involvement of the rich to help the poor. Now that we are in the E.E.C. we must try to harmonise with them. But if we abandon the Commonwealth we shall do so at our peril. We need the political will and the political leadership in the Ottawa Conference; and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in his optimism about the potential of the Commonwealth as an influence for fairer shares in the world. I agree with him that neither the United States of America nor Russia can really give the leadership that we need in the world to-day, because the Commonwealth is still an association of different peoples, but a free association of peoples, not only those dependent politically on Britain.
3.30 p.m.
LORD GARNER: My Lords, I am sure it was right that this House should before the Recess take a look at the very important Conference to be held in Ottawa; and when I heard the eloquence and force with which the noble Lord, Lord Alport, developed his case, it made me proud to think that I had once taught him in school and that later we had both been colleagues in the same Service. I do not propose to follow the noble Lord in the broad scope of the theme he developed; I would merely offer some modest comments, based to some extent on the experience I have had over the years at gatherings of this sort, on how the forthcoming meeting might be conducted. I should like to do so in the form of some don'ts and do's.
My first don't comes perhaps appropriately from these Benches and from someone who was previously a civil servant: that is, to caution against being over-ambitious; to caution against putting too great a load on the Commonwealth machine, a greater load than it can bear, because I think it is unwise to try to force an agreement on political matters. Some two years ago I was invited to attend the Commonwealth Economic Conference in Canberra. It was opened by Mr. Gorton, the then Prime Minister of Australia. He praised the work that was being done in education and commented that co-operation in educational matters was one of the things that the Commonwealth could do extremely well. He had then just come from Singapore, and he used these words, which I think have great validity:
"It is not realistic to expect 31"—
it was then 31—
"diverse nations to be able to reach a consensus of opinion on highly controversial political issues. Nor is it realistic to assume that if they do reach a consensus it in any way affects those who are not part of that consensus."
From my memory, it was not always so easy to reach complete agreement in what is now frequently regarded as the cosy, intimate association of the Empire feeling with the old Dominions, even before the war. How much more difficult is it to reach complete unanimity to-day.
My Lords, my second don't would be to advise against staging a confrontation

2025
In recent years, as we all know, the Afro-Asians made a massive move to exert pressure on Britain over Rhodesia, sometimes to put her in the dock, in the hope of changing what was settled British policy: I think one could even detect some sign that the British delegation were not averse to promoting some form of confrontation at the last meeting in Singapore. This, again, seems to me to be misguided, because to try to use the Commonwealth as a pressure group will only lead to the disruption of the Commonwealth. Attacks made on individual members can so easily boomerang, as of course the African countries themselves must realise. If this is the way things go at the Conference, this will only spell the end of the Commonwealth as we know it.
My third don't is to hope that there will not be excessive publicity, and that the Conference will not end, as it has done in recent years, in an absolutely monumental communiqué. I ask people to believe that the assumption is quite false that the greater the verbiage, the greater the feeling among public opinion the action and the depth of the discussion has been. I think the reverse is true. I well recall Sir Robert Menzies, when he used to attend meetings saying: " But why do we need a long communiqué at all? Why cannot we just say, 'The Commonwealth Prime Ministers all met and had an excellent discussion'?" That sort of line has very considerable merit, because it seems to me that there are great dangers in the way in which, over past Conferences, the publicity media have emphasised all the differences and played up the difficulties. And, of course, very seldom have they made any substantial comment on the things that have gone right and gone well. This has happened to such an extent that when I find there is no mention of a particular conference on TV or radio, then I know that an extraordinarily good conference has been held.
Now I should like to turn to something a little more constructive and put forward three "do's". First, I think we always ought to remember that the purpose of a meeting of this kind, as was suggested earlier, is friendly consultation and the achievement of practical co-operation. It seems to me absolutely splendid that
2026
these leaders of different countries, representing such different points of view and such diversity, can come together and learn each other's views and have a completely frank and relaxed conversation. I reject totally the idea that the Conference is merely an academic discussion or a mere debating chamber. I do not think that is the case at all. I believe that the less an attempt is made to bring things to a designed decision, the more the discussion itself can be in depth and achieve real value. It is here that I come very close to the main theme which was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I agree with so much of what he said, and my only additional thought would be that in the light of what I have been saying earlier the merit of the Commonwealth association and Commonwealth gatherings is flexibility, informality, ease of discussion and so on. Therefore I should like to think carefully before going too far in codifying all the arrangements that we have among ourselves. On this question I understand that there was a meeting of senior officials in Ottawa some months ago when representations were made as to how future meetings should be conducted, probably with a view to meeting some of the difficulties that I have mentioned earlier. It would be very helpful to hear from the noble Baroness when she replies whether some of those ideas are likely to be followed.
My second "do", so to speak—and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, used these words—is that we should remember that the Commonwealth is a voluntary association of peoples and not merely a coming together of Governments. So often it is political matters that divide, and it is the contacts between individuals and the human relationships in the Commonwealth that bring us together.
