My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, my right honourable friend has had an opportunity of reading the judgment, which includes the points noted by the noble Lord. The compulsory purchase order was made by the Council in their capacity as coast protection authority and related to land proposed to be acquired in connection with a scheme of coast protection works. The recommendation of the inspector who presided at the public inquiry arising from objections to the order and the scheme was that the order should not be confirmed, on the ground that the scheme of works could be carried out even though the Council did not own the land.

My right honourable friend nevertheless confirmed the order, for reasons which were set out in his decision letter. He had regard to the considerable cost and to the permanent nature of the proposed works, and considered that as the Council already owned the foreshore in the vicinity of those works it was appropriate that they should own the freehold of the land required for the works rather than have to exercise their powers to construct them on land not vested in the Council. He also had in mind the urgency of the works—a point which was stressed by the inspector. In his view, the area proposed to be acquired was not unreasonably large in relation to the scale of the works, and bearing in mind that the exact line of the proposed wall could not be defined with accuracy. It was no part of my right honourable friend's reasons for confirming the order that the Council wished to have a paved promenade behind the works. He was aware of this wish, and took pains to impress upon the Council in the decision letter that, although he confirmed the compulsory purchase order without modification, there was in his view no case for paving this strip of land.

It emerged at the inquiry that, in deciding to make the order, the Council had been advised by their surveyor, and not by their consultants for the work, as they had previously claimed. As I have already indicated, my right honourable friend took his decision on his own view, reached in the light of the evidence given at the inquiry, about the amount of land which the Council reasonably required for the purposes of the scheme. He was in no way endorsing any purpose other than coast protection which may have been in the mind of the Council. As your Lordships are aware, the learned Judge has himself severely rebuked the Council for such of their actions as were reprehensible. Reports of the case will be diligently studied in my right honourable friend's Department and, he is sure, also by local authorities. He believes, however, that the circumstances of the case have been quite exceptional and that there is no general action open to him which would not imply an unwarranted reflection on the good faith with which local authorities use their powers.

My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that the Council has been definitely accused of bad faith in making the compulsory purchase order and publishing a document which contains much that was manifestly false to its knowledge, and is he not aware that the Minister has in fact condoned both these actions by confirming the compulsory purchase order, against the advice of the inspector? And while recognising that any Minister may make a mistake, or may even give a decision without having read the relevant documents, would it not have been more frank to the House if that had been accepted—that it was a mistake of the Minister—instead of trying to justify his action?

My Lords, the matter before the Minister really was to decide whether the land was in fact required, and therefore I could not accept that he was condoning an action which was condemned by the Judge as in bad faith. He was aware, of course, that there had been this mistake in presentation, but he did not think that affected the question whether the land was in fact really required for these works. He came to the opinion that it was required. As to the rest of the noble Lord's question, whether it would not be better for my right honourable friend to accept that a mistake has been made, of course there is no question of questioning in any way the Judge's findings or his comments, and I made a careful and long statement giving, as I think the House would wish, the Minister's considered reasons for going against his own inspector.

My Lords, the noble Lord has not really answered the case. The case is that both these findings set out in the Question were contained in the inspector's report. If the Minister had read the inspector's report carefully, he would have found that the compulsory purchase order was based on bad faith and was being supported by false statements, according to the report of the inspector. Was there not, therefore, an obligation on the Minister not to confirm the order, in those circumstances, but to take some steps? I do not know whether it is intended to take further action over this. I do not know whether the noble Lord realises it is a very serious matter. It approximates to the Crichel Down case, where the facts were very similar, and I do not think it should be allowed just to drop in this way.

My Lords, I would say once again that my right honourable friend was acting entirely in good faith. The fact that the evidence given at the public inquiry showed that the advice given to the Council came from a different source from that which had been claimed, was known. But it was still the opinion of my right honourable friend that this land was desirable for the carrying out of the works, and my right honourable friend did dissociate himself most particularly and entirely from the question of obtaining land for putting the paved promenade behind it, which he says specifically in his decision letter was not necessary. If the Council had pursued that course, it would, no doubt, have led to other difficulties for the Council with its ratepayers. As for carrying out any further action, I said my right honorable friend is considering the matter most carefully within his Department, and I am sure he will take any action necessary to see that mistakes of this nature do not occur again.

My Lords, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I should like to give the noble Lord notice that I will take an early opportunity—as early as I can in the short time remaining available this Session—of raising this matter again in the House.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, there are now 10 groups of housing authorities in England and Wales, comprising 70 authorities, and accounting for about one-quarter of the local authority house building programme. My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government believes that the development of group action by the principal house-building authorities can make an important contribution to increased productivity, by aggregating their requirements for houses and house components so as as to place big orders and thus facilitate forward planning by the building industry, and by providing opportunities for the development of industrialised methods. My right honourable friend's Department has accordingly held a series of conferences and discussions with some 440 housing authorities, and further discussions are now going on between many of these authorities which should soon lead to more groups being formed.

My right honourable friend is continuing to help both the existing groups and those in formation with the services of his techincal and administrative officers.

My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that satisfactory reply, may I ask him three short supplementary questions? First of all, will New Town schemes and overspill schemes receive priority in these matters? Secondly, how many local authorities are now discussing grouping, and what proportion of the public house-building programme is accounted for here? Thirdly, how will authorities who do not join groups be able to get advice on the schemes of system building?

My Lords, in answer to the first supplementary of my noble friend, New Towns, of course, have a tremendously important part to play. They are already using new systems of building which make better use of site labour and of a wide range of factory-made components; and they have also been joining in the discussions and conferences which my right honourable friend has arranged, and are considering the possibilities of co-operation between themselves, in order to place bigger orders, or between themselves and groups of local authorities.

The second question, concerned the number of local authorities. I said that 440 had been discussing these matters. In addition to the 10 groups I mentioned, there are 26 informal groups now holding technical discussions to find out how they can work together. These 26 groups, with the other 10, represent about three-quarters of the building of all council houses in 1963. The third supplementary referred to small authorities outside such groups. The National Building Agency which has been set up by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Public Building and Works, will, of course, help these small authorities greatly and encourage the wider use of system buildings, and will help them in co-ordinating and generally carrying out their programmes.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the old lighting of Birdcage Walk fell well below the standard of illumination required for such a busy road, and its inadequacy was a contributory cause of two recent serious accidents, one of them fatal. My right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works has accordingly decided to improve the lighting in the interests of safety. This could not be done by converting the existing standards, as they were not tall enough for the purpose and the lanterns were not large enough to house sufficiently powerful electric bulbs. The new lighting standards are of the same pattern as those in Parliament Square and are designed to harmonise with their surroundings. But in view of the charm and interest of the old standards my right honourable friend has decided to retain them in addition to the new standards.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that unusual Answer, is he not aware that it would be a perfectly simple mechanical matter to put a longer standard on the old existing lamp standard? What they are doing is in bad taste. Would it not be practicable for the Government to set up a small committee of half a dozen people who recognise good taste, and refer a matter like this to them, rather than waste money, as they are doing now?

My Lords, I can but convey my noble friend's comments to my right honourable friend the Minister.

My Lords, is the suggestion that the existing lights are being retained merely for their charm and interest, and not for the illumination they will provide? It seems an extra-ordinary doctrine.

What is the answer?

My Lords, I do not think that really any answer is called for. As I said, the existing illumination is unsatisfactory, and that is why new lights are being provided.

The new lights are to provide the illumination, and the old ones to provide the charm and interest. That seems rather extraordinary.

My Lords, it is the fact that some people admire the old standards. They think that they are a feature of Birdcage Walk to which we are accustomed, and that it would be a pity to remove them.

My Lords, is it not possible to combine charm and light?

This pattern is the same as exists in Parliament Square. That pattern was architect-designed, and there was no complaint at that time—in fact I do not believe there has been complaint about Parliament Square at any time. These standards are of special design and patented, I believe, by the Westminster City Council, who use them only in special circumstances and have given permission for them to be used in this case. A great deal of trouble has been taken over them, and if they are examined closely (the standards at present in Birdcage Walk are not yet finished, of course, but one can look at those in Parliament Square for a proper comparison) I suggest that they are perhaps not in such bad taste as has been indicated.

My Lords, are these old standards to be lit, or are they to be there merely as monuments?

I am afraid that I cannot give a straight answer to that question: I do not know whether they will be lit or not. I imagine not.

My Lords, does not this seem to be following the same kind of spendthrift policy the Government have adopted over the past thirteen years? This is why our Budget now is £7,000 million instead of £4,000 million.

It is a question of the standard of lighting and safety for pedestrians.

My Lords, what was the past illumination of these individual standards, and what will be the future illumination of these other standards?

If the noble Lord is talking about kilowatt power, I am afraid that I cannot give the technical answer offhand; but they would be lighting standards suitable for the main road which Birdcage Walk has become. They are the same standards as obtain at each end of Birdcage Walk.

The noble Lord said that the illumination with the old standards was insufficient, and I presumed that the number of lumens was insufficient. I was wondering what was the new standard of illumination required to light up the road satisfactorily.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, this is now primarily for the British Waterways Board to consider, and I think we should await the outcome of the comprehensive survey of their waterways and the consultations on which they are engaged. They have already held discussions with several canal trusts and associations about the possibilities of restoration. The leasing of waterways may not necessarily be the best way of ensuring co-operation between the Board and such bodies.

My Lords, can the noble Lord say how long we are to wait before this final report is issued, and whether there is any chance of any action being taken before then? It has been understood that this final report may well take some years to produce.

My Lords, in view of the fact that the interim report was published only in December last, I should be misleading the House if I said that I expected it soon. The Board have a tremendous amount of work to do which, as the noble Viscount has agreed with me in the past, they are tackling with considerable enthusiasm. They will certainly require time to do that. But, as the noble Viscount also knows, there is no bar of principle erected against any such arrangements if they prove to be suitable.

My Lords, as the report on the canals under discussion appears to indicate that a lot of public work has been done privately without cost to the public authority, will the Government announce that they take a favourable view of this kind of activity by public bodies?

That, of course, has already been announced, but I cannot here say a flat "Yes" in principle to a number of schemes which are not yet put forward. Each one will have to be considered on its merits first by the Board, and then, if necessary, by the Government. I would point out to my noble friend that the interest of the Government in the scheme on which the noble Viscount based his Question, was rather more than a benevolent one and included £20,000.

My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that at some suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Chesham will be making a statement on the VC 10.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is to confirm a Provisional Order which has been made by my right honourable friend under Section 303 of the Public Health Act, 1875. Section 303 of that Act enables my right honourable friend, on the application of a local authority wholly or partially to repeal, alter or amend, with certain exceptions, by means of a Provisional Order any local Act which relates to the same subject-matter as the Act of 1875. This particular Bill concerns the Sea Defence Commissioners in the Lancing area of me Worthing Rural District Council. It happens that, owing to an old enactment, the people in the Lancing area pay not only the general rates levied by the Worthing Rural District Council for coast protection, but also a special rate to the Sea Defence Commissioners. They are to be relieved of that anomalous position. The Sea Defence Commissioners will recover their precepts from the Rural District Council, and the load will be spread out among the general rate for all inhabitants. That is the purpose of this Bill.

My Lords, I beg to move, That the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th June be approved. The purpose of these draft Regulations is so to adapt the levy scheme that it will not discourage the showing of British, as opposed to foreign, films on pay-television during the forth- coming experiments. The intention of the levy is of course to help British film producers. During the experiments in pay-television announced by my right honourable friend the Postmaster General on December 11, the operators are likely to show cinema films, because the experiments will be on too small a scale to justify them in producing any great proportion of their own material. Film producers are not averse to cinema films being shown on pay-T.V., partly because the films shown will make a small but welcome addition to their returns, but mainly because film producers are keenly interested in the long-term prospects which pay-T.V., if the experiments prove successful, will offer in the future.

