I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Addresses to Her Majesty the Queen have been adopted by both Houses of the Canadian Parliament designed to procure an amendment to the Canadian Constitution by the repeal of Section 99 of the British North America Act, 1867, and its replacement by the provisions contained in Clause 1 of the Bill.

Under Section 7 of the Statute of Westminster—which, incidentally, was included at the express request of Canada—power to amend the British North America Act, 1867, was left as the legislative responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament. This was later modified by the British North America No. 2 Act, 1949, which provides that the Constitution should be capable of amendment by the Canadian Federal Parliament in relation to matters within the sole jurisdiction of that Parliament, but legislation by the United Kingdom Parliament is still necessary where the subject of the amendment is one which affects the interests both of the Federal Parliament and of the Provinces.

We are therefore to all intents and purposes acting in what is a formal capacity for the Canadian Parliament in a matter which is solely its concern. In accordance with long established precedent, we refrain from discussing the merits of a Bill submitted to us amending the British North America Acts when this has been introduced in consequence of Addresses to Her Majesty adopted by both Houses of the Canadian Parliament.

In case there should be any misunderstanding of the constitutional relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom because of the procedure we are now following—either here or in foreign countries—I think perhaps I should make it clear that the only reason why the present procedure is still being followed is because no Canadian Government have found it possible to devise a procedure acceptable to the Provinces for enabling the Constitution to be amended in Canada itself in cases where the rights of the Provinces are affected.

The procedure is in fact one which arises from the particular federal character of the Canadian Constitution, and has no bearing upon the constitutional relations between Canada and the United Kingdom, nor does it in any way detract from or affect the complete independence of Canada within the Commonwealth. The object of this Bill, as the House will see, is to provide that the judges of the Superior Courts of Canada shall in future retire at the age of 75 instead of holding office during good behaviour.

A textual Amendment will be moved during the Committee stage to alter 1951 to 1952 in Clause 2. The reason for this is that whereas 1951 is the date of the last British North America Act amendment Act passed through this Parliament, there was an amending Act passed through the Canadian Parliament in 1952, and the change which we will move during the Committee stage will recognise this fact.

The House will be very grateful to the Minister of State for his clear explanation of the reason for the Bill, and why it has to come before the United Kingdom Parliament. The occasion serves to remind us of a very great Act of Parliament—the British North America Act—which played a valuable part in uniting two nations in Canada and assisting in the creation of the one nation which we now have there. It is a pleasant occasion for us to be reminded of this, and we shall not object if, from time to time, the necessity arises again, so that we may think with pleasure of the great Dominion of Canada and her French- and English-speaking peoples, living in harmony and making a great international contribution to peace and understanding, and a rapid and admirable economic advance, which they share with the peoples of the underdeveloped nations by their generous gifts of technical assistance and financial aid.

We have become so accustomed to Canada's playing this important part in world affairs that we have almost forgotten the statutory relationship which still exists between this Parliament and the Canadian Parliament. Despite the power which evidently still remains to us, at least on paper, it is not for us to question whether Canadian judges should or should not retire at the age of 75. All I would say about that is that I hope—somewhat enviously—that they have a good pension upon which to retire.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This second Bill which I move today is a short and very simple one. Its purpose is to authorise Her Majesty's Government to take part in an operation of the greatest importance to the lives and welfare of many millions of people in India and Pakistan by making available a sum of £20,860,000 to the Indus Basin Development Fund during the course of the next ten years. It would, I am sure, be heartening to the Governments and peoples of both these Commonwealth countries to know that the Bill has the unanimous support of the Parliament of Great Britain.

The Fund was set up by an Agreement which was signed in Karachi on 19th September this year by representatives of the International Bank and of the Governments who are to be contributors to the Fund, namely, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Pakistan, West Germany, the United States, and ourselves. On the same day the Governments of India and Pakistan signed the Indus Waters Treaty that marked the successful settlement of what had been a long-standing problem and the source of a long period of difficult negotiation between the two countries concerned and the International Bank over the division of the waters of the great Indus river system.

The purpose of the Fund is set out in the White Paper—Cmnd. 1199—which has already been laid before the House. The text of the Agreement is reproduced in that Paper, which also contains a summary of the Indus Waters Treaty.

There is in the basin of the Indus and its five tributaries, Mr. Speaker, an abundance of water supply sufficient for all the irrigation and other needs of the great populations which live in that historic region of the Indian subcontinent. The distribution of water is, as the House knows, uneven both in the area it covers and in the times when it is available. The rivers of the basin are supplied mainly by melting snows in the Himalayas in early summer and by the rains that fall there late in the year.

To make use of this water for the benefit of the cultivators in the Punjab, a system of irrigation canals was constructed. The border between the two countries now cuts across the system which, under the pre-1947 regime, formed the old Punjab, and which was built up during the period of British rule in India into the largest irrigation system in the world. This system included a complex network of link canals enabling surpluses of water in one river system to be applied to relieve shortages elsewhere.

On the partition of the sub-continent of India in 1947 this system of irrigation was divided. Some important head-works of canals which supplied parts of Pakistan were in Indian territory, and the problem therefore arose, not only as to how the control of the existing canals should be arranged, but also of the development of future works. The whole irrigation system was at that time, and still is, in a continuous process of development, and the problem was how to divide the available water fairly between the two countries in order to meet their needs and requirements.

In 1951, the International Bank made available its good offices to help the two Governments reach a solution of this problem, and in 1954 proposed a settlement on the basis of a division of the waters which would enable Pakistan to use the waters of the three western rivers of the basin, the Indus, the Jhelum and the Chenab, and India to use that of the three eastern rivers, the Ravi, the Beas, and the Sutlej. The details of an arrangement of this nature, as the House will recognise, required a great deal of working out. But this has now been done and the result is embodied in the Indus Waters Treaty.

To enable Pakistan to replace from the western rivers the waters she has hitherto been drawing from the eastern rivers a number of new canals will be necessary. Large reservoirs will also be needed to store water accumulating during the periods of high flow so that it can be fed into the canal system during the dry seasons. This programme of works goes far beyond the financial resources of Pakistan herself. Faced with this problem, the International Bank decided to set up a fund, to which it invited certain Governments—members of the Bank—to contribute. They all agreed to do so, and these Governments signed the Indus Basin Development Fund Agreement.

As the House will see from the White Paper, the fund will amount to about £320 million, of which about £230 million is to be provided by the Governments who have signed the Agreement, some £62 million by the Government of India under the terms of the Indus Waters Treaty, and some £30 million by the International Bank in the form of a loan. The fund will be administered by the International Bank, and contributions will be called for from the Governments concerned, according to a schedule which has been worked out by the Bank.

It is proposed that the whole programme of works will be completed in ten years, although provision is made in the Treaty for this to be extended up to a maximum of three years if that should prove necessary. It is, therefore, at present envisaged that the United Kingdom contribution to the fund should be provided over ten years, and that the maximum contribution in any one year should be approximately £3 million, which is likely to be in the financial year 1964–65.

The work involved will be carried out by the Pakistan Government, with money made available from the Fund, and all contracts for machinery and operations which cannot be undertaken by the Pakistanis will be open to international tender. We can, therefore, reasonably hope to have a chance of sharing in the practical work as well as in the financing of this great scheme, and that, in turn, will give substantial opportunities for British industry.

As I have said, the Bill is short and simple, but it is, as I know the House recognises, one of very great importance and significance. It authorises the United Kingdom Government to take their part in what is an outstanding example of Commonwealth co-operation, on the one hand, carried out in partnership with the United States of America, the Federal Republic of Germany and the International Bank; and it is designed to settle a problem facing two of our friends and partners in the Commonwealth over the last thirteen years—a problem which is of very great importance not only from the political point of view, but from the point of view of the direct welfare of the people of the two countries.

It is sometimes difficult for us at the end of a summer such as we have had to appreciate the tragic consequences which arise from the shortage of water. I have said to the House on previous occasions that I remember, when going to look at some of the irrigation projects in the Indus basin, and particularly the difficult problem of salination which is faced there, one of the farmers saying to me, "You must remember, Mr. Alport, that in this part of the world people kill for water." That is a gauge of the immense importance to the relationship between the two countries and to the whole future of that part of the subcontinent of the effective solution of the problem of the division of the waters in the Indus basin.

After all, the lives and welfare of one-tenth of the total population of India and Pakistan depend upon these waters and a fair and peaceful division is, therefore, clearly a matter of immense significance. The settlement, which will leave both Governments free to develop their resources in their own parts of the Indus basin, not only has removed a dangerous source of disagreement and conflict between the two, but also will, as I have already said, and as the House recognises, be a major contribution to the development and improvement of the standards of living we hope, of the peoples of both those countries.

Therefore, it gives to us all, I am sure, and certainly to Her Majesty's Government, great pleasure and satisfaction to see that this settlement has been accomplished. I should like to say how much we in the United Kingdom have admired the statesmanship of both sides which has made this settlement possible. I think that it would also be right at this particular moment to pay tribute to the work of the International Bank and to the great interest and concern that Mr. Black himself has shown in relation to this problem and to the successful conclusion of the negotiations.

In fact, the Bank has played a vital part in these negotiations. It has brought to bear upon them deep knowledge and negotiating skill and, as we all know, very great patience and understanding. On this occasion, too, I think that it would be right to place on record the fact that Mr. W. A. B. Iliff, one of the Bank's vice-presidents, has played an outstanding part in these negotiations. I am sure that here in the United Kingdom the House will be anxious and glad that we also are able to play our part in bringing to a successful conclusion a great undertaking.

I wish on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends to extend the warmest possible welcome to this Bill. We on this side of the House have for many years expounded the case for a real war on want, for a determined effort by all the richer nations of the world to help the under-developed nations, so that we can become truly one world and foster this understanding by expanding prosperity.

We are particularly glad this morning that this Bill comes before us to facilitate the provision of resources for a major battle in the world war on want. This is a very notable occasion. The resources to be provided by these new agreements are enormous. They deal with an area in the world where no fewer than 30 million people live and depend upon a proper supply and a fair division of water.

The right hon. Gentleman has truly said that there is an abundance of water in the area. This is one of the greatest river systems in the world. The annual flow of the Indus is, I believe, twice that of the Nile and three times that of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers put together. I have had the privilege on two occasions of visiting this part of the world and journeying along the great River Indus from Karachi as far north as Attock, and seeing, in the course of that journey, several of the barrages and water undertakings which are built along those banks. When one finally reaches the northern reaches of the river, one sees one of the wonders of the world, the great Himalaya Range and the beautiful city of Peshawar. These remarkable and romantic views inspire one with feelings of awe.

Even after one goes up the river and sees the innumerable villages, peasants on small farms, and millions of diligent cultivators who benefit from the flow of the river, one has the feeling, although not so intense—but a tremendous impression—of the great importance of this water supply to humble people.

For a very long time, men have drawn water from this great river by means of numerous canals. These canals have been expanded and developed by the Mogul Emperors of India, by the British rulers of India, and later by independent India and Pakistan. Since independence, Pakistan itself has undertaken some remarkable projects on the basis of damming the river for a more constant and regular supply of water in areas which had been previously rendered desert by the meanderings of this enormous river. I am thinking particularly of the Thal development project, which I had the privilege of seeing in its very initial stages in 1953, and which I saw again this year prospering and getting on very well.

These great projects have been of immense importance in giving new life and a new opportunity to people whose life was very poor and very difficult indeed. Today, Pakistan and India together have, I think, already 30 million acres of land irrigated—the largest irrigation system in the whole world. So vital is this river system both to India and Pakistan and so many millions depend entirely upon it for life itself, it is not surprising that there was great anxiety in both countries about the fair division of these waters when the partition, coupled with independence, took place in 1947.

I heard a great deal about it in 1953. I can well remember the atmosphere of suspicion which I found both in India and in Pakistan about the division of the waters. I can remember, for example, being shown a part of the Grand Canal passing through Lahore which was entirely empty, and being told by the gentleman who took me in his car to show me the canal that it was empty because India had cut off the supply of water. I found this difficult to believe. I later made inquiries and found that the canal was empty for its annual or biennial cleaning. This is an example of the acute suspicion and the high tension which existed between those two countries at that time.