That brings me to my final point, which is a practical one. One of the things which the Commonwealth does best, at any rate nowadays, is to achieve cooperation over a very broad field, though to a large extent excluding the strictly political field. What it is eminently well adapted for is to provide the sort of thing we see in the service of volunteers; in the extraordinary co-operation between universities, and indeed over the whole field of education, with the very substantial numbers of scholars there are

2027
and the extremely imaginative Commonwealth Education Scheme that has now been in operation for some ten years; in the activities of the Commonwealth Press Union; in technical assistance, and in all the other exchanges that take place. One further organisation I would wish to mention is the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. We in this country are to have the opportunity of being hosts in September to a gathering of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which will show people as a whole how lively this body still is, and what value it performs. The relevance of this to the Ottawa meeting is that if Prime Ministers felt able to go on record recommending the C.P.A.'s work, and perhaps increasing the finance they make available, it would be enormously appreciated.
My Lords, I hope that you will pardon one final word from me. In 1956 I was appointed British High Commissioner in Canada. I presented my Letter of Credential, as is the custom, to the Prime Minister at that time, Mr. St. Laurent. I have heard to-day that he has just died. He was a great servant of Canada and, to my knowledge, a great friend of the Commonwealth. It is not for me to pay any final tribute, but I should like to express the hope that his spirit of courtesy (because he was a tremendously courteous and charming person), his spirit of understanding and conciliation, will be brooding over his old city of Ottawa while the Conference is meeting.
3.42 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for having initiated this debate with his Unstarred Question. I also express my appreciation of the speech which he has delivered. I am quite sure that he will have felt, as the discussion has continued, that it was well worth while initiating the debate. I have some experience of debates on Unstarred Questions and I do not remember one where there has been such a series of notable speeches as we have had during this discussion.
We had from my noble friend Lord Hale a moving description of the situation in East Africa, based on past and recent experience. We had from the noble
2028
Lord, Lord Porritt, who spoke with the authority of his post in New Zealand, a most noteworthy speech which indicated all the possibilities of the development of the Commonwealth. We had from my noble friend Lady Gaitskell a special plea on behalf of the poverty areas within the Commonwealth. Now, from the noble Lord, Lord Garner, with his high experience in the Civil Service, we have had some realistic estimates of the possibilities. I find it difficult to follow that series of distinguished speeches.
The change from the Empire to the Commonwealth since the last world war has been one of the great transitions in history. When that change took place many of us regarded it as a great progressive and hopeful event. It has had great achievements; it has also had many disappointments. The first thing we ought to realise is that literally, looking at the Commonwealth, it is one of the most illogical associations of nations that exists in the world. It is composed of the old white Dominions and the new black and brown nations of Africa and Asia. Some of these nations have democratic Constitutions; others are autocratic. Some are Monarchist; others are Republican. Some are inclined towards the West; many emphasise that they are nonaligned; some probably have their tendencies towards the East. Some are at this moment negotiating association with the European Community; the Commonwealth countries in Asia are excluded. Some are definitely Socialist in purpose; others are capitalist and inviting the cooperation of the capitalist West. If one is thinking of any basis of association of nations on social, racial, political or economic lines, I can think of no association which has such little basis as that of the Commonwealth.
When I have said that, I believe the Commonwealth has at the present time not only a tremendous contribution to make to the world but potentially an even greater one. My first plea with the Government to-night would be that they should not allow this country to become so closely associated with the new European Community that its association with the Commonwealth becomes less. The first reason why I believe the Commonwealth to be of such great value is that it is the only association, other

2029
than the United Nations itself, which brings together all the races of the earth. This is quite extraordinary—not merely the white Dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but the races of Asia, the races of Africa. That they should all be in an association is of enormous hope at this time when we must seek to end racial divisions. That hope has been greatly increased during this last year by the changes which have taken place in the Governments of Australia and of New Zealand. For the first time, these Governments to-day are speaking in terms which are identical with those of the peoples of Africa and the peoples of Asia in seeking to end racial discrimination in the world.
The second reason why I believe that the Commonwealth has great potential possibilities is this. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, referred in his speech to a declaration made many years ago by Mr. Winston Churchill and others, and indicated that it was now a little obsolete. At the Singapore Conference, with all its disappointments, a Declaration of Commonwealth Principles was made, which I regard as one of the most hopeful Declarations on the kind of world to which we should be aiming. I am continually amazed, as I look at international declarations, whether it be the Charter of Human Rights of the United Nations, the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations or the Lusaka Declaration of African Nations, and now this Commonwealth Declaration of Principles, at the nobility of language in which they are expressed. I propose to read (because many of us may have forgotten the terms) some paragraphs from the Commonwealth Declaration of Principles which were adopted at the Singapore Conference. The Declaration reads:
"We believe that international peace and order are essential to the security and prosperity of mankind; we therefore support the United Nations and seek to strengthen its influence for peace in the world, and its efforts to remove the causes of tension between nations.
"We believe in the liberty of the individual, in equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief, and in their inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which they live. We therefore strive to promote in each of our countries those representative institutions and guarantees for personal freedom under the law that are our common heritage.
2030
"We recognise racial prejudice as a dangerous sickness threatening the healthy development of the human race and racial discrimination as an unmitigated evil of society. Each of us will vigorously combat this evil within our own nation.
"No country will afford to régimes which practise racial discrimination assistance which in its own judgment directly contributes to the pursuit or consolidation of this evil policy. We oppose all forms of colonial domination and racial oppression and are committed to the principles of human dignity and equality.
"We will therefore use all our efforts to foster human equality and dignity everywhere, and to further the principles of self-determination and non-racialism.