As the House knows, cinema exhibibitors pay a statutory levy the proceeds of which are distributed to the producers of British films. The levy supplements the commercial returns of British film producers by about £4 million a year. Under the existing Levy Regulations a film which is booked for television at the time when it comes to be registered at the Board of Trade for cinema showing loses its entitlement to a share in the levy. It is also disqualified if exhibited to the public on television earlier than twelve months after its registration. Thus it appears that any British film which was shown on one of the pay-T.V. experiments within twelve months of registration would be disqualified for levy. Unless, therefore, we adapt the Regulations, the probability will be that the only relatively recent films that will be shown on pay-T.V. during the experimental period will be foreign ones. Clearly that would be at variance with the purpose of the levy.

To get over the difficulty, the present disqualification is removed by these draft Regulations in respect of the pay-T.V. experiments, subject to one condition, namely, that the film in question has not been shown on pay-television during the six months before its registration. This stipulation has to be made so as to discourage any tendency that there might otherwise be for people to get round the Government's arrangements in respect of cinema films and pay-television as a whole. The change accords with the views of the Cinematograph Films Council, which has been consulted in accordance with the requirements of the 1957 Act.

Arrangements are being made for a voluntary system for the collection of levy from the pay-T.V. operators on all cinema films. My right honourable friend has received an assurance from the pay-T.V. operators that they will pay a levy of 6 per cent. during the period of the pay-T.V. experiments. The rate of levy has been determined to take account of the fact that no cinema film which has been given a general London release may, without the consent of the local exhibitors, be shown on pay-T.V. in the trial areas for a period of six months from its first showing at a local cinema. I should emphasise that these arrangements relate solely to the experimental period and areas for pay-T.V. With this brief explanation, I would ask your Lordships to approve the Regulations.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for his explanation of this Order. Of course it relates to something new which seems to be coming into our lives, at least in an experimental way. I cannot pretend to have made a careful study of the whole background to this Statutory Instrument. I have, however, consulted some of my honourable friends in the other place, and a knowledgeable noble Lord here, and I understand that although they have some doubts as to whether, in fact, the experiment of pay-T.V. should be conducted at all, on balance they seem to think that the Regulations ought not to be opposed.

Having said that, I think it must also be said that the Government seem, to some of us at any rate, to have intervened in order to create a privileged position for pay-television. The noble Lord has told us that under the existing regulations a British film forfeits any entitlement to benefits from the levy made on cinema charges if at the date of its registration with the Board of Trade for cinema showing there is an agreement for its exhibition to the public on television, or if the film is exhibited on television earlier than twelve months after the registration. These regulations exempt pay-television from that provision while maintaining the existing provision as it relates to the showing of British-made films on I.T.V. or B.B.C. One is bound to ask: why is there this seeming discrimination in favour of pay-television as against B.B.C. and I.T.V.? It is not difficult, of course, to see why the film industry has developed an organisation to defend its interests against the very early showing of films on television; for, clearly, once a film has been shown on television its cinema box office drawing power is seriously diminished. That is why the films we now see on television are all the old masters—or, rather, in so many cases, the old "flops"—of ten to twenty years ago.

I suppose that the real justification for these Regulations to-day is to enable pay-television to get off the ground for the experimental period. But one is bound to ask: why is it to be assisted off the ground at all? I am one of those who think that there is already too much skilled manpower and too many national resources employed in television; especially at a time when we are told by "Neddy" that the present shortage of skilled manpower is the greatest single limiting factor to a greater rate of expansion. So I certainly have some doubts about this whole matter, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to assure me on these points.

But having expressed these doubts, I should like to ask the Minister one small question. I understand that in the agreement arrived at with pay-television there is provision for a quota, and that any film which has at any time been registered as an exhibitor's quota film will count towards the quota, without regard to the time at which the film is being shown. If that is so, it follows that the peak-hours screenings could be reserved by pay-T.V. for new foreign films, and the British quota may be fulfilled by the showing of old British films at the off-peak and less remunerative hours. I am wondering whether the Government have considered this and if they are satisfied that in this particular the agreement is fair to British film makers, for whom the whole principle of the levy was devised.

My Lords, I certainly would not blame the noble Lord for not having made a careful study of the background of this matter, because I can assure him that it is a very complicated one. I think I would agree with him that one of the purposes of these regulations is to enable pay-television to get off the ground. After all, if you are going to have an experiment you must experiment with something; and, as I explained earlier, with a comparatively small experiment of this kind it would obviously not pay the operators to create their own material to any large extent. So they are almost bound to make use of cinema films.

The noble Lord asked about the apparent discrimination against the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. in not allowing them the same facilities. Again, it has to be borne in mind that this is an experiment on a small scale, not to be compared with the B.B.C. and the I.T.V., and that the purpose of these Regulations is to make certain that British producers are not placed at a disadvantage compared to foreign producers. I am not certain that I would agree with the noble Lord that if pay-T.V. proves to be successful it will necessarily increase the demand on manpower. This is one of the matters that I think the experiment may help to show. There is so much that we cannot foresee: the size of the audiences; the amounts that can be charged to them; the type of material to be used, and a host of other things.

Finally, the noble Lord asked whether it would be likely that the operators would use the peak hours for exhibiting new foreign films rather than British films. My Lords, I should have thought that this was extremely unlikely. It is, of course, a question of judgment; but it would presuppose that foreign films were likely to be more popular than British films, which I should doubt. The experience so far as the first-feature films is concerned is that in the cinemas far more than the quota of British films is normally being shown at the present time. Secondly, I think it is worth pointing out that the pay-television operators have everything to gain by keeping both the public and the authorities on their side in the course of the experiments. I would also say that it has to be borne in mind that this is an experiment and it is impossible to cover in the minutest detail every possible eventuality.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

moved to leave out "any exhibition, meeting, lecture or similar event" and to insert

"the holding of meetings and exhibitions, the showing of films and slides, the giving of musical performances, and the holding of other events of an educational or cultural nature".

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move an Amendment to Clause 20. Your Lordships may perhaps remember that during the course of our debate in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised the question whether the words which are now included in Clause 20 would be wide enough to include a concert. I explained to him that the intention certainly was that a concert should be included, but he pressed the matter, saying it should be quite clear that it was included, and I undertook to look into it. As your Lordships will see, we have altered the language. The language we propose to insert, in the place of the words,

"any exhibition, meeting, lecture or similar event"

is,

"the holding of meetings and exhibitions, the showing of films and slides, the giving of musical performances, and the holding of other events of an educational or cultural nature."

There can be no doubt that those words include concerts; but, not only have we taken the opportunity of using words which quite clearly include concerts, but we have revised the formula to make its meaning and scope, I think, generally clearer. I beg to move.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Of course, I welcome this Amendment very much indeed, because I feel quite sure that the more special events of one kind and another are held in museums and art galleries, the better. I say that because it takes a special event of some kind to get some people to go to their local museum or art gallery, but once they have been induced to go there they become interested in all sorts of things they see there besides the special event for which they went. So an Amendment of this kind pleases me greatly, if I may so so. I welcome it very much.

My Lords, I also welcome the Amendment. As a Governor of the Commonwealth Institute I would say that they have a policy of this kind. We have a large and an increasing number of events of a cultural, artistic, eductional and other nature, and we find that these have a most beneficial effect upon the number of visitors to our main galleries. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Airedale on pointing out what was possibly a defect, but, anyway, a matter which has now been put right.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for what he has said, and indeed for what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said, although I must confess I was a little surprised to find him expressing the view that the Commonwealth Institute would come within Clause 20 of this Bill, when, of course, it is a Bill relating solely to public libraries and museums, and when Clause 20 relates only to what a local authority can and cannot do by way of maintaining premises. But I understand the intent of what he says.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Zambia Independence Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The Zambia Independence Bill makes provision for the ending of Her Majesty's protection over Northern Rhodesia on October 24 of this year, on which date the territory will become the independent sovereign Republic of Zambia, when, at her Government's request, we look forward to welcoming Zambia as a member of the Commonwealth. Northern Rhodesia has enjoyed internal self-government since January this year. During this period the country has continued its steady development, and I am sure the House will agree that Dr. Kaunda and his Cabinet have displayed an impressive combination of energy and responsibility, and have demonstrated their ability in wide fields.

Shortly after the territory became self-governing, Her Majesty's Government were in touch with the Government of Northern Rhodesia in regard to the further steps necessary to move forward to full independence, and it was eventually agreed that the Independence Conference should open in London on May 5. The Report of that Conference has been published as a White Paper (Cmnd. 2365). In all its sessions, except the first and the last, the Conference met under the chairmanship of Mr. Richard Hornby, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. As some noble Lords may be aware, tributes have been paid in another place to the way in which he helped forward the work of the Conference and I wish to associate myself fully and most warmly with these sentiments. With the exception of Cyprus, which was of course sui generis, all our territories have hitherto gone into independence with a monarchical form of government, and with the Queen represented by a Governor-General. We are, therefore, breaking new ground in that Zambia, will move straight from its present status as a protectorate to that of an independent sovereign republic. I am quite sure that this should not be taken in any way as an indication that our friends in Northern Rhodesia have any antipathy to the connection with the Crown. Rather it should be seen as a realistic acceptance, right at the outset, of what many African countries have found, after only a brief period of independence, the medium best adapted to their political aspirations.

I might perhaps mention at this point that Dr. Kaunda asked Her Majesty whether she would agree to be represented at the Zambia independence celebrations. Her Majesty asked Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal to undertake this representation, which she very gladly agreed to do.

The Constitution of Zambia will provide for an "executive" President. There may be those who feel that, as this new Constitution is one which does not embody the particular checks and balances which we enjoy in this country, for that reason it is less than democratic and thus a step on the road to eventual erosions of liberty. I feel that any such fears would be without foundation. I think it should be remembered that there are to be a number of important features in the Constitution, amendments freely and readily agreed by the Northern Rhodesian Government, which are specifically designed to preserve the liberty and rights of the individual, to limit the powers of the President, and to ensure that the Judiciary will be independent of control by the Executive. Perhaps most significantly, the Bill of Rights in the present Constitution is to be carried forward into the Independence Constitution. It will be entrenched by a special amendment procedure requiring a referendum, and there will be special provisions for its enforcement. The Constitutional Council which was established by the self-governing Constitution is not to be retained. The Council has, in fact, never met; but it has been agreed that broadly parallel functions shall be exercised, if needed, by a special Judiciary tribunal.

The Judiciary is to be independent, and any amendment of the provisions in the Constitution relating to the judiciary will also require the referendum process. The control of public prosecutions is to be in the hands of an independent Director of Public Prosecutions, whose relation to the Attorney-General will be comparable with the corresponding relationship in this country. There is to be a Public Service Commission for the Civil Service and there will also be a Judicial Service Commission. This new Constitution will contain many features which do not conform exactly with the Westminster pattern, but I sincerely believe that it is a workable Constitution to meet the special circumstances of Zambia. Most important, because it reflects in essentials the wishes of its people and has been freely negotiated, it is a Constitution which we may be confident will continue.

I turn now to the position of Barotseland. There has been a special relationship, as many noble Lords may know, between Her Majesty's Government and the Litunga of Barotseland since the earliest days of the British connection with Central Africa. The British protection of Barotseland has been exercised since 1911 through the Government of Northern Rhodesia, and as that Government has greatly extended its services generally through the whole territory it has similarly provided increased services in Barotseland.

The approach of independence made it necessary to consider new arrangements; and, following talks last summer with the then First Secretary of State, the Litunga agreed to take part in discussions with the Government of Northern Rhodesia on the question of the future relationship of Barotseland with Northern Rhodesia. Following lengthy negotiations the two parties agreed to sign a new agreement to be known as the Barotseland Agreement of 1964, which would replace all the old agreements and which would regulate Barotseland's special position as an integral part of the new Zambia. This agreement was signed in London by the Litunga and Dr. Kaunda on May 18, and has been published as a White Paper (Cmnd. 2366). This was a freely negotiated settlement, and one which will provide very considerable safeguards for the special interests of Barotseland.