It has taken a very long time since 1953 to arrive at an eventual settlement of this dispute between India and Pakistan. Because of the very difficulty and because of the immensely long time that it has taken to arrive at such a solution, we can rejoice ail the more, I think, that at last a solution has been reached. It has relieved tension between India and Pakistan, as I found when I was there at the beginning of this year, and it has led to further agreements. When I was in Rawalpindi this January, I was privileged to join in a luncheon given by the President of Pakistan to celebrate the settlement of the Western Border disputes between India and Pakistan, and, as my noble Friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth would say, a very good time was had by all. Let us hope that the settlement of the water dispute, leading to a settlement of the frontier disputes, may before long lead to an agreement on the outstanding and most difficult problem, that of Kashmir.

Big as past projects have been, the programme envisaged in this development agreement will, I am reliably informed, be the largest of its kind ever undertaken anywhere in the world. This is a very great occasion for us when we think of that. With the grants, of which this Bill provides a part, and the loans and the separate undertakings by India and Pakistan themselves, the total cost of all the developments which are to take place as a result of the agreement will be 1,000 million dollars. It will not only provide more water, by storing water which at present goes to waste from time to time during flood periods, but it will share the water on a fair basis agreed by all and, at the same time, will provide electric power, much of which, thank goodness, can be used for tackling this terrible problem of salination to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

When in Pakistan, last January, I learned that every day no less than 200 acres of land go out of production through salination. That is a stupendous figure of loss of production due to salination which, as the House knows, is caused by the seepage of water through the canals waterlogging the land, and resulting in the salt rising to the surface and making it impossible to cultivate the land. This is one of the most serious problems in the world, and one is happy is think that at last the additional water will not create additional salination but will enable electric power to be generated for pumping out the water again so that the salt can be washed away.

It was, I think, David Lilienthal, the chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority, who first suggested that India and Pakistan should combine to establish something like the Tennessee Valley Authority for the development of the Indus waters. It has not been done exactly in that way, but this suggestion by the chairman of that great undertaking in the United States was followed up by Mr. Eugene Black, the chairman of the International Bank, and resulted eventually in this agreement. What a wonderful achievement that is to have to one's credit. What a pleasure for Mr. Black to look back upon it in later years when he retires, as we all do at some time or other, and for him to think that this gigantic undertaking will always be associated in the minds of everybody—India, Pakistan, England, Germany, Canada and Australia—with his name.

I join with the right hon. Gentleman in the tribute which he has already paid to Mr. Black, and, of course, to Mr. Miff on whom the burden of all the detailed negotiation has lain in recent years. I am glad that it is not only through the co-operation between India and Pakistan, which is so welcome to all of us, that this agreement has come about, but that this is an international project in which many countries will contribute to the provision of the necessary resources which are far beyond the capacity of India and Pakistan and their poor peasant peoples to finance by themselves. The United States, of course, is in it in a very big way, but Germany is in it, too. I welcome this. So is the United Kingdom and so are Australia and Canada. Therefore, this project represents co-operation between the wealthy nations of the world which have surpluses on their balance of payments and which are able to make investments abroad, and between the Commonwealth and between India and Pakistan.

Having mentioned Canada, I should like to say again what I said on an earlier Measure, and that is how much we appreciate the efforts which Canada has made in this field of international development. Last January I saw the Canadians at work on the Worsak project on the Kabul River. This is one of the tributaries of the Indus. I was delighted not merely to meet them and to see their evident pleasure in having lived for some years and done constructive work in that wonderful area, almost on the roof of the world, but to see the pleasure with which the local people spoke about them and the way in which the Canadians had been able to get to know, to fraternise and to mix among the people of Pakistan and the friendly, easy terms on which they were co-operating with their Pakistani workpeople, some of them former wild tribesmen who were more apt with the gun than with the shovel and who are now taking such a delight in undertaking engineering operations on that great project.

As we have been told, our contribution to the scheme is to be a maximum of £20,860,000. That compares with our contribution to the International Development Association of £47 million. That is a very substantial contribution and one which we should regard as appropriate to our position as a comparatively rich country and to our position as a country which has had such long associations with India and Pakistan and the subcontinent for so long. We shall gladly vote the money, and I feel certain that there will be no difficulty about the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons. We particularly welcome the speed with which the Bill has been introduced. To have an agreement signed in September and to have the Bill introduced in November is good work. It is a great step forward in the age-long struggle of the peoples of Asia to win the war against want.

Before I sit down, I would beg the House to give thought for a moment to the teeming millions in the other half of Pakistan. This morning we have been dealing with Western Pakistan where the struggle for a decent standard of life is a very difficult one and where, from time to time, they face enormous obstacles which are beyond their control because of their inability to control the flow of these great waters. They are now in sight of overcoming this great difficulty.

In Eastern Pakistan they are faced with the opposite difficulty. There is no lack of water there. The waters of the Brahmaputra and the Ganges flow through the area. There is an enormous volume of water and frequent heavy rains, and there is no difficulty about cultivating the soil owing to drought. Yet there the struggle is as hard, if not harder, as in Western Pakistan.

We have been vividly reminded of this by the two cyclones in the Bay of Bengal in recent months. Cyclones in the Bay of Bengal happen fairly frequently, but these two last ones, which came in rapid succession, were catastrophic disasters. I wonder if the House has fully realised how serious they were. The one on 10th October, I understand, killed 6,000 people and destroyed nearly 5,000 houses while seriously damaging 35,000 other houses and buildings. They had scarcely taken breath from the shock of this disaster when it was followed by another cyclone with very much the same sort of story that we heard not long ago about Mauritius. They were hardly back on their knees again, as it were, after the first shock when there was this second cyclone three weeks later in which another 4,000 people or perhaps more were killed because it was accompanied by an enormous, an almost incredible, tidal wave.

Last January, round the new port of Chittagong, people showed me with great pride the immense developments they have made. I talked with workpeople, management and others, and everyone shared in the feeling of pride that this great new port had been built; with the new housing and social developments which were taking place as well to service that port. Now Chittagong is totally out of commission and no less than 5,000 new wells have had to be sunk to find fresh water because the water previously available is contaminated.

This is a terribly serious situation. There are more than 10,000 people killed and innumerable houses—pathetic little houses just a few feet above sea level and surrounded by a few trees—have been destroyed. The whole of a man's life, the whole of his efforts and those of his father and his grandfather, it may be, have all been washed away in a night, his children killed and he himself lest destitute. Could not we do a little more than provide three lakhs of rupees towards this? I leave that thought in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. He will shortly be introducing a supplementary estimate. He told us that the Government proposed to contribute three lakhs of rupees—

Order. I have given the right hon. Gentleman rather more licence than I ought to have done. I hope that he will not proceed out of order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would only say that we are to vote about £40 million this morning. We do not grudge a penny of it, and we should not grudge similar expenditure elsewhere.

Thanks to the extremely successful work of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, a chapter of most difficult negotiation has been brought to an end and it may be reasonable to assume that in future we shall have co-operation between Pakistan and India over this rather difficult matter. The House should appreciate, however, that two of the six rivers concerned derive from Kashmir and while these two matters, the problem of Kashmir and the Indus dispute, have always been considered as being separate and distinct, it is hoped that the good will which has brought about the settlement of the Indus Waters Treaty will also be responsible for bringing about a settlement of the Kashmir problem which has exacerbated relations between these two great countries.

In the present system of works in Pakistan, it is quite apparent that only a quarter of the water of the Indus basin is used. The rest, unfortunately, is discharged into the ocean unused. What could make an enormous contribution to the welfare of these people, not merely in India but in Pakistan, is lost. I think that this can be overcome by the substantial project which is in mind, the link canals, the new barrages and the additional storage facilities which are to be constructed. The House should regard this as an immense step in international co-operation and a rational compromise between the rights of riparian owners both upstream and downstream. It is an example to other nations which are obliged to share important waterways which traverse their territories.

When partition went through, many years ago, Pakistan was left in the position of being in possession of the major part of the irrigated lands of the Indus basin. In that matter India was a poor beneficiary. When one considers that India possesses the head works on which the system in Pakistan depends, one may see the position which has evolved. It was apparent that over the borders in India development would take place. I examined the position in 1958 and wrote on that occasion:

"… out of the 22 million acres now irrigated in the Indus basin, India retains only about 5 million with which to sustain a population of 20 million in the area, compared with the 17 million acres remaining to Pakistan to meet the requirements of a population of about 22 million. On the Indian side as there are some 25 million acres considered fit for cultivation which could possibly contribute crops to relieve the shortage of food, India is urged somewhat precipitously to press ahead with immediate development. It would seem that co-ordinated action by both countries would provide the quickest way of meeting the requirements of the 34 million people involved, without unduly upsetting contemporary arrangements, and of making the most economic use of the waters available regardless of political boundaries."

I believe that the arrangement reached now, that is, that the western trio of rivers should be assigned to the exclusive use of Pakistan and the eastern trio should be given to the exclusive use of India, is most satisfactory.

I wish to raise one or two matters on the financial provisions. Obviously, if our contribution is to be at the rate of £20·8 million over a period of between ten and twelve years, and the yearly allocations total £3 million, immense orders will be available on the world markets. I hope that the practice ordained by the World Bank in the past will apply, and that these amounts will not be earmarked for any particular currency but will be available for international tender. But in Article VII of the Agreement these words have been added:

"All goods required for the Project shall be procured on the basis of international competition … except as the Administrator shall otherwise agree on grounds of efficiency or economy."

I do not know whether the Secretary of State has any idea of the implication of those words, but I hope that it may be interpreted that these moneys will be spent for the use of Pakistan in the cheapest markets in the world, where the goods required are available.

I am interested in what is included in Article II, where the United States is down to subscribe an additional 235 million dollars. That, of course, is subject to agreement between the United States and Pakistan. Will that be a Development Loan Fund type of lending, or possibly the Export-Import Bank lending? Will it mean that the goods will be purchased in the United States? Would not it be preferable that Pakistan should buy, if it is in her interest, in Western Europe, where she could make greater use of the money available?

I see that these very substantial contributions are to be made by Australia, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, and, if I may add, New Zealand, are in the form of gifts. Of course, I support the Bill. It has remarkable potential and is an example for other countries to follow. But it occurred to me, could not the same conclusion be reached if the moneys were provided by long-term interest-free loans? These works will be of infinite profit to Pakistan, namely, hydroelectricity, increased yield per acre, reclamation of land, and so forth.

Undertakings are certainly given to Pakistan under Article VII, but it seemed to me that if there were liability over a compass of the years the terms of expenditure would be carefully scrutinised. Perhaps it was a wise arrangement at the time and could not be reached in any other way. Therefore, on that basis, it had to be in the form of a straight out gift.

It would appear rather extraordinary, if that were the case, to find loan arrangements with the United States covering the additional 235 million dollars and also, although quite properly, an amount from the World Bank which would be acceptable on the payment of interest. One would have thought that all round there would have been a system of international co-operation entirely on the basis of gifts, and not of loans. Also, considering the position of Western Germany, the provision of 126 million Deutschemark is a small contribution to be made from that source.

I want to raise one other matter with the Minister of State. The allocation which will be called for from the United Kingdom cannot exceed £3 million a year. I can understand why this does not come under Section 3 of the Export Guarantees Act. There are good reasons for that, but why can it not be dispensed annually under the C.R.O. Vote? Why has there to be a separate Bill?

While generally agreeing with what the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) said, I think that he was a little ungenerous to the United States and the action it is taking in relation to this Agreement. Through this agreement America is making very generous grants, quite apart from the loans she is providing. I should have thought it better to give a general welcome to the Agreement than to attempt to pick some of the holes in it that the hon. Member was picking towards the end of his speech.

I welcome the opportunity, along with other right hon. and hon. Members, to say how glad we are that this agreement is before the House today. The Minister of State will recollect that I have asked him a number of Questions on this subject over the last year or two. I have pressed him in the past that Her Majesty's Government should be as generous as possible in assisting the World Bank to get the necessary money to make this Indus waters plan a reality. I am flattered to discover that I have so much influence with Her Majesty's Government, because I think we agree that they have reacted generously and we are very glad to support them.

I recollect being in the Punjab on both the Indian and the Pakistan side in 1957 and doing my best to study this Indus waters problem at that time. Then it seemed to be one of the insoluble problems of the world. It seemed as difficult to get agreement there as it did in the Arab-Israel problem in the Middle East. This, therefore, is an occasion of very great hope this morning, that only a few years after the problem seemed insoluble we should have before us this excellent international agreement. I think it proves that in other parts of the world where there are difficult international disputes it is worth while persevering in seeking solutions for them with patience and persistence. The evidence from the Indus waters problem is that one can get a successful international agreement in the end.

