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

Although the Bill is a fairly long and complex one, the basic conception is quite simple. There are three main purposes: first, to enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify and apply the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations; secondly, to give effect to certain provisions in our bilateral consular conventions which either differ from the corresponding provisions of the Vienna Convention or relate to matters falling outside its scope; and, thirdly, to make certain arrangements with regard to Commonwealth countries.

What I propose to do is to say something about consular work in general, and to explain the background to and the basic concept of the Bill. In order to save the time of the House, I shall try to avoid too much detail at this stage. If the House gives me leave at the end of the debate I shall then endeavour to satisfy Members on any matters of particular interest; or if it is more appropriate or convenient, I hope to do so in Committee.

The Bill is intended to help consuls to carry out their proper functions which, in turn, are designed to serve the ordinary citizen who travels abroad in the course of his work or for pleasure. The Bill, of course, facilitates the work of consuls of other countries in the United Kingdom. It will help other countries and they, in return, will facilitate the work of United Kingdom consuls. It is really a case of, "Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you."

The United Kingdom has extensive interests abroad. More than almost any other country, we depend for our very existence upon foreign trade. Our merchant fleet is the second largest in the world. There are numerous communities of United Kingdom citizens permanently resident in various countries. For example, there are over 17,000 residents in Buenos Aires, about 10,000 in Paris, nearly 7,000 in Geneva, while the British community in South Africa runs into many thousands. Approximately 5 million British subjects visited foreign countries last year either as tourists or for business reasons and this figure is bound to continue to rise. All of this generates an enormous amount of consular work. Almost all our diplomatic missions abroad include a consular section, or its equivalent in Commonwealth countries —which means over 100—while there are, in addition, 235 separate consular posts. The staff concerned amounts to something over 400 officers and approximately twice as many other staff. These figures are, however—and this is the important point—relatively small in comparison with the volume of work and at times, especially during the summer, it can only be handled by the willingness of staff to work at all hours of the day and night and all days of the week.

A very important part of a consul's work is on the commercial side. The House will wish to note this at a time of increasing emphasis on our export performance. A consul has to deal with inquiries addressed to him by the Board of Trade or by individual firms in the United Kingdom. He is also expected on his own initiative to inquire into and report upon openings in his consular district for British trade and to collect and communicate information regarding the importers of different classes of goods, the standing of local firms, suitable agents for British manufacturers and so on. I should also mention other aspects of a consul's work, the background against which the Bill, its purpose and how we expect it to work should be seen.

At posts in sea or river ports, a great deal of the time of a consular officer is likely to be taken up by shipping work. As a rule, his intervention is necessary whenever any change takes place at a foreign port affecting the articles of agreement with the crew of a British ship.

The performance of notarial acts, the administration of oaths and the taking of declarations in connection with documents required for use in British territory are permanent features of the work at most consular posts. Then there is routine passport and visa work, the registration of British residents and the registration of births and deaths. At certain posts, consular officers celebrate marriages under the Foreign Marriage Act and are also authorised to register marriages celebrated according to the local law.

Information work is another important side of the work at many consular posts. The consul must maintain close contacts with journalists and with the staffs of broadcasting and television organisations as well as with political personalities and members of university faculties.

In time of emergency, the consul may well have to undertake the responsibility of arranging for the evacuation of the British community and British tourists and businessmen. The House will remember well the discussions we had and the questions put in the House last summer following the difficulties in the Middle East and elsewhere. At that time, about 1,400 British subjects were evacuated from the Middle East and about 1,200 from Nigeria. But, under modern conditions, an increasingly prominent part of consular work at many posts consists in giving advice and assistance to United Kingdom citizens who run into difficulties while abroad. Of course, this is only a very small proportion but even a small proportion of 5 million each year means rather a large number. During 1966 –67 the Consulate-General at Paris dealt with something like 700 individual cases, the Consulate-General at Barcelona with 7,500, while the small Consulate at Palma had to cope with 5,000 cases.

There are a multitude of circumstances in which a consul may be called on to help. My own first personal contact with the Consular Service was precisely in this way, when I fell ill hitch-hiking across the Continent as a student 20 years ago. Misadventures range from the comparatively trivial to the very serious, from the loss of a wallet to a motor car accident or serious illness or death or a sentence of imprisonment in a foreign gaol.

Of course, some people inevitably demand more from a consul than he can give. They imagine that they are the only person with whom he has to deal. They expect him to repay their debts or get them exempted from the processes of law. In practice, he must decide at all times what priority to give to the demands made upon him, given that they sometimes involve travelling considerable distances. He will try to help someone who has lost a passport or his luggage, but he may possibly be delayed in doing so by the need to deal first with a serious motor accident.

Then again there are rules which he is bound to follow. He cannot simply provide money for anyone who turns up at his office who says that he has run out of cash or lost his travellers' cheques. If he is asked to repatriate someone to the United Kingdom, he is obliged to ask the applicant to sign an undertaking to repay the cost to the Government and to tell him that his passport will be held until repayment has been made.

Consuls know that it is their job to try to help British citizens in difficulties. They do this willingly, even when it can be argued that the person concerned has run into difficulties as a result of his own misjudgment or carelessness. I would like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the outstanding way in which they do their work.

As a servant of one Government working in the territory of another, it is obviously necessary that a consul, if he is to perform his duties effectively and without hindrance, should be accorded certain immunities. For example, his official archives must be inviolable. He must be able to communicate freely, confidentially and speedily with his Government and his superintending diplomatic mission: he must be immune, at any rate in respect of his official duties, from the jurisdiction of the local courts. This reflects the sovereign immunity of the State whose agent he is. In most countries the immunities required are much less than those given to a diplomat. But in certain countries the full range of diplomatic immunities is indispensable.

Similarily, it is right that consuls should receive special treatment in other respects which, for want of a better term —this one is not wholly satisfactory— we perhaps misleadingly call "privileges". Take taxation. If the Government of the receiving State were to tax the salary of a foreign consular officer it would, in effect, be taxing the Government of the sending State. Fiscal privileges derive from the same principle that a Government should not tax another Government through its representatives or seek to gain a fiscal benefit from the presence in its territory for official purposes of the representatives of another Government. International law and practice relating to the treatment of consuls derives largely from these basic principles, which reflect the mutual needs and advantage of States.

Here I come back to the all-important point about reciprocity and so to the Bill itself. Immunities and privileges for our own consuls are a necessary and proper basis to enable them to carry out their duties effectively within the framework of official relations between Britain and other countries, but if we are to obtain these on an appropriate scale for our consuls abroad we must be prepared to give corresponding treatment to foreign consuls in our own territory. This is what this Bill is about.

Clause 1 of the Bill gives effect under our law to certain provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. This Convention is the counterpart in the consular field of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to which effect was given by the Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964. It was concluded at a Conference in 1963 under the auspices of the United Nations and is part of the process of codifying international law undertaken by the United Nations under Article 13 of the Charter.

The United Kingdom participated actively in this Conference. We have since signed the Convention and this Bill, if approved by Parliament, will enable us to ratify it. The Convention entered into force on 19th March, 1967, after 22 countries had ratified or acceded to it. Five other countries have since become parties, so 27 countries have already taken the step which the House is being asked to support in the case of the United Kingdom today.

The basic rules of customary international law relating to diplomats have been well established for several centuries. In the consular field, however, development has been much slower and the practice of States has been less uniform. Until the conclusion of the Vienna Convention, consular relations were regulated partly by means of a network of bilateral agreements and partly according to the internal law and practice of individual States. The Vienna Convention codifies international law with regard to the status, immunities and so-called privileges of consular posts and consular personnel. It represents therefore an important step forward, and it is hoped that the rules which it lays down will gradully be accepted by States in general. I am sure that the House supports this move under United Nations auspices towards codification. It is a guarantee against a system which—the House may have had this in mind— might otherwise remain haphazard and open to abuse. Many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention can be applied administratively within the existing framework of our law. But others require to be given the force of law. These provisions are set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill and will be given the force of law by Clause 1. In this respect, the Bill follows the precedent of the Diplomatic Privileges Act.

As matters stand today, the status of the majority of foreign consuls and consulates in the United Kingdom is governed by one or other of the bilateral consular conventions concluded between the United Kingdom and other States. The effect of the Bill will be to extend roughly similar treatment on substantially the same scale to the consular personnel of other States. At present only 40 or 50 career consular officers are not covered by bilateral agreements—about one quarter of the total number in the United Kingdom. Although the Vienna Convention, for the most part, reproduces the existing practice, it does introduce some modifications, as might be expected.

I should first make it clear that what I am about to say relates to career consuls and staff and not to honorary consuls. These are treated separately in the Vienna Convention and, as Chapter III in Schedule I shows, receive immunity and privileges on a much more restricted scale.

I do not think that the immunities set out in Schedule 1 can be regarded as in excess of those required under existing circumstances. They are greater in some respects than have hitherto been accorded in the United Kingdom, but they are considerably less than those accorded to diplomats. Indeed—this is a sad fact, but hon. Members will recognise its weight—it seems increasingly doubtful whether they are sufficient. Events that have occurred in various parts of the world since the Vienna Conference—for example, the various attacks on consular premises and threats to the safety of consular staff which took place a few months ago in certain countries—suggest that, under the conditions of the modern world, consuls may require greater immunities. Certainly this is so in the case of some countries; I shall return to this when I deal with Clause 3.

Again, although the Bill will result in some increase in the number of persons who receive fiscal privileges, the number is not great. The majority of consular personnel already receive privileges under existing bilateral agreements and the effect of the Schedule is to extend similar treatment to the remainder. The grant of fiscal privileges necessarily involves some loss of revenue, but what we lose in the United Kingdom we gain abroad; for the treatment accorded in the United Kingdom to foreign consular personnel in the United Kingdom will be met by reciprocal treatment for British consular personnel abroad. We can, in fact, as it happens, expect to recover more than we lose. If our consuls abroad did not receive appropriate privileges it would be necessary to give them larger allowances.

Clause 3 deals with the bilateral conventions concluded by the United Kingdom. Subsection (1) provides that Orders in Council may be made in pursuance of such agreements, existing and future, between the United Kingdom and other States to grant immunities and privileges on a scale in excess of the "Vienna" scale but within the limits set out in Schedule 2.

Let me explain why, because this is an important point, on which hon. Members may have questions. Between 1951 and 1967 the United Kingdom negotiated 16 bilateral consular conventions. Fourteen of these have already been brought into force, while two await ratification. Others are in process of negotiation and it is proposed to conclude further such agreements where this is in our interest. The 14 conventions already ratified follow a common pattern, though there are variations in points of detail. They have two main purposes. First, they regulate the status, immunities and privileges of consuls. Secondly—and this is important —unlike the Vienna Convention, they contain detailed provisions concerning the exercise of a wide range of consular functions. These provisions relate to such matters as the protection of nationals, the promotion of trade, merchant shipping, the administration of estates, the guardianship of infants, the performance of notarial acts and so on. They include very satisfactory provisions with regard to the notification to consuls of arrests of nationals of the receiving State—again, more important than we should wish it to be—and the grant of consular access to nationals held in detention awaiting trial or serving a sentence of imprisonment.

As regards immunities and privileges, the 14 Conventions already in force depart in certain respects from the Vienna standard. It may be asked whether it will be necessary to retain these once we have ratified the Vienna Convention. The answer is that we would not wish to terminate them, particularly in view of the valuable provisions concerning consular functions which they contain. Moreover, not all the other States concerned have yet ratified the Vienna Convention. We might, of course, attempt to renegotiate the provisions relating to immunities and privileges in our bilaterals so as to bring them into line with the Vienna Convention in all respects, but this would take time and we cannot be sure that the other parties would necessarily agree.

However, the main reason for not wishing to take this course is that we consider that the wider privileges provided in the bilateral conventions and in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 2 of the Bill are beneficial and in our interests having regard to the reciprocal treatment accorded to our personnel in the other countries concerned. In negotiating future bilateral conventions regard will naturally be paid to the provisions of the Vienna Convention, but, in the case of some States, it may be in the interests of the United Kingdom to negotiate certain departures from the Vienna standard within the limits of Schedule 2.

The two conventions awaiting ratification are those with the Soviet Union signed on 2nd December, 1965, and with Poland signed on 23rd February, 1967. These two conventions differ from our other bilaterals in one important respect, namely the provision which they make with regard to immunities. They contain more extensive provisions as regards immunity from jurisdiction, personal inviolability and inviolability of offices and residences. This is considered essential. In certain countries consular personnel require the same degree of protection as the corresponding grades of diplomatic personnel if they are to fulfil their duties effectively. Other conventions of the same type are currently under negotiation. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 will enable effect to be given on a reciprocal basis to these provisions in the United Kingdom.

While on the subject of the Anglo-Soviet Convention, I would like to draw the attention of the House to its relevance to a matter which is much in the minds of Members—that is to say, the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke. Article 36 of the Convention provides, among other things, that the consular officer shall be entitled to pay visits on a recurrent basis to nationals serving a sentence of imprisonment after conviction. Upon the entry into force of the Convention this right would apply in the case of Mr. Brooke in the same way as in other cases. Provided it is clear that there is no question of discrimination in the case of Mr. Brooke, the United Kingdom will be ready to exchange instruments of ratification at an early date after the passage of this Bill and an Order in Council, subject to affirmative Resolution, under it. We are at present seeking assurances from the Soviet authorities on this point.

The third main purpose of the Bill is to make certain provisions in the matter of our relations with Commonwealth countries. Consular relations are not at present maintained between the United Kingdom and any Commonwealth country. Nor is it the present intention to establish such relations, although such a development may come about at some future date.

Meanwhile, there are a number of officers of the independent Common- wealth countries serving at posts in the United Kingdom who perform functions which in the case of foreign States would be performed by consular officers. At present these officers can be granted the immunities specified in Section 1(2) of the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act, 1952, which, in fact, correspond to those of a foreign consular officer. They are accorded privileges roughly equivalent to consular privileges on an administrative basis.

It is desirable and logical to substitute for those immunities and privileges the immunities and privileges of consular officers and their staff under the Bill. Clause 12 accordingly provides for the amendment of Section 1(2) of the Act of 1952 so as to permit the extension to Commonwealth officers and their staffs by Order in Council of the same treatment as is provided for consular personnel under the Bill. This represents a rationalisation of the present law.

I have spoken rather longer than otherwise I should have wished, but I thought it necessary to make clear the purposes of the Bill and the background against which it is presented. I would only add that the proposals contained in the Bill seem to me at once moderate and desirable. They are designed to enable consuls to carry out their work effectively and efficiently—no more. There are today well over a hundred independent countries in the world, some of them still with comparatively little experience of Government or of conducting international relations. It is important that the status of consuls should be adequately defined and that their right to perform their necessary functions should be widely understood and accepted.

commend the Bill to the House.

should like to begin by thanking the Minister for the explanations which he has given, not only of the varying duties which consuls perform, but also of the rights which are necessary to the performance of those duties, and the other explanations which he has given of the Bill in general.

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that we have no quarrel whatever with the principle of the Bill, because, as he made clear, the procedure which he is following closely follows that which was followed by the Conservative Government in the Diplomatic Privileges Bill, 1964. I assume from what he said that the present Government intend to accede to the new Vienna Convention as soon as the Bill receives the Royal Assent.

Following the remarks which the Minister made, I hope that I may take the opportunity to put on record my gratitude and admiration for a very considerable number of consuls and consuls-general in Europe, Turkey and North Africa who have given generous help to my wife and myself in the last three years. Like the hon. Member on the one occasion about which he told us, I am ashamed to say that I have made considerable demands upon them, to which in every case they have responded readily and willingly, often going well beyond what their duties strictly seemed to require. I have no doubt that many other hon. Members have had similar experiences.

While I welcome the general principles of the Bill, there are certain general and a few particular questions which I should like to ask, either now or in the later stages of the Bill as it goes through the House. The hon. Member talked about the 14 bilateral conventions which exist with other States and the other two which are awaiting ratification with the Soviet Union and Poland.

Although it will soon be a matter of history, I am not clear about the present basis of consular relations with States other than the 14 with which we have conventions. Moreover, where these bilateral conventions provide wider rights than those provided by the Vienna Convention, I gather that the Government intend to preserve them by means of their powers under Schedule 2. In view of the considerable scope, which seems to be wide, of the additional privileges listed in Schedule 2, I want an assurance that only in the sort of circumstances I have mentioned do the Government intend to use these powers.

While I understand that an affirmative Resolution of both Houses will be necessary before these additional privileges can be conferred, I want an assurance that Parliament will not be asked for such a Resolution unless these privileges can be shown to be absolutely necessary for the efficient working of the British consulates concerned.