"We believe that the wide disparities in wealth now existing between different sections of mankind are too great to be tolerated; they also create world tensions. Our aim is their progressive removal; we therefore seek to use our efforts to overcome poverty, ignorance and disease, in raising standards of life and achieving a more equitable international society."
My Lords, there has never been written, in connection with any group of nations, such ideals and such a picture of the pattern of the world for which we should strive as are contained in these principles adopted for the Commonwealth at the Singapore Conference.
I recognise at once that none of us is living up to those principles. They deal with peace; they deal with colonial domination and race relations; they deal with personal liberty, and they deal with poverty. I very much hope that as the Prime Minister goes to the Ottawa Conference he will take with him those principles laid down at Singapore and will seek to make the objective of that Conference, as mentioned in the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, the realisation of those ideals which are still not expressed in the lives of all our peoples.
My Lords, I do not want to go into detail. As I have said, they dealt with four issues principally. I do not see how the Ottawa Conference, representing nations in the Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia, can fail to face up to the problem of peace to-day. I hope that as a result of those discussions there will be a real contribution towards peace in the world. Inevitably, colonial domination and racial discrimination will be raised—Rhodesia, Southern Africa, the Portuguese Colonies. The record of Her Majesty's Government

2031
in relation to those will cause some disappointment among our Commonwealth colleagues.
The next thing I want to refer to is personal liberty. I think those of us who believe in personal liberty have been perhaps more than disappointed by what is happening in nearly every Commonwealth country to-day in the imprisonment of political opponents for their beliefs; and I hope the issue will be raised very strongly at Ottawa. I hope we shall have the humility to appreciate that what has happened in Ireland does not mean we can be self-righteous as we raise this issue.
Then there is poverty, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, spoke. I welcome the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Garner, of some permanent institution which can go to the aid of natural disasters when they occur, such as that in Bangladesh and in West Africa now. But if we are to deal with the problem of poverty in the Commonwealth we have to adopt much more radical methods than we have yet attempted. I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they might make one proposal at the Ottawa Conference: that there should be an international convention dealing with the conditions of financial investment in colonial territories, similar to the I.L.O. conventions, a convention which should insist that when there is investment from this country and America, and other capitalist countries, there should be good living standards for the people (this is an issue which has arisen recently in South Africa and also in Commonwealth countries) and that there should be opportunities for the indigenous population to he able to advance, and to advance ultimately to management.
My Lords, the last point I want to make is this. I feel that the present reflection of Commonwealth association in organisations is terribly unsatisfactory. There is a conference once every two years which is simply ten days or a fortnight of discussion. Issues continually arise on which the Commonwealth ought to get together in conference. One of them is the problem of immigrants from East Africa. This is a problem related to India, a problem related to this country; there should have been a conference
2032
long ago representing these countries to deal with that problem.
Then I am disappointed by the Commonwealth Secretariat in London. It ought to be an organisation which is continually expressing the views of Commonwealth countries on great issues. It ought to be an orgainsation which is continually seeking co-operation between Commonwealth countries in their different issues. I hope, my Lords, that one of the results of the Ottawa Conference will be to make the Commonwealth Secretariat a real, creative, constructive instrument representing the Commonwealth in all its possibilities of advance.
4.0 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I also should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alport, on his Unstarred Question, and also on his extremely clear and good speech. I suppose I have been fairly fortunate in my life. I have travelled across the world and visited a certain number of our Commonwealth countries. Even in my not all too long life, the change that has taken place within the Commonwealth has been quite extraordinary, and we have heard all about this in the debate this afternoon. But I believe it was obviously inevitable that that change should take place. The very fact that in a sense the world gets smaller through communications, and that the trading areas get stronger, was bound to produce a totally different approach to the Commonwealth. When I was last in Australia, about three years ago, their eyes were turned entirely towards America and also towards Japan. We find, quite understandably, that Canada, with their eyes at a trading angle, are turned towards America. But this still does not alter the fact of this amazing situation of a Commonwealth such as ours, which does exist, and I hope our position and the position of the other Commonwealth countries will not alter.
May I turn for a few moments to the volcanic state of Africa, which we have so often discussed in this House. I know Africa fairy well; I have visited it a number of times since the war. I have been deeply impressed by many of the emerging Commonwealth countries in the whole of the African continent. I am not trying to be sarcastic in any way when I say that I think many of these countries

2033
are just beginning to understand the real problems they are having to face, now that they are emerging as completely separate countries. I was extremely interested when I was in Kenya on the last occasion. I was staying about 80 miles away from Nairobi, and the Attorney General flew up to lunch with my host. He was a most eminent gentleman, called to the Middle Temple, and he was giving us a rundown on a Bill he was introducing into the Kenya Parliament the following week. He said, Are you by any chance going to be here for the next few days?", and when I said I was, he said, "Would you like to come and listen to this debate, because it will give you some idea of what I, as an African, have to face with my other African neighbours?". I said I should be exceedingly interested, and I went; and that brought home to me very strongly the very difficult problems they have among their own people within those countries. This is just as strong as their antipathy and, in a sense, dislike, towards the European. They are so deeply suspicious still of their own tribal people. Confidence will, of course, emerge; slowly, I feel, it will probably get all right, and one certainly hopes it will.