I well recollect at that time, as someone who has affection for both Pakistan and India, feeling sad that they should find it so very difficult to get together in this scheme of international co-operation. I remember attending the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, in Delhi, during that period and being very touched by seeing some of the Pakistan delegates to that conference who were visiting Delhi for the first time since partition. They were renewing many old acquaintances. But when the conference came to an end, then, because of the hard facts of the division between the two countries, they had to bring back to the forefronts of their minds once more that they were separated. They had to go their ways with this difference between them. All of us in this House hope that out of this agreement will come an era of increasing co-operation between India and Pakistan, a co-operation which one hopes will eventually result as the hon. Member for Willesden, East said, in settlement of the Kashmir problem.

I remember going to look at the Bakra Dam, in the Himalayan foothills, which is one of the most striking hydro-electric projects in the world. Of that achievement India is rightly proud. I remember being struck, as I looked at the arrangements at the foot of those hills, how the river Sutlej, below Bakra, was diverted literally at right-angles to provide much needed irrigation schemes for the Indian part of the Punjab. But it was, of course, taking away water which formerly flowed into what is now the Pakistan part of the Punjab.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) so vividly described, when one sees that great country of Pakistan, with its desperate need for water, which, literally, is a life and death matter for it, one also sees the paradox that not only is there shortage of water, but excessive salination caused by too much water. One then realises how vitally important this settlement is for Pakistan. I think it true to say that in terms of making an investment from this country to dealing with the problems of world poverty, this kind of water scheme is one of the most important ways in which we can help. It is an investment which, I am sure, will pay very rich returns in the years ahead.

I welcome particularly two features of this Agreement. The first is the participation of other Commonwealth countries, Canada and Australia. I feel very strongly that the future significance of the Commonwealth in the world will lie more and more in direct relationships being built between the older white Commonwealth, if one may call it that, and the newer Asian countries of the Commonwealth who face the great problems of technical underdevelopment. The more that countries like Canada and Australia are involved directly in assisting Commonwealth countries in Asia the more that strengthens Commonwealth relationships throughout the world.

Like my right hon. Friend, I was deeply impressed by the Canadian participation in the Warsak project, on the North-West Frontier. I went there with Canadian Members of Parliament and I found it fascinating and exciting to see those Canadian Members of Parliament visiting their constituents in that remote part of the Commonwealth and getting from their constituents working on this scheme a very favourable impression of the work they were doing and the response that they had from the Pakistani population.

It is more difficult in countries like Canada and Australia to make public opinion fully aware of the need to give help and to pay taxes in order to assist the vender-developed areas of the Commonwealth. The more this kind of thing is done as it will be under this Agreement the more likely we are to meet with success in that direction.

I also welcome the participation of West Germany in this Agreement. It is very important that in the years ahead in one way or another we should persuade the West German Republic to play a much bigger rôle in accordance with its financial resources in assisting the under-developed areas of the world. This is a very useful step forward in that process.

I suppose that in some ways this Agreement is rather remarkable Simultaneously, it is a good example of European co-operation, of Atlantic co-operation, of Commonwealth co-operation, and also an outstanding example of achievement by an international body, by what essentially is an agency of the United Nations. At this time many of our hopes lie in the United Nations being able to increase its scope as a world authority and, more directly, in countries such as the Congo, to do what is needed to assist these new communities to get on their feet economically and politically. This kind of outstanding success for the World Bank and for Mr. Eugene Black and his colleagues is a source of immense hope.

I trust that out of this Agreement the World Bank will take fresh hope and that all those all over the world who wish success for the United Nations and its various agencies will feel inspired to go ahead and to try to do in other parts of the world what has been done in the Indus basin. I should like to see a scheme such as the great T.V A. scheme set up under United Nations auspices in the Middle East, and there are, no doubt, other areas in the world in which this kind of experiment, which has been brought to such a successful conclusion here, could be carried out. For those reasons, I very much welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate.

I should like to say a few words in support of the Bill, because I was in Karachi when the Indus Rivers Treaty was being signed, as was my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott), who was present at the ceremonies. We were guests of Mr. Ahmed Jaffer, a former Member of Parliament, who is very interested in this scheme.

There are great reasons for satisfaction here, some of which have been mentioned today, not only in the settlement of this difficult problem but also in the hope which it gives for the future settlement of the Kashmir problem. While I was there, people in Pakistan hoped that a settlement would be reached of the Kashmir dispute, but that was not to be, despite the fact that President Ayub and Mr. Nehru had talks on the matter. The door was, however, left open.

There is another special factor about which we can be pleased, and it is that there has been a feeling in Pakistan that the United Kingdom has not done enough for Pakistan in comparison with what she has done for India, for large amounts of aid have been given to India. There was a feeling that Pakistan had been left out in the cold, but I think that the grant which we are making here has done a great deal to dispel that feeling.

It is commonly said and thought that we are not doing enough to help the under-developed countries, but this is an example of what we are doing. I know that it is sometimes thought that Russia is doing a great deal to help the underdeveloped countries. So she is, but the United States and ourselves are doing ten times as much as the Russians are doing for the under-developed countries, and that fact should be widely recognised.

The part which the World Bank has played in this Agreement has been significant. While I was in Karachi the name of Mr. W. A. B. Iliff, of the World Bank, and his patient work over the years was widely recognised and much appreciated.

With those few words I should like to say how much, as a visitor to that part of the world, I welcome this very favourable Bill.

The Bill will be supported and welcomed on both sides of the House. It will be welcomed because of the project itself and the help it will give to so many millions of people, but also because it represents an agreement between two members of the Commonwealth, who, in other fields, have been in disagreement, and also because the Agreement has been made possible as a result of the intervention and assistance of an international authority. I welcome it as an important illustration of the way in which international co-operation is being developed in these days when so many people talk of the continuance of the tensions of the cold war.

The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet), pointed out that we in this country are making our contribution in the form of a grant and that other countries are not doing it in the same way. While not necessarily wishing to minimise the generosity of other countries in making contributions, nevertheless, it is a view which has been expressed on this side of the House repeatedly that, particularly when we are dealing with non-commercial development and when we are seeking to build up the infrastructure of development in under-developed countries, this is a field in which outright contributions should be made, so that the burden is not placed on the countries being developed.

I should like to see this example followed far more widely. We on this side of the House have pleaded time and again for the establishment of a world development authority under the United Nations which would be in a position to request all members of the United Nations to make their contribution and which would be governed and controlled by all members of the United Nations and not by any particular section of it. It is unfortunate that the World Bank is not supported by the Communist countries. It is a pity that they do not support it, but I am sure that if we could establish a world development authority we should have the full participation of all members of the United Nations and we should cease to have this distinction between different sides in the cold war in giving aid where it is required.

We should also cease to have any distinction between the givers and the recipients in control of the organisation providing the aid. We want an organisation in which there is real equality of control between the haves and have-nots, between the givers and the recipients, as well as between those who support one or other side of the cold war or those who support neither.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have talked frequently of the idea of world government as a distant ideal at which to aim. The fact is that we are seeing world government beginning to come into existence before our very eyes. This kind of international co-operation, through an international institution, is an example of it, and what is happening in the Congo and elsewhere provides a further illustration of the fact that we are already beginning to see the United Nations become a supranational authority in which citizens of the world are carrying out their obligations to that authority rather than to a nation state.

If I may be allowed to do so, I should like to take the opportunity to pay a tribute, in which I hope the whole House will join, to those in the Congo who recently laid down their lives—

Order. I do not like to have to stop the hon. Member from paying tributes, but I have great difficulty in getting the Congo within the rules of order.

With great respect, Sir, I was suggesting that the Bill was an example of the development of world co-operation and the principle of world government, and I went on to say that this conception of world government, both economic and political, is already beginning to develop and is no longer merely a distant idea at which we should aim.

I would think it appropriate to say that some of those whom we regard as our fellow-citizens, members of the Irish Republic, have fought and died to help in establishing the principle that there is today a loyalty of individuals and of nations towards an international body, and that the international body eventually may have the authority which we all desire to see it have. I welcome the Bill as a step in that direction.

I shall detain the House for only one moment or two to echo the welcome given from both sides to the Bill and particularly the hope that it will lead eventually to something much greater—that is, the settlement of the Kashmir dispute and any other outstanding differences which there may be between these two great members of the Commonwealth.

I want also, however, to echo the slight qualms expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) that there are no strings attached to the loans given by the United States in this matter, because we have had experience in the past of such strings being attached to similar undertakings.

In page 3, paragraph 2, the White Paper states:

"Except where the Bank, on grounds of efficiency or economy, agrees otherwise, all goods required for the plan will be procured on the basis of international competition."

I hope that it will be completely fair competition. If my hon. Friend the Minister of State speaks again, I wonder whether he can give such an assurance and, also, that the Government will be watchful against anything unfair as a result of the admittedly generous help which is coming from several countries to finance this great scheme.

Perhaps I might reply briefly to the one or two points which have been raised. First, I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) why it was necessary to introduce a Bill for this purpose rather than to carry the amount on the Departmental Vote. The reasons are twofold.

First, the Bank wants to know now the whole amount which will be authorised by the United Kingdom Parliament covering the whole period of ten years. Therefore, it is necessary to do it by way of a Bill.

Secondly, this is a grant of what, I think the House recognises, is a substantial amount of money. We felt, therefore, that in those circumstances, it was only right and proper that it should be marked by the introduction of an appropriate Bill of this nature. It also gives both to the House and to the country an opportunity of recognising the significance of the occasion rather than having the provision of the money hidden away in the rather obscure pages of a Departmental Vote.

The second comment of hon. Members concerned the question of grants and loans. I think I am right in saying that the International Bank is not authorised to make grants and, therefore, its contribution to the scheme could only be by way of a loan. Also, I understand, the contribution of the United States is a combination of grant and loan. The House will recognise that without the generosity of the United States in this matter it would have been impossible to bring the financing of the project to a successful conclusion.

Is it not correct to say that the United States is providing no less than 58 per cent.—well over half—of the total grants and, in addition, is providing 70 miliion dollars maximum by loan?

That is perfectly true. As the right hon. Gentleman said, and as I have just emphasised, the generosity of the United States in this matter has made it possible to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion.

The third point that was raised by hon. Members concerned Article VII, Section 7.01 (b), that

"All goods required for the Project shall be procured on the basis of international competition under arrangements satisfactory to the Administrator. …"

The Administrator, I understand, will be an official of the Bank. The Bank has, as its policy right from the start, maintained the principle of open international tender and I feel that the House can have every confidence in the fact that the Bank will carry out its responsibilities through its Administrator in these circumstances in a way which would be fair to all those who are participating. Certainly, that is the spirit in which we would approach the matter.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill is small in size but important in content, and it is a Bill which is easier than most to comprehend. Its main Object is to facilitate the administration of justice by making provision for the appointment of more judges for the High Court and Lords Justices for the Court of Appeal. The Bill also includes some minor and, in a sense, rather technical amendments of the provisions relating to the pensions of Masters of the Supreme Court and of some other officers in the lower reaches of the judicial hierarchy. The House always examines carefully any proposal to increase the numbers of the judiciary. It is my task to satisfy the House that the increases for which the Bill makes provision are amply justified. In my submission, they are urgently needed.

There are now forty-two judges of the High Court, six of whom are assigned to the Chancery Division, twenty-seven to the Queen's Bench Division and nine to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. It is principally, although not exclusively, in the Queen's Bench Division that there is an urgent need for more judges. It is from this division that judges are drawn to man the circuits and, as is well known, the amount of work at assizes throughout the country is now very heavy indeed.

The pressure of work which falls on the Queen's Bench judges is now such that the Lord Chief Justice has represented that there is an immediate need for the appointment of two additional judges. In criminal work, the pressure is due not simply to the increase in the number of criminal cases to be tried, but also to the fact that a considerable number of the criminal cases that now come for trial are very heavy and complicated cases which take up a great deal of judicial time.

Within the last year or so it has been possible to deal with the volume of criminal work on circuit only by appointing Commissioners of Assize on an unprecedented and, in my view, an undesirable scale. They were appointed on 11 occasions in 1959 and 11 appointments have been made this year. But even with the assistance of Commissioners of Assize appointed on this scale it has been necessary to send extra judges from London to assist with the work at assizes. Four additional judges had to be sent out from London during both the autumn assize in 1959 and the winter assize this year, and that, of course, meant a reduction in the number of cases tried in London during that time, and so delay.

Despite the assistance which was thus given on circuit, there are still serious delays in the disposal of civil business at assize, and this has led to frequent complaints and the situation is indeed serious. The volume of business on the North-Eastern Circuit and elsewhere is now such that a considerable number of civil cases at assizes have to be postponed to a subsequent assize.