In discussing privileges of this sort, it is natural that the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke should occupy a good deal of our attention. I listened with interest to what the Minister said. There are thousands of people in this country and elsewhere who, I imagine, fervently hope that, in his visit to Moscow next week, the Prime Minister will be successful in the pleas which, we hope, he will make on Mr. Brooke's behalf. However, we want to avoid saying anything which might frustrate the efforts of the Prime Minister.

Having said that, it seems relevant to say, in discussing this Measure—which will give to Her Majesty's Government an opportunity to ratify the Anglo-Soviet Convention; I understand that the Soviet Government are willing to ratify it— that I hope that, by the time we reach the later stages of the Bill, there will be no doubt of the recognition of the right of access by the consul who, I understand, has not seen Mr. Brooke for more than a year, especially as this elementary right is established in international practice, in the Vienna Convention which we are discussing and in this bilateral convention between the British and Soviet Governments. A number of detailed points need to be raised, but they may be left until a later stage.

There is, however, a general issue raised by Clause 8, which gives to the Government statutory authority to refund Customs duty on hydrocarbon oils. We have recently been told that this statutory authority does not, in fact, exist in the case of diplomats, although we have, at the same time, been told that steps are to be taken to put this right. Can the Minister say whether those steps have been taken or how they are to be taken?

It seems hardly satisfactory that items of this kind should be included in the Foreign Office Vote. It is certainly not satisfactory to assume that Parliament's approval of that Vote is adequate. I understand that the Government take this view, too—that they want to establish a proper statutory authority for concessions of this kind. I hope that the Minister will say whether any other concessions are now being made, or intended to be made, either to diplomats or consuls without the proper statutory authority.

There is one further point which could be of considerable importance to a number of local authorities. I refer to Article 32 in Schedule 1. Without quoting the whole of the paragraph, the sense of this provision is that consular premises

"… shall be exempt from all national, regional, or municipal dues and taxes whatsoever, other than such as represent payment for specific services rendered".

It has been explained that consulates, like embassies, will pay for the element in the rates which cover services like drainage, fire services, street maintenance, and so on—services from which they directly derive benefit.

That is obviously fair, but the exemption will now apply—obviously because this is a consular relations Bill and will apply outside London—to a large number of local authorities, which will lose part of the rates for some quite valuable properties. Will the Minister say, first, whether the Government have any plans to make compensation to local authorities for this loss, and, secondly, whether they consider it right that one of the exempted services should be the police, from which they would seem certain, potentially, to derive some benefit?

We can return to many of these questions at later stages of the Bill. As I said, with the general principle of the Measure we are wholly in agreement and my hon. Friends hope to see the Bill on the Statute Book without delay.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) I agree that the principles of the Bill are entirely right and that it should have a speedy passage. Like him and the Minister, I wish to add my compliments to so many of our British consuls and consuls-general abroad who serve our country well and who are invariably helpful to hon. Members who have the pleasure of visiting the countries to which they are accredited. They are often unfairly criticised in this House. Those in the commercial and public information sections do a first-class job as well.

The Bill strikes me as being an extremely complicated one in its drafting. I find much of it difficult to understand and, in particular, the constant need to refer to Articles of the Vienna Convention to discover what it means. However, at this stage I will comment on only two aspects of the Measure; first, the Parliamentary and legal considerations, and, secondly, one or two of the practical aspects of it from the point of view of our citizens abroad.

Under the Parliamentary and legal matters, I draw the Minister's attention to Clause 3(1) which envisages that, in certain circumstances, the Government may grant to another Government privileges additional to those laid down in the Vienna Convention. In the other place on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, explained that in Eastern European countries such as the Soviet Union and Poland, British consuls, if they are to be effective, will need privileges beyond those listed in the Vienna Convention and that, therefore, the Government want Parliament to give them powers to conclude agreements giving additional privileges to both our consuls there and their consuls here. There is a good deal to be said for that. But it seems to be asking the House to delegate one more large area of power to extend privileges which may not always be wise or necessary. Like my right hon. Friend, I ask the Minister to give the House an assurance that no such additional privileges will be sought to be given to consuls of these countries unless there is an absolutely paramount case for so doing.

I draw the Minister's attention to Clause 8. Here I am somewhat worried about the expenditure which has apparently been going on without any clear authority. The fact that Parliament approves the Foreign Office Vote, in which the concession on hydrocarbon oils was included, has apparently been thought to be sufficient authority in the past. This is not satisfactory. I can see no evidence in the Foreign Office Vote that Parliament has willed the expenditure on this concession of £6,000 a year. Therefore, the Government should lose no time in putting this concession on hydrocarbon oils on a proper statutory basis.

There seems to be a certain amount of confusion about, of all things, whisky and gin. I am sure that they differ from hydrocarbon oils, but in the other place it was explained that

" diplomatic missions are given a concession in respect of whisky and gin "—

and then the explanation—

" because it is considered rather a good advertising proposition that whisky and gin should be drunk in the various Embassies in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 16th November, 1967; Vol. 286, c. 895 –6.]

Coming from a British Minister, that is an extraordinary proposition.

In my view, and, I am sure, the view of many hon. Members, whisky and gin are tools of the diplomatic trade. They are apt to be drunk in Britain in sufficient quantities for the job to be done, and done well, whether or not a concession falls upon the British taxpayer. I gather that the cost of this concession is not known, or is certainly not calculated by the Government. They should look at this one and provide at least a somewhat better explanation than that given by the noble Lord in the other place.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington has dealt extensively with Article 32 and the question of compensation to local authorities. I underline his point that it is difficult to understand how the police protection that is provided to consuls can be regarded as "non-beneficial". That is an extraordinary description of the benefit that the police give to foreign consuls in our country.

In Clauses 4, 5 and 6, which deal with ships and foreign persons on ships in British ports, there seems to be a need to clear up the language of the Bill. In Clause 4, we have the statement that

" Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for excluding or limiting the jurisdiction of any court in the United Kingdom ".

That is an extensive power. No doubt it is similar to the one existing previously for diplomats rather than consuls, but I hope that in Committee the Minister will explain why it is necessary for so many consuls to be excluded or limited from the jurisdiction of British courts.

In Clause 5, there is to be no power of prosecution in respect of the masters or members of crews of foreign ships in this country unless the offences complained of are as listed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1). I notice that there is no inclusion of the question of nuclear hazards. Public health is included, as are oil pollution and wireless telegraphy, but in an age where there are bound to be many more ships propelled by nuclear means it is important, or it could be useful, to include in the Clause the question of nuclear hazards. These, however, are probably Committee points, and I pass now to the more general practical aspects concerning our own citizens.

The Minister said that the essence of the Bill is reciprocity and that it proceeds from the proposition of doing unto others as we would they should do unto us. How well are they doing unto us? What reciprocity are we getting? I ask this because, when the Government are getting more powers from the House, it is reasonable to ask in advance whether we are likely to get reciprocal benefits from the countries in question.

Some weeks ago I asked the Minister for details of British citizens held in foreign gaols without charge and not visited by British consuls. I had in mind our pilots who had been held in Algeria after being hi-jacked along with Mr. Tshombe, our citizens on ships held in the Suez Canal, and the missionary nurse who was most foully murdered in the Congo six months ago and about which the Minister and I have talked. He was, however, unable to give me that list of British nationals, and I understand—

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but did he also have in mind the position of Mr. Anthony Grey, sitting in a house in Peking, to whom there has been no consular access since July last year?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have Mr. Grey's case in some detail and I was about to come to it after making the general point. I understand the Minister's reasons for withholding names which he explained to me in a letter, but he will understand that in being asked to provide these considerable new privileges in our own country, the House should be sure that similar consular access will be available to our own citizens abroad if they fall into difficulties.

As to Mr. Brooke, I am well aware that on his visit to Moscow the Prime Minister must hope to achieve progress. When the Foreign Secretary went to Moscow, we were given a hint that there would be an improvement. That hint was unfounded. I trust—and I am sure that all hon. Members trust—that the Prime Minister will at least be able to gain consular access for Mr. Brooke and also that a doctor known to our Embassy, a British doctor if possible, should be allowed to examine him. I hope that the Prime Minister will press this. We must wish him well.

The general point arises, however, that the Soviet Union has not even adhered to the Vienna Convention. I understand that a provision similar to that offered by the Bill is contained in the bilateral Anglo-Soviet Consular Convention which was signed in 1965. That is not yet in force. One effect of passing the Bill will be to enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify that Anglo-Soviet Convention. I gather that the Soviet Government have indicated that they are willing to ratify it, but if they do they will have no vestige of an excuse for continuing to refuse consular access to Mr. Brooke.

Another of our citizens about whom we are rightly concerned is Mr. Anthony Grey, the correspondent of Reuters in Peking, who is held in that city. The facts as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) outlined then in his intervention are very simple. Mr. Grey has been under house arrest since 21st July. His telephone has been cut off, his staff have been assaulted and humiliated and slogans have been daubed inside his house. I also understand that constant efforts have been made by our consul to gain access to him but this has not been permitted. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will comment on how the Bill will help the case of a man such as Mr. Anthony Grey.

A third British citizen is Mr. Ian Graham Pahl. He, with two other men, an Australian and a South African, for both of whom the British Government had consular responsibility, was murdered, as far as we know, quite re- cently in the Congo. The Foreign Office only recently made a grave statement on this matter and was right to do so. The Bill, however, will give to the Congolese authorities, among others, the right to have their consuls in many towns of this country with considerable privileges. I should like to know from the Minister what response there was by the Congolese Government to the many requests by our British consuls in Leopoldville to have information and to have access to the bodies of these British citizens who were done to death.

This is a Second Reading debate but there are many other detailed points I should like to mention. The important thing is that if the Government wish to have this Bill they of course will seek to explain some of the more detailed points in Committee. Nevertheless, in granting important new concessions to foreign nationals in our midst this House of Commons has a right to ask that similar concessions should be made available to our nationals and consuls abroad. I hope that the Government will press that point very strongly.

I welcome any Bill which helps to ratify conventions concluded under the auspices of the United Nations, and I particularly welcome this Bill. There has been a great deal of disquiet internationally over the general question of diplomatic immunity and consular immunities and privileges. I get the impression that international standards of behaviour in these matters have been deteriorating. Even in our country we have had the unhappy experience of a foreign embassy being invaded by our own people.

The Under-Secretary and the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) referred to the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke. I wish to touch on this matter, because Mr. Brooke's mother is one of my constituents. She has represented to me on many occasions her unhappiness about the position in which her son finds himself. My only concern in this case is that the Government shall represent as strongly as possible to the Soviet authorities that adequate access shall be had to Mr. Brooke and that all the normal consular privileges shall be accorded so that, in accordance with the ordinary terms of behaviour between countries, he can receive the help, guidance and advice to which he is entitled in his circumstances.

It seems to have been represented that those of us who are concerned and disquieted about Mr. Brooke are in some way unfriendly to the Soviet Union. That in no sense is my feeling. I am solely concerned that an individual who is the son of one of my constituents should have the normal accepted international treatment which he is entitled to expect under the rules of behaviour which we and most other countries practice.

I add my voice to those who have complimented our consular staffs abroad. I have not had occasion to lose my documents or passport, but I had an example of extremely skilful and helpful behaviour when the consular authorities in Tel Aviv aid Amman contrived to make my travel over the Allenby Bridge there and back without the slightest mishap. This was a display of great diplomatic skill on which I compliment those concerned.

During my very brief visit abroad last year I was impressed by the serious concern of the consular authorities for the trading interests of this country. I received in Italy and in Tel Aviv certain knowledge about our overseas trading which was very important and relevant to the economic problems of this country. Our consular authorities abroad seem to be very much alive to this aspect of their work.

I wish to raise only one other general question on which I feel some uneasiness. I should like to know whether Her Majesty's Government regard themselves as obliged to extend full consular protection to those of our citizens who hire themselves out as professional killers to organisations in other countries. I refer to mercenary soldiers fighting in quarrels which are not their own, quarrels which do not concern the interests of this country, and who are in no way involved in the protection or defence of the interests of this country but who hire themselves out for mercenary reward to unofficial bodies of killers as professional soldiers.

The trade of the soldier is an honourable one in the defence of his own country, but the trade of the soldier for pure personal profit with no motive of honour or idealism, is a different matter. I should like to know whether those British subjects who go out to practise this trade are regarded as automatically eligible for all the consular protection and facilities which we accord to our nationals on their peaceful, lawful pursuits. This is important for the image of our country in Africa and the image of this country in the world. On the Second Reading of this Bill, it would not be irrelevant to ask this question and to seek an answer.

Will the hon. Member give way?

The hon. Member has made his point. I am asking a question of the Minister.

I wished to ask a question.

I welcome the Bill. I do not think that there is a need for a long speech, but I should like to have the comments of the Under-Secretary on the questions I have raised.

I wish to raise a point on the employment of staff at our embassies and by consular officials. I should like to be fully assured that the facilities available to our consuls abroad are completely identical to those of foreign consuls here.

I have particularly in mind the fact that the Soviet Union has far more of its nationals in England than our consulates have in Russia. I understand that this applies particularly with reference to chauffeurs. It can be seen that, as our consulates have Russian chauffeurs around them whereas Russian consulates have their own chauffeurs around them, the position is in no way equal. It would be valuable and important to have some extra concessionary agreement. I should like to have an assurance that die facilities are completely reciprocal regarding the employment of staff.

With permission, I shall try in reply to answer some of the points which have been made, although, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) rightly said, some of them will probably be dealt with in Committee if we are not to involve ourselves in a long dialogue this morning, which I do not think would be the wish of the House.

I start by commenting on one or two points made by the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood). I was very glad that he paid such generous tribute to what the consulate staffs do, a tribute which has been endorsed by everyone who has spoken in this short debate. The right hon. Gentleman's first question was: what was the present basis of our consular relations with countries with which we do not have a bilateral convention? Our bilateral conventions cover almost all the countries with which consular relations are, or have been, of special importance. I hoped to say in my speech that they are partly dependent on general international custom and partly on the law of the receiving State. This is one reason why they are untidy, and why the Bill is required.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked —this view was echoed in the House and I think that it represents the common view of all hon. Members—about the extension of additional privileges. I repeat that the word "privileges" is shorthand. What I was trying to emphasise, and what I think that the right hon. Gentleman and others understand, is that there is a basis for privileges. It is not simply making a gesture out of courtesy which is related only to status. For the most part it is related to the very difficult problem of taxing—or, rather, not taxing—foreign nationals. I fully understand the views of the House, and we should hesitate to bring before the House anything which extended privileges for which we did not believe there to be a case. As is understood, Orders in Council subject to affirmative Resolution will be required in so far as we choose to adopt standards other than those of the Vienna Convention.

A question has been asked about gin and whisky. In case there is any misapprehension, it is not the case that a consular officer can go out to the shop round the corner, buy his gin and whisky, and then get his tax back. The only entitlement of consular officers is that which applies to continuing Customs privileges, which relate to the import of liquor duty-free for their personal use. This is an important point, not perhaps because it is misunderstood here, but because it is one of the so-called privileges which, if it is not carefully controlled, might be the subject of abuse. It is a privilege about which, for the many reasons which have been suggested, people are from time to time concerned.

I turn now to the three cases mentioned during the debate which involve the detention abroad of British subjects. I do not think there is anything which I ought on this occasion to add to what has already been said in the House today and on previous occasions about Mr. Gerald Brooke. When I answered a Question I said that Mr. Brooke's detention, and, in particular, the denial of consular access, was

" disgraceful and indefensible and uncivilised." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 636.]

and intolerable. Nothing which has happened since would lead me to withdraw that description. I am sure that we share the right hon. Gentleman's expressed hope that some successful conclusion will emerge, on the occasion of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow, to this most unhappy story and this impediment to improved Anglo-Soviet relations.

There is then the problem of Mr. Anthony Grey. I have been fully aware of this, as the House has been, since his quite improper detention last summer. I do not think that this is the occasion to pursue the matter in detail, because I know that the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) has it in mind to raise it more fully at some time. I think that the House will already be aware that in this, and in some other cases, there is always a very delicate balance to be preserved between proper publicity, on the one hand, and the sensibility of foreign Governments, on the other.

Although this sometimes requires self-control on the part of all of us, the only consideration can be the best interests of the person concerned. Mr. Grey has been detained in Peking. Access has not been allowed to him. This is very much in our minds and we shall do all that we can to ensure his release. At present—I think that this bears on the point which was made—there would not appear to be much prospect of the Chinese People's Republic either acceding to the Vienna Convention or agreeing in any other way to putting relations on a more satisfactory basis. For that reason, it does not seem to be an auspicious moment to consider the negotiation of a bilateral agreement covering consular cases, which would in that sense, involve Mr. Grey.