There is no doubt that when Africa does emerge as a reasonably united continent, it has the potential of being one of the balancing powers of the world, and I sincerely believe that the sort of problems we have discussed so often in your Lordships' House, the problem of South Africa and the Portuguese colonies, in time will be resolved. One must be optimistic and look ahead and say that this will take place. One wishes the best success to this future Conference. I am certain that as long as the heads of our Government show balance and imagination in their dealings with the Commonwealth—and I am sure that Sir Alec and the Prime Minister will—they will, in the end, bring this slow evolution into the right perspective.
4.6 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Alport—to whom I have made my personal apologies—for not having been here at the beginning of this debate. I was present at a meeting of the Central Council of the Royal Commonwealth
2034
Society, which I had to attend. I am glad to say that we unanimously elected the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, Vice-President. Therefore my absence from here was at least to some extent fruitful.
I imagine that most of your Lordships will have read the remarks of President Bhutto of Pakistan when he was here a few days ago, in which he referred to the Commonwealth. As reported in the newspapers, he made some very friendly, polite and, I am sure, sincere remarks about his relations with the United Kingdom, with Her Majesty's Government, and with the solution of the difficulties between the two countries, and naturally we were very happy to know of that. He went on to say, as reported, that he had no regrets about having left the Commonwealth, because he considered it a useless organisation based on sentiment and nothing else. That is a challenge from a responsible and leading statesman from a former Commonwealth country that we cannot ignore. I think the coming conference gives us a chance to refute that. It must be refuted not merely by words, of which there will be many, but by actual deeds, by concrete acts, which will prove to President Bhutto and to all others who doubt the value of the Commonwealth that there is something of real value in the Commonwealth and that it can achieve things which no other organisation is able to achieve.
I would suggest that at the present time there are three outstanding problems which confront some, or all, of the members of the Commonwealth, and where united action and discussion by the Commonwealth can be of value. I do not take them in any particular order of importance. The first I would deal with is the question of Rhodesia; inevitably and rightly that will come up at the conference. I first of all congratulate the Government on the stand that they are taking at the present time; it is a policy which I believe is absolutely right. I am happy that the Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office went out there, and I am also happy—and I do not say that there is any cause or effect here—that Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa are now talking.
But we must do more than that, and I suggest that there are two particular

2035
lines of action where Her Majesty's Government, the Prime Minister, can take a positive lead in Ottawa. The first of these is to propose that there should be a gathering together (or the formation, if you like to call it that) of something that might be called a Committee of Commonwealth Prime Ministers or their representatives to keep a watchful eye on developments in Rhodesia and jointly formulate policies within very broad outlines, depending on how things are moving. In other words, Rhodesia should no longer be solely the responsibility of the United Kingdom, though clearly we have a major responsibility in this. However, we should enlist the help, advice, wisdom and experience of other members of the Commonwealth, and particularly those members who are so closely associated and knowledgeable about Africa—countries such as Nigeria, Kenya and Zambia, and possibly Canada and India, so that it will not be a solely African concern. The initial meeting of this body should be attended, if not by Prime Ministers themselves, at least by their senior colleagues—by a Cabinet Minister from this country—and there should be regular contact between the countries composing the Committee, and regular meetings between its members in order to follow up and exert continuing pressure of a constructive kind upon Rhodesia.
My second point with regard to Rhodesia is that Commonwealth countries themselves should be made aware of their responsibilities and their power in the matter of Rhodesian sanctions. We know perfectly well that this country bears the brunt of sanctions. There are certain instances of evasion even here, though they are not very large, but there are many instances of evasion in many other countries throughout the world. We do something to bring pressure to bear upon those countries, but in my opinion we do not do enough and we are not discussing this subject at the present time. But I am quite certain that the effect of the larger trading countries of the Commonwealth on the major offenders—Germany, Japan, Italy and so on—in this matter of sanctions would be of enormous value. If these other countries knew that the Commonwealth countries would take what steps they could to
2036
restrict their trade with any country which offended against sanctions, I believe that we should make very real progress. Those are two very brief points so far as Rhodesia is concerned.
The second matter that was touched upon by my noble friend Lord Brockway is immigration. Immigration is of great importance to us, as we know only too well, but it is of importance to other Commonwealth countries, too, both as receivers and as senders of immigrants. My noble friend made the suggestion, which I am sure he could have elaborated with very great profit to us, that there should be a standing committee of Commonwealth countries—again, of a high level—to keep under constant review the problem of immigration between all members of the Commonwealth whether they be immigrants to India from Kenya, or to this country from the West Indies, or wherever there may be problems and that we should on a Commonwealth basis discuss the many problems and difficulties and their solutions, and should not leave the problem simply as one which the recipient country on its own has the job of solving in different ways. It should be a joint Commonwealth effort.
Thirdly, there is the problem of poverty, which my noble friend Lady Gaitskell so rightly touched upon, and, in particular, the results of our entry into the European Economic Community. There is no need to reiterate to your Lordships my support for our action in that matter, but we cannot disguise the fact that our entry into the Community poses very great problems in the Commonwealth and places it under a very great strain both emotionally, sentimentally and severely practically. The problem of sugar has been dealt with satisfactorily up to a point, but there is far more to be done in this respect. This problem is tied up with the whole of the Common Agricultural Policy, with the whole question of aid towards developing countries, and so on.