The demands on the judges in London are also heavier than they were. There were 828 actions for trial in the Queen's Bench Division in London at the beginning of this term compared with 738 at the corresponding time last year. The increase of the criminal work at assizes has been reflected in increased pressure on the Court of Criminal Appeal. At times it has been necessary to have two courts sitting simultaneously to dispose of the work, and that means employing six judges on it.

Although the pressure of work in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division is not so heavy, judges in that Division have for a long time had the assistance of four Commissioners trying defended cases, quite apart from the county court judges who sit as Commissioners to try the undefended and short defended cases. The use of barristers to sit as Commissioners to try these defended cases was severely criticised by the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, and it is my noble Friend's intention to replace them by judges. He does not, however, contemplate doing so immediately, but seeks under this Bill power to replace the Commissioners gradually over a period of time.

Then there is the Chancery Division. Although six judges are assigned to this Division at present, one spends his whole time on patent work; another is a member of the Restrictive Practices Court and the work in that Court takes up a considerable amount of his time. Work in the Chancery Division is now showing some signs of increasing, and a further appointment to that Division may be needed before long.

It is for these reasons that Clause 1 (1) of the Bill proposes that the maximum number of High Court judges shall be increased from 42 to 48.

Clause 1 (2) of the Bill provides that the number of Lords Justices of Appeal shall, instead of being fixed at eight, be not less than eight nor more than 11. The object of this provision is to make it possible for the Court of Appeal to sit permanently in four divisions instead of three as at present. This is necessary because the Court of Appeal is not now able to dispose of cases at the rate at which they have been set down, and the result has been a steady growth in the number of appeals awaiting hearing at the end of each year. Thus, in 1954, there were 96 appeals awaiting hearing at the end of that year. Last year there were 285, and at the end of the summer term this year there were 351. The consequence is that the interval between the setting down and the hearing of an appeal is now twelve months or more, and I am sure the House will agree that this is much too long and necessitates immediate action. If, happily, the position should improve so much as to make it unnecessary for a fourth division to sit regularly, the number of Lords Justices could be reduced by leaving vacancies unfilled.

I now turn to the remaining provisions of the Bill with which I think I can deal quite briefly. These provisions deal with the pension of some members of the lower judiciary. Clause 2 provides that the pensions of a stipendiary magistrate is to be calculated on the salary he was receiving immediately before retirement instead of on the average of the salary he received during the last three years of his service. The present provisions for such pensions are in line with the pensions of the Civil Service, but they are not appropriate to a judicial appointment, which is usually the last stage in a forensic career without any great prospect of promotion. There is really no reason in principle why the stipendiary magistrates alone of the judiciary should be subject to a provision of this kind. This Clause, therefore, brings them into line with all other members of the judiciary.

Clause 3 modifies the pension terms applicable to the Masters of the Supreme Court and certain other judicial officers who are at present able to earn the full pension only after 25 years of service. These people are in a worse position than any other judicial officers with whom their duties are comparable because they have to serve longer to earn full pension but are by statute required to retire at the same age of 72 as, for example, county court judges and Metropolitan magistrates. It is also generally difficult to find suitable candidates for appointment to these posts who are young enough to serve the full 25 years before reaching the compulsory retiring age. The Clause, accordingly, reduces the pension span to 20 years.

Clause 4 enables future holders of the office of Judge Advocate General to elect between a pension under the Superannuation Acts and the same pension terms as are available to an official referee. At present the choice lies between a pension under the Superannuation Acts and a pension on the special terms provided by the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act, 1951. The effect of the change will be to bring the Judge Advocate General within the Widows' and Children's Pensions Scheme provided for all other judicial officers by the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act, 1950.

The remaining Clauses of the Bill contain financial and consequential provisions.

I cannot commend this as an exciting Bill, but it is in at least one respect a most important one, in that Clause 1 will undoubtedly provide for the more efficient and expeditious administration of justice both in London and at assizes and in both criminal and in civil cases; and the provisions of the Bill dealing with the pensions of the lower judiciary get rid of some pointless and not altogether innocuous anomalies. I commend the Bill to the House.

I am grateful to the Attorney-General for having explained so clearly why he has thought it necessary to introduce this Measure, and I am bound to say, speaking for myself, that I think he made out his case very fully indeed.

Clause 1 may, perhaps, be regarded as the most important Clause, in that it strengthens the manpower of our judiciary. The Attorney-General indicated in the case of each of the divisions and also of the Court of Appeal how the arrears were piling up and how the judges in their present strength are having difficulty with keeping up with the work which comes before them.

Looking at it through the eyes of the public, possibly the most graphic example which he gave was the situation in the Court of Appeal. If one has won or lost one's case before the judge of first instance, it really is very serious if one has to wait for a year before one can have the view of the Court of Appeal on appeal from the judgment of the judge of first instance.

It is not necessary to elaborate the detail, but, after all, cases have an enormous effect on the life and prospects and the plans of individuals who come before our courts. It is a matter of very great gravity. I think that everybody will agree that, for example, in the Court of Appeal one should not have to wait for a year after one's appeal has been prepared and has actually been set down before one finally obtains the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

What the Attorney-General has said of the Court of Appeal is in different measure and in rather different circumstances reflected in the arrears of work both on assize and in the Queen's Bench Division and in the other two divisions to which he referred.

I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the change which the Attorney-General seeks to introduce by the Bill. It is, in any event, as I understand, an enabling Bill. If it should appear hereafter that the work which comes before our courts does not justify filling all the possible appointments, as I understand the existing legislation and the terms of the Bill, it is not necessary that all the appointments should be filled. Speaking for myself, I have always taken the view that it is much better that some judges possibly on occasion should not find themselves fully occupied than that there should be a lesser number of judges who are over-occupied. If there is some loss of judicial time, judges work very hard indeed and possibly a rest on occasion is well received and extremely welcome, and I should have thought that if it is an extravagance at all it is an extravagance amply justified in the public interest.

Our great pride in this country is the high respect which is accorded to the Bench by all sections of the population, and everybody should feel that their actions can come on speedily and that ample time can be afforded to their proper considerations. This is what happens now and it is the purpose of the Bill, which is highly commendable, to make certain that it will continue in future and to avoid the possible risk in multiplication of work that exists at the moment. I therefore cordially welcome Clause 1, the case for which has been amply made out.

The remaining Clauses perhaps from their very nature, as the Attorney-General has said, seem of less importance. They affect fewer individuals and do not have the wide public impact of Clause 1. They are, however, of great importance to the individuals concerned, those who are looking forward after many years of hard work to enjoying the pensions which existing legislation and this Bill provide. Therefore, in the interest of those persons it is important that the provisions of the remaining Clauses should be appropriately drafted and should achieve the purpose which the Government have in mind. After all, it is of the greatest importance from the public point of view that it should be possible easily and in ample measure to recruit suitable members from the profession to occupy appointments such as that of Master of the Supreme Court and other appointments with which the Bill is concerned.

In that context, there is one point I should like to put to the Attorney-General which I think is one of principle and which I would be grateful if he would tell me that he will carefully consider during the remaining stages of the Bill. I refer to the provision which affects the pensions of the Masters of the Supreme Court. The Attorney-General was perfectly right in seeking by the Bill to reduce to twenty years the period of twenty-five years which under existing legislation must elapse before a Master of the Supreme Court can reach the stage where he can have the full pension on the half-scale of his earnings.

But in a sense there has always been regarded as existing a kind of parity between the responsibilities incumbent upon county court judges and those incumbent on Masters of the Supreme Court. Their work, of course, is different and to some extent possibly the work of county court judges covers a wider field. Nevertheless the burden on the shoulders of Masters of the Supreme Court is very heavy indeed.

I have been informed that between 1959 and 1960 it is broadly speaking true that the work of the Masters of the Supreme Court, looking at it as a whole, has increased by about 80 per cent. In using that figure, I refer in particular to the hours which Masters have to sit to try actions under Order 14, Rule 7, to try issues as to quantum of damages and issues under the Married Women's Property Act and similar issues. That aspect of their work, as I have said, has increased between those years by about 80 per cent.

The Attorney-General referred to the number of writs and I have been given figures about them too. The writs issued up to October, 1959, as compared with October, 1960, were in the former year over 47,000 and in the latter year over 54,000. Appearances in the former year were over 25,000 and in the latter year more than 27,000. That increase betokens a considerable augmentation of the burden on the shoulders of the Masters of the Supreme Court. It is they who preside over the preparatory stages of the case, and in order that the case may come to its final hearing before the judge of first instance everybody who practises knows how important it is that the preliminary stages should be properly gone through.

In sum, therefore, I put it to the Attorney-General that the burden upon the Masters has increased very greatly, secondly that it is likely to increase if the work before the courts continues to multiply as it is doing at present, and thirdly—and this is the point to which I wish to come—it is not really in those circumstances easily justifiable in logic to enact that a Master has to serve for twenty years before he can be entitled to receive his pension at the half-scale rate whereas a county court judge has to serve for only fifteen years.

As the Attorney-General has said, the pension payable to judicial officers cannot be easily equated with pensions payable to civil servants, because appointment to a judicial position is attained only at some fairly advanced stage of one's career at the Bar and, in those circumstances, the pension problem should be looked at as something rather special in itself. The point which I therefore ask the Attorney-General to consider is whether it would not be fair in all the circumstances that as county court judges have to serve for fifteen years the Masters of the Supreme Court should also have to serve for fifteen years and not twenty years before they become entitled to pension at a rate of 50 per cent. of their salary at the time of their retirement.

I do not suppose that the Attorney-General can give me an answer straight away. It is obviously one which requires a nice balance between the various considerations affecting each of these two types of judicial appointment, but I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider it.

I have no comment to make about other Clauses in the Bill. I personally welcome the Bill, and I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will support the Government in giving it a Second Reading.

I join the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) in welcoming the Bill. In my view, it has been quite clear for a considerable time that there has been urgent need for appointments to increase the strength of the judiciary in the High Court and Court of Appeal. It is not uncommon to have nine months elapse in trying to fix the date of a civil action, and I recollect the 1959 winter assizes in Winchester ending on a blazing summer's day in June.

In crime, there has been a great increase in the number of fraud cases. I do not know whether that is a reflection on the commercial dishonesty of the country, or of the skill of the fraud squads, but these are very difficult cases to try and they take a very long time. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that, valuable as has been their service in the past, he appointment of barristers to act as Commissioners of Assize should be the exception rather than the rule.

I look forward to the strengthening of the establishment by the numbers as set out in the Bill and while I appreciate that it is only an enabling Bill, I would welcome the establishment being kept at the present moment to about 46 judges. Perhaps it may be what one distinguished judge has described as "watering the brandy", but it is much needed.

I also agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in what he said about judges sitting idle. We have read about the former judge who was distressed to find that his list had suddenly collapsed and that he had to spend the day sitting in his chambers. But it is much more to the advantage and convenience of the public, the witnesses and the parties, if judges, who, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, often have a great deal of work, are sometimes kept idle and dates are more commonly fixed than before. This avoids the great inconvenience and cost to witnesses who sometimes have to spend a considerable time waiting for a case to come on. The convenience of the public would be met by having more judges and more courts.

I have heard it suggested that, in view of the decreasing number of divorce cases, the judges in the Divorce Division might be incorporated in the Queen's Bench Division, that the Admiralty court should become a separate court like the Commercial Court or the Restrictive Practices Court, and that probate practice should go into the Chancery Division. Be that as it may, I think that the suggestion in this Bill is better.

In the Court of Criminal Appeal new procedures have been introduced by the Lord Chief Justice, but, there again, there are tremendous delays which are even more serious than in the civil actions which wait for one year for appeal. There was recently a person who had been waiting for his case to come before the Court of Criminal Appeal. He was successful, but because of pressure of business it was so many months afterwards that his sentence would in any case have expired. This reveals the great pressure on judges, and it is to be hoped that the increase numbers suggested in the Bill will make it much more possible for the courts to expedite their business much more satisfactorily.

Delay has always been the vice of judicial procedure, and has always given rise to critical comment by the public. Of course, in some cases the parties are interested in delay. It may well be that settlements can be brought about more easily by delay, but the practice of there being enforced delay, and of putting many cases in the list so that parties may be brought to the point of settlement, is very unsatisfactory. It has been known in the past at assizes that, in order to have the business dealt with, cases have been put into the list in the hope that they will be settled. Doubtless some would have been settled in the end, but, nevertheless, that seems one of the unsatisfactory results of having too few judges.