As we know, independence presents many economic problems, and Zambia will require both advice and, despite its copper revenues, substantial economic assistance not only from Britain but from other developed countries. The British Government have recently announced a gift of £2¾ million to assist the Northern Rhodesia Government with the funding of the short-term debt which was taken over from the Federation at the beginning of this year, and in addition a long-term loan of £3 million, to enable the territory to provide its share of the compensation for overseas officials in Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service. There are also to be talks this coming autumn on aid for general development purposes.

Before commenting on the clauses of the Bill which is now before your Lordships' House, I should like to pay very warm tribute, in which I know noble Lords on all sides of the House will join, to the work carried out by the Northern Rhodesia Civil Service. This Service, together with the Northern Rhodesia Police, has long had an exceptionally high reputation for efficiency and devotion to duty, and I am glad to say that the figures we now have available indicate that a very large proportion of the expatriate officers in these services have shown their readiness to continue to serve the Government of Zambia after independence and to make their contribution to the building of the new Constitution.

Noble Lords may have noted, perhaps with some relief, that an Explanatory Memorandum has been provided with this Bill. It has, as noble Lords know, been customary in the past not to attach these to Independence Bills, and I hope that noble Lords will find this a helpful, if modest, innovation. Clause 1 establishes the Republic of Zambia on October 24, 1964. Clause 2(1) provides for the continuance of existing law until otherwise provided by the Parliament of Zambia. Clauses 3 and 4 deal with nationality matters consequent on Zambian independence and are on the same lines as the Malawi Independence Bill. This is the usual pattern when a British protectorate becomes an independent Commonwealth country. Clause 3(1) adds Zambia to the Commonwealth countries listed in Section 1(3) of the British Nationality Act, 1949. Zambian citizens will therefore be British subjects or Commonwealth citizens in United Kingdom law. This clause also provides that Northern Rhodesia will cease to be a protectorate for the purposes of the British Nationality Acts. The effect of Clause 3(2) is that persons who are British-protected persons because of a connection with Northern Rhodesia will not lose that status until they acquire citizenship of Zambia. Clause 3(3) withdraws citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from persons who acquire Zambia citizenship on October 24, 1964, and is subject to the exceptions contained in Clause 4. Clause 4 preserves the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies of persons who become citizens of Zambia on independence, but who have a substantial connection with the United Kingdom, by which I mean any person who himself, or whose father or paternal grandfather, was born, registered or naturalised in the United Kingdom or a remaining colony.

Clause 5 enables Her Majesty in Council to provide for the jurisdiction, powers and procedure of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in respect of appeals from the courts of Zambia. Provision may be made under this clause, both in the law of the United Kingdom and in Zambian law, to give effect to the arrangements agreed at the Independence Conference by which the Judicial Committee can be used as an appeal court for Zambia. Clause 6 deals with appeals to the Queen in Council from the Court of Appeal for Northern Rhodesia which are pending immediately before independence. If arrangements are made between the Government of the territory and the British Government for continuing and disposing of these pending appeals, an Order in Council may be made by Her Majesty to give effect to these arrangements. Clause 7 terminates the divorce jurisdiction of courts in Zambia in respect of British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom.

Clause 8 terminates all rights and obligations of the Crown and the Government of Northern Rhodesia which arise under any of the existing agreements, undertakings or understandings with the Litunga of Barotseland. I would add that the clause does not of course affect the Barotseland Agreement of 1964, to which I alluded a moment ago. Clause 9 enables any necessary adaptations to be made in United Kingdom legislation consequent on the independence of Zambia. Clause 10 makes supplementary provisions in respect of Orders in Council made under Clauses 6 or 9 of this Bill or other Acts of Parliament. Clause 11 provides a Short Title for the Bill, and repeals certain provisions of the British Nationality Act, 1958, which become obsolete with the dissolution of the Federation.

Before I conclude, I should like to express, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, the great pleasure we have in being able to bring forward this measure. We wish the Government and people of Zambia a prosperous and peaceful future. We sincerely hope that the present warm and friendly relations we enjoy with Northern Rhodesia will continue with the new State of Zambia. Zambia is the latest addition to the family of the Commonwealth. It will be the nineteenth country of the Commonwealth. I know that I have the support of all Members of your Lordships' House in wishing Zambia, in this final step on the road to full sovereignty, every success in future.

My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Duke for the clear and effective way in which he has presented the Bill to the House, in spite of the fact that he himself did not take part in the Independence Conference or in the negotiations that led up to the Bill. I think the House always welcomes these Independence Bills. They are indeed in danger of becoming a sort of formality, but the good wishes they evoke to the new countries they bring alive are none the less warm and sincere, in spite of the fact that they are becoming something like a well-worn pattern of legislation.

I think that this Bill is of greater Parliamentary interest than other Independence Bills which your Lordships have dealt with during the current year—for two reasons. In the first place, as the noble Duke pointed out, Zambia will be the first British Dependency to become a republic on independence without any intervening stage of constitutional development. Secondly—and this the noble Duke did not point out, but I would draw his attention to it—the discussion of the Bill in another place showed a sharp difference of opinion between the Government and Members on both sides of the House about the proper treatment of certain European officers now employed by the Northern Rhodesian Government. I will come back to that point later on in the course of my remarks.

The Republic of Zambia will become a new African State on October 24. This, of course, is United Nations Day. I am sure we are all glad that Zambia wants to be associated with the United Nations as well as with the Commonwealth family. By joining both international organisations, it will have the maximum influence on world affairs. And it is satisfactory to see that in Clause 3(1) of the Bill, Zambian citizens will also become Commonwealth citizens after independence.

But I believe that Zambia's greatest good fortune is that independence will see the continuation of the leadership of Dr. Kenneth Kaunda. Everyone, I think, realises that in a new country it is the quality of leadership that matters more than anything else. I know, both personally and by reputation, all the leaders of our former Dependencies in Africa, and to my knowledge there is no one with a finer character or more balanced political judgment than Dr. Kaunda. I think this needs to be said, and to be said here, because in the past Dr. Kaunda has been subjected to much harsh and, I think, unjustified criticism, even in your Lordships' House. The choice by Zambia of such a leader is a wise one, because he has exactly the qualities that will be needed after he takes up the much heavier responsibilities entrusted to him by the new Constitution, on the assumption, which I think it is fair to make, that he will become the first President of Zambia, for an American-style President is an even more powerful person in the decision-making processes of government than an English-style Prime Minister.

The Secretary of State has said, referring to the new Constitution of Zambia:

"The Government, in practice, will be responsible to Parliament in much the same way as here in Britain."

With respect, I disagree. I think this is mistaken. No doubt the noble Duke will defend his right honourable colleague, but my interpretation of the Constitution is that Zambian Ministers will not be responsible to Parliament, either in theory or in practice, as they are here. They will be responsible to the President, who will be under no obligation whatever to resign after an adverse vote in Parliament. That is to say, the situation will be the same as it is in the United States, where, if the President finds that a Bill is thrown out by Congress, he does not resign. Surely this is the whole essence of the difference between the new Zambian Constitution and our own.

The new Constitution has been described as a mixture of Washington and Westminster, but, in fact, it leans more heavily towards Washington than towards Westminster. In my opinion, this is entirely right, because the first requirement of the Constitution in a new African country is a strong Executive. What is happening in Northern Rhodesia is that that country is going straight from a Westminster Constitution to a typical African Constitution under an African Head of State, without any intervening period of independence within the Westminster framework. I am sure that Northern Rhodesia will take this big plunge successfully. I agree entirely with what the noble Duke said. I thought he put it very well, indeed, when he said that it was

"a workable Constitution, that reflects the wishes of the people of Northern Rhodesia."

We must, of course, expect—and this is something that we should all bear in mind—that this African country, though it will be the first to go into independence in this particular way, will not be the last. Our remaining Dependencies in Africa, when the time comes for them to reach independence, will expect to follow Mr. Kaunda's example.

I think it is more than a little hard that Sir Evelyn Hone, the Governor of Northern Rhodesia, who has shown that a Colonial Governor can be just as good a negotiator as a political Governor, will not end his service there as Governor-General. I hope that the Government—and this perhaps the noble Duke will bear in mind—will not allow this accident (because it is an accident of fate) to affect their recognition of a great career in the public service. I myself knew Sir Evelyn Hone when he was in South-East Asia and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, met him in his travels when in the Colonial Office. Every job he has filled he has filled with great distinction, to the greater glory of the Commonwealth Service.

I am sure that your Lordships' House is as delighted as everyone else by the noble Duke's statement that Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal will represent Her Majesty at the Independence Celebrations. I believe that this is the first time that a member of the Royal Family will be present at the inauguration of a republic within the Commonwealth. What a splendid thing this is! Surely nothing could do more to underline the fact that becoming a republic is entirely consistent with all the affection and regard which both republican and non-republican countries of the Commonwealth have towards Her Majesty and members of the Royal Family.

I will now pass on for a few moments from these non-controversial matters, about which he all agree, to the some-what more controversial subject of the so-called non-designated officers in the service of the Northern Rhodesian Government. In times past your Lordships have always insisted that civil servants whose careers and prospects are damaged by independence should receive compensation, and should be given a good chance, if they wished to do so, of taking alternative employment. We are entirely satisfied that the 1,200 (I think that was the figure given in another place) members of the Oversea Civil Service in the employment of the Government of Northern Rhodesia, the so-called designated officers, will receive thoroughly adequate compensation, and that for the younger men this compensation will serve as a resettlement grant which will enable them, if they wish to do so, to seek and find alternative employment.

What many of us are not satisfied about is the position of the 400—it is only a small number, but still they are people with just as much right to our consideration as the others—so-called non-designated officers of British or Rhodesian origin. These men, of course, are not members of the Overseas Civil Service and, therefore, do not qualify for lump sum compensation in addition to their earned retirement pension. But because they are European, their careers are just as much prejudiced as those of the Oversea Civil Service officers by the Africanisation of the Northern Rhodesian Civil Service. This Africanisation is a very right and proper thing, which has happened in every single African country after becoming independent.

The Government of Northern Rhodesia have made these officers a generous and, indeed, unique offer of half the compensation received by the Oversea Civil Service officers, on two conditions: that is, if they are superseded for promotion or replaced by an African officer. This is quite admirable, so far as it goes, but it does not cover a man whose post is abolished or who wishes to resign to find alternative employment while he is still young enough to start a new career. Most of these men, if they are 40 to 45 or under, who feel that their careers are prejudiced, want the opportunity (thinking, quite naturally, not only of themselves but of their families) of being able, if they get the chance, to take alternative Government or private employment. At the present time, if these men were to leave the Civil Service of the Northern Rhodesian Government, they would take nothing with them except their retirement pension. Many of us feel that this would be a grave injustice. They have given the same service as the designated officers, and their careers have been cut short by the same policy—a perfectly justifiable policy, which we all welcome—of her Majesty's Government. They, too, surely are morally entitled to full compensation if they want to make a fresh start.

I am raising the matter this afternoon because, so far, the Government have not been willing to make any concession. Last Monday a delegation from all Parties and both Houses put the case for these officers to the noble Duke. He listened to us with his usual courtesy, but he gave nothing away. The Government's attitude in the debate on this Bill in another place was equally unyielding. This is why I am repeating this afternoon a plea to the Government on behalf of these men. May I ask the noble Duke two questions which perhaps he would be good enough to reply to when he comes to wind up the debate? First, will Her Majesty's Government consider asking the Government of Northern Rhodesia to widen their offer of compensation to the non-designated officers to cover both voluntary retirement or abolition of office? Secondly—and I think this is equally important—will they consider offering to lend the Government of Northern Rhodesia the whole or part of the additional cost of compensating these officers, which would be a very small sum indeed? I would remind your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government are already lending the substantial amount of £3 million towards the cost of compensating the Oversea Civil Service officers, and this I think covers 50 per cent, of the total cost of their compensation.

I hope the noble Duke will not try to ride off this afternoon on the argument that these officers are the responsibility of the Northern Rhodesian Government and, therefore, we here have no responsibility for them. Surely we cannot wash our hands of these men, just because they were recruited in Northern Rhodesia and not in Britain. They are as much a British responsibility as the officers of the Oversea Civil Service.