On the other hand, although this is not the moment at which to pursue it at length, there has been some sign recently of a desire in Peking to develop better relations with foreign countries. We hope that as a result of this our Mission in Peking will begin to function more effectively, and this would enable it to carry out its proper function of protecting our interests and those of our nationals in that country.

I said earlier—this, after all, is one of the reasons why we think that it will be necessary and desirable to negotiate other bilateral agreements—that the world is not as civilised as we would wish and, for this reason, additional immunities are sometimes required to enable our representatives abroad to carry out their proper duties. If other countries were as stable, as law-abiding, and as courteous in the way that they deal with foreigners as we are, then it might not be necessary for certain items that we have included in the Bill.

The third case which was raised was that of Mr. Pahl, who was a mercenary employed in the Congo. I agree in general with what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) said about mercenaries. I share his distaste for their profession. However, a distinction must be drawn between the feeling he may have about the profession, and the undesirability of British citizens participating in this way, and the continuing obligation at all times of the British Government, irrespective of a man's offence or character, to endeavour to help him when he is abroad. This applies not only in the case of a mercenary but also in the case of somebody who might be arrested abroad for a serious crime for which he is properly tried and sentenced. Even in those circumstances it is necessary for us to continue to have access.

Would the Minister be very careful about agreeing entirely with what his hon. Friend said about mercenaries? I accept the very real feeling that there is on this matter, but there are a number of cases where British officers are serving in the forces of other countries—for example, of the Sultan of Muscat in the Trucial Oman Scouts— and where the mercenary can indeed perform a useful function for this country.

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and perhaps he is right to redress the balance against some of the sentiments which we may have towards mercenaries who we have seen performing, sometimes very unpleasantly, in Africa. After all, the point I was making was that, whether we like mercenary activity or not, whether we approve or not of the individual acts of British subjects employed in foreign armies, it nevertheless remains the case that we have a continuing obligation.

This applies in the case of Mr. Pahl. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, we made representations over a considerable period. We were asking for two things: first, consular access which is what we are concerned with today; and, secondly, if we were to be denied consular access, an indication of the fate of this man. When, after a period of time, we thought it possible at least that he had been murdered, we insisted that we should be told exactly what the course of events had been.

I myself saw the Congolese Ambassador only a matter of a fortnight or three weeks ago to warn him that, if we did not receive immediately an account of what had happened, it would be necessary to make the statement which I made at that time, which deplored the way in which, to the best of our knowledge, Mr. Pahl was dealt with and the total failure of the Congolese Government to offer an explanation or to make an apology. On that occasion we reserved our right to compensation.

I want to make it clear that in the case of these three men, and in the case of all other British subjects who are held abroad, we believe that it is necessary to maintain confidentiality, in so far as it would not be right that we should give their names, if it is not their wish or that of their relatives that their names should be given. In all cases we have endeavoured in the past, and we hope to do so even more effectively under the Bill in future, to look after their interests.

A final point was made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Frank Taylor).

Would my hon. Friend say whether some countries have not a law prohibiting their nationals from undertaking this kind of mercenary activity?

I would not like to give an off-the-cuff answer, but I will certainly look into that matter and let my hon. Friend know

The final point, as I was saying, is that raised by the hon. Member for Moss Side about the employment of nationals. I think that he has an important point about the difference in practice. All I can say is that under the agreements which we have made, reciprocity is the principle and I see no reason to believe that we should depart from it in this respect. But if there is anything further on this point that I think the hon. Member ought to know, I will write to him or deal with it in Committee.

I assume that the hon. Gentleman would prefer to deal with the rating problem when we reach the Committee stage. If so, that is all right with me; but I just wondered whether it had slipped his mind.

I had in mind to deal with it in Committee. I would be prepared to deal with it now if that was the right hon. Gentleman's wish. Otherwise, I think it will be for the convenience of the House if we were to leave it till then.

The Committee will appreciate that our debate today provides the last opportunity except for the debate which must follow in another place, to consider the conditions under which we relinquish our responsibilities for the people of Mauritius. On and after 12th March Her Majesty's Government will give up responsibility for the government of a territory which has been associated closely with us ever since the Napoleonic Wars.

As I said on Second Reading, it is unthinkable that we should part company without reflecting deeply on the future of a people whose destiny has been linked for so long with our own. This is all the more important since, as the Committee is aware, some reservations about the wisdom of independence were expressed at the Constitutional Conference held in 1965 and by 43 per cent, of the voters of Mauritius itself.

I would not wish to imply any lack of enthusiasm from this side of the Committee for the island's decision to become independent. The majority of the people of Mauritius wanted independence. The die is now cast and we must do all that we can in these remaining weeks of our responsibility to help the island stand on her own feet and to face the future with confidence. But, in all the circumstances, it would be quite wrong that we should agree to Clause 1 without having assurances about the conditions under which Mauritius assumes full responsibilty for the conduct of her own affairs.

I will not repeat here the doubts and misgivings that many people have about an economy almost wholly dependent upon the sugar industry, bearing in mind particularly how dependent that industry is upon the continuation of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I hope that what was said in the Second Reading debate by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on this important subject did not fall on deaf ears.

The mere fact that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to provide up to £1·3 million to cover the actual shortfall on the ordinary recurrent budget plus an additional sum of £1·5 million to meet the estimated deficit on the capital budget is proof that they are aware of the difficulties and are anxious to help. We on this side of the Committee welcome that approach. There were, however, a number of questions raised in the Second Reading debate which have a bearing on whether independence, when it comes to Mauritius on 12th March, will be a blessing or a curse, a challenge to its people which they accept cheerfully, or prison in which their dearest hopes will wilt and perish.

The first question, therefore, that I must put concerns continuing aid. It is clear from what the Prime Minister said on Tuesday that the overall aid programme for 1968 –69 will be held at the same level as for 1967 –68, namely, £205 million, which means—and the Prime Minister admitted this—that as a consequence of devaluation it will suffer a substantial reduction in real terms.

I should like to know how this will affect the promised aid to an independent Mauritius. Do Her Majesty's Government stand by their pledge, or is there a possibility that, as a result of the cuts imposed since we last discussed the matter, Mauritius can expect less aid in real terms than before? I make no comment on this. I am asking the question merely for information.

The second question which relates to this Clause is: what arrangements are to be made about defence? At the Constitutional Conference in 1965 Her Majesty's Government agreed in principle to negotiate a defence agreement with the Mauritius Government before independence. This is to be signed and implemented after independence, but it would be negotiated before independence. As far as I am aware, no such agreement has yet been concluded, and yet, as we know, the appointed day is now less than two months away. Therefore, I ask the Minister of State to tell us what stage the defence discussions have reached.

When I asked questions about this before, we knew that the Government would withdraw eventually from Singapore, that they had already withdrawn from Aden and that this might very well affect any defence arrangements they might have in mind with regard to Mauritius. We did not know at that time—we could not know—that they were proposing to abandon the Persian Gulf. In these circumstances, I must ask how credible any defence agreement can be.

It could be, against this sombre background of broken undertakings, of withdrawal from the whole of the area east of Suez, that either the Government intend to run away from another pledge to a Commonwealth country and that no defence agreement is now contemplated, or alternatively—and this is quite an important question—that Mauritius suddenly assumes a new importance. The Committee simply does not know.

12.30 p.m.

Neither do we yet know anything about progress on the other proposal discussed at the Constitutional Conference, namely, that there should be joint consultation on any request from the Mauritius Government for help in the event of a threat to the internal security of the island. Parliament should know now what we may be committing ourselves to in this regard. What responsibilities is it intended that we shall have? Is it intended that we shall keep the facilities at H.M.S. "Mauritius" and Plaisance Airfield? If so, why, in the altered circumstances to which I have just referred, do we wish to retain them?

It may be difficult for the Minister of State to answer these questions today, though one would have hoped that, with a Bill of this importance going through, we would have all such points answered before it finally left our House. However, because of the general discussion and rearrangement of defence matters in the past few weeks, it may be difficult for the hon. Gentleman to give precise answers now. Nevertheless, I ask him to give a firm assurance that the answers will be given when the Bill is considered in another place.

There is a third question which is relevant to the Clause, namely, recent developments on the Island of Rodriguez, which, it seems to me, have a somewhat disturbing ring to them.

Let us be careful.

On 13th January, The Times reported that Mr. Ollivry, one of the two Members representing the island of Rodigues in the Mauritius National Assembly, had called on the Minister without Portfolio to put to him the island's demand for a right to secede from Mauritius after independence on 12th March. The report in The Times said that

"The people of Rodriguez complain that they were not consulted about the new constitution or independence, and reject both. They demand that their right to self-determination within a specified time be written into the British legislation granting independence. Lord Shackleton refused this request."

There was no mention of this issue on Second Reading. If the feeling in Rodrigues is correctly reported and is expressing itself now in those terms, it must have existed then. A population of, I believe, 25,000 is not negligible, and their views should not be brushed lightly aside. I do not intend to take up a position on this question. I am concerned only with the facts. Did the noble Lord see Mr. Ollivry? If he did, I shall be interested to know what were the reasons for refusing his request. I make no apology for raising the issue now. We have already the unhappy spectacle of Anguilla's revolt against St. Kitts in the West Indies and the problem this has caused. I must, therefore, ask the Minister of State to tell us whether the report is correct, and, if it is, or if any other request has come from representatives of the people of Rodrigues for secession, what are the grounds for rejecting that request.

I wonder whether we are in danger of rushing into independence for Mauritius without proper safeguards for one of the communities in the new State. I shall be very glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about that. Depending on what he says today, we shall consider whether we should exercise the right to have the matter thrashed out when the Bill reaches another place.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), the official spokesman for die Opposition, began his speech on an amicable and auspicious note, echoing the tone of our debate on Second Reading not long ago, but he ended upon a slightly more controversial note, which moved me to say that we should be careful in what we say because anything said here can be picked up, whirled about, convoluted and twisted on the island in the somewhat hothouse political atmosphere which one occasionally finds in such circumstances.

I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman make a comment about what he had said on the last occasion about the 43 per cent. We both know how one can talk in terms of percentages of voters, but what matters is the final result, the outcome of the majority ballot in the constituencies. There is no doubt that, by what we would term our constitutional system, which is the Commonwealth system, the Coalition Government were winners in the Chamber itself by almost two to one. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be very happy if he had anything like that result in an election in the United Kingdom, without references to percentages of voters on cither side of the battle.

The point the hon. Gentleman makes is quite fair and I do not quarrel with it, but he will appreciate that, where a sizeable number of people have reservations about an important constitutional step, we in this place who have responsibility for enacting it should be doubly careful about the conditions on which independence is attained. I am not taking sides on this. I am merely stressing our responsibility in the matter.

I was only commenting on the 43 per cent, and the outcome of the election as a whole, in which the Coalition Government were worthy winners and, indeed, wholesale winners almost by two to one in the seats in the Chamber itself. There is no doubt about that. As I said in the last debate, full marks should be given to the Leader of the Opposition, who accepted this gracefully and worked with the Government to build up a decent atmosphere before Independence Day on 12th March.

On the question of technical aid and the "cuts" which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I cannot for a moment believe that his fears need be entertained. But I go a little way with him on the question of defence. What this island needs is what Singapore needs and what Hong Kong, perhaps, and other large entrepot bases, islands, or, so to speak, city states need. At the same time, Mauritius needs a good deal of help at the metropolitan end in invisibles.

There has been a lot of talk recently in the House, in which hon. Members opposite and I have been involved, on the question of Buccaneers, Hawker-Siddeley and aircraft for South Africa. The question of the base at Simonstown has come up, and it is in order to mention it in this debate for this reason. Whether it is thought, in the present situation as regards South Africa, that the Simonstown base is a good thing or a bad, is dispensable or indispensable, I could not care less about the Simonstown base because, in the context of this Bill, there is in the island of Mauritius a deep-water harbour which, for defence purposes and in the light of our leaving Singapore and the Persian Gulf, as well as, perhaps, Simonstown, could fit into our Indian Ocean security system. It could enable us to maintain the stability which is so often asked for through the use of a base of that kind.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the future of the two bases. I think that the Secretary of State for Defence has stated that H.M.S. "Mauritius" and Plaisance Airport are both to continue to be used by us. In this context, I hope that we shall make more use of Mauritius, now that Singapore, the Persian Gulf and other places are beginning to pass out of our ken as defence bases.

The hon. Gentleman is using the word "base" in a rather dangerous context. There is no base in Mauritius. A base is the industrial backing of a port or airfield, and no such facilities exist in Mauritius.

I was using the word in a technical or almost etymological sense. A station exists where a ship can call and men can go there, whether they are technicians for the airport or otherwise. Without saying any more, I would suggest that, Simonstown or no Simonstown, here is an island which will be part of our system of Dominions within a few weeks, and it can be used in the way I have suggested. It would result in invisibles "and money coming into the island which it sorely needs.

The hon. Member for Essex, South-East made a reference to the island of Rodrigues. That island has a population of 25,000 people, which is quite a substantial number when compared with Anguilla and other islands in the West Indies, which claim independence by association.

Here are two deputies who fought the last election under the flag of the opposition party, Parti Mauricien. The constitutional future was debated in pamphlets, leaflets and speeches during that campaign. I was appalled when I saw in The Times last Saturday that a little known back bench Opposition deputy from the island of Rodrigues was allowed to come here and see the noble Lord who is now Leader of the House of Lords on a constitutional matter. It was never within my knowledge that a back bench deputy of a colonial assembly could have direct access to a Minister of State. I have always understood that direct access to Ministers was reserved for the Dom Mintoffs, the Lester Pearsons and official deputations on constitutional issues led by distinguished statesmen. This meeting has caused a great deal of misunderstanding in the island. The Timesstated that this deputy has come to ask for the secession of an outlying island, possibly to a non-Commonwealth territory like Réunion or Madagascar.

The noble Lord, incidentally, has denied The Times report. He says that it is false and that he did not see the gentleman. I should like some information about it. It is a dangerous, delicate and difficult situation if a back bench Opposition deputy can come to the Leader of the House of Lords a few weeks before independence, so that statements go back which greatly embarrass Dr. Seewoosagur Ramgoolam.

I have always understood that deputies from overseas saw officials in the Commonwealth Office and did not have direct access to a Minister of State. It gives a misleading impression back in the country concerned, particularly when Mr. Gaetan Duval is not behaving quite so helpfully as he was a few weeks after the election. I know what their newspapers are saying, and it is causing enormous embarrassment to Dr. Ramgoolam and his Cabinet. I hope that the Minister will shed some light on this unhappy incident which has occurred in the last few days.

I was in the privileged position of being one of the Commonwealth observers who went to see the Mauritius election in August of last year. It was a very worthwhile experience to be on such a team. It was a most refreshing occupation. The team consisted of a man from Trinidad, a local government commissioner from the Punjab, an economist from Malta, a Q.C. from London, Ontario, and two hon. Members of this House. At no time did we find ourselves in a position where we could not argue freely and reach a point of agreement on any subject. The team worked very well, and I like to think that we produced a worth-while report.

I am afraid that I did not hear the relevant part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), but perhaps I might take up the cudgels with him. Whatever may be said about the percentages of voters, it cannot be disputed that the election was well and truly won by the present Government. The really refreshing fact about it was that, for the first time in the history of Mauritius, people began to some extent to vote away from race and religious affiliations.

Mauritius is blessed with many advantages, but not a good newspaper service. It has a larger number of third-rate newspapers than any other country in the world, and they do nothing to increase political stability. I am quite sure that they will pick up that remark.

Reference has been made to technical aid, and it is vital that there is a continuation of technical aid on a commercial level and the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. A number of people suggest rather glibly that Mauritius can solve her problems by diversifying her products, but that is nonsense. In terms of arable land, approximately 200,000 acres are under sugar, with about 5,000 acres under other crops. No other crop than sugar gives the same high employment per acre. The sugar estates use one man for about five acres, which is a very high employment rate. In Norfolk, for example, one man is used for 120 or 150 acres. If Mauritius changed to another crop, the amount of employment on the land would be reduced drastically.

Unless and until agriculture is replaced by industry, sugar is the only crop which Mauritius can grow, and it is probably true to say that sugar is grown there more efficiently than in any other country, including the West Indian islands. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is vital for the foreseeable future but, at the same time, secondary industry must be developed there.

I see a great future for Mauritius as a relatively stable political entity without racial affiliations of any great significance. Lying as it does off the coast of Africa, its sophisticated population is in a position to supply the manufactured goods which Africa needs. That is the future for Mauritius, and that is what I hope our technical aid will build up.