Though the hours of court sittings seem to many people to be extraordinarily short, in fact the fatigue which is caused through the concentration which any person in court has to apply during the proceedings means that the courts could not sit longer. It might be possible to do so for a time on circuit, but not as a regular practice.

There have indeed been cases in which, at the end of the day, and of a long cross-examination, the judge has directed the jury to overlook answers given by witnesses as they were not doing themselves justice because of fatigue. One cannot expect courts to sit longer and properly carry out their duties. The proper solution is in this Bill, and I very much welcome Clause 1. I hope that as a result we shall be able to see very much greater expedition in the judicial practice of the country.

With leave of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will say a few words, particularly in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). I thank him and my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) for the reception which they have given to these proposals.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman put forward a suggestion, which he asked me to consider, that the period of years that has to be served before a pension can be earned by a Master of the Supreme Court should be reduced further than is proposed in the Bill, He suggested that the position of Masters of the Supreme Court was broadly comparable with that of county court judges. I am not quite sure that I would go quite as far as that, but, at the same time, I would not like to be thought to be in any way underestimating the value and the importance of the work done by Masters of the Supreme Court.

It may well be that the information which he gave about the work now being done by Masters of the Supreme Court would necessitate the appointment of a larger number, but it does not seem to me that the volume of the work is necessarily an argument for reducing the period of years which has to be served before a pension is earned. I will consider what he said, but I would not like him to think that I am holding out hope of being able to meet him on this matter.

As is so often the case in such matters, there are repercussions. A stipendiary magistrate must serve twenty years before he can earn his full pension, and it would be very difficult to reduce the period for Masters of the Supreme Court below twenty years and retain the period of twenty years for stipendiary magistrates. There may well be other minor judicial officers, not necessarily in England and Wales, who would be affected by such a change.

I feel that we are taking a very practical step forward and are making a change which will be of practical value to the Masters of the Supreme Court by reducing the period from twenty-five to twenty years. I doubt whether we shall be able to go any further, but I will look at the matter with my colleagues to see whether there is any possibility of doing so.

I am grateful to the House for the reception given to the Bill. I do not think that I need say any more about it on this occasion.

I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of flooding in the West Country. It has been, and continues to be, one of very deep anxiety and concern throughout the West Country. Understandably, perhaps, I am principally interested in the affairs of my own constituency in particular and of the West of England in general. Nevertheless, I feel that the subject of the debate is probably of similar interest to other parts of the United Kingdom which have suffered in the same way, notably in Lincolnshire and in the South-East. I do not doubt that the flooding is viewed with equal concern in those parts.

My object in initiating this debate can be stated shortly. Those of us who have the honour to represent the affected constituencies in the House of Commons know very well that the problems associated with flooding are receiving the urgent and careful attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. But, if I may paraphrase a well-known saying, it is not enough that consideration should be given to these affairs; it should be seen, and seen publicly, that consideration is being given to them. I believe that the public can, on occasion, be reassured by the very fact of debate and discussion in the House. Therefore, I am particularly pleased to have an opportunity to say something about this whole anxious and difficult matter.

A debate of this kind gives us also an opportunity to say certain things which should be said. I pay a very great tribute to all those who have contributed in their own very many ways to the relief of distress. Those of us who have seen the relief work in progress have admired very greatly all that has been done. The local authorities in general have done a conscientious and devoted job. So, I believe, have the river boards whose representatives have, at the time of this emergency, worked very often long hours in most difficult conditions. So have the police. So have the military, whose help in Taunton we particularly appreciated. So have the Civil Defence, the Red Cross, the Women's Voluntary Service and similar voluntary bodies. So have many other public servants, railwaymen, for instance, who have driven the trains through the floods and who have often had to work hours much longer than they should reasonably do in ordinary circumstances. I could mention many other categories of people in a very long list.

It is right, also, for us as a House to pay tribute to the members of the public themselves for the fortitude, patience and courage with which they have met ordeals which in many individual cases have been distressing to the utmost. I recall the experience of a constituent of mine in the tiny village of Bury, near Dulverton, of which, I imagine, the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom have never heard. Realising, as one does, the feelings of people who, in the early part of the evening when it is dark, suddenly find their houses flooded with five feet of water, and there are invalids in the house who cannot be moved, one can well imagine the terror and distress which these circumstances cause. Afterwards, when the flood waters have subsided, there is the dreadful problem of cleaning up and clearing away the muck and the silt.

One can face one experience of this sort, perhaps, with traditional British good humour. When, as has happened in many parts of the country, flooding is repeated twice or even three times, even British patience is taxed. All over the country, people have met these circumstances, I suggest, with tremendous courage and fortitude, and I am sure that the House of Commons would wish to congratulate them very warmly and assure them of our support.

This debate gives me an opportunity, also, which I was unable to have the other day when the right hon. Friend made his statement, to pay a tribute to him and the spirit in which that statement was made. I assure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that his visit to Devon during the early part of the floods in October was very much appreciated. Similarly, we greatly appreciated the visit of my noble Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who, at very short notice, a short time ago visited the area at the time of, so to speak, the second phase of the floods in Somerset and Devon.

I pay tribute to some of the officials of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I have heard at first hand of the contacts which they have been having with local authorities in the West of England. One particular instance impressed me very much. After my right hon. Friend's statement in the House, I received a query from the clerk of the Dulverton Rural District Council which I passed on to my right hon. Friend with an accompanying letter. That query was answered on the telephone within 24 hours. It is sometimes suggested that civil servants take a very long time to work. I thought that the speed with which that particular query was answered was most impressive and typical of the work which officials of the Ministry have been doing in recent weeks. I am sure that it must be generally recognised and appreciated that the concern which we in this House feel and which the country feels about this matter is reflected both by Ministers and by Ministries.

The debate, then, turns on the question: what should be done, and how? Everyone is aware of the facts. During the past three months, the newspapers have been full of headlines which have made gloomy reading. Indeed, as so often happens on these occasions, I think that we may, perhaps, have become inured to the troubles and horrors of the situation. Flooding has been widespread and violent. Lives have been lost. People's houses have been damaged and, in some cases, totally destroyed. Little businesses have been wrecked. The affairs of large businesses have been interrupted and dislocated. Also, as I have said, there have been many personal horrors and tragedies—the sort of things which do not necessarily rate mention in the newspaper headlines, but which, collectively, make an appalling total.

Furthermore, we in the West Country feel that, although we have been fortunate in having better weather lately, the danger has not yet passed. We are tremendously concerned about the effect of a bad winter. It may well be, for instance, that Exmoor, as usual, will receive very heavy snowfalls. The ground is already saturated; it has as much water as it can possible contain. We are concerned about what may happen in the future. I emphasise this point to my hon. Friend because I regard it as very important and it is exercising our minds greatly at this time.

It has been suggested that the weather has been exceptional. That is true of many low-lying parts of the country. For instance, in the Taunton area in July, August and September, we had 12 inches of rain. In October, we had a further 12 inches, making a total of 24 inches during those four months of the year. That is to be compared with an ordinary annual average of about 29·3 inches of rain. It is true to say, therefore, that there has been exceptional rainfall there. Nevertheless, the Somerset River Board writes to me as follows:

"Flooding of this magnitude has now occurred three times in the present century. Consequently, we can expect it to happen again."

Therefore, although a great part of the flooding may be said to be caused by exceptional circumstances, the danger remains, and it is very serious.

In a letter to me, a constituent of mine who lives in Exmoor, and who is generally acknowledged to be an authority on matters in that part of the country, writes as follows:

"As I have known Exmoor for over 50 years and have lived at Winsford"—

in my constituency—

"since 1930, keeping a rain gauge all the time, … I think that it may be helpful if I give you my views. I have checked through all my rainfall records and I can find no significant change in the last 30 years. We have on several previous occasions had rain as heavy as or heavier than we have experienced in the last four months."

I wish, therefore, to make very firmly to my hon. Friend the point that, although it may be true that in many low-lying parts of the country the rainfall was exceptional, in Exmoor, at any rate, this is not so. It is true to say, and this is a point to which I shall refer later, that the effect of this rainfall has been very much aggravated by modern conditions.

The question, then, is what action should be taken to mitigate hardship and to prevent a recurrence of disasters. One of the difficulties in which we find ourselves in this House in discussing this subject is that it is the concern of more than one Ministry. It is the concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but when we come to land drainage, that is the concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

When roads have been damaged and flooded, that is the general responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and over them all, when we are considering whether or not the Government are able to assist us in various ways with grants from central funds to remedy the defects or to provide improvements for the future, the Treasury has to be consulted. In that connection, I should like to say how very much indeed we all appreciate the presence here today of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. It is very good of him to come, and we take his presence here, as if we needed it, as being evidence of his own concern with the whole matter.

When we have so many Ministries concerned, this automatically of itself makes difficulties. Government policy, as I understand it from the statement made the other day by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, is to encourage, firstly—and here I am talking about the alleviation of hardship—the voluntary raising of money locally. When as much money as can be raised locally has been raised, when the local community has contributed as much as it can afford, then, and only then, will the Treasury, so to speak, foot the bill.

I entirely agree that it is right to encourage the voluntary spirit. Nobody is more keen on that than I am. I also agree that we ought to do nothing which will put an unfair and unreasonable financial burden upon the Government. The Government have quite enough things upon which they are constantly being exhorted by pressure groups of one sort or another to spend money. On the other hand, I cannot help feeling that there are certain difficulties with regard to the establishment of local funds which have become clear as fund-raising efforts have been made.

First, a very great deal of most splendid work has been done by those raising these local funds, and I should particularly like to pay a tribute to the Mayor of Taunton in this connection, for although he is a political opponent of mine, he is a man with a great sense of public duty. I admire very much all he does for the people of Taunton. Although there has been all this devoted effort, there is no doubt that the fund-raising activities have been too diffuse in Exeter, Winsford and Taunton, and there is a good deal of evidence that local people there have been in very much doubt to which fund they should contribute. I am not sure that we might not have got a better result if we had had one single fund, but I do not know.

I find that these good people are also unhappy—and there is a good deal of evidence on this subject—on the question of the disposal of the surpluses of these relief funds in the past. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, there has been a great deal of debate about the surplus, for instance, from the Lynmouth Fund. At one time it was suggested that the surplus of that fund should be used to provide playing fields and the like, and this caused a great deal of unhappiness and, I believe, stopped many people from subscribing to our local funds who otherwise would have done so. They felt that if there was going to be too much money raised it might be used for some other purpose to which they did not wish to subscribe. I realise that the surplus of the Lynmouth Fund will be used now and not as it might otherwise have been for a purpose for which it was not originally subscribed, although I am aware of evidence which seems to indicate that the area within which the surplus of the fund can be used is not altogether satisfactorily defined. Perhaps that is another subject. I want to make the point in general that current experience indicates that there are special difficulties in the way of raising as much money locally as we might like to raise.

While the public are not quite certain about the details of the Government's intentions, it might have been happier if the Government had said that they would very carefully consider in due time the subscription of £ for £, in the sense that the Government would contribute £1 of their own for every £1 subscribed locally. This was a method used most successfully some years ago at the time of the East Coast flood disaster. Miss Symons wrote a most interesting letter in The Times a few days ago, which I am sure my hon. Friend has seen, which pointed out that, at that time £5 million was subscribed from the public and the Government in fact subscribed only just over £2 million, because more money was not necessary. What mattered was the guarantee. We are always in a difficulty in discussing a subject of this kind, because if the Government promise too much help it may be that public subscriptions will be inhibited, and that would be a pity and would be quite wrong.

I should like to make an estimate of what voluntary funds have to do. I can only speak with authority about my own constituency, and there the position is fairly clear. In the borough of Taunton, approximately 300 houses were affected, and in the rural area over 170. I have some very exact information from the local chamber of commerce, from which I understand that the estimate of the total damage in respect of local businesses exceeds £78,000. About 50 local businesses have been affected by the floods, and these figures are additional to the housing figures which I have already given.

It will clearly take some time to calculate the farm losses accurately and exactly, but I believe it to be true that at least thirty—and I would put the figure a good deal higher, but I am trying to be fairly conservative, as I hope may be thought appropriate—farmers in west Somerset have suffered to some extent and about 70 or more in the North Curry, Stoke St. Gregory and Athelney areas.

There are two categories of losses which the farmers have suffered: the immediate losses of stock that certainly occurred—and nothing is more tragic than animals being drowned in floods; and losses of crops, with all the consequential losses that flow from the interruption of their business activities and the set-hack to their programmes.