I do not want to end what I have to say on this note. The last thing I want to do is to give the impression that we are more concerned about the future of these officers than about the future of Northern Rhodesia. Far from it! Zambia, as it will be on October 24, like the quality of mercy, is twice blessed: it has wise political leadership and exceptional economic resources—exceptional, that is, for any African country. With these assets, Zambia should certainly have a happy and prosperous future, and that is our fervent wish for all its inhabitants.

My Lords, I should like to welcome this Bill and to thank the noble Duke for his clear exposition of its contents. I should also like on behalf of myself and my noble friends to welcome the news that Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal is, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, to attend the independence celebrations.

This Bill is the first Independence Bill to come before the House after the recent Commonwealth Conference and, therefore, it has considerable significance. In fact, as your Lordships will know, the probability of this step was mentioned in the communiqué at the end of the Conference. I was rather surprised to hear the noble Duke to-day referring to the compliments that have been paid to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. We here also paid him some compliments, and I think that should be noted by the noble Duke, who I believe was here at the time. If I misunderstood him, I withdraw what I am saying, but I gained the impression that he referred to compliments to the Prime Minister in another place. If he did, I should like here and now to say that I, for one, and my noble friends, are very appreciative of the work of the Prime Minister at the Constitutional Conference, and of the staff of all those who took part in it. The noble Duke is looking rather puzzled, and we shall see from Hansard whether or not I am mistaken.

The significance of this Conference is very great for us all. It emphasises a completely new era in the Common-wealth. In fact, at this Conference, to a large extent, the new States took over and made the running; and I was delighted that they did. To take one example, the question of the Secretariat; for years and years those of us interested in the Commonwealth have been pressing for a Secretariat, but the older members, including, so far as I am aware, Britain, would not agree. Now this time the newer members have realised the need for a Secretariat. We shall have an opportunity of discussing these things at greater length on July 29. One thing I want to emphasise is that those of us on all sides of this House and elsewhere who refuted the idea that the Commonwealth is a farce and at an end have been proved right, and that the dismal Jeremiahs who have been preaching the imminent dissolution of the Commonwealth have been proved wrong. I hope that this will be realised in all quarters, whether anonymous or otherwise, where the Jeremiahs may be.

I notice that they have been very quiet since the end of the Conference.

Up to now, it so happens that many of the links between the Commonwealth countries have been more with this country and the various Commonwealth countries than between the other Commonwealth countries themselves. This has been described as, or likened to, a wheel, the hub being this country and the spokes being the various other members of the Commonwealth, some of whom are independent and some are not, and there being no rim. In other words, there was little contact between the various Commonwealth members themselves. That is one reason why I look with great favour on this idea of a Commonwealth Secretariat. I hope that Zambia will be one of those countries which will take great advantage of this Secretariat and will correspond and have contact with countries in the Commonwealth other than Great Britain.

The new countries of the Commonwealth tend naturally to be absorbed in their own problems. One of the great advantages for them of the Commonwealth relationship is that they are able to obtain a wider outlook on world affairs than they could obtain in their own territories. They have to realise that they must give as well as take. There is a great opportunity for them to take an active part in Commonwealth and world affairs, but that means, of course, that they have to think of other problems than the ones which particularly affect their own territories.

With regard to Zambia, our relationship with them is a comparatively recent one. In fact it comes within the memory of the older Members of this House; or if not the memory, at any rate the life time of them. It is to me amazing that Zambia should have been able to make such immense steps forward in the comparatively short time that they have been in contact with what we now call the Western World, when compared to South East Asia, India or West Africa. This means, of course, that their need is all the greater, and is particularly great because the change over to the present situation from a tribal society, such as the Matabele and the Mashona, has gone so smoothly. As the noble Duke has said, in this smooth transition we must not overlook the work of the European expatriate civil servants, the expatriate police and others. Curiously enough, my first contact with Rhodesia was with the police. When I was a young law student, a friend of mine, believing that he had not done very well in the Sandhurst examinations, went along to the recruiting office and, without my knowledge, put us both down as recruits for the Rhodesian Mounted Police. I thought this was a very good idea, but my parents did not, and that was the end of my association with the Rhodesian Mounted Police.

I hope that these various African majorities will realise how important it is in any country to have expatriate communities. If we look at our own country, assuming we are one, which we are not, and omitting the fact that basically we are English, Welsh, Scots and Irish, we see the immense contribution that expatriate communities have made to this country throughout the centuries. In their various ways, the Huguenots, the Flemings, the Jews and others have made a tremendous contribution, and I am quite certain that we should not be in the position we are now without them. So it is important, I think, for African Governments and Oppositions to realise that they can never do without a great amount of assistance from European and Asian expatriates in their country. If they try to do without them, it will put back by many years their own progress in the economic, social and political fields.

We shall, of course, need to give them considerable help. I was interested to learn from the noble Duke how much that help is likely to be. It is not very great in comparison to some help we are giving elsewhere, but I suppose they have made an agreement on this and are comparatively happy about it. As to assistance other than financial help, I can do no better than refer to the brilliant speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale, in your Lordships' House on June 24. In my opinion he said everything on that subject that could be said of assistance to these countries. I only wish that that speech could be made compulsory reading for everyone, either in Parliament, in Whitehall or at the United Nations, who has any impact on aid to these territories. I do not think I have ever heard a speech which was so good and comprehensive on this subject as the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale.

With regard to Southern Rhodesia, I would particularly ask the Zambia Government to treat this issue with great delicacy. I am quite sure that if everybody keeps cool and calm everything will come out all right in Southern Rhodesia. I understand that at the moment there are difficulties over such things as visas and controls to go from one country to the other. In fact, a friend of mine who was at a conference at the Victoria Hotel not long ago had to cross the border six times in the same day, because it happened that the Conference was on one side and the hotel on the other. Every time he had solemnly to go through the process of getting his documents stamped. This is really nonsense, and I hope that very soon this sort of thing can be overcome, and that we shall not have any more of it.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to the presidential system and said that this was the first time in which this system had come into effect immediately on independence. It gives very wide powers to the President. The first election is by secret ballot by the Legislative Assembly, but on subsequent occasions the election is to be by the electorate as a whole; so there is in itself a safeguard for democracy. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that this is right. I believe that our Parliamentary system in certain parts of Africa—I do not say elsewhere; for instance, in Malaysia they certainly work it extremely well—is difficult for them to work, because it does not accord with the tribal system. Of course, it did here in the beginning when this was the only House and certainly not an elected one—it is not now, for that matter. In those days, it was the only legislative body, the only consultative body, there was, and it was only much later that the idea of an Opposition grew up. The whole idea then was to prevent an Opposition. That is why in our Writ this mandatory and threatening language is used to get us here. It was not the idea that we came to oppose, but to bless the various proposals of the Sovereign. The same thing happens in Africa. The idea that you have an Opposition which is paid to oppose the ruling faction in the tribe is unheard of. The tribe has a baraza, a meeting, and they all discuss at great length. Everybody has a word in it, and eventually the tribal leader sums the thing up and that is that—there is no further argument about it. So I think the presidential system now proposed for Zambia will probably be a very good one and will last very well.

I do not want to say much more. We are not taking up a great deal of the time of the House; there are only three of us speaking on this Bill to-day, but, after all, this is the last time we shall have an opportunity of discussing the affairs of this country and I should like to mention the Judicial Committee. I have been raising this point for about eight or nine years on every single independence Bill that has come up. I am happy to say that in these last two Bills the Government have met to a large extent, though not entirely, my views on this matter. Here again, in this Bill, is a proposal that there shall be a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and I would make three requests to the Government, because this again gives us the opportunity of showing a little initiative in this country in this way. First of all, I would ask the Government, as I have done for many years past, to make the Court peripatetic occasionally, not always sitting in Whitehall as it has done up to now. Secondly, I would ask that there shall be more members of the Court from Commonwealth countries other than this country; thirdly, that younger members should be appointed to the Court. They need not all be Lords of Appeal in Ordinary; and this rather follows, of course, from my first suggestion that it should be occasionally peripatetic.

Whenever our Judges have gone out—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just been out to Malawi, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and others have been elsewhere—they have always been tremendously well received. I am sure that in this way, with these members, the Judicial Committee would form a very strong and potent link with the Commonwealth. I for one (and Zambia have gone some way to meet us on this) object to these links being weakened by anything we are not doing, when they can in fact be strengthened.

I was going to say something about civil servants, but there is now no need because the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has laid the case before your Lordships extremely well this afternoon, and I support what he said. I think something should be done for those particular civil servants about whom he was speaking; that is to say, the locally-recruited officers other than of African descent—the ones for whom not enough seems to be done. They will not come under the overseas services aid schemes by which the British Government guarantee terminal benefits to the officers appointed from Great Britain. They are left out and they are going to be affected very badly. In places like Northern Rhodesia, with its great copper mines, a number of these people were affected, more, possibly, than in some other territories which are not so prosperous.

Furthermore, I welcome the Barotse-land agreement which has been proposed, and I should like to commend the wise statesmanship of all those who took part in the negotiations over Barotseland, because without it there might have been very serious difficulty.

That is all I wish to say this afternoon, except that I wish more noble Lords had been speaking. These territories still like us to lake an interest in their affairs, and this is the last time we shall have the opportunity of dealing with the circumstances of Zambia. As I say, I wish that more noble Lords had thought of taking the opportunity to speak this afternoon but, nevertheless, the few of us who have spoken make up, I hope, with the warmth of our support for the paucity in our numbers. On behalf of myself and my noble friends on these Benches, I wish Zambia every possible happiness and success in the days ahead.

My Lords, I hope it may be convenient for me now to make a Statement about the size and composition of the British Overseas Airways Corporation fleet of aircraft. I will use the words of my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation in another place:

"As the House knows, B.O.A.C. have ordered 30 Super VC 10s. These aircraft, with the 12 Standard VC 10s now being delivered, and the 20 Boeing 707s now in service, would make a total fleet of 62.

"When Sir Giles Guthrie assumed the Chairmanship of B.O.A.C. on January 1, 1964, I sent him a directive, which was published in Hansard on February 5. In this I asked Sir Giles to prepare a plan for putting the Corporation on its feet financially. This plan is intended to cover all aspects of B.O.A.C's operations, and Sir Giles has not yet completed his work on it. He has, however, already made a detailed study of the Corporation's route pattern. He does not propose to make many reductions in this and, indeed, has plans for extending it. He has, however, concluded that by higher utilisation of aircraft he can maintain B.O.A.C's services in 1967 with 23 less passenger aircraft than the Corporation had previously planned. In other words, he judges that he will need a fleet of about 39 passenger aircraft in 1967 instead of 62.

"As the House knows, the question which now has to be decided is what is the best solution to the problem which has arisen as a result of B.O.A.C. having ordered more aircraft than it now appears will be needed.

"Sir Giles and the other members of the Corporation have reached the conclusion that the right course for B.O.A.C. to follow would be to cancel the order for 30 Super VC 10s.

"This would involve heavy cancellation charges. It would reduce the fleet to 32. To meet their requirements B.O.A.C. wish to buy 6 new Boeing 707s. The fleet would then consist of 26 Boeing 707s and 12 Standard VC 10s.

"The main consideration that has led B.O.A.C. to this conclusion is the fact that the 20 Boeing 707s now held by B.O.A.C. have a number of years of life before them and have already been largely amortised in the Corporation's accounts. The cost of amortising new Super VC 10s would be much greater than the further depreciation of the Boeing 707's now in service.

"In the opinion of B.O.A.C, the continued use of the Boeing 707s would be more profitable than their replacement by Super VC 10s, and it would be more economical to buy new Boeing 707s rather than to take Super VC 10s.

"Sir Giles has told us that B.O.A.C. will need about 8 further aircraft after 1963. If B.O.A.C. were now to buy 6 new Boeing 707s, this further requirement would almost certainly have to be met by further purchases of Boeing 707s.

"Implementation of this proposal would thus mean the cancellation of 30 Super VC 10s and the purchase of 14 new Boeing 707s. The fleet would then consist of 34 Boeing 707s and 12 Standard VC 10s.