There are one or two matters arising out of Clause 1 on which I should like some information. Mauritius is one of a large number of islands in the Indian Ocean. We know of the Seychelles, Reunion and Mauritius, and some of us have heard of Rodrigues. More recently, one or two atolls have come into the news, with hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies taking a particular interest in them.

If one looks at a map of the Indian Ocean and sees the very large number of atolls that exist there one begins to accept the idea of the name given to the area. Just as we have Polynesia in the Pacific Ocean, so we have Lemuria in the Indian Ocean. I wonder whether that name came from Lemuel Gulliver or not. The area is a considerable one, including Mauritius, Rodrigues and a vast number of smaller atolls, some inhabited and some not, but purely for administrative convenience these, with the exception of the Seychelles, have been governed by the Government and Governor in Chief of Mauritius.

Can the Minister tell us what administrative arrangements have been made to look after Lemuria, this huge number of atolls in the Indian Ocean, when we cease to have a Governor of Mauritius and independent Mauritius merely governs the island of Mauritius and the island of Rodrigues. There was a certain doubt about one of the off-lying islands of Mauritius being included in the constitution, but the people there had no vote in the election. There were only 25 of them.

This is very relevant to the report in The Times of the bid by Rodrigues to secede. I am prepared to accept that this is probably not a particularly serious bid, but we have the recent evidence of Anguila. We know that there was no question of Rodrigues voting other than heavily for the Parti Mauricien which stood in the election not for independence but for association, remaining in the Commonwealth with internal self-government.

The islands of the Indian Ocean were governed by the Governor and Government of Mauritius largely for administrative convenience. It would be very hard for anyone to say that there was a closer association between the people of Rodriguez and the people of Mauritius than between the people of Rodrigues and the people of the Seychelles or the people of Rodrigues and the people of Reunion. I do not think there is. It was purely a matter of colonial convenience.

I do not take the protest particularly seriously. I do not know Rodrigues, not having been there, but I know that it would be extremely dangerous if in the euphoria created by the announcement of independence we papered over a number of cracks and pretended that difficulties were not there. Difficulties may well be there. Rodrigues has had a disastrous storm in recent weeks. This could perhaps set off a new political attitude depending on whether the people of Mauritius are prepared to help the people of Rodrigues in getting over that natural calamity.

I ask the Minister not to give us an answer now about Rodrigues but fully assure himself that we shall not have an Anguila situation arising, if he can get someone to Rodrigues and back before the independence celebrations take place. It is a remote place and its connection with Mauritius is through administrative convenience rather than any direct trade, racial or kith and kin association.

Needless to say, as a Northern Irelander who objected bitterly to home rule on one occasion I have a certain sympathy with people who do not want to be carried on by a large number of people with whom they are not in agreement. As I say, let us not paper over the cracks. Let us find out what is happening. It is probably nonsense, but let us make certain that the first few months of the future of Mauritius as an independent country are not blackened by troubles with Rodrigues and a non-legal form of secession.

With regard to the question of aid to Mauritius, people have mentioned the idea of its being an ideal site for a British base. I am not certain that it was not King Charles II who said that he who would be the master of Mauritius would hold the key to the Indian Ocean. It is a vital place strategically for us. I am glad that some of the airways and shipping services of the world are discovering this. But let us be clear about it and say that we do not want in 10 years' time, having signed a defence agreement with Mauritius and having assured Mauritius that there will be British forces there for all time, thus providing employment, suddenly to have to get out as we did in Malta and as we shall have to in Singapore. If we are to give aid to the defence installations there, let us make certain where we are going before we give false assurances.

I am sorry to bring this bitter note into the debate, but it is better to leave Mauritius in the comparatively stable economic situation that it is in, poor though it may be, than to bolster up its hopes and let them crash down again as we have done in other parts of the world.

The Committee, through the three hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, has expressed warm affection for Mauritius. The very name conjures up affection in this House. The name Mauritius is honoured and respected, and it is natural that care should be taken as Clause 1 is dealt with, which removes responsibility from the House of Commons for the government of Mauritius, to ensure that every aspect of independence should be looked at.

I make no complaint that both hon. Gentlemen opposite scored some political points, a sort of hangover on a Friday morning from a Thursday evening debate. I have not experienced a hangover except of that sort. But we are political animals and must not complain if partisans make their points as hon. Gentlemen opposite, who perhaps were not called last night, have succeeded in doing this morning.

I welcome the tone adopted by both hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson). The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) expressed good will towards Mauritius, and I know that both sides of the Committee will echo the sentiments that he proclaimed. Economic difficulties face the new Government of Mauritius as they face us in this country. Mauritius, with a rapidly expanding population, has need of other industries, although I take the point of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) about the difficulty of employing more people in diversified industries there. It is not as easy a problem to solve as it is to see.

The question of economic aid for the year 1968 –69 is not yet settled. Conversations are to take place. If I might say a word about what the hon. Member for Essex, South-East mentioned, our overall aid for developing countries will have to bear the relatively small, though important, reduction due to devaluation. But it is remarkable, and a tribute to this country, that at a time of very great economic difficulty we are resolved to keep the ceiling of aid for overseas developing countries at the high figure that we are. There are, I believe, not many countries in the world with their backs to the wall in economic terms as we seem to be just now who would respond in this way. I know that this is appreciated in developing countries.

1.0 p.m. I was asked whether Mauritius would get any loans. I think that it would be wrong for the Committee to anticipate the way the talks will go. I know that we would not want to add to the difficulties of those who, within a short while, will carry responsibility for negotiating the aid terms.

On the question of defence, I can tell the Committee that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East is right. No agreement has been reached. The discussions were delayed, but I hope that they will soon be finalized.

With regard to internal security, we all hope that their forces will be able to maintain law and order, but I have no doubt that this may well form an aspect of he overall discussions which are to take place within a short while.

All three hon. Gentlemen referred to Rodrigues. There is anxiety about this. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West seemed to be a little agitated, because he said that a little-known Member of Parliament had been received. My hon. Friend is, of course, well known. He travels the Commonwealth, and is, and was when he was in Opposition, received by various Governments, and the Commonwealth Office is a citadel of courtesy.

And rightly so.

That is quite right.

I do not think that anyone in the House, particularly on the back benches, has ever been allowed, either overseas or here, to see a leader or a Cabinet member to discuss constitutional changes, and in this case possible secession. I am, of course, open to correction.

I visited Mauritius some years ago, and discussed those very subjects with the leading members of the Government at that time, both on my own, and in company with my colleagues in the House.

I am not seeking to produce evidence of what has happened to other hon. Members All I want to say is that my noble Friend, the other Minister of State, saw this gentleman who said tht he was speaking on behalf of Mr. Duval, the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the Committee would feel that my noble Friend would have failed in his duty if he had declined to speak to a Member of Parliament purporting to represent, as I believe he did, the Leader of the Opposition.

I want, now, to say a few words about Rodrigues. We are bound by the decisions of the 1965 Conference, and there can be no going back at this stage. We are seeking, as far as possible, to create a viable independent country. It would be out of the question for us to treat Mauritius as a whole on any other basis. I believe that the interests of Rodrigues lie in making a success of her partnership with Mauritius. We could not, of course, possibly include a right to secede in the constitution unless the Government and the Opposition there agreed that this was something which ought to be included.

It is very difficult for us to give assurances, either, about what will happen after independence. It is true that this island is 350 miles away from Mauritius, that its people are largely Creole—it is called general population, I think—that they voted 98 per cent, for the Opposition, and undoubtedly there is a different attitude there, but their future lies with Mauritius, and I earnestly hope that the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister of Mauritius will be able to have discussions before independence to remove the difficulties which appear to exist.

It would be a pity if this island reached independence with quarrels looming large. For the ordinary working people of that part of the world, I earnestly believe that nothing could be more to their good than for them to realise that these islands have common interests. It is customary when independence constitutions are drawn up for there to be safeguards for minorities, and I am satisfied that on this occasion there will be such safeguards.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North referred to the Commonwealth delegation of which he was part. I have already congratulated both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend on the part they played, but it is music to my ears when I hear emphasis put on Commonwealth agreements, and the way in which the Commonwealth acted on this occasion. The Committee will be pleased to know that the whole Commonwealth has now been consulted about Mauritius, and that agreement has been expressed that Mauritius should be an independent member of the Commonwealth. This is good for their status and dignity, and it is good for us, for the contribution which her distinguished leaders will make to the Commonwealth.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North has a remarkable knowledge of the islands and atolls in that area. Apart from Rodrigues, there are Cargados Carajos, or St. Brandon, and Agalega, all three being dependencies of Mauritius. The Bill will not alter their relationships with Mauritius, of which constitutionally they will form a part. I hope that the Committee will agree to Clause 1 standing part.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, leave out "any associated state or".

This is a simple Amendment to correct a mistake. These words should never have been inserted and I hope that the House will accept their removal.

I want to make a brief reference to something said by the Minister of State a few moments ago. The Committee is delighted to hear that the formal consultations with the Commonwealth have taken place and that there is agreement that following independence Mauritius should become a full member. May she find her membership as so many of her partners have done, a fruitful association which helps her in the task of finding her feet in the modern world.

On Second Reading, I asked a number of questions about the Bill's citizenship provisions to which, at the time, the Minister of State was unable to give an answer. He kindly indicated that he would let me have the answers by the Committee stage and I am grateful to him. He has been good enough to answer some of my queries, but I know that he will forgive me if I seek some additional clarification.

Clause 3 provides for four categories of persons who will be able to retain their United Kingdom citizenship and therefore will have dual nationality. We were anxious to know who these people are and how many there are. For example, we felt that if, as a result of Clause 2(2), a Mauritian born in Mauritius and who had possibly served the Crown with distinction and was anxious to retain his British citizenship, nevertheless automatically ceased to be a British citizen on 12th March, it was hardly right to grant dual citizenship to someone who had come to Mauritius from a foreign country and was naturalised there or from another Commonwealth country and was registered there as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. This seemed an unfortunate discrimination.

The Minister of State cleared this up by making it clear that, by virtue of subsection (5), the persons referred to in subsection (1) do not include those naturalised or registered in Mauritius. He has also made it plain, although he cannot be precise, that the number of persons who will retain their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of Clause 3 is not likely to be large, and we fully accept that from him. It seems that they will chiefly be people born in Mauritius of British fathers employed there, possibly in Government service.

I mention these matters now since the Committee will want to know whether, since we asked these questions in the first place, we are satisfied that they have been answered. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanations. But there is still one question to which we have not yet got an answer, and there is also a new question which I should like to raise. If the hon. Gentleman is unable to answer either at this stage, since, I understand, talks on the constitution have not yet taken place but are to start next week, perhaps he will give an assurance that he will see that the answers are given by the time the Bill is considered in another place.

The first question entails referring back to Clause 2(2), which reads:

" Except as provided by section 3 of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if he becomes on that day a citizen of Mauritius."

As I said on Second Reading, this has little meaning unless we can be told exactly who will become a citizen of Mauritius on the appointed day. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is not in a position to tell us this today because the discussions on this aspect of the Constitution have not yet taken place. Annexe E to the White Paper on the Mauritius Constitutional Conference, 1965—Cmnd. 2797—states:

" The Constitution should either automatically confer citizenship or a right of registration on the following classes of persons—

All persons naturalised or registered in Mauritius as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, and

All persons born outside Mauritius of fathers in this category,

providing that in both cases they are still citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies on independence day."

We do not know at this stage whether the Constitution will automatically confer citizenship or the right of registration on these two categories of persons. If it confers citizenship automatically, then all is well and there is no cause for anxiety. But, if it merely gives a right to registration, what happens to a person who does not apply to be registered? What will his position be? Presumably he will not become a Mauritan citizen. What will then happen? Will he automatically get British citizenship?

I ask this because no binding agreement appears to have been entered into at the 1965 Constitutional Conference yet it is unsatisfactory that Parliament should be asked to enact legislation touching upon citizenship—one of the most precious of human rights—without a clear idea of what will happen to people who have hitherto had our protection.

It is even more important to get this point clarified because of the reservations many Mauritians have had about the venture into independence. I do not wish to stress that, but citizenship—I know the hon. Gentleman feels very keenly about this, too—is one of the most precious of human rights and we must not leave any doubt or uncertainty in the minds of people who, for a long time, had the privilege of British citizenship and will now lose it.

My second query is a new one in the sense that I did not raise it on Second Reading. Those of us who have Mauritian friends—and I have had a number over the years—know the value that many of them put upon their British citizenship. If they are resident in Mauritius on the appointed day, they will lose that citizenship. I do not say that that is unreasonable. Mauritius is becoming independent and needs the service, devotion and loyalty of all her citizens. Therefore I do not make a complaint on that score. Of course, the vast majority of Mauritians will remain in Mauritius. But there may be a few who, for one reason or another in the years ahead, may wish to claim back their British citizenship.

There are some whose families have served the British Crown for many generations. Some of our most reliable and bravest agents dropped in France during the war were Mauritians. The memory of their courage and sacrifice, like those of all who took part in the resistance against the Nazi tyranny, is imperishable. Some of them were very brave people indeed. I think not only of people like them but also of others as well who, for some special reason, may wish at some time in future to claim back their British citizenship.

I do not press the Minister for a firm answer today, but I do wish to put this question to him. Should there not be some discretionary provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to grant British citizenship to those Mauritians who apply for it and can show special reason? I would expect the Minister of State to reflect on this especially as the discussions on citizenship are likely to start next week. I do not press the matter now, except to say that we will expect to return to it when the Bill is considered in another place and the Government spokesman is ready to answer all our queries.

Subject to assurances that all these matters will be carefully considered and opportunity provided in another place for discussion of them, we agree that the Clause should stand part of the Bill.

I am deeply grateful, again, to the hon. Gentleman for his reasonable attitude. He is quite right: few things are more precious to a man than his rights of citizenship. My heart goes out to the stateless, because this condition brings great difficulties in its train.

The hon. Member is also right to say that the discussions on citizenship have not yet reached finality. They will take place in a very short time, and I give the Committee the firm assurance that the answers which I had hoped to give today will be provided in the next stage of the Bill in another place. The hon. Gentleman's noble Friends will be able to pursue the matter and, I trust, be given satisfactory answers. Everything which the hon. Gentleman raised, of course, depends on the discussions which are about to take place.

I hope that the Committee will accept my assurance that all the information for which he asked will be provided in another place.

I understand that, under the new procedure, the Third Reading is to be taken formally, so I should like to say a few words, on the Schedule, which I had expected to deliver on Third Reading. My remarks are covered by all die headings in the Schedules, if my proposal is in order.

We on this side welcome the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) and all the speakers from this side have welcomed its provisions and schedules because it represents the free choice of the majority of the people in Mauritius.

It is fair to say, since this is also covered in the Schedules, that we believe that the success of the Bill, which we will undoubtedly pass today, will depend largely on adequate long-term financial help from this country. We know that the Mauritius Government have started an austerity programme and have had to receive £1·3 million in British aid to balance their Budget and that their difficulties will be increased by devaluation.I hope that the Bill will promote trade. All hon. Gentlemen will agree, I think, that trade rather than aid is what the people of Mauritius want in future. I am rather alarmed to see that their late —

For the benefit of the Committee in future I should point out that, since the rules have been changed and the Third Reading debate has been abolished, unless notice is given, it is, not competent to use the opportunity of Committee debate on the Schedules to make what would, in effect, be a Third Reading speech. It is competent to discuss anything in the Schedule on the Question, That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill, but it is not competent to make a Third Reading speech on that occasion.

I bow to that Ruling, Sir Eric, but there is mention in the Schedules of finance, visiting forces and ships and aircraft, all of which I would have thought would have been broadly covered by the brief remarks which I proposed to make.

Again, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. At the moment, we are dealing with die First Schedule. The matters to which he referred are contained, if anywhere, in the Second Schedule. At the moment the Question is, That the Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill.

Would it then be possible, Sir Eric, to discuss both Schedules together? Would that be in order?

That can be done, with the consent of the Committee. Is it your pleasure that the two Schedules be considered together?

Aye.

Mr. Wall.

I am grateful to you and to the Committee, Sir Eric. I apologise. This difficulty was due to my not checking the new procedure. The Minister of State and I discussed the Third Reading earlier, so I think that we must share the blame.

The latest import figures for Mauritius show that imports totalled 298½ million rupees, but only 96 million from this country. Officials have gone out there to study our trade with Mauritius and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about their success.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give clear answers on the questions raised on the nationality and immigration provisions, particularly on the question of permanent non-residents, which I cannot, with all my ingenuity, fit into the discussion of the Schedules. We discussed this on Second Reading and my hon. Friend mentioned it on Clause 3. I hope that we will be given full replies, because many people who are no longer permanent residents of Mauritius and have gone to Commonwealth countries would like to retain their British citizenship, subject to the authority of the Home Secretary, which gives certain safeguards.