We in this country and Her Majesty's Government, as the only member of the Commonwealth who is to-day a member of the European Economic Community, must make it abundantly clear that we cannot translate into real action all the great words which pour out from the

2037
mouths of politicians and others concerning help for underdeveloped countries, unless there is a genuine transfer of wealth from the rich countries to the poor countries; and you cannot transfer wealth from one person to another without the person from whom the wealth is being transferred making some sacrifice. That is something which we must make very clear to our European partners; and we must also make clear to our Commonwealth partners our willingness to do this. In other words, we must take the initative in Brussels in, I must not use the word "renegotiating", but in modifying the Common Agricultural Policy in such a way that the expressed desire of the Community to help the developing countries becomes a reality; and we must use the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference as a place where these matters can be discussed in all honesty and with complete frankness.
We must convince our Commonwealth partners that the mere fact that we have entered into the Community does not mean to say that we are turning our backs upon them, and does not mean to say that we are sheltering behind communal decisions in Brussels to enable us to forgo our responsibilities and our wishes with regard to the Commonwealth countries. We must convince them by our words and deeds in Brussels that we are determined to see that, as to the developing countries of the Commonwealth (and the other countries of the Commonwealth, too, to whom we owe so much, should not be forgotten) we act as their champions in the Economic Community.
I believe that if we tackle these three problems in a realistic and non-rhetorical way we shall have gone a very great way towards showing that President Bhutto's remarks about the Commonwealth are misjudged and unfounded; and eventually, who knows, when we have proved that, we may find—and I hope we shall—that Pakistan once more becomes a member of the Commonwealth.
4.18 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has, not for the first time, rendered a service to your Lordships' House and to the Commonwealth by raising this Question. My only regret is that, while it is very opportune
2038
since it is shortly before the Prime Ministers' Conference in Ottawa, it could not have been on a day when perhaps the House would have been more full. On the other hand, the service will be appreciated because the Lords Hansard is read in Commonwealth countries; and on some occasions I think they are read more fully and perhaps with more understanding than they are in this country.
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brockway spoke of how illogical is the Commonwealth. How is it that this multitude of nations, cutting right across religion, race and colour, and political thought, still feel it right and in their interest to be banded together in a very loose organisation? I must admit that I find it increasingly difficult to explain the Commonwealth, particularly to my friends in the United States. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, spoke of the leadership required of Britain at the Prime Ministers' Conference. If I may say so, I rather preferred the views of the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, when he spoke of the Commonwealth being comprised of equal partners. I feel that, while there needs to be some initiative by certain countries, the Commonwealth has a greater chance of succeeding in the political sense if there is a recognition of equal partnership. But the Commonwealth is held together perhaps more by the many and varied organisations than by the political interests. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, who spoke of the Commonwealth Secretariat. In a recent debate I spoke of the many varying organisations, many of them unofficial, which stem from and develop the internal interests of the people of the Commonwealth. I have no doubt that it is the wish of your Lordships that these should continue.
My Lords, I come to this debate refreshed. I mention it in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said about emerging nationalism. Nationalism in some fields has a rather dirty connotation. Some two weeks ago I was in the Bahamas to witness the Independence ceremony of the 33rd member of the Commonwealth. There is no doubt that there is always that moment of sadness when the Union Jack is lowered. I freely acknowledge that I shared in that feeling of sadness. But then, as on other

2039
occasions, one could not fail to be swept along by the surging enthusiasm of the new independent people as their emblem of independence is raised. So perhaps one has in one eye a tear of sadness and in the other a tear of joy. But I should not be particularly worried about this emerging nationalism. I believe that it is necessary if these developing countries are to be able to gear their own vitality to their own development. Indeed in some respects a little more nationalism of that sort in this country might well be to our benefit. The Prime Ministers' Conference may be a turning-point; but I suspect that it will not be. I think that a number of issues will be raised that will cause difficulties. Rhodesia, for instance, may be a temporary one. But, like my noble friend Lord Walston, I think that the views expressed perhaps more clearly in this House than in another place will see the Government through.
My Lords, there is only one area where things could go sour, if the Prime Minister and the Government are not very careful. I take it from the noble Lord, Lord Alport (and there have been other reports), that The Prime Minister does not intend to remain for the full period of the Prime Ministers' Conference. In my view, that would be a tragedy, not only for the Prime Minister but in terms of the Conference as a whole. If this were to happen it would be seen as a very considerable snub to the new Commonwealth. They would compare it with the undoubted warmth shown to the Prime Minister of Portugal when he recently visited London. So I hope there will be no question of the Prime Minister's feeling that there are other more interesting occupations than attending a Prime Ministers' Conference and that he will remain there and will see the discussions through.
My noble friend Lady Gaitskell spoke of aid and trade. This is a familiar theme from my noble friend, and I think that there will be no dissent from this House. Aid is essential but, above all else, trade is vital. Therefore we on this side of the House have always given careful consideration, following our entry into the E.E.C., to the proposals and arrangements, particularly for sugar. What we must bear in mind is the need to provide employment as much as providing in-
2040
come; for no amount of cash aid will replace or change the consequences of major unemployment in these sugar producing countries.
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Garner, who spoke of the need for a permanent organisation to deal with emergencies and crises—natural crises—as they occur. I differ from him in only one respect: I feel that when these tragedies do occur they are of such severity that they are perhaps better dealt with by a permanent organisation of the United Nations than one of the Commonwealth. But if it was the intention and desire of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, in unity, to proceed at the United Nations to see that such an organisation was set up I should be very much with the noble Lord.