I could speak about these figures for quite some time, but I do not intend to do that. I merely wish to make the point to the Parliamentary Secretary that I hope he realises that any financial judgment I make has been most carefully arrived at. I aim convinced that private charity will be no means meet the bill here, however devoted the effort for raising funds locally. I have made my own estimate of the damage, and I am sure that over the West Country the final figure will be not less than £1 million. I do not see how that can be raised by the people in the West country. We have done a good deal; and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) will no doubt be able to tell us about the efforts made in his part of Devon which has suffered so very badly. In Taunton, we have already raised £8,500, which is a pretty fair achievement. We have not only raised it but we have already spent £3,500. The old proverb says:

"He who gives quickly, gives twice".

Speed is one of the most important factors in an operation of this sort to bring immediate relief to these people. I hope my hon. Friend thinks that we have done, are doing and will continue to do our best to raise money privately, but I repeat that I think that the job is very much too big for us.

It is appropriate to say a word or two about insurance. There are some people who decide that they will bear their own risks and who do not bother to insure. If they suffer, that is a matter for them, and I cannot say that I am so sympathetic towards them, but the question arises to what extent will commercial insurance meet the bill where people have insured; and there are certain special difficulties here. For instance, in general, householders' comprehensive policies cover storm and tempest damage but do not cover flood damage. Ordinarily one is obliged to pay a small extra premium for risk cover of that sort.

Further, I am aware of cases in my constituency—and I am sure that this applies to other places, too—in which it is quite impossible to obtain cover of any sort against flooding. I know very well, and there is much evidence of it, that the insurance companies in general are being extremely generous and very reasonable in dealing with claims made upon them, and I should like to pay tribute to them about that. There appears to be no repetition of the rather unhappy situation which arose after the Lynmouth disaster, when there were arguments between private people who had insured and insurance companies as to exactly the extent of their liability.

But if we take into account the fact that many people are covered by insurance, we must also take into account the fact that very many people are not. Indeed, one can hardly blame them for that. While the gap between what can be provided privately and the total bill may be narrowed by insurance payments which can be added to the money raised by private charity, the gap is still very large indeed.

I should like to turn to the question of what the Government intend to do to help. I have already paid tribute to my right hon. Friend for the spirit of his statement, and I want to be helpful rather than to be critical, but I think that it would be appropriate if I made certain comments. The present arrangements, which, as I have said, are very well-intentioned, do not altogether satisfy local anxieties. It is reported to me, and I have observed for myself, that people feel that they may or may not get help at some future date. I have come most strongly to the opinion that arrangements should be made in any national disaster of any sort to give help at once, and to give it as of right without the taint of charity which might possibly be said to apply to the present situation. Those are the views of a number of my constituents, and I express them for what they are worth.

If that is thought right, and if it is also thought right to try to do something to satisfy those feelings, the question is, what could be done? By correspondence and in other ways I have suggested to my right hon. Friend that we might start a national disaster fund. A very old friend, an old boy of Huish's Grammar School, Taunton, and a former Member of the House, held in affection by everybody, Sir Frank Medlicott, wrote to The Times on the subject a short time ago pointing out that it should be easy to start such a fund and that the money is available for it. Precedents exist, as for instance when about £1 million was used for the building of the Law Courts. I ought perhaps to have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General about that a few moments ago.

A further valuable precedent is the fact that during the war a most successful war damage scheme was operated by which, as a matter of principle, it was thought appropriate that the community should accept responsibility for coping with local disasters. If we established a similar scheme here, the conditions which I have suggested might well be appropriate—namely, that money should be given quickly and as of right—could most assuredly obtain.

Such an arrangement, which could deal with disasters of any sort, whether flooding, landslides, pit disasters or anything else, could include the local authorities, because it is possible that the grant of money from such a fund would be made on their recommendation. It is in many ways analogous to the situation which exists today in which, for example, the community accepts responsibility in general to look after any citizen who falls on evil times or who is injured industrially or in any other way. I suggest that this is an idea which merits examination.

It might be suggested that such a scheme would adversely affect the operations of the commercial insurance companies, but I do not think so. If I were married, which unfortunately I am not, and my widow were assured of a Government pension if I were run over by a bus, and if she knew that a contribution would be made by the Government to my funeral expenses—although I hope that they would not spend much money on that—it would not stop me from taking out a commercial insurance policy to insure my life in order to look after my dependants when I died. I do not think that a scheme of this sort need dissuade anybody from engaging in ordinary commercial insurance arrangements.

I also feel that it is a common-sense idea to have a pool of money available to help in times of disaster. I have spoken of the operations of the Red Cross, which I have already said have been so helpful to us in the West Country at this time. The Red Cross has a pool of emergency clothing and supplies always available and draws upon this pool to help in times of emergency. In principle, there is no difference between a pool of clothing and a pool of money. Moreover, private charity need not be affected. The fact that people wish privately to give is one of the finest aspects of a civilised people—the desire to help others; and this need not be affected either, because there is no reason why private people should not contribute in their various ways to such a national disaster fund in order to create a large fund.

When he was in Devon early in October, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said:

"It is the business of the local authority"

—and I assume that he includes in that such statutory bodies as river boards and others—

"to find the cure for the flooding."

I quite agree with him. He went on to say—and I assume that he meant the Government as a whole—

"We will see that they have the necessary powers to find the cure".

I hope that he implied that they will also see that they have the necessary wherewithal to put the cure into effect. I am sure that he implied that.

I said that I would speak about the way in which times have changed. They have changed very much. I do not think that we fully recognise how the development of new agricultural techniques and the rise in living standards, for instance, have aggravated this problem. I will give two examples very quickly from constituents' letters. One constituent writes:

"In my opinion the reason for the repeated serious floods other than the one in 1952"—

—that was the Lynmouth disaster—

"which have occurred in the last ten to fifteen years is the fact that the streams and rivers rise and fall far more rapidly than they did twenty or thirty years ago."

This constituent has had long experience of Winsford Weir. Writing of this weir, he says:

"It will now rise 4 ft. or so in a couple of hours after heavy rain; in the past after similar rain it used to take 24 hours to rise 4 ft. or so. I am sure, too, that the reason for the rapid rise is the vast amount of drainage work that has been done on Exmoor and the Brendon Hill area during the last thirty years—drainage of two kinds, road drainage and land drainage."

It is perfectly true that because of the improvement in techniques, we have a bigger problem to deal with than we had to deal with in the past.

Another constituent writes about runoff water. He says:

"Many other factors combine to increase this run-off. Every modern road is totally impervious, and today these account for hundreds of acres."

In the old days they were muddy tracks on Exmoor, and there was no water runoff problem. The writer goes on:

"A 50 ft. road from Taunton to Wiveliscombe covers over 60 acres. Every house, every concrete drive, every asphalt or paved path increases the run-off."

That is perfectly true. As more houses are built in areas like Taunton, the worse the problem becomes. There is the further point that as these new houses are built and as our civilisation improves and the standard of living rises, so more water is used. People become accustomed to using more water.

The writer says that yet another increase comes from the rapid extension of piped water supplies to country districts. Many villages are now using as much water in a day as they formerly used in a week, and much of this extra water must eventually find its way into local rivers. That, again, is perfectly true. Times have changed and we have a bigger problem to deal with today than we had formerly.

Broadly speaking, there are two types of remedial works which have to be considered. First, the larger type of remedial work. Consider Taunton as an example, if I might once more quote from the views given to me by the local river board. The board says that to give any guarantee of preventing a recurrence of the floods such as we had in Taunton a few weeks ago would need a very costly scheme, and the cost of such a scheme is estimated at £1 million. That is one type of situation.

There is a second type of situation, the smaller schemes, and, again, I will quote from what the Somerset River Board said to me:

"In addition to Taunton, many small towns and villages have suffered severe damage. Some of this might have been avoided if the River Board had taken over control of all the small streams of the area and had maintained them in a satisfactory condition. This has been impossible because we have had insufficient funds to maintain even the lengths of river which are already under our control."

From personal observation and experience I think that we all know how many of these smaller streams have become badly silted up and clogged and are not doing their job.

It is true that a good deal of this flooding could have been avoided in some of these smaller places if more money had been spent on the tributaries of the larger rivers like the Ex and the Barle. There is no doubt about that.

The Land Drainage Bill comes before the House for debate on Monday. In a way it is unfortunate that we have this Bill at this time, because many people look to the Bill for a complete remedy of all land drainage problems. It was never designed for that purpose, but it is, nevertheless, a useful, though small, step forward. I cannot help feeling that the Bill may require amendment in Committee. I think that it should be regarded as being only a part of the practical work which may be required in future to deal with this whole situation.

Wellington is the town from which the great Duke of Wellington took his name, although I have never been able to establish why. Incidentally, the Duke of Wellington was a great British Prime Minister and is one of the 25 people unrepresented in this building by a statue. But that is perhaps by the way. The Wellington Rural District Council summed up the situation very well when it said:

"… the long term policy must surely be to provide money and grants for a comprehensive series of works (starting from the mouth of each river concerned in the recent catastrophe and working back to the first major tributary after the source), according to an agreed timetable or priority and designed to ensure that flood water is conducted out to sea without endangering any buildings whether used for human habitation or storage of any kind."

If one adds to that the clearance and maintenance of becks and brooks which are tributaries of these larger rivers, I think that one will go a long way towards answering the whole difficult problem.

It is within the memory of the House that the fens were badly flooded in 1947, and a drainage scheme is being put into effect there which is likely to cost about £5 million by the time it is finished. We must get used to figures of that sort when thinking about the West Country. For example, a meeting concluded just over an hour ago between representatives of the Somerset County Council and the Somerset River Board to discuss this whole question. I was told over the telephone that the representatives were of the opinion that work must be begun immediately in Somerset which would probably cost up to £3 million.

Quite clearly, we shall need to discuss where this money will come from. I hope that the Government will feel that, in general, it would be right to allow river boards and local authorities to do whatever work they believe to be necessary to prevent recurrences of the magnitude that we have experienced in the last few months. I hope, too, that as time goes on the Government will be able to say how far they will be able to go in this context and what they will allow river boards to do.

In conclusion, I would like to make two more general recommendations and suggestions. First, I have already said that perhaps one of the advantages of debating a matter of this sort—and I am pleased to have the opportunity of developing this subject at rather more length than one ordinarily expects to be able to do in an Adjournment debate—is that not only does consideration take place in the Ministries and between hon. Members and Ministers, but the discussion is public.

I cannot help feeling that there are strong arguments in favour of a public inquiry into this whole subject to discuss remedies, and the cost of those remedies. I have been impressed with the number of suggestions which I have received from my constituents. I think that it would be very helpful if people felt that they had an opportunity to put their views directly to such an inquiry.

I am sure that such an inquiry would be helpful. For example, one of my constituents wrote to me in the following terms:

"Have you observed that there are very few rain water butts in Taunton?"

That is extraordinary, but if there were more rainwater butts they would take a great volume of water and save it going immediately into the river. There is an interesting and helpful suggestion. It is a small point, but it is something to which we could pay attention and recommend to our local authorities.

When one hears of small but useful ideas like that, I am sure that it would be appropriate to establish a committee to hear both small and large ideas, like that suggested by one of my constituents who wants to drive a new river channel right the way from Athenley to Bridgwater and dam up the mouth of the Panret. An inquiry of that sort would, I think, fulfil a most useful purpose, because, as I have said, it is clear that some of this flooding could have been avoided and if, unhappily, there should be a recurrence of flooding in the future, we do not want anybody to be able to say that that, too, could have been avoided. We do not want anybody to ask why we did not set up such an inquiry to hear the difficulties and dangers and to discuss remedial works.

Secondly, I think it is urgent and necessary that there should be a clearly understood and specific policy about water as a whole. When I say clearly understood, I mean clearly understood by men and women in the street. There seems to be increasing support for the view of the National Association of Parish Councils that water should be treated as a single problem, and that it should be controlled comprehensively by a single system of authorities, financed by a uniform method.

I would not agree with the idea of taking power or responsibility from the local authorities and the local statutory bodies. That would be wrong. I suggest that there should be more central and unified control and direction. It may well be that the unification of matters such as drainage, protection, storage and supply would make for more efficient planning, and possibly for cheaper operation. Since we all use water, and take it so much for granted, a national water charge would be both intelligible and acceptable. We are likely to be made aware of dissatisfaction among some farmers at the charges proposed in the Land Drainage Bill which we shall debate on Monday, and if there is anything we can do to make people realise that the whole country must pay for water, and for the things we have to do with water, so much the better.