Defence is covered, because visiting forces are mentioned in the Schedules. Without making a party political point, I would say that the Government's recent decision, right or wrong, to withdraw from the Indian Ocean must affect Mauritius both economically and from the point of view of defence, and, therefore, politically. The Government must reassure Mauritius about the future long-term help and defence which they can give the island.

I would say to my friends in Mauritius, including the Prime Minister, that they would be very wise to extract clear undertakings on these matters from Her Majesty's Government before indepen- dence. There are probably rough waters ahead for the island. That applies to this island as well and probably to most of the world. We on this side wish the island people well and pray that the action which we take today will lead them to a happy future.

support my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for very much the same reason. One matter which is relevant to the last paragraph of Schedule 2 is the question of the name of the new country. A rumour has reached me that the Mauritius Cabinet is contemplating changing the name to a new name which, unfortunately, I cannot now recall.

Any change of this sort would be most ill-judged. It has been the fashion for a number of countries to change their names on independence. New countries usually give up the Anglo-Saxon termination of "land" and the Latin termination of "ia" when they change the name. Some have done so for historical reasons. One can see, certainly, why Northern Rhodesia changed its name to Zambia. But there is no reason why Mauritius should change and every reason why it should not.

There is no question that, in Mauritius, there are encouraging signs of the beginnings of a real loyalty to Mauritius as such. People are beginning to talk of themselves not as Hindis, Muslims, Creoles or whites, but as Mauritians. That is the future of the country, and that is a point which must be made when the House speaks, possibly for the last time, about Mauritius. If there is any good advice which we can give, it is that we should encourage, above all else, the concept that everyone who lives in Mauritius is a Mauritian and that his race, origin and family is of much less importance than the fact that he is a Mauritian.

1.30 p.m.

Arising out of the remarks which the Minister made earlier, about the territory included in the independence of Mauritius, we cannot help observing that Mauritius is one of the first Colonies to obtain independence which, at the same time, is presented with a considerable colonial empire of its own. There are a number of islands which will be governed by Mauritius, some of them with no representation in the Legislature of Mauritius. I hope and trust that the Government of Mauritius will treat those islands which are now their Colonies as they would have had us treat them when they were our colonies.

Those islands may be merely bits of sand and rock today, but who can tell whether the time will not come when they are vital counters in the international war game or are found to contain vitally important national resources in fishing or mineral rights of some sort? I believe that research is taking place already on some of these atolls in connection with the production of fertilisers. I hope that the Government will be conscious of their responsibility as a colonial power with a number of small Colonies —

Order. The hon. Member cannot venture on a Third Reading speech, as distinct from discussing the contents of the Schedule.

On a point of order. Paragraph 3 of the First Schedule states:

" The legislature of Mauritius shall have full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation."

With respect, I thought that my hon. Friend was well within that paragraph.

The hon. Gentleman was in order when dealing with the colonial territories of the new State, but he then proceeded much wider than that.

I was not aware that I had left the colonial territories of Mauritius, but I will draw my remarks to a close as quickly as possible.

As Mauritius moves to independence, we all wish her well. Those who know Mauritius have a great deal of affection for the country. We perhaps love Mauritius because of her problems and not just because of the beauty of the country and the charm of the people who live there. We wish Mauritius and the Government of Mauritius the best possible fortune in the years ahead.

I will reply briefly to the discussion on the Schedules, which I understand are being taken together.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on his ingenuity and I confess to you and to the Committee, Sir Eric, that I, too, was caught out in that I had not caught up with the changes in procedure. I therefore confine myself to saying that the hon. Member need not tell the Prime Minister of Mauritius that he ought to extract clear assurances from us. I am sure that he is on his toes, eager and anxious to start with the very greatest advantages.

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House wish Mauritius well with all our hearts. I promise the hon. Member for Haltemprice, as I promised his hon. Friends—and I am grateful to them—that in another place, through my noble Friend, they will have answers, when these discussions have taken place, to the most important issues which they have raised.

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

The Bill is pure consolidation and does not alter the law. The subject matter of the law here consolidated can be expressed as being provisions to give statutory effect for a limited period to resolutions varying or renewing taxation. The position is that the Joint Committee on the Consolidation of Bills has reported upon the Bill and has expressed the opinion that, as I have said, the Bill represents the existing law.

If I may anticipate what may be comment upon the Bill—that it deals with an important but none the less comparatively small part of the law—I would say that unless consolidation is in some degree piecemeal, the whole of consolidation is in danger of being held up. I put it to the House that there must be a balance in our treatment of these matters. It has been thought right to deal with the matter of the provisional collection of taxes in this separate Consolidation Bill, which I recommend to the House.

The Solicitor-General anticipated my criticism of this Consolidation Measure. It must be the shortest Consolidation Bill on record. According to the Long Title it seeks

" to consolidate the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1913"

—which is an Act of four Sections, one of which is just the Title of that Act—

'' and certain other enactments relating to the provisional collection of taxes or matters connected therewith."

One finds, on turning to the Schedule of Repeals, that those certain other enactments consist of four Sections and of part of a Schedule.

One usually thinks of consolidation as concerning some problem area of law— perhaps a fairly wide area in which Statute has piled up on Statute until the law is difficult to apply. One thinks of cases in which the law requires to be brought together in some orderly fashion. I am a little puzzled to understand why such a very narrow area was taken for consolidation in this respect, providing a Bill of six Clauses and five pages. Surely it would have been better to take a wider field. No explanation of this was given to the Joint Committee, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has given what he offers as the explanation that consolidation as a whole would be held up unless we did it piecemeal this way by small Measures. It seems that this is a very small area for consolidation and that the efforts might have been applied to a wider area of the law.

I will put only one question on the form of this Consolidation Measure. The Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913, which the Bill seeks to consolidate, applied to Northern Ireland and it was held that the phrase "House of Commons" in that Act applied to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland. However, in Clause 6 of this Measure we find that

" The enactments specified in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent

mentioned in the third column of that Schedule."

It goes on in subsection (3):

"Nothing in this Act applies to, or affects the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1913 in its application to, the House of Commons of the Parliament of Northern Ireland."

Over the page, the first repeal in the Schedule is the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913, and the extent of the repeal is stated to be "the whole Act".

I recollect that, when we have dealt with Statutes referring to England and Wales and Scotland, in the "third column "—if the Act continues to apply to Scotland after consolidation—the Act has been so mentioned. I should have thought that it should have been mentioned in the "third column" in this case to warn readers that the Act still applies in Northern Ireland and that there has not, in fact, been a repeal of the whole Act.

Although this is a small Measure and although the efforts could have been applied to a wider area, I welcome it for what it does in this small area.

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

This Measure is pure consolidation and represents the existing law. It consolidates Parts X and XI of the Income Tax Act, 1952, with subsequent provisions relating to relief from Income Tax and Corporation Tax in respect of capital expenditure on business assets and on scientific research.

Perhaps I should refer to the boundary of consolidation as it has taken shape and form in this instance. The capital allowances provisions in the Income Tax Acts, in the Finance Acts and in relevant enactments are regarded as being a part of the Income Tax and Corporation Tax codes and law which is sufficiently self-contained to consolidate by itself. It is regarded, I think reasonably and fairly, as having that character. This is a self-contained subject and it is, we believe, useful to consolidate the laws dealing with it.

A Bill to consolidate capital allowances was introduced a year ago but, in that instance, the Joint Committee reported that it was not pure consolidation and that it should not proceed as a consolidation. Bill. The position now is that, by virtue of Section 21(4) of the Finance Act, 1967, the difficulties have been removed which then prevented the Committee from reporting that the Bill was pure consolidation. The present position is that the Joint Committee has reported this to be pure consolidation, representing the existing law. I therefore recommend the Bill to the House.

I do not on this occasion criticise the limitations of the Bill, because it covers a subject which can be conveniently put into one Measure. Indeed, one can say, from the size of the Bill, that a formidable area is covered. I do not criticise it if it is an instalment of consolidation of the whole area of Income Tax.

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, this is a second bite at the cherry. On the first occasion, in March last, the Joint Committee, considering the Consolidation Measure then before it, wished to make certain Amendments which would have made a substantial alteration in the law; and its powers do not, of course, extend to that. Now this has been done in the normal way, by the Finance Act, 1967—in particular by Section 21 of that Act—and, I say humbly, this is satisfactory.

It is satisfactory that the Government did not try to make new law by the procedure which this House applies to consolidation Bills, a procedure which precludes debate. Instead, the Government have followed the normal procedure, which provides us with a chance of debating the matter and discussing amending the law before it is put into a Consolidation Measure.

There are great benefits in tidying up the law quickly, in getting this Consolidation Measure through, but that must not be done by sacrificing an important constitutional principle, the principle that the House should have an opportunity to debate matters of new law or alterations in the law.

A compliment should be paid to the Joint Committee for forcing this issue. In its Report to Parliament there is a paragraph stating:

" Since the Committee considered the Capital Allowances Bill of the last Session, Amendments to the existing law contained in Section 21 of the Finance Act 1967 have removed the difficulties which then precluded the Committee from reporting that the Bill was pure consolidation."

I was entertained to see the remarks of the noble Lord who is the Chairman of that Committee, when he proposed the introduction of that paragraph in the Report and said:

" It would improve our image, pointing out that we have really done rather well to make them amend the Act."

The Committee did well and we have the result before us now.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied with the title of the Measure, "Capital Allowances Bill"? Chapter VI of it deals with Income Tax, and part of it is so headed. "Capital Allowances "as a title may be somewhat misleading. However, I agree that the Long Title tries to explain in what way it is restricted and I realise that Chapter VI is within Part X of the Income Tax Act, 1952, which this Measure seeks to consolidate. It might have been possible to think of a more comprehensive title a little less misleading.

The Long Title seeks to consolidate Parts X and XI of the Income Tax Act, 1952, but then goes on with the limitation

"but without the provisions of the said part X relating to patents or to agricultural estate management expenditure which is not capital expenditure."

In Schedule 12, however, the Bill deals with those very items. Page 123 deals with maintenance relief for agricultural land, and half of page 124 deals with patents and amendments of that part of Part X of the 1952 Act. It then proceeds to another heading,

"Business or estate management expenditure."

I cannot follow why the Long Title should state that the Bill excludes anything to do with patents and agricultural estate management expenditure, which truly comes into Part X of the 1952 Act but is not intended to be brought into the Bill, and then brings it in.

Thirdly, is the Solicitor-General satisfied that this is the right moment to consolidate? The Bill sets out certain specific allowances, not simply that the Government or the Minister may be able to set the rate of allowances, but percentages of certain assets or payments as allowances. Will the Bill be overtaken in the next few weeks by cuts which are required as a result of the economic crisis? Is the House perhaps wasting its time in dealing with this consolidation Bill at this stage when these capital allowances may be revised during the next few weeks as a result of the economic difficulties in which the country finds itself under the present Government?

Fourthly, I would like an assurance from the Solicitor-General that this is an instalment of the consolidation of the whole of the area of Income Tax covered by the Income Tax Act, 1952. That Act was a very satisfactory consolidation Measure. It has been of great assistance to those who have to practice in this subject, both in law and in accountancy, but over the period of 15 years it has become gradually out of date in its original form by reason of amendments again and again in Finance Acts.

It is, I am sure, agreed on both sides of the House that while one of the major tasks which Parliament should undertake is the simplification of our tax laws, consolidation is a useful preliminary to simplification. One then has something on which to work in a consolidation Measure. The waste of productive effort and the loss of productive time in trying to understand, let alone evade, the existing tax laws must, however, run into millions of man hours a year.

If the Bill is an instalment for making it simpler to understand the tax laws, to find out where they are and to appreciate them, it is a happy instalment and we shall look forward to the rest of the serial. As the law stands in the statutes, however, there is no doubt that it multiplies the tax burden. One not only pays cash in the tax but pays time in trying to sort out the law. This is a real brain drain on industry, commerce and professions which any form of consolidation of the tax law would help, but it does not go all the way by any means unless it is a consolidation of the whole of this area, as was done in 1952.

We want a repeat of the 1952 Act, bringing it up to date, consolidating the law and making the law easy to find. If the Bill is simply a chapter, I welcome it. If it is to stand on its own, it will not be very much use.

It was suggested by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), with particular reference to the contents of Chapter VI of the Bill, that the title "Capital Allowances Bill" was not appropriate. It seems to me, and, I suggest, to the House, that it is an appropriate title. We have all had experience of far greater departures than one discovers here in the body of a Bill from what is regarded as broadly a convenient compendious title. I put it to the House that, taking one thing with another, the title "Capital Allowances Bill" is appropriate and. bearing all factors in mind, accurate in this instance.

Somewhat similar considerations apply to the hon. Member's observations concerning the Long Title and his point that the Long Title exempts provisions of the said Part X of the Income Tax Act, 1952, which Schedule 12 in some part incorporates. The same considerations apply there.

The question was asked whether this consolidation Bill was being brought before the House at the right time bearing in mind economic and other factors. I was asked whether the Bill might not be overtaken during the next few weeks by cuts and changes of different kinds. As to that line of inquiry, I would say that the whole valuable process of consolidation would be very much handicapped and made very spasmodic and haphazard if an attempt were made to harmonise it with shifting states of climate in any areas of policy, whether economic, financial or any other.

It might well happen that a considerable work of consolidation having been achieved in respect of a certain Measure, almost by chance changes in the law are made because of existing contemporary situations which make the consolidation almost immediately appear to be much less up to date than had been intended and desired. It is entirely theoretical and hypothetical that that may occur. That does not seem a good reason for checking or restraining the process of this very important work of consolidation.

The hon. Member asked whether this was an instalment consolidation of the Income Tax law. My answer is yes, it is. The intention is to consolidate the Income Tax law as a whole. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding arising from what I have just said. It is not the intention that this Capital Allowances Bill, when it becomes law, will at a later stage be as it were re-consolidated into a new consolidation Measure, but I do not think that is what the hon. Member had in mind. This is simply an instalment in a wider and broader process—which both sides of the House, I think, welcome —of consolidating the law in these complex and difficult fields.

:I beg to move,

That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, in its application to this House, be amended as follows: —

Having created something of a record by keeping in order on two consolidation Bills consecutively, which I do not think I have achieved before, I shall endeavour to keep in order in discussing this Resolution.

I think that there is great merit in the form in which Parliament accepted the House of Commons Disqualification Bill, which became the Act of 1957. By a Schedule the disqualifying offices were listed, and precisely listed, so that any hon. Member who can read—and, despite what some of our constituents say, I believe all hon. Members can read—and know exactly whether or not they are disqualified by reason of some public office.

Since 1957, there has not been that vague phrase, "an office of profit under the Crown". We have been certain what they are, but it has been necessary to make this list flexible as new offices were created, new appointments made and new spheres in which the Government of the country was taking part. So there is this further merit in the method which was adopted under the Act that the list can be kept up to date by Resolution of this House, following which Her Majesty can make an Order in Council in accordance with that Resolution.

If I understand the Resolution correctly, it seems to amend all three parts of the Schedule to the 1957 Act. There were four parts but the fourth part deals with disqualification for particular constituencies and we are concerned only with the first three parts. The first part deals with judicial offices; the second with commissions; tribunals and similar bodies; and the third is the miscellaneous one of other disqualifying offices.

I endeavoured, by looking at Amendments which have been made and the Amendments now sought to be made, to discover how far we had altered the Schedule as it was originally laid down in 1957. Roughly, I found that under Part I,:he judicial offices, in the course of time we have deleted 13 and added 14. It is now proposed to delete two and to add three. Therefore, there has not been a substantial change in Part I.

Although the changes which the House is now asked to agree to may be of importance to certain individuals who might otherwise take their place on the judicial bench as assistant judges, and so on, I do not think that Part I has any wide application and I would not wish to detain the House by discussing that part of the Motion for any length of time.

In the past, Part III has been very substantially altered. Seventeen comissions or tribunals have been deleted and 39 have been added. On this occasion we are not doing very much; we are adding three and deleting five. Although Part II has been a very important part of the Schedule in the past when we have set up new commissions or tribunals, it is not of such great importance today.

Part III has considerable importance, because, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, it is on this occasion a departure from the principles laid down previously, if principles ever were laid down. Perhaps I ought to say that new principles are now being laid down, or that principles are being laid down for the first time, as to what should or should not be included in Part III which deals with disqualifying offices other than judicial offices or commission or tribunal offices.