"I wish to stress the point that the question is not simply what aircraft B.O.A.C. should now order to meet their estimated requirements, but whether they should cancel the order already given and at the same time embark on a policy of replacing some of the cancelled Super VC 10s with Boeing 707s.

"While I appreciate the force of the considerations advanced by Sir Giles Guthrie, I do not think it would be right to allow B.O.A.C. to cancel the order given by them for Super VC 10s with a view to buying more Boeing 707s.

"The trials of the Super VC 10 show that they will be aircraft of very high performance and quality. Their quietness, slower landing speed and relatively short take off and landing capacity should give them great appeal both to passengers and operators.

"The result of following B.O.A.C's. commercial proposals would be to inflict extensive injury on the British aircraft industry and those who work in it and also serious damage to the prospects of a fine and promising aircraft.

"I have had several talks with Sir Giles, and in view of all these considerations, including the existence of the contracts, he has agreed that B.O.A.C. will take 17 of the 30 Super VC 10s. This means that he will take 7 to meet his estimated requirements up to 1967 and subsequently a further 10. As the House will appre- ciate, this is 2 more than he now thinks will be required after 1968, and B.O.A.C., if their present forecast of future traffic requirements does not in fact prove to be an underestimate, may decide when they get the additional 2 VC 10s to dispose of 2 of the Boeing 707s.

"Of the balance of 13 Super VC 10s, the R.A.F. will take 3 in addition to the 11 Standard VC 10s now on order by the Air Force. These 3 aircraft will be needed to maintain our strategic airlift capacity as existing transport aircraft cease to be operational.

"Work will therefore continue as planned on 20 of the 30 Super VC 10s ordered by B.O.A.C.

"What should be done with regard to the balance of 10? I have found this a very intractable problem. B.O.A.C. are in my view quite rightly not prepared at this time to say how many more or, indeed, what aircraft they may need at the end of the decade in addition to the 47 for which they now have a requirement.

"In April, 1963, the then Chairman of B.O.A.C. asked the British Aircraft Corporation to suspend work on 10 of the Super VC 10s ordered by B.O.A.C. This B.A.C. agreed to do. The work on these aircraft is not very far advanced and a final decision with regard to them need not now be taken. Work on these aircraft will remain in suspense for the time being. This is, of course, without prejudice to the contractual position.

"B.O.A.C.'s fleet as now planned will consist of 17 Super VC 10s, 12 Standard VC 10s—in all 29 VC 10s and 18–20 Boeing 707s. It could well be that, in the light of operating ex-perience, B.O.A.C. may wish to replace the Boeing 707s as they age with Super VC 10s. It may be that some new features can with advantage be incorporated in the Super VC 10s, and it may be that B.O.A.C.'s requirements after 1968 will exceed present forecasts.

"It does not therefore appear to be sensible now to decide to cancel the order for these 10. As I have said, work on them will remain in suspense for the time being.

"I have assured Sir Giles Guthrie that it is the Government's intention to take whatever action may be necessary to reorganise the Corporation's capital and financial structure so as to enable it to operate as a fully commercial undertaking with the fleet of aircraft now planned and with those which may be ultimately selected. The detailed implementation of this assurance will be worked out between my Department, the Treasury and the Corporation in the context of any other steps necessary to put B.O.A.C. on its feet financially.

"Sir Giles Guthrie, on behalf of B.O.A.C., and Sir Charles Dunphie and Sir George Edwards, on behalf of Vickers and the British Aircraft Corporation respectively, have assured me of their full co-operation in the discussions which must necessarily take place in view of the decisions I have announced. I would like to express my thanks to them for their help in seeking to find the best solution of the difficulties which have arisen as a result of B.O.A.C.'s ordering more aircraft than are now required."

My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful for the Statement which the noble Lord has given us. Parliament has been waiting anxiously for a Statement on the situation between B.O.A.C. and the British Aircraft Corporation. Some of us, in reading our newspapers, will have had prior notice of the statement the noble Lord has made; much of what he has said was reported in this morning's newspapers. It seems to me remarkable that the results of a meeting of two persons, which I understand took place yesterday, with the agreement which the noble Lord has now announced, should be able to appear in our morning newspapers. This is not the first time, it seems to me, that Parliament perhaps is being brought into contempt. Whether it is or not must rest, I think, upon the shoulders of those who took part in that conference.

May I say this in regard to the VC 10s? Much has been said in the newspapers, and much that may appear to be critical of the aircraft. We on this side of the House who have had some information on the aircraft are convinced that this is a first-class aircraft, and we all hope that B.O.A.C. will be able to make it a success. The noble Lord stressed the silence of the aircraft and the slow landing speed. But I think the noble Lord equally should have drawn our attention to the power of its engines which give so much in safety. We are pleased, therefore, that this aircraft is going to be developed and to be brought into B.O.A.C.

The noble Lord said that Sir Giles Guthrie, Chairman of the Corporation, requires 39 aircraft by 1967, and, as I understand it from the reports in the newspapers, this is the maximum number of aircraft that he thinks B.O.A.C. can fly and be economic. The Government have laid down, as the noble Lord stressed at the beginning of his Statement, the requirement that B.O.A.C. should run on an economic basis. However, the Government are now pressing—in fact directing—B.O.A.C. to take 10 more aircraft than they need. This raises the question—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will inform us how this can be done—of how B.O.A.C. with 10 extra aircraft will be able to run on an economic basis. If it is not possible, are we to take it from the Minister's Statement that the Government's intention to reorganise the Corporation's capital and financial structure and to take other steps means that the Government are prepared to make contributions to B.O.A.C. for bringing these new aircraft into service?

With regard to the 10 aircraft that will come into service after 1968, I would also ask the Minister this question: Will there be a contract between B.A.C. and B.O.A.C. as to the dates when these aircraft are to come into service, or is this date to be decided upon by B.O.A.C.? Has there been a firm commitment to the British Aircraft Corporation as to when the extra 10 aircraft are to be brought into service? May I also ask the Minister, if there is a delay in their being brought in, whether the Government have undertaken to give some financial assistance to the British Aircraft Corporation?

We welcome the idea of the three extra Super VC 10s going to the Royal Air Force. We feel that this is a good thing. We on this side of the House have been concerned for many years about the strength of Transport Command. At this stage we wonder whether it would not have been advisable, in regard to the 10 aircraft that are being put into long-term suspense, for the Government to take over these aircraft completely, and either put them on to contracts with various airlines—perhaps the independent airlines—or place them with the Royal Air Force.

I have one last point. In view of the fact that B.O.A.C. is to be made viable, and the fact that the Government are requiring them to take aircraft in excess of what their own Chairman considers necessary, will the Government now reconsider their attitude in refusing to allow the public Corporations to tender for trooping contracts? This is a very sizable item of business, and if it were possible for it to come the Corporation's way it would do a great deal to assist them in their present difficulties. However, we welcome the fact that the Super VC 10 is to be proceeded with, but we are rather disturbed and concerned about the ability of the Corporation to meet the requirements of the Government in laying down the taking of these excess aircraft.

My Lords, I am not going to add to the load of questions which the Minister has been asked to answer. I should like to thank him from these Benches for his Statement and for telling us of this decision. It is a big question, and I think it would be unfortunate to turn this opportunity into a debate on the subject which needs a lot of thought. On the whole, I think the right decision has been come to. My first reaction is one of sympathy both with the Secretary of State and with B.O.A.C. for being in a most difficult position and having a difficult decision to make. The decision is obviously a compromise decision, and I am inclined to think it is a good one.

There is just one point that I do not think the Minister put before us. I wonder whether he would confirm that this is so. If we are going in for this VC 10 we are going for the more modern machine, in a sense. Its take-off and landing take much less space on the ground than those of the other machines, and presumably the industry is going to expand. If it expands it will mean the building of new airfields and surely there will be a tremendous saving from building long, heavy, solid airfields for the old types of machine. This difficulty will be overcome if we take the VC 10, which needs less space. With those few words of slightly doubtful welcome, I thank the noble Lord for giving us this Statement.

My Lords, if I may reverse the order of reply, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for what I regarded, and with a little less doubt than he did himself, as his words of welcome. However, no doubt he knows what was in his own mind. Certainly we agree that the performance of the VC 10 must be a most useful factor in relation to the airfields of the world, and more particularly the airfields of the future. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, first mentioned what he had read and pointed to suggestions available to be read in the newspapers. Implicit in what he said was that there had been some kind of leak; but I can tell the noble Lord that in so far as his ministerial responsibility is concerned my right honourable friend knows of no leak, and he is certainly not responsible for it. I do not suppose the noble Lord did, but if he implied that my right honourable friend had treated Parliament with contempt, then I can only say, with great pleasure, that the noble Lord is mistaken in that view.

My Lords, could the noble Lord say how he would expect the Press to be able to obtain a report and to print it this morning in practically the identical terms that are now put before Parliament?

My Lords, I do not know the magical workings of the mind of the Press. We often see the results of its workings. If the noble Lord would like me to repeat what I have just said, I will willingly do so. This is not a matter which is solved by ministerial responsibility, because my right honourable friend has no ministerial responsibility for what appeared in the Press this morning. I hope the noble Lord will take my word for that.

The noble Lord asked one or two most interesting and serious questions, and I am grateful to have the chance to answer them. He referred to the directive given, that B.O.A.C. should behave as commercially as possible. He asked whether that meant that if they were to take further aircraft which in their commercial judgment they did not want to take, they would, so to speak, be helped out in that connection. May I just remind him of the rest of that particular directive? Part 1 was what he quoted. Part 2 was that the policy should be to "fly British", and Part 3 was that if the Government wanted B.O.A.C. to do something which B.O.A.C. did not particularly wish to do, then the Government should clearly state it. The implication is, perhaps, that the Government will help out. That, I think, is implicit in what is said towards the end of the Statement, when I said that it was the Government's intention to take whatever action may be necessary to put the Corporation on a sound basis. Whilst I should perhaps hesitate to say that they would take the special instance of these aircraft, it would naturally be included in that consideration of becoming properly commercial and the necessary steps that the Government have to take to make it so.

The date when these aircraft may be expected to be delivered is a matter of the negotiations which I mentioned and of discussions which are yet to be held between Sir Giles Guthrie and the heads of Vickers and B.A.C. More than that, I cannot say, except that the question of assistance to B.O.A.C. is not one that arises at the moment, in view of the fact that these discussions have yet to take place. It seemed to me that the question of troop contracts was not necessarily directly related to the introduction of the VC 10, although perhaps this, too, may be included in the general discussion. I cannot say, but I will let my right honourable friend know what the noble Lord has said about it.

What I like more, and a point in regard to which I thoroughly agree with him, is that this has every indication of being a good aircraft. I liked particularly his reference to its power. I understand that the power now available is a considerable safety factor. I understand that the available power is by no means exhausted, and we can look forward to more to come, as and when this is necessary. I hope, therefore, that we can all join together in wishing success to the VC 10 as a British aircraft.

My Lords, whatever else may be said during any discussion which continues the consideration of this matter, I should like to thank the Minister for the detailed and courteous answer he has given. I have always paid tribute to him in this respect. But we are concerned with the publication this morning, in advance of the noble Lord's speech here and the speech in another place to-day, of a fact that ought first to be communicated to Parliament. The noble Lord is quite right to defend his Minister if his Minister has had nothing to do with it himself. But we do not want another abject position such as that which happened in the case of the frigates for Spain, where it was assumed that there had been no leak, but there had been a leak all the time. Perhaps this was due to a misunderstanding, nevertheless it was a leak. Parliament does not like that kind of thing. So when there is a highly confidential matter of this kind discussed only between the Minister and the Chairman of B.O.A.C., it is not unreasonable that my noble friend should ask the questions that he did.

May I say that the safety question is surely a most powerful factor in coming to a decision. I hope that this has been one of the factors in the decision of the Government to allow the purchase of up to 17 to 20 VC 10 aircraft. It is also a factor, surely, against buying a less safety-boosted aircraft. I think, therefore, that from that point of view the Government are right.