He spoke of the need for not being too ambitious in terms of a conference. While I think that as a very well-respected Permanent Under-Secretary he may be right, in the sense that a little bit of cake is better than no cake at all, and that small achievements are better than no achievements at all, on the other hand there must be some star by which one seeks to guide the ship of state, or the Commonwealth as such. So I would not agree with him that we should not seek to find some common ground on the great issues which confront not only the Commonwealth but equally the world as a whole. My Lords, there are areas where I believe we could get agreement. Certainly the Singapore Conference—despite the very great dangers that were there as a consequence of the present Prime Minister and the understanding (or lack of understanding) of the Commonwealth—did produce, as my noble friend Lord Brockway said, a genuine statement of principle. The only difficulty, as he also said, is that it is very difficult for human beings to live up to the great statements of principle. Nevertheless, we could do a great deal more in moving towards those principles that were restated by my noble friend.
My Lords, I have spoken of sugar. I cannot help but feel that our optimism in terms of New Zealand and the consequences of British entry into the EEC is perhaps not as good or as bright as we once thought. I think that New Zealand is having a much more difficult

2041
time than we had hoped in adjustment in trade as a consequence of British entry. This, again, is a matter on which I hope that the Prime Minister will consult with his New Zealand opposite number at Ottawa. I cannot help but feel that this country did not do all it could have done in terms of the feelings of Australia, New Zealand and the general South Pacific countries on the dangers arising as a consequence of the French nuclear weapon. I would not have suggested that we, like the Australians, should put a ship alongside that of New Zealand, but, on the other hand, I think we could have been infinitely more forthright in our objection and condemnation of the pollution of the atmosphere in the Soutth Pacific by the French activities. If we had done so we could have given greater assurance to our friends in Australia and New Zealand that the Commonwealth, and our own particular links with them, are as strong as we in fact seek to make them.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, spoke with some doubt about the future of the Commonwealth and the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, spoke of the turning point. I have a very strong feeling that the links of the Commonwealth, fragile, brittle, and thin as they may appear to he, are a good deal tougher than we give credit for and a good deal stronger than anything that any government or any nation can impose upon them. I conclude with one comment. My noble friend Lord Hale spoke about President Amin of Uganda and his presence in Ottawa. If the President goes there I hope that it will not in any way provoke a confrontation between any of the States and Uganda. I believe that the Commonwealth Conference is of such importance that nothing should be allowed to place it in jeopardy. But it would provide an opportunity for the United Commonwealth to put its own immediate pressures on the President of Uganda. I hope that only good may come of that.
My Lords, this has been an important debate which I think will be read in many Commonwealth countries. We could send from this House a united message, which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, would endorse, that in this country,
2042
despite the fact that we have entered the European Community, we still attach the greatest possible importance, not only to the political adhesion of the Commonwealth but also to the development of the economy and social life of its peoples. Because, as my noble friend Lady Gaitskell said with such great truth, it is only through development and social conditions that peace may be established. If that message could be conveyed to the leaders of the 33 Commonwealth countries in Ottawa, then I think that all the journeys to Ottawa will be well worth while.
4.32 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I hope very much that the Hansard report of this debate will be read and it will be seen what a great interest this House takes in the affairs of the Commonwealth as a whole. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Alport on having seized the last possible moment of the last day of Parliament's sitting to raise in your Lordships' House, in a relevant way, the questions which are in our minds about the forthcoming Conference it Ottawa which is such a short time away.
I should like to start my remarks by giving a direct answer to the Question on the Order Paper. Her Majesty's Government consider that the objective before the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting at Ottawa should be to achieve a frank, confidential, useful exchange of views on world issues which are of common concern. And all this, my Lords, among 32 nations of every race and creed who, I believe, despite their differences, have an undoubted affinity with each other. My noble friend Lord Alport asked whether Her Majesty's Government could not take a new initiative, but we have to remember that we are meeting with 31 other sovereign States. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and I very much welcome that fine speech by the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, who spoke more in the sense that the Commonwealth was meeting as equal partners in an informal and frank way. I am sure that the noble Lord is right; and may I say, referring to something that he said, that we discuss Commonwealth matters perhaps more often than he realises. We

2043
had a full-dress Commonwealth debate on May 9.
I feel that this Conference is of very great importance, and I am sure that M. Trudeau and all our Canadian friends will ensure, as our hosts in Ottawa, that we shall meet in a happy, informal way, which is the best guarantee for success. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Garner, in the tribute he paid to a great Canadian and a great former Commonwealth Prime Minister, Louis St. Laurent, who has only just died. He was well-known to my family. I think that all Canada will be sad that he has now passed on. He did a great deal for them.
We feel, my Lords, that the Commonwealth must, and always will, remain of great concern to this country because we believe it to be a stabilising force. There is no other forum in the world where countries with so many different backgrounds and differing experiences in development can meet together privately and be quite frank, and not have to explain themselves to each other. That, I think, is the greatest guarantee of its success. Of course it is true that there is a tendency, which has increased year by year, for countries to co-operate with their neighbours on a regional or continental basis. The noble Lord, Lord Porritt, gave us one example, the South Pacific: but there is the Organisation of African Unity, the Association of South East Asian Nations and our own membership of the European Community. I suggest that this is natural and common sense for all these groupings. But it is precisely because the Commonwealth is representative of the major groupings in the world that the discussion in Ottawa is going to be so valuable, because it includes some of the largest and some of the smallest nations, from India, with her 550 million people, to Tonga with 90,000.