Water is a national asset, and it seems ludicrously paradoxical that at one moment we should be suffering from floods and the next from drought. These floods have been a disaster, but I believe that we can turn them to advantage if we learn the lessons of past droughts and floods, and take action to remedy the defects and prepare for the future. That is what people want, and I believe that they have every right to expect it.

At the outset, I want to wish the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), a speedy recovery from the cold which he has obviously contracted in the course of his public duties as a Member for one of the areas so adversely affected by the recent flooding in the West Country.

It is lamentable that, after the disastrous occurrences that have taken place there, it should be necessary for hon. Members representing the affected areas to have to beg the Government to take action in the matter. I find it impossible to reconcile the very strong case made out by the hon. Member with what the Minister of Housing and Local Government said in the House on 8th November. In reply to a Question of mine, he said:

"Extremely effective Government action has already been taken."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 8th November, 1960; Vol. 629, c. 813.]

I am puzzled to know how the Minister can make a statement of that kind in the light of what we have just heard from the hon. Member for Taunton.

The hon. Member paid tribute to the fact that two Government Departments are represented on the Government Front Bench today—the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I would point out that there is one significant absentee—a representative from the Treasury. It would have been even more helpful and practical if one of the junior Treasury Ministers were also here today.

The pledge given on behalf of the Government by my right hon. Friend was a Government pledge, given by the Government as a whole, including the Treasury.

The pledge which the Government gave does not seem to have satisfied those hon. Members who have rightly complained of the ineffectiveness of the steps already taken and whatever steps are contemplated by the Government in this connection. I repeat the words of the Minister, because I believe that they are historic:

"Extremely effective Government action has already been taken."

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some details to establish this very remarkable claim.

I was very interested in the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Taunton that this problem should be regarded as a national responsibility. I did not know what he intended to say today. I have already put down a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for answer next week in which I suggest that a national relief fund or national disaster fund should be established to deal with this kind of emergency. In 1953, at the time of the East Coast floods, the then Prime Minister said that the catastrophe would be treated on a national basis, and broadly as a national responsibility. What has happened since 1953? Seven years have elapsed and, from time to time, unhappily, we have had recurrences of these disastrous events.

Hon. Members have asked the Government to take action in the matter. The time has come when a national relief fund should be established to deal with events of such a magnitude as to cause either serious loss of life, or widespread damage to property, so that everybody would know that there is one immediate source of help available for the people who have been stricken in this way. For what it is worth, I merely add my support to the suggestion made that a national relief fund should be established for this purpose. That would be the best way of proving that the Government mean business.

I shall not keep the House for more than a few minutes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) on having initiated this debate so quickly after these disasters, and on the very clear and constructive speech which he made. My constituency suffered only to a limited extent, although the unfortunate people who had their homes flooded had to undergo all the hardship and distress, and suffer all the loss, entailed by flooding of that sort.

I must repudiate the unfair strictures of the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) upon my right hon. Friends. I echo the tribute which my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton paid to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what they have done and are doing to help in this matter. I am sure that when my hon. Friend replies he will give a very good account of what is being done.

I want to express agreement with one or two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. One of his constituents said that the flooding was largely aggravated by improved land drainage and by the better road surfaces which we now have. That is true. With improved land drainage we have far fewer swamps in which the water can sink as if into a sponge. That has had an effect not only on flooding, but on snipe. With better road surfaces the water rushes away, fills up the ditches, and floods into the houses. There is a great deal to be done in practical ways to counteract that, by clearing and widening channels and enlarging culverts and drains. The work must be done locally, and it will cost much money, but it must be done if we are to do everything practicable to minimise these troubles in future—although whatever we do I do not believe that it is possible for human beings entirely to counteract the excesses of nature.

I want to refer to the question of flood warnings. I am told that they are not always adequate. When a flood starts in the upper waters of a river I am told that it is possible to calculate fairly accurately when the water will reach a certain place and create a danger of flooding, but that warnings have not always been given in time.

I am glad that my hon. Friend raised the question of the inadequacy of voluntary funds, excellent though they are, to provide the necessary compensation. I am also glad that my hon. Friend ventilated the question of a national disaster fund. Once again, I congratulate him. This debate will do a lot of good, and I look forward very much to hearing the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.

I should like to add my congratulations to those tendered by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) for initiating this debate. His speech covered a very wide field, and I entirely agree with most of the points he made.

I find it regrettable that the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) found it necessary to speak in the way that he did. From my own experience in a city which has suffered very severely as a result of this disaster, there is nothing but praise for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government and particularly my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Local Government for the generous way in which they have acted and the rapidity with which they have authorised expenditure. It is most unfortunate if an hon. Member of this House, in an attempt to gain some political advantage, causes people who are suffering to think that they are not being adequately helped.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity. Perhaps he will let me get on with my speech.

I should like, first, to say how glad I am that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Local Government is to reply to this debate. It was just over a fortnight ago that I noticed on the tape in the Members' Corridor of the House of Commons that my constituency had been inundated. I immediately rang up my hon. Friend, before leaving for the West Country, and I was most touched by the sympathy he expressed and by the way in which he arranged for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, who happened to be visiting Exeter the next day, to inspect the city and give a report on the damage.

The damage in my constituency, as, indeed, all over the West Country, could have been very much worse than it was. We were very lucky indeed that this catastrophe struck us in daylight. Had it happened at night there is no doubt that there would have been very serious loss of life. When I got to my constituency at 10.30 p.m. one of the streets had water running down it at about 9 knots and it was impossible for the Army D.U.K.W.s to combat the current to get the people out of the houses. I was terrified lest the rush of water would undermine the brickwork of the houses and bring them down.

A number of people were in those houses—one was a woman who was in an advanced state of pregnancy—and it might have led to a very serious loss of life. Railway sleepers, which had been torn away further up the town, were coming down the street and it was almost impossible to get to those in distress.

Very considerable gallantry was shown in Exeter on that night. I should like to pay a very sincere tribute to all those who helped: to the local authority, which played its part well, the police, the firemen and the Army, which readily gave help, both the Western Brigade and the Royal Army Service Corps, and also the Royal Marines. Undergraduates of Exeter University did extremely well and performed many feats of gallantry. Many young people, particularly those whom we sometimes call teddy boys, came to the aid of people in trouble and showed extreme gallantry. The Salvation Army was there, of course, in the early hours with comforts for those who had suffered so much.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton referred to the people not being insured against floods. Of course, it can be argued that people who do not insure against such a catastrophe should not therefore be fully compensated. That is not a valid argument. I am informed that in the section of Exeter where this disaster took place—and I am sure the same applies to Taunton and Exmouth—it is not possible to take out insurance. The insurance companies look upon the flood risk as so grave that they will not issue cover. I find it difficult to understand this attitude on the part of the insurance companies.

Many of us have comprehensive insurance which covers us against floods. I have one for my flat in London and also for my house in the West Country. I do not think there is the slightest possibility of either of those dwellings being flooded. It is a standard policy issued by a well-known company, the name of which I shall not mention because I do not think it would be fair to do so. I accepted it without question, and it covers me against flood damage.

I should have thought that if it is possible to insure premises like my flat in London, which I think is perfectly safe against flooding—I do not think that the Thames will reach that high in Horse-ferry Road—then when there is a doubtful case it ought to be insurable. After all, the extensive flooding in my constituency has never been as bad as this for something like 64 years. I should have thought it reasonable to expect insurance companies to treat a house in that part of the city in the same way as those that are on higher ground. I hope that after this disaster, insurance companies, if they are asked to cover people who live in Exeter or Taunton in the near future, will not use the excuse that it is a bad risk.

The important thing is, of course, not only to compensate the people who have suffered—and I am satisfied that they will be compensated by the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government—but to take the necessary preventive measures in order to ensure that flooding will not take place again. This, I am informed—and I am somewhat inhibited in referring to it—will take some time to complete.

I should, therefore, like to emphasise the importance of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock when he said that there must be a satisfactory alert system. I realise that there will be many false alarms, but if we had had an alert in Exeter yesterday fortnight when this inundation took place, it would have been possible to get men home from their work to join their wives and to get much of their furniture up to the upper level of their houses. Many of them had no chance whatever to remove their goods and chattels.

One lady I visited lived in a downstairs flat and was shut off from getting upstairs. She was doing her housework. She is not young but a woman who, I imagine, is over 60, and she was in the most distressed condition when I got there. Her front door had burst open, the water had come in and was well above her waist by the time it stopped rising. If that woman had been given a little notice she could have possibly saved some of her furniture and, what is much more important, she would have been out of the flat. As it was she was shut in the flat for a considerable time. She was shouting, but no one could get near her. Eventually, two policemen or two Royal Marines waded through the water to get her out. That is the sort of instance to which I referred earlier when I said that if this disaster had taken place at night there would have been a considerable number of casualties.

I plead that there should be an adequate alert system in the period that must elapse before effective preventive measures can be found. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will see that that is done. I understand that some steps have already been taken, but I do not know how adequate they are.

In a supplementary question a day or two ago, I mentioned that there was some confusion among some local authorities as to the method by which they could apply for financial assistance in order to rectify the damage. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say whether such information has been given to local authorities, because I believe it is vital that that information should be available quickly.

I conclude by repeating how grateful my constituents are for the rapidity with which Government aid has been offered. I hope that we shall never have another tragedy like this in the West Country which will necessitate us having an Adjournment debate of this nature.

I am sorry that I was unable to be present at the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), but I listened with much interest to the greater part of his speech and to what has been said since. There are two points in the hon. Gentleman's speech which I would particularly like to underline. One is with regard to the formation of a national disaster fund. We have the Minister's—assurance—I have been looking at the Answers which we had earlier in the week—that everyone's immediate needs are being met. I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say that that is still so and is universally true.

However, there are, of course, people whose immediate needs are met but who know that they have suffered possibly quite heavy losses during the flood but do not know whether those losses will be made good. I hope that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) will not accuse me of making panty capital when I say that, because I understand that the hon. Member for Taunton touched upon it. People who have suffered losses and who have not been covered by insurance, and could not be covered by insurance, have doubts whether those losses will be made good. It is on their behalf that we want the Government to be rather more forthcoming than they have been so far. That was the purpose of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), and that was the purpose of a good many Questions asked earlier this week.

I was sorry to notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Housing and Local Government, when replying to some of those Questions, poured cold water on the idea of a national disaster fund. He suggested that if it were known that there was such a fund people would be unwilling to subscribe through private charity and good will. I must say that I am very doubtful about that. There are a great many instances in this country where private good will and private funds combine to meet a need.

It has been brought home to us by hon. Members with local knowledge that one of the reasons for flooding is the change in our way of life. We improve our roads and our drainage, and, as a result, some areas are exposed to risks greater than they knew before. In the long run, everyone in the community benefits from better roads and better land drainage. Therefore, we all have in the most real and material sense some responsibility to help.

To my mind, one of the objections to leaving relief entirely to private good will is that the ungenerous would get off scot-free every time. We all have some responsibility in the matter, and that ought to be expressed by some kind of contribution from public funds to a national disaster fund. While we are about it we might make a good job of it and bring in not only flooding but those other disasters, which I believe the lawyers call "acts of God", against which ordinary human prudence cannot reasonably be expected to prevail.

The other point in the speech of the hon. Member for Taunton which I should like to emphasise is the desirability of an inquiry that would bring together, possibly, expert scientific knowledge and local knowledge on the question of flood prevention. I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about water butts. We see in one part of the Old Testament that the King of Moab ordered all his subjects to see that their houses were provided with cisterns, although I think he was more concerned with water conservation than with flooding, though both purposes are served.

To digress for a moment, may I console the hon. Member for Taunton for the absence of a statue of the Duke of Wellington in this building? There is a handsome portrait of him outside Her Majesty's Robing Room. He is depicted there as a soldier. As he was more successful as a soldier than as a Prime Minister, perhaps it is as well that he is commemorated in that fashion. But that is a digression, and we are on an important and serious subject.

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will have something to say on the two paints, that of inquiry into methods of prevention, and, most particularly, that of the formation of a national disaster fund in which public funds and voluntary good will could combine.

I should like to start by adding my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) for what, I think the House will agree, was a most sensitive, wide-ranging and constructive speech. I know that his activity on behalf of his constituents must have given them some comfort in the time of trouble through which they have passed and I am sure that the officials of my right hon. Friend's Department will appreciate the courteous way in which my hon. Friend has acknowledged the help which they have tried to give.

At the risk of repetition, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish me to repeat, also, the tribute which hon. Members have already paid to all those who have both suffered and worked during these floods. At the risk of being invidious, it is perhaps possible to pick out the townsmen and the countrymen who have suffered, particularly their womenfolk, the local authority service and public officials who have done so much to help, the voluntary bodies with all their wonderful spontaneous resources that spring into life on these occasions, and the neighbours as a whole who have done so much to help.