In regard to the work involved in this matter, the retention of the manufacture of so much of the requirement in this country is of very great importance, so I am glad also from that point of view. However, there will perhaps be opportunity for a longer consideration available. I do not know whether it can be done before the end of this Session of Parliament, but with all the comings and goings in regard to the Ministry of Aviation, the connection between that Ministry and our aircraft industry and its air services to the public, there have been so many changes that we hardly know where we are. I hope that this very important Department before long will have somebody who can really manage it, so that the management of the actual air services will also be given a fair chance.

My Lords, I should like to reply to noble Lords. I am not in the least surprised that some reference should have been made to a particular report in one of this morning's newspapers. There have been over the week-end a wide variety of reports of very differing character as to what the likely conclusion would be. I have not myself had time to read all the reports in this morning's Press about what was going to happen and, while I share the noble Earl's concern, it by no means follows that because a report of the kind to which he has referred has appeared there has been any disclosure, by anyone having ministerial responsibility, to the Press and not to Parliament. The noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, have to some extent been misled by the reports in the Press that discussion has taken place with very few people indeed. Perhaps the discussions were a little wider than they thought.

I should also like to correct one statement which has been made more than once, by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. He said in his observations, referring again to what he recollects having read in the Press, that Sir Giles Guthrie wanted only 6 or 7 more aircraft and that Sir Sir Giles was therefore asked to take—and I made a note of the noble Lord's words—"10 more than they need". He went on to say "In excess of what their Chairman said was necessary". It is a fact, although it did not appear in the Press, that Sir Giles has throughout said that after 1967 he would have a need for 8 more aircraft. If the noble Lord will look at the statement made by my noble friend when it appears in Hansard he will see that the 8 more are to be met by the 10 more Super VC 10s and that my noble friend referred specifically to the extra two possibly replacing two of the Boeings. I wanted to make clear that there is no question of B.O.A.C. being compelled to take more aeroplanes than they think necessary for their requirements.

My Lords, in order to assist your Lordships' House in arriv- ing at an assessment of the Government statements, will the Minister make available a list of those aircraft lines throughout the world which operate without a subsidy?

I cannot promise to do that, because I cannot, here and now, without notice, say whether that information is available. I am prepared to see what I can do about it.

Thank you.

My Lords, from this side of the House may I welcome the Statement which has been made by my noble friend, and also congratulate his right honourable friend for the firm attitude he has taken vis-à-vis B.O.A.C., particularly in view of his keen interest in the aircraft industry? As a member of a delegation which not so long ago visited the British Aircraft Corporation Works I should like to ask one question——

Which delegation?

A Parliamentary delegation, on which there were Members from both Houses of Parliament, and which was invited by Sir George Edwards to visit the Works. It was explained to us by Sir George Edwards, by Lord Caldecote and others, how versatile the Super VC 10 was, particularly in regard to its use by the Royal Air Force. Would my noble friend approach his right honourable friend to see whether the R.A.F. could not take more aircraft than the 3 Super VC 10s which they are taking, for there is a definite requirement in the R.A.F. for them?

My Lords, may I, while supporting what has fallen from my noble friend Lord Shepherd, and speaking as a former Minister of Aviation, say what a painful day this is? I do not think it should pass in any atmosphere of rejoicing. The Government have got us into the most tremendous mess, and in the years to come it will be very unfortunate if that fact is not clearly noted. Here was a new Chairman of B.O.A.C., appointed in rather peculiar circumstances, but with everybody anxious to give him a good start, coming forward with a bold scheme, which has been totally reversed by the Government. He has been completely overriden. It may be that in the circumstances that was necessary, but I must say clearly, for the benefit of future generations, that this is in many ways the worst day in the history of British civil aviation and I fear that the consequences will be very grave. At the same time I support what has been done as the least of many evils.

My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, say who will pay B.A.C. for the work they have done on the 10 aircraft which have been put into cold storage, and can he give any idea of the total amount expended on those 10 aircraft?

The 10 aircraft concerned on which the order is suspended do not exist, and therefore they have not, as such, been put into cold storage, if the noble Lord means that in the sense of being, as it were, put into mothballs.

I am going by the noble Lord's Statement. In the noble Lord's original Statement he referred to expenditure on these 10 aircraft.

I said that the order for the final 10 was being put into suspense for the time being; that the decision was not called for now—a word that I deliberately emphasised in my Statement. They are at a very early stage of construction. I cannot at the moment tell the noble Lord what expenditure has been undertaken—how much those 10 have cost so far. I also emphasised that this agreed period of suspense was without prejudice to the contracts concerned with them.

May I just clear up this point? I have a copy of the noble Lord's Statement, and he said, "The work on these aircraft is not very far advanced". All I want to know is will the B.A.C. be paid for the work that they have done; and, if so, who will pay them?

I was trying to indicate that the time to answer that is also not now. The noble Lord will remember that I talked about discussions yet to be held, and it depends on the future. I am trying to reassure him by saying that that decision is without prejudice to the contractual position.

Somehow or other B.A.C., whose interests I think the noble Lord has at heart, are not going to be left completely "holding the baby" so that nobody will pay for it.

I was very surprised when the noble Earl got up with his intervention. I can only imagine that his preference is for seeing B.O.A.C. flying all-American.

Is the noble Lord referring to me?

Yes.

I think that is a contemptible, asinine remark.

My shoulders, fortunately, are broad enough, even if my friends say, "Order!" That, frankly, was what I thought of the noble Earl's remarks, though I did not say so. I merely thought that if this is one of the worst days in British history, when we decide to equip the British airline with British aircraft, and if that is a contemptible decision or something dreadfully wrong, nevertheless, my Lords, I for one am extremely glad we have taken it.

My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord if he is aware that I have no kind of interest in any aircraft industry? Also, in connection with his remark that I have the B.A.C. very much at heart, would he amend that to the fact that I have the whole of the British aircraft industry very much at heart?

I am delighted. I merely thought the noble Lord was seeking assurance that their interests were protected.

My Lords, as one who believes in the VC 10—and, after all, they are flying: some of them—and who believes that both the Opposition and the Government are making very heavy weather of this matter, may I suggest that all we are concerned with here is 10 aircraft—not 1,000 or 100 aircraft. It is only 10 aircraft which are in doubt.

My Lords, the original question was whether orders for 30 Super VC 10s should be cancelled, and the Government were concerned, naturally, with that request. Originally 30 were involved.

I appreciate that, but at the moment the only aircraft whose existence is in doubt is 10, and I should have thought there was ample need for the 10 aircraft. I believe that when they are constructed they will find ready buyers in the world. The Government should have the courage to go forward and take them now, giving an order and getting on with it. Is it not a fact that the R.A.F. alone could use these aircraft? The R.A.F. are desperately short of fast aircraft. The whole strength of our forces depends on fast, mobile aircraft, and here we have the chance to get them. If only the Government would spend a little less on these ridiculous Polaris independent nuclear deterrents which they are buying from the Americans, and more on British aircraft, it would be a very good thing for this country.

My Lords, I am pleased to take note of what the noble Lord has said. Apart from that, all I will say is that I agree with 50 per cent. of what he said.

My Lords, perhaps we may now come down to earth, and the earth of Central Africa. As usual, I have had extraordinarily helpful and considered contributions from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and I would say how grateful I am to them for their, as always, extremely helpful contributions. I should like to associate myself very much with what the noble Earl had to say about the Governor, Sir Evelyn Hone, and say how we on our side of the House are acutely aware of the great service he has given to both the British Government and the Northern Rhodesian Government. I know that a tribute from someone so well versed in the affairs of Africa and of Commonwealth as the noble Earl will give Sir Evelyn Hone great pleasure when he reads the report of this debate. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for the warmth with which he supported the general idea of the Commonwealth, as I know the sentiments he holds very dear to his heart. I also know that the result of the Conference, to which the noble Lord made some reference, gives us on this side every bit as much pleasure as it gives him. All the false prophets have been dumbfounded and it is a splendid result.

There was nothing said which required a reply, except the point made by the noble Earl, on the question of the terminal benefits of the non-designated officers in Northern Rhodesia. He asked me two questions. One was whether we would try to influence the Northern Rhodesian Government to extend the system, by which those who lose their jobs through Africanisation or are passed over for promotion should get a lump sum compensation equivalent to half that of a designated officer who loses his job owing to abolition. I am unwilling to give that undertaking because I think, as the noble Earl said, that the Northern Rhodesian Government have been exteremely generous over this matter. They have been perhaps more generous than the noble Earl said, in that they have also said that any expatriate who continues to work until January 1, 1966, and then wishes to retire may retire on earned income plus the abolition increase of one-third. So they have gone a long way, and I do not think it would be right to press them to go further than this, as they have been extremely generous.

On the question of whether Her Majesty's Government would lend money to the Northern Rhodesian Government to provide these additional funds, I have been looking very carefully at the Order Paper and I think that to give a detailed reply to that would be prejudging the debate on a Motion that is down, in the name of my noble friend Lord Salisbury, to take place a week to-day. We will have a full debate on that, and I hope the noble Earl, and other noble Lords who are not now present but are interested in this matter, will not think I am running away from this question when I say that it would be a pity to have two bites at the cherry.

Otherwise, I can only say that I am delighted that this Bill has had the approval of all sides of the House. I have introduced five or six independence Bills since I have had the honour of being a Member of the Government, and I like to think—though perhaps not all will agree—that I will be here to introduce a number more in the years and months ahead. But, in any event, I thank your Lordships very much for your support, and I know it will be a great comfort to Mr. Kaunda that he has the good wishes of every thinking person in this country as Zambia takes the great step to independence.

With the permission of the Committee, perhaps I may speak to the three Amendments on the Marshalled List together. They all deal with the same point. I told the House on Second Reading that I was going to introduce these Amendments and I explained the point at some length. Perhaps, therefore, the House will think it right for me to be rather short to-day.

These Amendments are concerned with this word "further". There have been two legal views as to what the word "further" means. The meaning which is intended, and which strong legal opinion says is accurate, is that the word "further" simply makes it clear that, if a fine has been imposed, the court may order the payment of an amount of compensation in addition, and that it does not in any way prevent the court from ordering payment of compensation in addition to imprisonment. The other view is that the reference to a "further" amount means that compensation may be ordered only if it is in addition to an "amount" in the form of a fine, and that it cannot accompany a sentence of imprisonment. It may be difficult of course to recover compensation where an offender is in prison, but it seems right that the court should be able, in an appropriate case, to award compensation in addition to imprisonment. The purpose of the Amendment to Clause 1 is to remove any doubt as to their power to do so, and the following two Amendments to the Schedule and Title are consequential. I beg to move.

I should like to take this opportunity, very briefly, to raise again a point which I raised during our Second Reading debate last week, but which was not dealt with on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. We had a very short Second Reading debate. Apart from the Minister himself, only three noble Lords spoke. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, spoke for five minutes; the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, spoke for four minutes; and I spoke for two minutes—and we all supported the Bill. In the course of my two minutes, I joined with the Minister in saying that the power of magistrates' courts to order compensation to victims of hooliganism was a salutary power. I further ventured to suggest that this was a small field in is entirely different. It may be that in throughout the country ought to be able to achieve some uniformity in practice in the matter of awarding compensation to these victims; and, finally, I suggested that at the moment there is not enough uniformity of practice as between different benches of magistrates. I suggested that perhaps a Home Office circular might be helpful in achieving this, but apparently this was not a useful suggestion.

I am very sorry to say that I do not believe the Minister was listening to what I said. He totally ignored the argument that I put forward, and, instead, attributed to me the asinine argument (if I may borrow an adjective which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, used a moment ago) that all crimes deserved the same punishment. Then, of course, having set up that argument, the Minister very quickly demolished it. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 260 (No. 98), col. 62]:

"We cannot expect uniformity in sentences until we get uniformity in crimes."

Hear, hear! If a Minister cares to stick up an Aunt Sally and knock her down again, I have no doubt that it is all part of the fun, but it does not advance the debate any further. That is why I am taking these few further minutes of the Committee's time to ask Her Majesty's Government these questions.