In the past, we have deleted 12 offices from Part III and added 15. I calculate that the Motion seeks to add 22 new offices. There are many more individuals than that. I am merely taking the names of offices. We are deleting five, counting deputies, assistants, members of committees, and so on. Nearly all the new offices which are to become disqualifications for membership of the House are appointments to industrial and commercial concerns. The list is something of a commentary upon the extent —indeed, the increasing extent—of government interference in commercial activities.

I can put my points into two questions. First, many of these appointments named in the Motion have existed for a long time. The Financial Secretary mentioned the British Petroleum Company Limited and the Suez Company. Others, such as the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Limited, the Post Office Users' Council and the Land Settlement Association Limited, have been going for a long time, too. Only now are they being brought into the list of disqualifying offices. The hon. Gentleman said that this was being done either because in these there was some money benefit to the Member, or because the office was of a nature which, if the person concerned carried it out properly, would prejudice his Parliamentary duties, or because, with the natural political bias that he should have as a Member, he would not be fitted to undertake an office of this sort.

I suppose that those are fairly reasonable principles to apply, but we have got on pretty well in the past without disqualifying directors of the Suez Company, or of B.P. Limited, or of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Limited. I do not know any hon. Members who run into trouble over this or any persons from those concerns who have wanted to stand as Members of Parliament Therefore. why has it suddenly been thought necessary to include them? Has some issue arisen which has made it necessary to bring these rather ancient offices into the disqualification Schedule?

Apart from those old ones, there are many new offices set out in paragraph 3 of the Motion. Again, I find some difficulty, not only in understanding why these have been selected, even though the Financial Secretary has explained his criteria to the House, but also why certain have been omitted. Some offices come to mind in matters with which I particularly deal in the House. This is why I remember them. I am thinking of people who serve on the Land Commission, rent assessment committees, the National Board for Prices and Incomes, the Housing Corporation, and of the Registrar of Building Societies. Why are these people left out of the list?

Order. It is not competent on this Motion to refer to matters which are not in the Motion. It is not competent to consider why any offices not mentioned in the Motion are excluded.

I will certainly abide by your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and try to make my point by using other examples.

I wonder why certain offices are excluded and why certain are included. Those which are included seem to be a mixed bag. It is questionable whether there is a good reason for including all these. In my experience, an hon. Member with an outside interest brings knowledge and experience with him which make him better able to contribute to the deliberations of the House. I do not hold the belief that every hon. Member should be a professional politician with no outside interests. I see little difference between having an outside interest to which one is appointed by the Government and having one which is one's own concern.

It is fantastic to suggest that an hon. Member would be influenced by an appointment by the Government to, say, the National Computing Centre. He would be very proud to be so appointed, but I doubt whether it would influence him in his deliberations in the House or make him feel beholden to the Government. It is rather an anachronism to think of such commercial men as what used to be known as "The King's Men".

Is there any purpose in suddenly including these offices in the disqualifying Schedule? Has any trouble arisen? Have any difficulties arisen in this connection? Is there any intention of making use of these offices? The Financial Secretary suggested that those who wished to retire from the House in future might apply for membership of the board of the Suez Company, for example, instead of for the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. Is he suggesting that last night's 25 rebels be appointed to membership of the Permanent Joint Hops Committee? Or is he suggesting that an escape route should be provided for Ministers by it being possible to put them into National Cold Stores (Management) Ltd.? Or, if it was desired to retain them in their advisory capacity to the Government, is it visualised that they be appointed as Industrial Advisers to the Blind Limited, which is (x) in paragraph 3. Why should these suddenly be introduced into the disqualifying Schedule of the 1957 Act? I cannot believe that somebody has just thought up a new principle on which to expand that Schedule.

What sort of precedents are we laying down here? In the future, on the basis of this Motion, are all Government-nominated directors of ordinary trading concerns, whether paid or not, to be disqualified from membership of this House? This is the proposition which the hon. Gentleman has put before us. [Interruption.] I made a note of the phrase the hon. Gentleman used. He said that all Government-nominated directors of ordinary trading concerns, whether paid or not, should be disqualified from membership of this House— or, the other way round, that Members of this House should be disqualified if they take an office of that sort. I must say that this is going too far.

I do not want to encourage political patronage in any way, but if one makes a general rule of that sort we may be depriving this House of the benefit of knowledge and experience in these sorts of concerns which we see listed in front of us—knowledge and experience which might be of the greatest use in the deliberations of the House, in the same way as many hon. Members bring benefit to the House by their experience outside the House in private undertakings, commercial, industrial and professional. I cannot feel that the hon. Gentleman has really justified paragraph 3 of the Motion on the sort of principles which he has put forward.

I believe that I need leave to speak again, and I hope that I may have that leave.

I can understand the hon. Members anxiety that we should not apply this rule of disqualification in a way that would deprive the House of the services of useful hon. Members or would deprive hon. Members of this House of an opportunity to enlarge their own connections with the outside world, particularly in commerce.

But, of course, I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's implications that there is something novel and undesirable in the principles that I have enunciated today. It is, in my view, novel and entirely unacceptable that the House should have hon. Members who, at Government nomination, are appointed to offices of profit. This would be a startling innovation and I would be very surprised if it was found acceptable to hon. Members.

The hon. Member said that he cannot see the difference between appointment to outside concerns where this occurs in the ordinary course of the commercial practice of private firms, and appointment of hon. Members to paid jobs in Government trading concerns. If he cannot see the difference, I am bound to tell him that centuries of Parliamentarians have been keenly aware of the difference and I for one see a very fundamental difference. It is not merely a question of actual patronage. I share the hon. Members high opinion of his colleagues on both sides of the House. I do not suppose any hon. Members are likely to be swayed by being made paid directors of Government concerns. It is, however, not merely a question of assessing any particular Member at any particular time. It is a question of maintaining a consistent pattern of behaviour which is acceptable to public opinion in this country.

When the hon. Member reflects upon it, I think he will agree that he would be venturing well outside the consensus of public opinion in this country and of all political parties if he were really to say that we should make no distinction in disqualifying hon. Members whether they had directorships of companies whose shareholders had appointed them or directorships of companies where the Government had appointed them to offices of profit.

There are other problems which the hon. Member appears to ignore. I can see the attraction to hon. Members of accepting Government appointments to trading concerns without money. But, as I told the House, my view is that Members should be disqualified when they are appointed to any ordinary trading concern by the Government, even though they get no salary. The hon. Member seems to think that this is objectionable. Here again I invite him to reflect upon the consequences of not having a rule of this kind.

If we had an hon. Member of this House acting as a director of a trading concern, in the nomination of the Government, we would cause embarrassment to the hon. Member himself, whose impartiality would be at risk in many ways. It would raise the whole general question of patronage and propriety in a trading concern having a Government nominee who is a Member of this House. Also it would cause very considerable embarrassment to the hon. Member himself when any matters directly related to the affairs of this company or board were to come before the House for discussion. The hon. Member would have a vested interest, not entirely independent, such as would prevent him in the freest way exercising an independent judgment, and it would appear manifestly to the public and to his colleagues that he was not able to exercise an independent judgment.

Is it not recognised that hon. Members disclose their interests and that they are frank to the House about them? The House accepts such hon. Members as being biased to that extent but accepts, too, their knowledge and experience in that sphere?

But the retention of those interests is not dependent upon the good will or affection or admiration of the Government of the day. There is all the difference in the world between, on the one hand, a man coming here and discussing the chemical industry—say, a director of LCI.—and declaring his interest as a director, and, on the other hand, a person appointed to the Coal Board, whether salaried or not, speaking in this House, when the fuel policy is being discussed. We would not feel it adequate simply that such a person should declare his interest as a member of the Coal Board, or the Electricity Board. It would be unsuitable that people engaged in trading concerns and nominated by the Government should participate in decisions taken in this House.

I can only say that this is a matter of judgment and good sense which this House always applied in judging these matters. I assert that where any office of profit lies at the discretion of the Crown, it is absolutely essential that we should disqualify hon. Members who hold such an office of profit. I assert, moreover, that even where no salary is paid, it would be quite unsuited to the discharge of an hon. Member's duties in this House and to the conviction of independence which is a necessary adjunct to the performance of those duties, if, where there is a trading company the nominations to the board of which are at the disposal of the Government, any Member nominated to the board of such a trading company —it may be B.P. or the Suez Company or perhaps a company like Beagle Aircraft—were to accept such a directorship. It would be neither seemly nor desirable. Where there is any doubt about the question of patronage or of seemliness of an hon. Member discharging such functions at Government nomination, the doubt should be resolved in favour of disqualification, and not the other way round. For me this is not a party political matter at all.

I now deal with the last point raised by the hon. Gentleman, the question why we have brought in all these categories such as B.P., the Suez Finance Company and so on for the first time. The answer is that, when we started to deal with the question of the Beagle company, Fairfields and the like, we thought it right to have a good look at existing companies, and we found that, anomalously, though purely, I think, as a result of oversight and there having been no occasion when the question had arisen, we had not disqualified people who were directors of B.P., Suez Finance and companies of that kind.

I came to the conclusion that there ought to be a consistent policy in this matter and we should make the necessary arrangements to disqualify directors of Beagle Aircraft and Fairfields and at the same time disqualify from Membership of the House those holding other such directorships. It followed logically and, I believe, it followed as a matter of principle.

No great harm has occurred in the past on this account, I understand, simply because, by happy chance, no one who was a Member of the House was on the board of any of these other companies. However, had the question arisen, I am sure that the House would have wanted to take the view to which we give effect in this Motion, namely, that membership of these boards is not entirely consistent with Membership of the House of Commons. I hope that I shall carry the hon. Member for Crosby with me when he reflects upon the principles which we have discussed.

rose

I understand that the hon. Gentleman has acquainted the Minister of his intention to raise a matter on the Adjournment. Is that so?

On Wednesday morning, Mr. Speaker, anticipating that the House might, perhaps, conclude its other business today early, I gave my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State notice that I wished to raise on the Adjournment the subject of educational and sporting provision for youth in the light of the decision not to raise the school leaving age as planned.

So be it.

Perhaps it might have been better had it been possible to have a major debate on sport, which affects the lives of so many of our constituents, but I think it right and proper that, in l he absence of time provided for such a debate on this important matter, we should seize this opportunity today to progress-chase the work of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. If there are few hon. Members present on a Friday afternoon, at least what he has to say may be widely read outside.

It is appropriate at this time that, when the Government have done something good, their supporters should at least say so loudly and clearly. It is my conviction that, ever since he assumed office in 1964, my hon. Friend has pursued with energy and application, and commendable activity the cause of promoting sport. I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, although he has not occupied his present position for quite so long, for the activities of the Government in Scotland in this respect. There is a very good story to tell, and it is right that it should be told here in the House of Commons.

Before coming to certain specific points, I have a general question to raise about public expenditure on sport. At a time when there is a great hue and cry, rightly in many respects, to restrict public expenditure, those who are loudest in their criticism of the Government for the way in which public expenditure has risen ought to understand precisely what we mean when we talk of cutting public expenditure.

The truth is that civil public expenditure mostly goes on things which all of us want. Many of those who are loudest in their criticisms of the rise in public expenditure would be horrified if they were confronted with the question, "Do you mean that sports facilities in this country should be cut back?". The immediate answer would be, "Of course not". So let us be clear about it.

In that connection, I should like to hear from my hon. Friend what his Ministry's figures for expenditure and finance in this matter have been over the past three years compared to pre-1964.

I am one of those who think that the Government were, in present circumstances, right to decide not to raise the school-leaving age as planned. My whole background bears testimony to an attitude of mind which would have wanted it done, but we must be clear that, if the school-leaving age is to be raised, the operation must be done successfully. Much of what I shall have to say today bears relation to making certain that, when the school-leaving age is eventually raised, it is successful.

It bears relation, also, to another question. In a sense, what we are talking about is how we can make up at least some of what they have lost to the 15 and 16-year-olds who will not have full-time education opportunities at least between 1970 and 1972. Although I have always held that what happens academically is more important than what happens in sport, it seems to me that the gap in time which exists between the time when many boys and girls leave school and the time when they can take part in some serious sporting activity is a gap which we should do our best to fill.

I know that my hon. Friend is well aware of this problem, but I should like to know specifically what the Government propose to do to make up to this generation something of what they have lost now that the unwelcome decision has been taken. Any of us who might have had doubts about the Government's decision should, perhaps, study the very interesting report of the Scottish council of the Teaching Profession which reached the same conclusion as I have advanced.

What can be done? What are my hon. Friend's views on how the best value for money can be achieved? It is most important that the sports budget is not only as cost-effective as possible but is seen to give value for money. With a considerable interest in his activities, I am certain that my hon. Friend is achieving this object, but I have certain specific questions to put.

The first question concerns indoor facilities. Is it not still true that we tend to put too many facilities which are far too subject to weather conditions? What is my hon. Friend doing to promote the construction of floodlit facilities? On 7th December last, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) asked my hon. Friend

"what is his policy in respect of the need for indoor and all-weather sports facilities; and what action he intends to take".

My hon. Friend replied:

" In conjunction with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Wales, I have constantly urged upon local authorities the importance of including them in future plans. The regional sports councils are aware of the importance of these facilities for community recreation and are doing all they can to stimulate provision, but the pace of development must, of course, depend on the resources available in the present economic situation."

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East then made the point that the objective should be

" for local authorities to include these facilities in the designs for new schools which could then be used by the community generally so that everybody would get the benefit of the capital invested."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 1638.]

This raises an important question, the extent to which there is no doubling-up on the facilities and resources which are available as between school and sporting use.

I want also to refer to the question raised in December by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson), who, I hope, may have the opportunity himself of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker. He asked whether there was anything in mind, not necessarily in his own constituency, although he would not find that objectionable. The Minister replied:

" I agree that the need is for indoor recreational areas, but also for outdoor floodlit all-weather areas, which is not quite the same thing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 1639.]

Perhaps my hon. Friend would enlarge on that distinction, because it is an important matter.

My next question is to ask how my hon. Friend can help school sport, and refers to a Question, of which I have given notice, on 19th January, 1968. If I am a little detailed in these requests, it is because I believe that it is part of the function of the House of Commons to progress-chase in detail and not stick all the time to generality.

One generality, however, which I wish to put is to ask how my hon. Friend views the success or otherwise of the sports councils. He set up the councils in 1965 and 1966, with enormous energy. My impression is that they are doing a good job, but I would have thought that this was the time and place to substantiate whether the hopes which he then had are being fulfilled.

The particular question which arises is the problem of grant-aiding local authority projects. Both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland are aware of the difficulties which arise in the grant-aiding of local authority projects. At the same time, pending the Reports of the Maude and the Wheatley Committees, I would like to know how the Government's thinking on this matter has developed. With our mosaic of local authorities, it may be that we are not making the best use of the resources available, and when we talk about cost effectiveness, I think that this is a sphere of activity in which we could be more cost effective. I should like to know the Minister's views.

Progress-chasing again, I would refer to the Fairbairn Committee, which looking at the youth services in relation to schools and particularly the use of school buildings and their relationship to youth services and the formal educational services. The question is the extent to which communal facilities are being built rather separately from the main academic centres of the schools. My hon. Friend has said a great deal about the subject, and I would like to know what kind of success he has had with the architects and others who must necessarily be involved.

I would also like to raise the question of multi-sports centres. As an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency in a development area, I would again say that, in the decision-making of great industrial firms, it really matters whether they think sports facilities and arts facilities will be available for their employees. It is a factor in deciding whether to bring industry to an area of under-employment. To what extent do the Government still feel that this is true, and to what extent is priority given to problems arising from regional development when discussions take place about the provision of sports facilities? This matters. It is not just an attractive idea which should be mentioned in speeches. I would like to see tangible evidence that the Government really think along the lines of providing facilities where they also want to provide new industry.

I move from the Fairbairn Committee lo the Byers Committee. I get the impression, which may not be justified, that the Byers Committee is taking rather a long time to report. I know that a number of Government committees take two or three years and that this Committee has been sitting for less than a year. But, granted the terms of its remit, I should have thought that one would be justified in supposing that, at any rate, it should have come near to reporting.

If I am a little critical of Lord Byers and his colleagues, I am extremely critical of Mr. Chester and his, because the Committee on Football, which was set up in June, 1966, should have reported by now.

When they are faced with tricky problems, all Governments tend to take refuge in distinguished committees. I recall Nye Bevan's remark about the hen and the china egg, when he likened a Royal Commission to the china egg on which the broody hen was sitting. Although a Royal Commission is very suitable for certain problems, are we sure in this case that it is not an excuse for evading decisions which could be taken by the Government, anyway? Perhaps I am wrong, but it is up to the Parliamentary Secretary to say so if that is what he feels.