My noble friend Lord Alport said that he hoped that codes of conduct would be discussed at Ottawa. I think he was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who quoted in some detail from that striking Commonwealth Declaration which emerged from the last Heads of Government meeting in Singapore in 1971. I think it was a striking recognition of the unanimity with which nations which span six Continents and five oceans, of different race, language,
2044
religion and economic development, can together consider what are some of the most profound problems concerning the human race. Nevertheless, our different needs, as the result of differences in history and geography, create problems which we do not all share.
I suggest that the great problems of the world, which we share, are not necessarily going to be solved if they are discussed only among countries which hold identical views. That is why I think there is real value in a Conference such as this, and that is why the Heads of Government will not seek in Ottawa to reach decisions or to pass resolutions. I hope that there will be bilateral discussion. I think that these outside the actual conference chamber are some of the most valuable. I was greatly interested in Lord Garner's views on certain do's and don'ts, and particularly in what he had to say about the "monumental communiqué", with which I must say I am in considerable agreement.
With the rapid growth of membership of the Commonwealth, which has, after all, quadrupled over the last fifteen years, it has without doubt been difficult to preserve the intimacy which has been the envied feature of former Commonwealth gatherings. But I understand that there is a genuine wish, freely expressed, to try to capture the traditional Commonwealth style, and I am sure this will be found again at the Ottawa Conference: this is certainly what is in the mind of our host M. Trudeau.
Bangladesh has joined the Commonwealth since the last meeting, and so, indeed, have the Bahamas. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that, despite the sadness of leaving us, the excitement of independence, and a united independence, was something good to see. I think there will be a special welcome, therefore, for Sheikh Mujib and Mr. Pindling. Among those attending for the first time will be General Gowon, whose recent visit here gave us very great pleasure. There will also be the New Zealand and Australian Prime Ministers, who will be attending for the first time. I am quite certain they will give us very valuable contributions.
A large number of Commonwealth countries will be represented by their Heads of Government, but not all. The Prime Minister will lead the British

2045
delegation. I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Alport that there were many discussions about changes of date for this meeting. It was very difficult indeed to try to get one date that would meet the convenience of so many people. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that I cannot say now whether my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will stay all the time: I think this will depend very much on the progress of the Conference itself—and it is of course a fact that members come and members go according to the particular interests of the time. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be there, and he will be attending his eighth Heads of Government meeting. Noble Lords have referred to the visit to Canada of Her Majesty the Queen who has been invited there as Head of the Commonwealth and Queen of Canada. She will be there in Ottawa during the early part of the Conference.
I cannot speak to-day about the agenda for the Conference because this has not yet been settled nor will it be until the Heads of Government actually meet. The discussions between Governments and the Commonwealth Secretary-General (to whom I am so glad that tributes have been paid this afternoon) are meanwhile confidential. But I think one can make certain forecasts based on the interests one has found from visitors here or as one has gone about the Commonwealth. There are also the interests that one already knows.
There has been a major change in the world political scene since the last meeting in Singapore—and this has been referred to by many noble Lords—in other words, our entry into the European Communities. While I believe that certain political problems will be discussed, such as Uganda—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hale—and Rhodesia—referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Walston—I do not myself believe that political questions will hold the stage. I believe this Conference may well concentrate on economic questions, such as, for example, Britain's role in the Commonwealth now that we have joined the E.E.C. We shall make it perfectly clear that in joining the European Communities we hope that in time this will enhance our
2046
strength and therefore our ability to be of greater use to the Commonwealth.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, spoke in particular of the developing countries, as did my noble friend Lord St. Just in speaking of Africa, together with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I should like to refer to the debate which is taking place in Brussels while we are here now. Twenty developing Commonwealth countries who are eligible for association to the E.E.C. under Protocol 22 of the Treaty of Accession are taking part, together with the existing would-be Associates and a number of other African countries, in the opening meeting of negotiations for a new Convention of Association. My right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development is attending this conference on behalf of the United Kingdom. The proceedings began yesterday with a statement made on behalf of the Community by the President, and I am making arrangements for copies of that to be made available to your Lordships. The Community's statement in no way prejudges the contents of the new Convention of Association and this, I would suggest to your Lordships, is very good. The statement says that the contents will obviously depend on the wishes of the developing countries concerned and of course on the normal give and take of genuine negotiation; but the Community far their part have suggested that a Convention should include free entry for the bulk of the exports to the developing countries, subject to special arrangements for agricultural produce. They have not settled the question of whether the Community should in return seek trade reciprocity from the developing countries. It is good that the Community have not yet reached a final view on the trade structure of the new Convention because they await the views of their negotiating partners and they will take them into account in further internal deliberations.