Do they agree that uniformity as between different benches of magistrates ought to be capable of achievement in this fairly simple matter of awarding compensation to the victims of hooliganism? Do they further agree that, so far, the necessary uniformity among different benches has not been forthcoming? Will they consider this matter, and will different Ministers confer with one another, if necessary, in order to see whether the Government can bring about this desirable situation? I do not expect the Minister necessarily to be able to answer these questions at this moment. I merely ask: will the Government go into this and see whether something can be achieved?

I can answer now, and I repeat what I said before, when I did not perhaps make myself as clear as undoubtedly the noble Lord did on the last occasion. One cannot obtain a universal system of awarding compensation, or even get magistrates to do very much the same thing, because each case is entirely different. It may be that in one case the magistrates will feel that a heavy fine is appropriate and that a lesser amount of compensation should be awarded; and in another case they may impose a small fine but order a larger amount of compensation to be paid. Very much depends on the man's circumstances and on the case. They may think that imprisonment is neces- sary. If they do, they may think that, although compensation should be paid, it is unlikely that the defendant will be able to pay heavy compensation.

I still cannot see what a circular from the Home Office can do in bringing about uniformity in the matter of compensation awards when individual cases are bound to differ. The situation is exactly the same, whether the sentence is a fine or imprisonment. It is not appropriate for the Home Office, in its executive capacity, to circularise magistrates and tell them that, on the whole, they ought all to do the same thing. I cannot go further than that; but the noble Lord's request does not seem to me a reasonable one.

I am sorry about this. I have accepted that no doubt a Home Office circular is not the appropriate remedy in this matter. I have tried to explain the matter all over again to the Minister. He still does not understand the argument I have put forward. I now give up.

I beg to move the next Amendment.

I beg to move the Amendment to the Title.

moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "during the hours of late opening". The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Shepherd and myself. I think it would be agreed on both sides of the Committee that if an Act of Parliament is not enforceable then it brings the law into disrepute. I have therefore tabled these Amendments because I believe, as do many of my noble friends, that they will strengthen the Bill and help the police enforce the law. I should say here that I have taken the advice of the Police Federation, and they fully approve these Amendments. I would not for one moment suggest that I am an authority on the law; nor would I seek to amend the Bill in such a way that it would alter some detail of administration without, of course, the best advice. Therefore, I tell the Committee immediately that the Police Federation approve these Amendments.

On the previous Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said he had fully explained something on Second Reading. Here, also, I think the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will agree with me that we had a very full debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, and that we had an opportunity on both sides of the House to express our views on certain principles. Therefore, I propose to move these Amendments very shortly. Briefly, the purpose of this first Amendment is, I think, clear. It is to prohibit touting during all the hours which it is possible for a refreshment house to be open. Noble Lords will recall that the Bill deals with refreshment houses which are open between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m.; but it was revealed on Second Reading, and the noble Lord agreed, that many of these establishments were open in the afternoon. I think there are 40 of these establishments altogether and already ten are open in the afternoon. But noble Lords must realise that people responsible for running these curious establishments are rather at the beginning of their venture. Therefore, it is rather necessary if possible to clip their wings at the beginning.

The noble Lord expressed the opinion that the refreshment houses would close in the afternoon after this Bill had been passed; but he said later on when he was replying, that if he were found to be wrong then it would be necessary to take further measures. I said then, and I believe now, that as a result of this Bill the proprietors of these "near-beer" refreshment houses would be stimulated to open in the afternoon, when they would not be obliged to display tariffs and when they could employ girls of under 18 in all kinds of capacities; they could employ them as receptionists, so-called, cloakroom attendants, and waitresses; and they could employ them until 10 o'clock at night. There is a long time between 2 p.m. and 10 p.m. for these girls to get into trouble in these places. The tariff displayed at night (from 10 p.m. until 5 a.m.) would indicate that certain amenities were available in those houses. By that I mean—and I say this for the benefit of those noble Lords who were not here at the Second Reading debate—that this Bill insists upon a tariff being displayed between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. if the local authority think that there are certain undesirable practices (if I may put it like that); that men are being invited to pay money and are not receiving the

In my opinion and in that of my noble friends and of the police, with whom I return they expected for their money. discussed this matter during the weekend, and as I said in the House on the Second Reading debate, the putting up of this tariff immediately marks the house; it indicates that there are certain amenities, that something is happening there, and that in order to bring some control upon it they have been told to put up the tariff at 10 p.m. My point is that this will mark the house; that during the afternoon and evening it will be known that there are certain people there who can be approached. Therefore I am saying in my Amendment that, in order to protect these girls, the touting which is being prohibited between 10 o'clock at night and 5 o'clock the next morning should be prohibited while the house is open. I propose to say more about the possible activities of these houses in relation to another Amendment prohibiting the employment of young girls; but if we do not encourage touting during those hours then, at least, we shall be giving them some help. I beg to move.

This Amendment is dealing with touting, as the noble Baroness has said. May I answer in advance—they really deal with other Amendments—certain questions about afternoon opening? We are advised, and the police confirm it, that there is not a very brisk trade in the afternoon, because that is not the hour that people go to these places. They go usually after the public houses are shut, and we believe—and I think we will be found to be right—that if these places have to shut down at night it will not be profitable to open in the afternoon. That is the case; and, as the noble Baroness knows, we have tied this Bill to the Refreshment Houses Act, 1860, because this is the easiest method of dealing with the problem. But, as regards this particular Amendment, I, and those who advise me, have given it a great deal of thought in view of what the noble Baroness said on Second Reading, and I am glad to accept it.

Since this Amendment deals merely with touting, may I ask whether the noble Lord will go one stage further and delete the words on page 1, line 8, "during the hours of late opening"? These words are also in relation to the tariff. Could the noble Lord have those words removed also'?

I think we had better deal with the Amendments one at a time. This Amendment deals with touting and in fact this is the one I have accepted. It does not delete the particular words to which the noble Lord referred.

I am quite overcome by the noble Lord's generosity. I must admit he was a long time in approving it. He likes to draw out the agony before he accepts. I am glad the Amendment is accepted, because I am sure that nobody can anticipate what might happen. Let us at least embody in the Bill whatever protection we can.

moved, in subsection (2), to leave out:

"outside and in the vicinity of the refreshment house."

I hope that I shall be able to persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw this Amendment. It is not quite so simple as she makes it sound. I know that this question of where the touter was at the time he was touting has been exercising the noble Baroness, but that is not the only question. There is also the question of the man being touted—the "toutee". I am advised that the words

"outside and in the vicinity of the refreshment house"

are adequate. The man being touted is outside the building. He has not crossed the threshold. The woman soliciting for business for this place can be in the doorway, inside, behind a window or in the vicinity. If she is on the other side of the road, there is not the slightest doubt that she would be caught under this wording. The phrase "in the vicinity" gives greater power to the court than anything more precise. If we took the word "outside" out of this clause, I am legally advised that it would then apply if the man had entered the premises, and then "personal solicitation" could include a waiter soliciting an order for drinks. It would be as wide as that. On the other hand, it would be possible to interpret the wording of the Amendment as applying—to quote an extreme example—in the absurd situation where the refreshment house is in Soho and the girl soliciting is in Victoria station. The phrase "outside and in the vicinity of" has been carefully thought out and I am told that anything more precise might have the opposite effect. It gives the court a far wider power. In the circumstances, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her Amendment.

Will "in the vicinity of" cover a person who is in the doorway, though outside?

"In the vicinity of" applies both to the person touting and to the man who is outside. It may be the case that the girl soliciting "in the vicinity" is in a doorway or under a door jamb or behind a window; but these circumstances are covered provided the man is outside.

I am not trying to be difficult or awkward, but I find it difficult to see, when we are talking about legislation, where this depends upon a decision of the judges. Is it not the duty of Parliament to try to lay these things down beforehand? I understood the noble Lord to suggest that these things might happen, when it would be for the courts to decide.

I do not know if the noble Lord was here on Second Reading. The case I then quoted was not concerned with "clip joints", but with a prostitute who was behind a window. The court held that because the person solicited was outside, that was still soliciting. It did not matter where she was, so long as the person solicited was outside.

If I were a magistrate deciding how to carry out this subsection, I think I should understand what was meant by "outside a refreshment house", but I think I would have great difficulty in deciding what was meant by "in the vicinity of" the refreshment house. I would think that the dividing line between "outside the vicinity of" and "inside the vicinity of" would be very difficult to draw. Something is likely to be said for moving, at the next stage of the Bill, an Amendment to leave in the word "outside" but to delete the expression "in the vicinity of", which I should have thought would only lead to great difficulties when proving a case before the magistrates.

The noble Lord is a lawyer and I am not. The words "in the vicinity of" were carefully chosen to deal with just the sort of cases which the noble Baroness mentioned, in which the soliciting is done down the street. I think that by "outside" is meant "immediately outside", and that is why the phrase "in the vicinity of" is brought in. The noble Lord says that it may lead to difficulties for the magistrates, but they have a good deal of sense and are anxious to catch these people, and I should have thought the comparatively wide phrase "in the vicinity of" would have given them greater power to convict.

Magistrates ought not to be anxious to catch people.

The noble Lord has access to the services of some of the best legal brains in the country and I have not. If he assures me that the powers are there and that the courts will not be confused or bemused by the Bill as it is, I am prepared to accept his assurance. May I go on—the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will forgive me if this is a little unusual—to deal with an Amendment which I intend to put down on the same point? While the Police Federation have asked for the powers I have mentioned, they still tell me that they are not allowed to use the powers necessary to take action under the Amendment which we have just agreed. I am told that whereas a policeman can suspect a man of touting and challenge him, the man has a right to refuse to give his name and address and the name and address of the proprietor of the establishment for which he is touting, and consequently no action can be taken.

We are in a difficult position with this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is simply to confer additional powers on the authorities. Touting is not a criminal action. The police cannot detain a suspect unless he is guilty of a criminal offence, and these men know that touting is not an offence. I would ask the noble Lord to look at the Amendment I have given him and, between now and Report stage, to try to clear up this difficult position that arises on the Bill of making effective what we have just decided.

I think I can answer to some extent now. I have had consultations since I received notice of the draft Amendment at a quarter to three. We have been in touch with the police who will be operating this—not the Police Federation, who have rather different functions—and I have asked my advisers to let me have a manuscript note which perhaps I might now read. Perhaps I had better say this first. It is a draft Amendment—I hope I am in order. It really is applicable, as the noble Lady said, because it deals with touting. It reads as follows:

"If it appears to a constable that a person is seeking by means of personal solicitation to obtain custom for a refreshment house, that person shall, if so requested by the constable, give the constable his name and address and that of his employer."

We have passed an Amendment on touting, and the noble Lady has asked how we are going to enforce it. The Amendment would have the effect of requiring the disclosure of two names and addresses; that is, of the person touting and of his or her employer. As regards the employer, this is really of no significance in relation to the Act of 1860 and to this Bill. It must be assumed—it would have to be, I think, when we are arguing this—that the offence relates to touting for a specified refreshment house which is already subject to a condition prohibiting touting in its licence; that is, the refreshment house itself. That being so, the name and address of the licensee, the keeper of the refreshment house, is ascertain-able from the register and therefore known to the police by virtue of the provisions of the 1860 Act. They know the name and address of the licensee, and under this Bill a change of address has to be notified. So it is not necessary to put that in the Bill.

But supposing there are three of these houses in one street, and one tout, and he is within his rights not to reveal the name and address. How would the police know which one he is touting for?

This is after hurried consultation, but I am advised that no charge will lie for touting unless the refreshment house is identifiable. You cannot tout for nothing.

That is the point.

Therefore, if a person is touting for a particular refreshment house it will be known which refreshment house he or she is touting for.

Yes.

If you do not know that, you cannot bring a charge.

That is the whole point.

The charge would have to be touting for a particular refreshment house.

But he does not reveal the refreshment house, and there are three in a row.

I think I must go on.