In the same breath, I would inquire what has happened to Lord Longford's Report on the Youth Services. With the resignation of Lord Longford from the Cabinet, what are the Government's intentions in this matter?

After all that has been said over the past few months about the Commonwealth Games, both of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench would expect me to be making inquiries about the Government's view of the preparations for those Games. As one who hopes to be attending a meeting as a member of the Games Committee on 30th January, I would like to know the Government's present attitude towards the 1970 Games, relating particularly to the cycling track. I know that this is a great problem, and that there is no easy answer. Perhaps the Minister can tell us about any counsel which he has been able to give the Edinburgh authorities?

I would also ask about progress in the preparations for the Olympic Games in so far as it affects the Government. I believe that the Minister has a good story to tell, and he might like to take this opportunity to comment.

Currently, there is a great controversy in the tennis world, and I declare myself as a supporter of an open Wimbledon. I welcome what the British authorities have done, awkward though it may be in the coming months. However, it is proper to inquire whether there is any Governmental thinking on the present controversy, and perhaps the Minister would care to take this opportunity to express the Government's attitude.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a little wider than the subject which he proposed to raise. I do not think that Wimbledon can be classified as a youth organisation.

With the exploits of Mr. Warboys at the age of 14, that might be open to controversy, but, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your Ruling, of course.

To get back to the absolute point, in a sense I want to express an opinion which is different from what I said about athletics and youth in a debate one early morning in March. Following that debate, I had interviews with Harold Abrahams and Arthur Gold, and I would like it to be on record that the views about the Amateur Athletic Association which I expressed then were perhaps less than fair.

All those who give their services to amateur bodies in the cause of youth, particularly among those officials who are extremely conscious of the lack of sporting facilities for 15 to 17 year olds, ought to know that we in this House appreciate the work that they do.

I wish to raise a few more topics. The first of them is to ask the extent to which defence facilities could be used for sports purposes. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will know that as President of the Scottish Amateur Basketball Association I have had correspondence with him about the possible use of the facilities at, for example, the Kirknewton air base. I quite understand that in the final analysis permission for the use of such facilities is a decision for the Ministry of Defence. At the same time, with the defence run-down, although I am aware of the difficulties created by the bringing-back of forces, is it not true that there are a number of gymnasiums and other facilities in the country that could well be used for civil purposes and the kind of purposes with which my hon. Friend is concerned?

I think particularly of the Territorial Army facilities. My specific question is: is the Ministry having talks with the Defence Secretary and his staff on the possibility of using Territorial Army facilities for youth purposes? I emphasise this point; it is practical and sensible and would not cost much money and it would be extremely helpful to many organisations which find it difficult to get facilities in our over-crowded cities. At this time of all times when the Government have had to a certain extent to retrench—I will not say "cutback "because we know that the rate of expansion goes on—there is a argument for a detailed inquiry on a local basis into the ways in which Territorial Army facilities can be used.

It is not only a question of the physical facilities. At a time when Service careers are, perhaps, being brought to a premature end, and those of us who have been defence critics are extremely sensitive on the question of the shattering in most cases of careers, is there not a positive way in which the Department of Education and Science and the Scottish Education Department could take the initiative in approaching the forces in the new situation and saying "We offer such-and-such a career to potential ex-members of the forces who can be coaches or teachers."? I think it quite practical to talk in terms of a crash programme in this respect.

Goodness knows, the shortage of physical training teachers and, indeed, technical teachers is such that some drive and imagination ought to be put into a campaign to provide new careers for members of the forces who through no individual fault of their own find themselves in rather changed circumstances. If I feel passionately strongly on any point this afternoon it is perhaps that one. I want the Government to make clear to the forces that in the new situation there is an alternative career for which some—not all; it is not a panacea —are suitable and where they can find appropriate positions.

The title of the debate is both educational and sporting facilities, and I wish to raise a matter that does not concern sport but on which the Parliamentary Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland have given answers in the House. It concerns the shortage of technical teachers. My information is, for example, that at the Moray House College of Education, Edinburgh, the number of technical teachers in training and likely to come out this year is eight, next year it will be six, and the year after it will be nine. This is to serve as wide an area as the entire south-east of Scotland.

This seems to me to constitute something of a crisis situation. If the debate today is partly in the direction of making sure that when we raise the school-leaving age it is a success, it must be about the provision of facilities in 1972 and 1973, and now is the time to try to grasp the nettle of providing sufficient technical teachers to make sure that when the school-leaving age is raised there is adequate provision. I must warn the Government that as one with a background in this field I should be less than happy about raising the school-leaving age in the absence of proper provision in the technical field because if one is to keep 15- and 16-year olds at school, often against their will, one must provide courses that are relevant, and the course that boys, and many of the girls, too, will see as relevant is precisely the course in technical subjects.

There is also—I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) would raise this—the question of some kind of a package. In a situation where one decides not to raise the school-leaving age, however justified it may be it does not mean to say that the whole saving in future years should go to the Exchequer. I think that at any rate in the next two or three years when the situation, we hope, will become a little better, some of the saving ought to be made up to education. It is my view that one can do this partly by paying perhaps more attention to the campaign that is developing in many quarters, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough, for the provision of pre-schooling and facilities for the under-fives.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now quite wide of his own subject.

Finally, Mr. Speaker— this is absolutely final—on the question of youth I should like to raise one particular proposition. Before enunciating the proposition I should like to quote my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister speaking as Leader of the Opposition at the Oxfam Conference in January, 1964. He said:

" Another task of this Ministry would be to help and encourage voluntary action in this country. Freedom from Hunger, Oxfam, War on Want, have shown the great and inspiring desire of our people to play a part in the war on world hunger. I should like—as I said on T.V. the night I was elected Leader of the Labour Party—to see special encouragement given to adoption schemes under which goodwill organisations here, churches, towns, cities, villages, Rotary and Round Tables, scouts and guides, schools, etc. adopt villages or communities overseas, and supply them with school-buildings and perhaps teachers, hospitals, doctors and nurses, agriculture, industrial and transport equipment."

What my right hon. Friend was getting at, I think, in that memorable speech was the proposition that youth had a great deal to give in the British aid programme. There are some of us who, while proud of the fact that the aid programme has been kept more or less intact, think that rather than giving money to large projects the same resources perhaps could be better spent in helping organisations, and particularly youth organisations, in this country on a £ for £ basis because this would create an attitude of continuity and sustained relationship with organisations in developing countries.

This is not the occasion for me to go into the various disputes that I have had with the visiting Prime Minister of Singapore. None the less, what Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and I agree upon is the possibility of using defence facilities in Singapore for youth purposes, and perhaps for teacher-training purposes as well, and I hope that when certain propositions are put to the Department of Education and Science, to the Foreign Office, and to the Secretary of State for Defence, they will be given a searching appreciation as something that could be based on a kind of practical reality.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence in this matter. I feel that it is relevant to our present discussions.

We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for raising this subject. We discuss many things in the House, but we seldom seem to discuss sport, whether as it affects very young people, or as it affects those of us who are not quite so young. This topic is discussed more than any other by the man in the street, in pubs, and elsewhere, and when people open their newspapers in the morning, the first page that most of them read—and I have sad news for the Government, because I, too, do this—is not the front page, but the back one.

The subject about which I particularly want to talk, and I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order in doing so, is amateurism and professionalism in sport, and particularly what is known as "shamateurism". It is a dreadful word, but it is indicative of the disrepute into which sport has fallen. I think that I shall not be out of order in discussing this, because shamateurism not merely takes the form of back handers, or expenses, but can take the form of sponsorships, of education being provided for young people at a very early age to enable them to carry on what is virtually professionalism in sport.

I shall be glad to hear the Minister's view on what representations he has made, or what conversations he has had, with the governing bodies of sporting organisations, particularly those bodies which govern both amateur and professional sport, about getting some form of rational definition of what constitutes a professional, and what constitutes an amateur. The Minister has strong views on this. He has expressed them before, and I shall be grateful for his opinions now.

All those who take an interest in sport were gratified at the refreshing decision of the Lawn Tennis Association, to which my hon. Friend referred, to get rid of the hypocrisy which has surrounded this branch of sport for so long.

Order. The hon. Member must lower his sights a little and come to the youth of England.

If we are to have any help at all in international sport, it depends on the youth of England. This is what I thought I was talking about. Unlike my hon. Friend, I have not recently met any Prime Ministers, so I cannot bring them into it.

Having made the point, which I shall not be able to expand, not having the wisdom of my hon. Friend so to do, perhaps I might touch briefly on the subject of athletics, which affects young people. What have been the results of the considerable Government assistance to our Olympics squad? This is the first Government in history who have actively done something about seeing that our competitors at the Olympic Games are for once not only properly acclimatised, but properly trained. Many of our swimmers are extremely young. Possibly some of them are no more than 16, so I think that I am not out of order in raising this issue. I have asked the Minister about this before, and received a satisfactory answer. I should like to give him this further opportunity of expanding on what he said then.

My hon. Friend has covered almost every aspect of the sporting scene. I do not think that, without getting completely out of order, and without again delving into Prime Ministerial level, I can expand on it. I do, however, welcome the opportunity of asking the Minister to clarify the two or three points which I have raised.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on raising this matter today. I know that this has been a particular interest of his—as it is of mine—for some time.

I wish to raise only one general point. It arises from the extra leisure time which young people now have, and which will increase in the years ahead. In spite of the excellent sentiment of the "Back Britain" movement to work an extra half hour a day, as time goes on the working week will be shortened. Therefore, it is very important that, in lieu of the increasing of the school-leaving age, proper attention should be given to the problems of the young and their leisure. Is my hon. Friend in a position to inform us of how this side of his work is developing, whether any particular pattern is emerging?

In my own constituency, I am very keen to develop sports centres for young workers who do not have the benefit of sports facilities provided by universities or colleges. Can my hon. Friend tell us of any trends or ideas he has in this direction?

I appreciate the ingenuity of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in finding an opportunity, in the space of 24 hours, to raise a matter which many of us would not have expected to find a place in Parliament, certainly this week. Some extremely interesting points have been raised in the debate and I shall do my best to answer most of those you declare to be in order, Mr. Speaker, as briefly and as adequately as I can. I thank my hon. Friend for the personal references he made at the beginning of his speech. I much appreciated them.

My hon. Friend took as his starting point the question of the 15 to 16 year old age group, mainly in view of the decision to postpone the raising of the school leaving age. The easy thing— indeed, the correct thing—to say in answer to that is that nothing has changed in that respect. This group will continue to have the same provision or lack of provision in the country for the two years during which the raising of the school leaving age is postponed which it enjoys or does not enjoy at present.

But it is true to say that, in the youth and sport activities for which I have special responsibilities, throughout the last three years we have made considerable progress in trying to change the thinking and ideas of people and voluntary and statutory bodies in order that leisure facilities available to youth can be more geared to the needs of our present-day society. I think that we can claim some encouraging movement and change of thinking, both in the local authorities and in the sporting and recreational bodies, along these lines. I shall endeavour to show in detail some of these changes as I come to them.

This especially applies to recreational facilities in respect of the detailed points made about overseas aid and the use of young people and youth groups for service overseas. But that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development and not for my Department. I shall certainly see that my hon. Friend's comments are conveyed to him.

The Youth Service has been geared for many years to the old traditional forms of youth clubs and youth service organisations and it is no disrespect to them to say that, if we are to gear ourselves to the current thinking of young people, we have to change our ideas and the services we offer very radically.

I served on the Albemarle Committee, which reported to the House in 1960 about youth service. At the time, we thought that one-third of the youth of the country were involved in some form of youth service, that one-third could not be expected to be so involved because they were in higher education and that one-third were what came to be known as "unattached" and upon whom there should be a special attack—if that is the right word. After studying some researches which I have had done, far from one-third of our youth being involved in youth organisations, I would be surprised if the percentage is half that, which clearly shows that the problem of the unattached and so on is greater than ever before.

One of the reasons is that young people do not want to belong to a set organisation with a formal obligation of attendance at a club, week in and week out, in the way that they did in our day. What they want is youth organisations servicing their needs in many ways, and it is this new thinking that I am trying to encourage. It can best be done by the existing organisations and I think that they themselves believe this. One of the most heartening things is the idealism of young people who want to give voluntary service to the community in so many different ways.

For this reason, the Government recently announced the setting-up of a new trust, the Young Volunteer Force Foundation, with an eminent set of trustees, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) as Chairman and, as Vice-Chairmen, the right hon. and learned Member for the Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). A very formidable all-party team is thus now engaged in trying to create, throughout the country, opportunities for young people to give voluntary service. The Government have backed them with a grant of £100,000, and I understand that the Trustees will shortly be making an appeal to raise similar sums for even more.

The object of the scheme is that a central unit of 30 young people would go, at the invitation of a local authority or other responsible body, into an area to set up a local scheme, and create a local initiative, and to find jobs which need to be done. I assure the House that there is no shortage of these social service tasks. They include helping old people in their homes by caring for them or by decorating, working in hospitals, and helping to reclaim derelict land like that of the Coal Board for recreational areas. A whole host of jobs needs to be done.

The second task is to form a local organisation to bring in local businessmen, Rotarians, chambers of commerce and trade unions to help support such a local initiative. Having found the jobs needed and created the organisation, the third thing, of course, is to attract young people to the idea of giving service by doing a specific job.

The growth of this development has been almost phenomenal and already, in the month or two that this unit has been established, and the director, Mr. Anthony Steen, has been appointed, the most heartening thing has been the number of local authorities which have told the unit, "This is exactly the sort of thing which we want in our area. When can you come and create such a scheme here?" The fear already is that they will be overwhelmed with work.

I must emphasise that they are not going into any area to interfere with any of the existing voluntary schemes. That is the last thing in our minds. There is such a need for voluntary service and so many social service requirements in our society and such a large number of young people who, I feel, should be attracted to this sort of work that there is certainly room for all comers, with no intention of duplication, overlapping or elimination of existing voluntary services.

Because the Government thought that this was a tremendous break-through in social and youth service, we felt that this pioneering work, which is so often supported by voluntary bodies, should be given the stimulus of active Government support. I am sure that the whole House will wish the new unit well and the people trying to direct it. I mention this particularly because this is exactly the sort of sphere in which we can give new opprtunities to the 15- and 16-year-old age group which my hon. Friend mentioned.

My hon. Friend asked specifically about an Air Force base in Scotland and a general question about Territorial Army drill halls, and made the proper and pertinent point that, as these facilities become redundant and on the market, they should be taken over for community service actvities and, if necessary, for sports facilities. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland took careful note of the point about basket ball and will let my hon. Friend know what is the position.

I share the views expressed by my hon. Friend about drill halls, and so does the Sports Council, to whom this matter was referred at a very early stage. Immediately we knew that drill halls were coming on to the market, we had each one of them examined from the point of view of use for sport and recreation. We drew up certain categories. It is obvious that all drill halls have good social facilities, for they have had officers' and warrant officers' messes and amenities for other ranks. They usually have a very large hall or a parade ground which could be floodlit.

The Sports Council and my Department arranged for the Regional Sports Councils to make a detailed investigation of each of the drill halls which became available. On that basis we were able to advise local authorities which of these drill halls were suitable for them to take over and to tell them that if they wished to take them over for community purposes, the Government would arrange for local authorities in those circumstances to be treated on the same level as any other Government Department.

I am happy to say that that process is continuing and that quite a number of drill halls are being turned into sports halls. As more of them become available—if they do become available—I hope that a similar process will be followed because, as my hon. Friend rightly said, they provide excellent facilities at very small cost indeed and with very little use of the capital resources of the nation. Such a policy makes good economic sense in these days.

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent answer. Will he tell me who is to be the catalyst who takes the initiative with local authorities? Could information be sent to local authorities pointing out that there has been this change in defence policy and that now is the time for them to take this action? That is the problem.

It is the Sports Council. In the Department we work in very close collaboration with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence. We are given advance notice of drill halls which are to become redundant. We ask our Regional Sports Councils to look at each of them and to apply the criteria laid down. Where they think that a drill hall would be suitable for conversion to a sports hall we immediately inform the local authority. Indeed, I believe that we do the survey in association with the local authority. If the local authority are interested in taking over a hall, they notify us and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. There is special machinery to deal with these problems.