Today, of course, we are debating the West Country, but the Government have had to concern themselves not only with the floods in the West Country, but with those in all the other counties of the land which we must not forget. Floods have struck at Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Leicestershire, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Norfolk, Sussex, Essex, Kent and Sussex. It is a long toll, mercifully with extremely small loss of life.

I will not particularise individual places, but the plight of two places, Exeter and Taunton, has been vividly described by hon. Members in their speeches today. I am sure that they give an impression of what has been suffered in all these other places. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) said that in nearly every case the trouble, when it came, was unexpected and, in many cases, was almost unprecedented in living memory.

It is not for me to go now into the causes of these floods. That will perhaps be dealt with during the debate on Monday. The presence today of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is responsible for river boards, shows the deep interest of the Government in the suggestions about causes which have been made. The river boards have a continuing responsibility in this but I have been particularly interested in the references, by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and by other hon. Members who have spoken, to the apparent absurdity that in this country we have alternate droughts and floods, always remembering, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) did, that we cannot guard ourselves perfectly against the excesses of nature.

But we can do something to iron out the extremes. It has been suggested that the time is ripe for consideration of the problem of flood control not as a separate problem, but in the general question of the conservation and use of water. My right hon. Friend has a duty under the Water Act, 1945, to promote the conservation and proper use of water resources in England and Wales, and before the recent floods he had begun a study of this matter. In June of this year my right hon. Friend said:

"We are approaching the point at which we may very possibly have to take a new look at water conservation.… It may be that the time is not far distant when we have to look at all the water resources of a river basin as a whole in the widest possible way, to make sure that all the various and sometimes conflicting interests are properly served; that the river is kept clean and the interests of fishing, navigation, and so on, are safeguarded while, at the same time, the maximum amount of water is made available to all kinds of users as economically as possible."

My right hon. Friend asked the Central Advisory Water Committee, representative of all the bodies with an interest in rivers and water, to make a special inquiry into these subjects. This is being done by the Sub-committee on the Growing Demand for Water, which is already well advanced with comprehensive and detailed investigation on the complex problems which arise. The committee is aware of the urgency of this question and it is hoped that it will be able to report by the early summer of next year.

Having said that, I hope that all hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, will send on to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, or his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, any suggestions that reach them from the public to help with this big problem. The whole complex problem of water, both conservation and flood control, is suitable for study by this committee, and we should welcome suggestions which have already reached hon. Members.

Apart from the study of the larger question, the river boards have had a great deal of work to do and have done a great deal, but they still have much to do. The work which the river boards have done and still have to do is heavily grant-aided by the taxpayer through the Exchequer. It would not be proper for me to say more about that today. It is not a subject for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. However, it will be debated on Monday.

If I may come to the people who have suffered, I would say that there has been the greatest anxiety in all the areas subject to flooding. There has been widespread damage, wretchedness, misery and hard work—especially, if I may say so, for the women, and those elderly women who combine, with perhaps less activity than they would wish, a house-proud character that goes so much with those who reach old age.

It has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Tavistock and Exeter that flood warnings might have helped a great deal in this predicament. Flood warnings are, I think, very much a local co-operative matter. I am sure that all those concerned are studying whether they can improve the alert system already existing in some places. I will certainly pass on what has been said to my right hon. Friend and he will see whether there is anything he can do by way of advice to local authorities; always bearing in mind that the East Coast local authorities have, I believe, improved their own alert scheme since the disaster seven years ago.

As for what has been done to meet needs, there are two separate strands. The first strand affects local authority responsibility and all public services, and the second is for the meeting of individual, household, industrial and agricultural need caused by the damage. I will deal, first, with the local authorities' responsibility. Their first responsibility was manifold, to deal, at the same time, with first-aid help for those in need, with emergency repairs where they were suitable, and for setting in hand medium-term or short-term repairs for new work as required. In all those activities, I wish to repeat my right hon. Friend's pledge that, of course, any residual burden that would put undue weight on the rates, after the normal grant aid for each specific service has been paid and after the rate deficiency grant, if applicable, has been paid, will be helped by the taxpayers through the Government.

Let me repeat that in another way. The work to be undertaken by local authorities will affect many Government Departments and they will be entitled in some cases to the specific grants normally appropriate to that work. When the bill has been totted up, if it is seen that the residual burden on that local authority—after taking into account those specific grants and a rate deficiency grant if applicable—is such as to burden unreasonably the rates, my right hon. Friend has pledged Government help. But if this may appear to prolong the decision-making process of the local authorities, my right hon. Friend is also pressing local authorities to get on with the necessary work, with the comfort of that pledge, to make sure that the rates locally will not be unnecessarily burdened.

I turn now to the second strand, that of private losses which affect individuals, households, industrial establishments, commercial establishments and farmers. I must first, refer to the insurance protection which many individuals, households and establishments have already taken out. I am not denying for a moment that some people may not have been able to take out insurance. Some, perhaps, could not have been expected, for some reason or other, to take out insurance. But this must always be counted as the first line of defence and I understand that the insurance companies have behaved in a prompt and, I am told, in a generous manner in many cases.

After saying that, the next line of defence is the first-aid help from the local authorities or from local appeals, administered and distributed by the voluntary bodies in the areas. I should stress here that no instances of delay in supplying this first-aid or emergency relief to meet need has been reported to my right hon. Friend. If any hon. Member has an instance of this, I hope that he will report it to us so that we may see whether anything can be done. But no such instance has yet been reported.

We now come to the second phase of meeting need, that is the claims for damage and loss which have been caused by the floods. In every case I think that local authorities have already invited such claims to be submitted and claims are coming in. I will go on to what is to happen about them now after making one general comment. If any local authority, either on account of its local authority responsibilities or on account of its duty towards individual inhabitants and households, has any query, I hope that hon. Members will press the authorities either to write to my right hon. Friend's Department or to telephone. We are anxious that there shall be the absolute minimum of delay in giving the information that we have to make available to anyone who is in any doubt whatsoever.

Now I come on to the question of dealing with the claims submitted by those who have suffered damage. In some areas appeals have been opened and in some areas they have not. I should like to pay a tribute to those people who have set about raising appeals and, of course, particularly to all those who have given donations, large and small, to the appeals which have been raised. But all the local authorities affected by floods have had a pledge from the Government that, where funds raised by local appeal do not suffice to meet reasonable needs, the Government—the taxpayers through the Government—will provide the balance. The Government will supplement local appeals as is necessary to meet the reasonable needs of those who have suffered damage through the floods.

This guarantee has been given. It is the fulfilment of the pledge given by the then Government to Sir Rupert de la Bere, then Lord Mayor of London, who was responsible for the magnificent appeal raised in response to the 1953 floods, that any future trouble of this sort would be the more readily met by public funds because of the unused £3 million of the pledge given at that time for those floods.

I cannot possibly give the House any estimate of what, in fact, will be necessary in this case. The House will readily appreciate that as the claim forms are only now being filled in, and flowing into local authority offices, it is absolutely impossible even to make a guess at what the final cost of meeting reasonable need will be. The payments as necessary to supplement local appeal funds will be made as grants in aid and a Supplementary Estimate will be presented to the House in the New Year.

These local appeals are autonomous and they may well have different rules about eligibility in each particular case. We have, however, sent round an experienced financial official to help and advise local authorities and he will continue to tour those areas where his guidance and advice might be needed. Now we are going further and suggesting to local authorities some common principles which might guide their treatment of claims as they come in. These common principles are called "the Lord Mayor's rules", because they stem from the work of the committee set up by Sir Rupert de la Bere to handle the money that poured in after the East Coast floods in 1953. They are rules which give guidance about the checking and meeting of claims.

The Government have offered to all local authorities the services of War Damage Commission assessors to help any local authorities which may wish for reinforcements of their local staff in handling the claims. A letter to the counties in which flooding has occurred went out yesterday from my right hon. Friend confirming all these arrangements and offering the services of the War Damage Commission's assessors.

Some local authorities have their own distinctive ways of checking the claims. They were particularly referred to by my hon. Friend. The Taunton Chamber of Commerce, I believe, is advising Taunton on the claims put in by industry representing damage not covered by insurance. I hope that the guidance given by my right hon. Friend will be of value to local authorities concerned.

My right hon. Friend has not only had the first report of the senior financial official who has been touring the West Country, but also the first report from the senior engineering inspector who went as well. Both these officials, with much experience, confirmed what my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said, that local funds will not anything like suffice to meet the need in this case. I do not have to repeat the pledge that has been given that reasonable needs will be met through Government help.

My hon. Friend raised the question of Charity Commission funds and suggested that where surplus funds arise from old charities they might be steered into this sort of relief. There has been much talk of the Lynton and Lynmouth so-called, or alleged, surplus. Alas, events have overtaken any surplus that might have remained in that fund. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) that claims in the Lynton and Lynmouth area will almost certainly exceed any residue which remains from the fund for the original disaster.

I am told, however, that the Charity Commissioners will always welcome any proposals to widen the beneficial area of any surplus funds of any existing funds, but I am advised that there are very few surplus funds of any magnitude, bearing in mind the obligations to the families and dependants of those who have suffered in past disasters.

Perhaps a question that some of us ask ourselves is, why it is that local appeals have not on this occasion had quite the remarkable success that occurred in the case of the East Coast floods and the Lynton and Lynmouth disaster? It would need a psychologist to sort this out, but perhaps one dramatic blow on a limited and defined area such as occurred on the East Coast, on the one hand, and on Lynton and Lynmouth, on the other, will evoke a more dramatic response than what occurred this time—a rolling, widespread, continuous damage ranging from mere mishap in some areas to a tragedy in another area. People, perhaps, did not know whether the worst had happened and what they should do.

That brings me to the idea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and backed by other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Fulham, of a national disaster fund. Strong pleas have been made in favour of this idea and I must admit that it has some attractions at first sight. Nothing that I intend to say means that the idea is not still being studied, but, since the argument for it has been put and not some of the points which have to be taken into account against it, it would be only fair to mention one or two of the difficulties.

I think that hon. Members have disparaged local funds too much. Local funds mean local control. The Government can assist and supplement those funds as the Government are doing on this occasion, but the control of those funds is much more in local hands to deal with need as is locally considered right than would be true of any nationally administered disaster fund. A local fund can get off to a very quick start, but a national disaster fund dealing with claims, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said, as of right would find that much more difficult. There would be the question of national audit and rules and regulations which inevitably arise when dealing substantially with public money. The definition of what deserves help and how much help should be given might be far less easy than in the case of local funds which can receive, and in this case have received, the pledge of Government supplementation in order to reach the right size.

I must ask hon. Members to define their ideas of where the money for a national disaster should come from. If it is to come mainly from private donations it would be bound as a national fund to be ridden by far more rules and regulations than would a local fund. If it has to be from the taxpayer, as it will be in this situation, surely there is no need to put it in a separate stocking and call it a national disaster fund. Those who are in distress have a call on the money without making it a national disaster fund. The very existence of such a fund might discourage some people from insuring against damage which is the best way any individual or household or business has of obtaining protection.

I am only stating the other side of the argument put by my hon. Friend. A national disaster fund might bring comfort and security to all who felt themselves menaced in any way by the forces of nature, but, if my hon. Friend persists in asking for a pool of money, I must remind him that the Government have made available from the general tax revenue of the country the money needed in this particular instance. The consideration of a national disaster fund is not, therefore, relevant to this particular problem with which we are dealing now. It is a very interesting question which must be considered in the future. The immediate purpose has been met by the Government's pledge of all help necessary to meet reasonable needs of those who have suffered damage.

My right hon. Friend's Department and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture are in touch through their officials both to assess the work that has to be done and to advise and guide local authorities about the help which is going to be available from Government funds. We are honouring the pledge which has been given to enable claims of reasonable need to be met and the pledge that necessary local authority work can be done without any undue burden on the rates.

This story of floods has been the story of the greatest disturbance, ranging over the whole country, and ranging from serious inconvenience in some areas right through to tragedy in other areas. No one can erase by mere speech the wretchedness, the hard work, the distress and the misery that has been caused, but, so far as help is concerned, either immediate, emergency help, or middle-term or long-term help, no case has been quoted of a failure by the Government, or by the local authorities backed by the Government, to do what is necessary.

I finish by repeating that, as for the losses, the reasonable needs, once checked, will be met, and that we will put the local appeals in funds for this purpose.