The Community also made it clear that they do not seek in any way to suggest that the Commonwealth countries have to make a choice prematurely between the different options that will be open to them. That, too, is good. The Community have stressed that they want to embark on negotiations on the basis of

2047
a single model of association. We think that this is right, because it will afford those developing countries which enter into the new association the maximum advantages in trade and aid, and because it will encourage moves in Africa, the Caribbean and South Pacific towards regional economic unity. For those countries, however, who might wish to base their relations with the Community on a different model association, the second and third options under Protocol 22 will remain open; but no date is specified when the developing countries must choose.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I have been very interested in what the noble Baroness said about discussions at Brussels. Does she agree that there is the most extraordinary unity between African countries, Caribbean countries and the countries of the South Pacific in the proposals they are putting forward? Can we expect the British representative to be voicing the views of the Commonwealth in these negotiations?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR BELHELVIE: My Lords, we have said many times that we will help the Commonwealth in any way that we can. As everybody knows, one of the striking facts is that there is a difference of view, for example, over reciprocity. We have said that we hope this question will remain open for a genuine negotiation. This is what has happened in the first statement from the Community. I think this is very good. Perhaps I should make plain that this was an opening statement on behalf of the Community. Today, and possibly tomorrow, those countries who are there will make statements on their reactions to the opening statement. There will then be time for further reflection by the Community, because the real negotiation as such does not start until probably the third week of September. During that time the Commission must take into account the views of those who are at the opening meeting. It must put forward proposals to the Council of Ministers, and the Council of Ministers must decide on a negotiating mandate which will be the first negotiating mandate. This has not yet been decided. The fact that so many questions, such as reciprocity and whether there should be a final date for
2048
joining, have been left open, is a good sign of the influence that Commonwealth countries, perhaps even Her Majesty's Government, might have exercised.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether it is true that 43 African countries have refused to give preference to E.E.C. exports? I read that in The Times.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: No, my Lords, that is not so. Nineteen countries are already associated under the Yaoundé II Convention. That Convention arranged that reciprocity should be given; but it is not mandatory and many countries do not give it. But some do and they like it that way—for example, Senegal. Of the Commonwealth countries who are eligible for association, the majority of these, if not all, would prefer not to have a definite arrangement on reciprocity, and these number roughly another 19; so it is not the big figure that the noble Baroness suggests.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, referred to sugar, and I should perhaps mention in the context of the Community that the Commission have put forward proposals relating to the Community's future sugar policy. These will form the basis for negotiations to fulfil the Lancaster House Declaration of June, 1971, in respect of sugar from developing Commonwealth countries. I need hardly say that of course Her Majesty's Government stand by that Declaration.
I have spoken in some detail about the Protocol 22 negotiations because it is absolutely topical—it is happening now, at this minute—but I should like to make it clear that we attach equal importance to the Community's relations with other developing Commonwealth countries, and in particular the Asian Commonwealth countries. Their circumstances are of course rather different from the others, and, as noble Lords will be aware, they were offered different arrangements for ordering their trade relations with the enlarged Community. Annexed to the Treaty of Accession, as noble Lords know, is a Declaration of Intent by which the Community undertook—and I quote:
"To examine with these countries such problems as may arise in the field of trade with a view to seeking appropriate solutions."

2049
Of the Commonwealth countries that are covered by that joint Declaration, India is already negotiating with the Community. She seeks special arrangements to deal with the particular problems affecting her in trade in jute and coir products, and I understand these negotiations are nearing a successful conclusion. Then, negotiations have also begun for a commercial co-operation agreement between the E.E.C. and India. Malaysia, Singapore and Shri Lanka are also preparing for negotiations, and I should like to say here that we will do our best to help them in any way that we can.
My Lords, I think I should not speak so long on this last day, but I should like to thank all who have spoken in this important debate. I said at the start that our membership of the European Community does not mean a turning away from the Commonwealth, and our belief that this is so is borne out by the Declaration at the Summit Meeting in Paris last October that Europe could remain—and I quote:
"failthful to its traditional friendships and to the alliances of the Member States".
Her Majesty's Government are determined that this should always be so and welcome the Commonwealth Conference at Ottawa as a means to that end.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I apologise for speaking. I did not come into the Chamber before because I did not want to be tempted to speak; I had not put my name down. But I should like to ask a question that is worth asking when this Commonwealth meeting takes place. There is one country that we have now recognised; namely, North Vietnam. South Vietnam is receiving a lot of attention. I wonder whether some attention could be given by the Commonwealth Conference to the possibility of aid towards North Vietnam, which I know very well and which I know needs it. It is worth getting on the Record that we think about it now that we have recognised it.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, these are problems which go very much wider than the Commonwealth as a whole. I said in my speech that the Agenda is not finally fixed. But if the Heads of Government read all that we have said, no doubt they will take account of it.

  NOTTINGHAM FAMILY'S EVICTION
  NOTTINGHAM FAMILY'S EVICTION
  IDEFORD SCHOOL HALL
  IDEFORD SCHOOL HALL
  HOUSING: RELEASE OF LAND FOR MOBILE HOMES
  HOUSING: RELEASE OF LAND FOR MOBILE HOMES
  SOUTH WITHAM AIRMEN'S MARRIED QUARTERS
  SOUTH WITHAM AIRMEN'S MARRIED QUARTERS
  HOUSING: SALE OF RENTED PROPERTIES
  HOUSING: SALE OF RENTED PROPERTIES
  SCOTTISH LOCAL AUTHORITY HARBOURS; TRAFFIC
  SCOTTISH LOCAL AUTHORITY HARBOURS; TRAFFIC
  AIRCRAFT HIJACKING: COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES
  AIRCRAFT HIJACKING: COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES
  ROSS POPULATION PANEL REPORT
  ROSS POPULATION PANEL REPORT
  HANSARD PUBLICATION DELAYS
  HANSARD PUBLICATION DELAYS