I turn to the questions which my hon. Friend asked about the Youth Service. First, he asked about the Fairbairn Committee. Because I think that the Youth Service has to change its outlook and its thinking—I sit as Chairman of the Youth Service Development Council —I have had some working parties set up to bring that change about. One of them was the Bessey Committee, which recommended Service by Youth. I have reported to the House what happened in respect of that Report. The second was the John Hunt Working Party, which looked into the question of immigrants and the youth service, a matter of very great importance. I cannot go into that matter in great detail except to say that I have recently had discussions with over 20 local education authorities, who have to bear the brunt of the immigrant youth problem, in order to make sure that they are looking ahead to provide for the time when the large number of immigrants in our schools move into the area for which the youth service is responsible. That Report has created such interest that all copies of it have been sold out by the Stationery Office. However, I understand that a reprint has either recently been made or is in the process of being made. Two working parties have, therefore, looked into the problems and have reported on them.

Two other major matters needed consideration and, in this connection, I considered that they should be the subjects of two further working parties. The Fairbairn Committee is looking into the whole future of the Youth Service in relation to schools and formal education —the part that the Service and formal education can play together. In other words, it is looking at the bottom age range within the Service. The Youth Service ranges from the age of 14 to 20 and the Fairbairn Committee is looking at the problems at the early end of that range.

Meanwhile, the Milson Committee, which is being chaired by a tutor of Westhill College for youth leaders, is looking at the problems at the top end of the age range and is advising me about the future of the Youth Service in relation to the community as a whole. The Youth Service Development Council is now looking ahead fundamentally at the future needs of, and provision for, youth, both in relation to formal education, and the changes that will occur in that, and in respect of the community as a whole, bearing in mind the need for better facilities, social service needs, and so on. I will certainly arrange for the Reports of these Committees to be published as a contribution to public thought and discussion. I will do that particularly in view of the wonderful response to the first two Reports of the working parties.

Although I will return to the subject of sport, it might be helpful if, at this point, I refer to capital grants in the Youth Service, having regard to the present economic situation. This is a time when we must get value for money. That is the key to the problem. It is a time when some sacrifices must be made in the programmes that we are carrying. This week we have spent two whole days discussing the economy.

We expect that next year our programme of capital grants for the Youth Service—that is, grants for the building of youth clubs—will not be £4·8 million but £3·8 million, a reduction of 20 per cent. This figure was mentioned by the Prime Minister earlier this week. This underlies the need to get multi-use buildings and to design our schools and sports facilities for use with this in mind.

I assure the House that this is something extremely dear to my heart. It is a campaign which I started three years ago, when I took my present job, and I assure hon. Members that I intend to put every possible momentum into this attack. I will return to this subject later in my remarks, when I speak about sport generally.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian asked me to comment on the training of Scottish technical teachers. I am told by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has been listening to this discussion, that my hon. Friend is right and that there is a shortage of technical teachers. While the Government would not accept everything that my hon. Friend said on this score, I assure him that they share his concern.

I gather that a working party has recently reported on the subject of training technical teachers and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is giving his urgent consideration to that Report. My hon. Friend will, no doubt, pursue this matter when Scottish affairs are debated. This must be something of an historic moment; perhaps the first time that an English Minister has been asked to speak on Scottish affairs. I do so gladly. I am always glad to get into the pages of history.

I therefore turn to sporting matters. I was asked questions about lawn tennis— my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) asked whether I had a Government view on this matter—and the distinction between amateurism and professionalism. One of the great problems that I have always to consider in carrying out my duties is to maintain a delicate balance between the justly independent interests of sport and the need to produce political assistance for sport and to make quite sure that there is no political direction of sport. Therefore, although I have my own views, which I will give presently, I do not think that this is a matter on which the Government are called upon to express any governmental thinking or view.

It is, however, worth saying that both the amateur and the professional in any sport have a very proper place in our order of things. I have certainly never approached my task with the view that the amateur is more important than the professional, or vice versa. I am often asked why I bother so much with the World Cup, why I do not concentrate on the Olympic Games and questions of that sort.

In many sports, it is not easy to draw a dividing line. There will always be a place for the true amateur, who, indeed, represents the broad mass of sportsmen of whom we are speaking. Ninety-eight per cent, of all sport in this country is played by amateurs, and it is proper that the Government are giving attention to their needs.

To say that, however, is to cast no doubt on the proper place of professionals in sport in our society. In my view, few higher compliments can be paid to a man than to say that he is a true professional, a master of the whole of the art of his sport and his following. That, therefore, is my background thinking before passing a specific comment on lawn tennis.

All sportsmen must, I think, welcome the move which is being made by the Lawn Tennis Association to terminate the falsehoods and the hypocrisy which have so long dominated that sport. The L.T.A. has shown considerable courage. While it is a matter entirely for that Association and, therefore, no words of mine might be important, the Association should have the encouragement of all true sportsmen in what it is trying to do. I certainly congratulate the Association on what it is doing. One can be proud to be a true amateur or of being a true professional. The humbug is when a man or woman who is one of these pretends to be the other. It is this humbug which the Lawn Tennis Association is trying to eradicate.

I was asked about industrial sports facilities. I was delighted about this and did not expect it. The Sports Council has recently had a working party under the chairmanship of Mr. Gibb, who serves on the Sports Council, representing industrial interests, to advise us what the business, commercial and industrial world thinks about sport and its development, because we were convinced that there was under-use of industrial sports facilities.

Most hon. Members know that I have made many speeches about the need to open up schools after hours to make sure that school playing fields are opened up at weekends and during school holidays. There was a tendency to forget that perhaps the biggest source of underused sports facilities was in the industrial sports sector.

If I may modestly say so, having read my speeches on this matter, I received a communication from Lord Pilkington, who said that he entirely agreed about this. He asked the Sports Council to advise him how his industrial facilities should be developed in future, not merely for the use of his workpeople, although that would be their prime importance, but also for the benefit generally of the neighbourhood of St. Helens, in Lancashire, where his works are situated. We were delighted to have that approach from Lord Pilkington. We established a working party comprising representatives not only of the Sports Council and of Pilkington's and Beecham's, the other great industrial concern in St. Helens, but also of local authorities in St. Helens and elsewhere in Lancashire. They have recently produced for me a fascinating document about the whole development of sports facilities. We are hoping to publish it shortly for the guidance of local authorities and industrial concerns. I hope that it will set the pattern for future co-operative efforts needed among all such organisations.

My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) asked questions about growth sports. This is another specific area of activity to which the Sports Council has given particular attention. A research committee of the Sports Council is presided over by Dr. Roger Bannister, another well-known name in British sport. We are fortunate in having him because he not only knows the needs of sportsmen, but he is a distinguished medical man. That committee has started work on some very important research, particularly to help our athletes and sportsmen in the special problems of this year's Olympic Games in Mexico where they will have to compete at high altitudes in a rarefied atmosphere. Dr. Bannister and his committee are turning their attention to sociological matters and this again is of great interest.

I have some figures about the sports which we consider great growth sports. They underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian about the need for indoor facilities and multi-use of facilities. In England and Wales in 1939 there were 1,312 badminton clubs. This last year the number has gone up to 2,975. The manufacturers tell us that the sales of badminton equipment showed a 40 per cent, increase in 1965 as against 10 years earlier. That is evidence of rapid growth. Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of growth of badminton is in the number of sessions or classes provided by the Inner London Education Committee in its evening institutes. In 1950, there were only six classes involved in coaching in badminton and by 1967 there were 609, a dramatic increase.

These figures have been provided by the Director of the Sports Council, Mr. Winterbottom, because we feel that the Sports Council must keep ahead of sociological changes and understand the growth of sports. Judo is another such sport. In 1948, there were 30 clubs and in this last year there were 600. This is one of the great growth sports in schools. The Amateur Judo Association was formed only very recently and it has experienced considerable growth in its activities. The British Schools Judo Association was formed only in 1963, but four years later it already has 16,000 members throughout the country practising judo in schools. That is another commentary on British youth of a kind not often read about in some of the popular newspapers. The number of classes in judo in London has risen from 50 in 1950 to 379.

Gliding is another growth sport. In 1946, there were 27 clubs. In 1965 there were 60. In 1946, gliders spent 1,667 happy flying hours. In 1965, the figure had risen dramatically to 37,617. That included one hour which I spent in a glider. There are over 80 different sports and recreations being carried on at present in Britain. As I go round the country, I am asked to practise all of them. Gliding is one. Deep sea angling is another.

I confess that there is only one sport which I have so far in these three years refused to practise—parachute jumping. At the time the Government had a majority of three, and I thought that I was fully justified in protecting the Prime Minister's interests.

Golf is another great growth game. In 1955, 98,559 rounds were played on the Birmingham public courses. In 1967, that figure had risen to 178,199. Sales of golf equipment rose from £731,768 in 1958 to £1,013,943 in 1964. The fact that the sport is now so much big business and so important to the business community is an added argument to those advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lotian about the need for recreational facilities.

What representations does my hon. Friend make to Departments such as the Board of Trade and the Department of Economic Affairs, when they are experiencing difficulty in bringing employment to a certain area, positively to create sporting facilities in that area by giving it a certain priority? I cannot stress sufficiently that economic development depends on such an amenity. I want to know what initiative my hon. Friend takes.

I am sure that my hon. Friend wants to know. I have made a note of that question. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to come to it in my own good time. I hope to deal briefly with that point.

Sailing is another growth sport. Sales of new boats rose from £11·3 million in 1962 to £14·6 million in 1964. The number of clubs recognised by the Royal Yachting Association has increased from 315 in 1939, to 885 in 1958, and to 1,341 in 1965. This again demonstrates the growth of recreational sports.

Finally, in this part of my remarks, perhaps the greatest growth of all has taken place in squash. This has a great deal of attraction for many people because a great deal of energy can be expended and a great deal of exercise obtained in a short time. I recall the balmier days before I became a Minister of the Crown when I occasionally played squash with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, an experience which I always enjoyed, though I rarely succeeded in winning. The development in squash has been slower than that in other sports because of the expense of erecting squash courts. We believe that the potential of squash is as great as, if not greater than, that in any other sport. In 1948, there were 208 clubs. Today, there are 455. For this reason, perhaps, income from the six squash courts at the National Recreation Centre at Crystal Palace in 1966 –67 was almost £8,000.

May I now turn to the Reports about which I was asked. The Byers Report relates to an inquiry into the future of athletics in this country, and the Chester Report follows an inquiry into the future of association football in this country. My hon. Friend was critical of both Reports—I thought perhaps more critical of the football inquiry than the athletic one—and said that a year or a year and a half was a long time in which to bring out a Report. I shall be talking to Lord Byers very soon about his Report. He tells me that the Committee is now concluding its work and expects to deliver its report in March. This evening I shall be seeing Mr. Chester, who is a warden of Nuffield College, Oxford, when I visit that establishment, and I shall ask him about the possibility of presenting his Report. I understand that it is expected that the Chester Committee will be able to report in about the middle of this year.

I ought to say that when we set up Committees it ought not to be thought that the object of the exercise is to procrastinate and to get no answers. That was certainly far from my mind in the case of these two Committees. One thing that a Report can do is to create a climate of opinion in the country, and that is essential so far as sport is concerned. Therefore, I prefer a Committee to take a longer time rather than a shorter time in its deliberations, provided it gets the answers right.

I am glad the House has taken note of the fact that for the first time we have been able to offer grants to the sports organisations for pre-Olympic training. I have mentioned the research which has been conducted, financed partly by the Sports Council, into high altitude training which is necessary for competing in Mexico. We were able to negotiate with the French Minister of Sport for the use of high altitude facilities specifically for British sports, and three sports groups went to Font Romeu in the Pyrennees last year to take advantage of the kind offer of the French Government and to do some practical training at an altitude similar to that which they will experience in Mexico. Those three sports are athletics, weight-lifting and modern pentathlon.

In the period between now and the Mexico Games in October, seven groups of sports have already shown interest in sending teams, which the Government will help to finance, to give our British sportsmen and women every possible opportunity of acclimatisation. Those sports are weight-lifting, swimming, modern pentathlon, athletics, fencing, wrestling and canoeing.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington mentioned, we have also for the first time offered financial help to enable squads to be brought together and to try and get Olympic training on that basis. I can say that this new approach to sport is doing extremely well. The formation of squads to give international training and coaching to the people who are likely to represent us in the Mexico Games has been warmly welcomed. We have already had intimations from the governing bodies for swimming, weight lifting, gymnastics, athletics, hockey, the Horse Society, basketball and sailing, saying that they wish to take advantage of the Government scheme under this heading.

The Commonwealth Games in 1970 has been the subject of considerable controversy in Scotland and elsewhere and, therefore, perhaps I may be excused for saying only a few words on this subject. I am particularly grateful for the close co-operation of my Ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office on this matter, especially since it is on their Vote that any help which the Government give has to be made available. I went to Edinburgh last weekend to talk to the Lord Provost and the organising committee about a whole range of details—reception for competitors, reception for the Press, reception for the public, the Meadow-bank facilities, the stadium and a swimming bath.

It is my belief that Scotland will put on the Commonwealth Games in a first-class manner and the country will be proud of the way the Games are staged there in 1970. There is still the problem of cycling, to which my hon. Friend referred, but 1 understand that Edinburgh and the Commonwealth Games organisation are shortly to meet the Scottish cyclists and the British Cycling Federation. We all have high hopes that agreement about the cycle track can be reached. This will then complete the whole picture.

I was pleased to be asked about school sports and school sports associations, and I am delighted that you have now returned to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, as I know your great personal interest in school sports and sports associations. We have for the first time properly recognised school sports associations in this country and we are trying to give them help in the work they are doing. There must be tens of thousands of school teachers giving us most commendable voluntary service in order to make it possible for young people, boys and girls, to enjoy good healthy recreation in the schools. It is a great voluntary service, and we thought in the Government—I certainly feel strongly about it—that these people who have been running national school sports on a shoe-string for so long ought to be given every help and encouragement. This should be done for their own sake, but there is another very good reason which affects British sport as a whole. The standards which are set in school sports and the enthusiasm created there are the very foundation of the future of British sport. I am glad to say that, under this head, 19 schools sports bodies now receive help and some encouragement from my Department. I hope that this will grow. It is something only recently started, and I know that it is welcomed in the education world.

Now, the question of coaching. I shall briefly give the facts, which speak for themselves more adequately than anything I could say. In 1963 and 1964, the amount of money given by the Govern- ment to aid administration and coaching was £381,000, going to 44 governing bodies of sport. This year, the sum has risen to £652,000, going to 111 bodies in this country. We can all be pleased about that.

The development committee and the coaching committee of the Sports Council have met all the 160 governing bodies of sport in this country and have asked each one of them for a five-year development plan in the hope that we can thereafter sit down and work things out together, through the Sports Council. I am happy to say that 30 of these bodies have already submitted their five-year plans, and we have high hopes that the others are doing their thinking, working out their arithmetic and preparing proposals about which they will soon be talking to us.

Next, the question of regionalism and finance. As the House knows, we have established nine regional sports councils in England, and we have a sports council for Scotland and one for Wales. Each of these 11 bodies has completed its initial appraisal and survey—the one for London is yet to be published—and these are showing the main deficiencies and, therefore, the need for the greatest priorities. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian that, as he suspects, the greatest need of all is for multi-purpose facilities which can be used by many different sports.

It amazes me how little provision we have made for indoor facilities to cope with our climate and the fact that we have so much bad weather with it getting dark so early in the day for the greater part of the year. However, we hope to make great progress.

I want to say a word about the regional sports councils. It is a tremendous tribute to local government that the councils are working so well and do such a tremendous amount of work. The establishment of these councils is a most heartening sign in the whole sporting scene. I want to pay tribute to the local government officials, particularly planning officers, who have carried the bulk of the burden in getting out the initial appraisals.

I spoke about finance earlier and pointed out that these are difficult times. The amount of direct money which the Government gave to sport, including the facilities in local government and education, was £900,000 in 1964–65. This year, it reached £2 million. I might, in passing, say to my hon. Friend that I do not think that this was the week for him to ask the Government to embark on great schemes of aid to regional and local authorities, although we want to see regional schemes coming into existence as fast as we can.

There is bound to be some curtailment of the help which the Government can give to sports organisations, and, therefore, this will affect the facilities available to the age groups to which my hon. Friend referred. However, it underlines the importance of the point which he made, with which I agree wholeheartedly, that we must be more selective in the places in which we put our money. We must ensure that we have multi-purpose facilities, and we have' to encourage the joint use and opening of multi-purpose projects. We have to design our schools to bring this about. It is near criminal to build schools which are not properly designed for general community use as well as for educational use, and the same applies generally to sport and the youth service.

Although I am conscious that I have taken longer than I intended, I hope that I have dealt with all the questions of which my hon. Friends gave me notice and that, in spite of the economic difficulties of the last three years, they find the progress report which they asked to be encouraging, as I believe it to be.