Perhaps I may——

I will finish what I have to say, and then the noble Lord can speak. As regards the tout, even in the limited time available since this afternoon, we have consulted the police and are advised that additional powers are not necessary in order to ascertain the name and address of a tout found committing an offence under Clause 1(2). It would serve no useful purpose to create a second offence of failing to declare one's name and address if that information was a pre-requisite of judicial proceedings against the refreshment house. It is the refreshment house you want to catch here. Actually, the police can proceed by utilising their powers of arrest under Section 72 of the Highways Act, but I am advised that they do not anticipate any difficulty in getting the name and address of the tout provided they know for whom he or she is touting. There would be a prosecution against the refreshment house; and, if the prosecution was successful, the keeper would lose his licence.

I would ask the noble Lord if he would reconsider the matter between now and the next stage. I must say that I felt he was speaking under considerable difficulty, in the sense that the information he was giving to the Committee had only just come to his hand. We recognise that. Would the noble Lord accept this? The police are on patrol (shall I say?) in Soho. They see a man accosting particular individuals who may be walking down the street. It is clear to the policeman that this individual is touting for something. What it is, the policeman would not know. He therefore goes up to the individual and says, "I believe you are touting. Would you please give me your name and address and the name and address of your employer, the person for whom you are touting?" If my noble friend is right—and I believe she is—because this person is not committing a criminal offence, but only a civil offence, the police would have no power if the individual refused to divulge his name and address or that of the refreshment house for which he is touting. My noble friend's difficulty is to know how the police will enforce this clause if they recognise and believe that the man is touting. It is obvious, and they see it, but they are unable to obtain the necessary information upon which they can act.

I will certainly reconsider this. But I would say this about touting. If the policeman does not know what the tout is saying to the man, he can hardly run her in for touting; and if he knows she is touting, he will surely know what she is touting for. The police have to prove their case, and if the refreshment house is known, action will be taken. I will, however, reconsider the matter. I believe I am right.

It was very naughty of the noble Lord to say that, because he thought he was right on the second stage, but he has given way to me in an Amendment on this. So he is not always right. I realise that he has been rushed on this, and that is why I did not press the manuscript Amendment. The noble Lord has agreed that these people are not forced to give their name or the name of the proprietor. But he says he has been told that this does not matter, because the local authority have a list of the names and addresses. However, as I say, if there are three of these places in one street, and one tout, how can the local authority know which place is touting if the tout does not give his name and address or the name and address of his employer? That is the weakness of the noble Lord's case. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

moved to add to subsection (2):

"In the event of any contravention of this subsection in respect of any refreshment house, the licensing authority may immediately revoke the licence of that refreshment house, and thereupon it shall be unlawful for that refreshment house to carry on business.

I am afraid I must resist this Amendment, and I will explain, perhaps at some length, why. I would remind the Committee that, although we are trying to close "clip joints", and particularly those of a certain kind—that is, a certain kind of refreshment house—refreshment houses have their legal rights. This Amendment would have the effect of giving to the licensing authority powers, against which, apparently, there would be no appeal at all, to revoke a refreshment house licence and to prevent any business from being carried on in the premises if there had been, in the opinion of the licensing authority, a contravention of subsection (2) in relation to unlawful touting. This power is apparently to be wielded irrespective of whether or not there is a conviction of any offence or contravening subsection (2). The Bill already provides for the effective revocation of a licence following conviction by a competent court of any offence under Clause 1 of the Bill; and the court has power to disqualify either the licensee or the premises, or both. Those provisions are in Clause 3(2)(a) of the Bill, where it will be noted that disqualification can also follow convictions for other offences under the 1860 Act, or the Licensing Act, 1964. Thus, there is a clearly established judicial procedure leading to disqualification of either the licensee or the premises, or both.

This Amendment, quite frankly, is not within the concept of the existing law. Nor is it reasonable, I submit to your Lordships, to give local authorities powers to revoke an Excise licence in this way, particularly when judicial proceedings may be pending. I therefore hope that the noble Lady will not press this Amendment. I resist it, because I think it is taking away legal rights to which everyone is entitled when there are already plenty of legal safeguards for carrying out what the noble Lady wants.

Is not the position that if this Amendment is not accepted, where there is an infringement of subsections (1) or (2) the local authority can refuse to renew the licence? This means that if a licence has been granted, and the man fails to carry out what he is required to do by subsections (1) and (2), for the next eleven months the local authority can do nothing about it. Am I right or am I wrong?

Wrong. There could be a judicial prosecution, which there will be.

If there is a judicial prosecution, does that mean that the court can itself revoke the licence?

I am sorry to intervene again, but the position is this. The local authority grants an annual licence. The court can at any time revoke the licence by a court order.

Then that is all right.

In view of what the noble Lord has told me, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

moved, after subsection (2), to insert:

"() Where this subsection applies to a refreshment house, it shall not be lawful to employ in that house any person under the age of 18."

The noble Baroness said: I would remind the Committee that during the debate on the Second Reading we were discussing refreshment houses which were open between 10 o'clock at night and 5 o'clock in the morning in which girls under 18 may not be employed. The point about these places, as the noble Lord has already said, is that they can be opened in the afternoon at 2 o'clock, and they can go on until 10 o'clock. Of course, they can then open all night, and between 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock of course young girls can be employed there. The noble Lord is of the opinion that if this Bill is passed it is possible that the refreshment houses will not think it worth while to open in the afternoon. I cannot follow that line of argument. There are those who believe that, as a result of this legislation, the afternoon trade and the early evening trade may increase.

I wonder whether the noble Baroness would agree that we should take Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together? I do not want to make the same speech twice.

Yes.

The first Amendment is a new subsection which is designed to prohibit the employment of young persons under 18 years of age in any refreshment house in which the licensing authority makes it a condition of the licence so to prohibit. I have been very carefully into this matter, and there is no evidence at all at the present time of the employment of young persons under 18 years of age, whether boys or girls, in the "clip joints" at which the Bill is aimed. During the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Baroness referred to the Christine Keeler case as an example, and to the concern felt over young girls of 16 and 17. The premises referred to in the Ward and Christine Keeler case were not, and never have been, licensed refreshment houses under the 1860 Act, since intoxicating liquor was sold in them.

I would also remind the Committee of the Young Persons (Employment) Bill, which was considered in Committee last Thursday, and which is designed to prohibit young persons of either sex from working at night in clubs of that kind. So I think we can forget about clubs of that kind because I hope they will be taken care of when that Bill becomes an Act, as I hope it will do shortly.

I also pointed out during the Second Reading that the employment of young persons in the reception of or attendance upon persons resorting to refreshment houses is already covered by Section 7(1)(e) of the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938, which effectively prohibits their employment in refreshment houses, whether "clip joints" or not, between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. There is a similar provision in Section 31 of the Shops Act, 1950, which deals with persons employed in the catering trade in connection with the business of serving refreshments to customers for consumption on the premises. One or other of these provisions will invariably apply to a refreshment house of any kind. May I repeat that the object of this Bill is to put the "clip joint" out of busi- ness, and we think that the two Amendments we are discussing, or this Amendment in particular, will add nothing to its strength. Furthermore—and this is important if we do not want to get into a muddle—they are matters for employment legislation rather than for licensing laws dealing with refreshment houses.

The effect of the second Amendment is to bring the new subsection contained in the first Amendment within the ambit of Section 3, which enables the licensing authority to attach conditions to the licence—in this case a condition to prohibit the employment of young persons under the age of 18—but only in cases where this is necessary to prevent customers from being misled as to the nature or cost of the entertainment provided. It is difficult to see how a prohibition upon the employment of adolescents could prevent people from being misled about such matters.

I am inclined to agree with the noble Baroness that there probably should be a far wider review of all questions of the employment of young persons. Things like bogus clubs and music and dancing are dealt with under different legislation, and I do not think that this Bill, which is for the licensing of refreshment houses, is really a suitable vehicle for employment legislation about young persons. I really do not think I can accept this Amendment. I regret it because I know what is behind the noble Baroness' arguments, but I do not think that this is a proper vehicle for meeting them.

I feel very strongly about this matter. The noble Lord amazes me. He tells the House that this is not a suitable Bill. What is this Bill for? It is in order to protect the man who pays money for drinks and then finds the woman to whom he pays the money is not prepared to have sexual intercourse with him; and the noble Lord tells me that this is not a suitable Bill in which to introduce an Amendment which will protect young girls in these establishments. I should have thought that this is precisely the Bill. But the noble Lord says, on the one hand, that this is a Refreshment Houses Bill and, on the other, that it is not an employment Bill. It is certainly a hybrid Bill. This is a Bill which deals with morals and refreshments, and all I am seeking to do is to protect these young girls. In all the Statutes that the noble Lord has read out he has not once told the Committee that the girls I have described cannot be employed there. Girls under the age of 18 can be employed from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m., ostensibly as receptionists, waitresses and cloakroom attendants, in these places where undesirable people go.

The noble Lord is not consistent. What did he do on the first Amendment? When I said that, in view of these facts, these girls might be in these places and that touting should be prohibited in the afternoon, the noble Lord agreed, said that I was right in my argument and gave me the Amendment which would prevent touting outside these places; which surely shows that they were undesirable. Now the noble Lord comes along and I ask him to give further protection to the girls in these places where these men are touting, and he refuses to do so. The noble Lord obviously is not consistent, and therefore I must press my Amendment.

Before the noble Baroness presses her Amendment, I should like to say, and I have said this repeatedly, that this is not a question of morals, because the girls are not there for the purpose of prostitution, about which the noble Baroness will keep talking. Incidentally, the managements of these places refuse to allow any form of prostitution or soliciting on the premises because they would be shut if they did so. The object of this Bill is to prevent fraud; it has something to do in the broad sense with morals, but not with the sexual morals about which the noble

I hope the Committee will forgive me if I speak again on this. I am really rather shocked at what the noble Lord has said. He will recall the Second Reading, when some noble Members described their adventures in these places. It was not only a question of being overcharged for a lemonade. It was said that foreigners went to these places and later said that these women extracted certain amounts from them and nothing followed. Is the noble Lord telling me that they went to these places really to complain about the price of lemonade? Again he is not being consistent. If this were so, we should not be discussing touting. Why are we discussing touting and prohibiting it? Because we know what the touts do. They are not going to foreigners and saying: "You can get a nice lemonade in there." They are making other suggestions, about prostitution. Our whole purpose is, surely, to prevent these girls from becoming prostitutes.

I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that we do not want the girls to become prostitutes, but that is not an appropriate subject for this Bill.

This is an Amendment dealing simply with hours. The noble Lord will recall that, on Second Reading, he said that if it appeared that these provisions were not being observed by the clubs, he might have to take other action—and of course this was in reference to afternoon hours and early evening hours—but he said we should wait and see what happened. I put this Amendment down simply because I thought this would allow the local authority to change the hours. If the provisions of the Bill are evaded, it may be necessary to make them more flexible, and this Amendment will provide the licensing authority with that power. I am not prepared to press it very hard, but I thought it would give the noble Lord the opportunity he sought when he said he might have to take other action later on. I beg to move.

I quite see what the noble Baroness wants to do, but this Amendment does not in fact do it, as I will explain. I might perhaps say at the beginning that the provisions of this Bill were discussed with the local authority particularly about this sort of thing, with associations representing licensing authorities, and with the Metropolitan Police, and there has been no support for this Amendment from those organisations. I asked why, and then I found the reason. This Amendment would have the effect of enabling the licensing authority to vary the present period of 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. to some other period, with the consent of the Secretary of State. This Amendment, though, would not change the provisions of Section 6 of the principal Act of 1860 which require a licence to be taken out if a refreshment house opens at any time between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., and if it does not open at any time between those hours then no licence will be necessary because the 1860 Act would not bite; so that in fact it would not have the desired effect. I have looked to see whether I can make a suggestion, but I do not think there is any way of taking care of this particular problem.

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Bill reported with an Amendment.

moved to leave out "entitled under the provisions of this Act" and to insert "qualified". The noble Earl said: I am afraid that these Amendments look rather formidable. There are 38 in all, but they are procedural and were brought about by this Bill's being no longer peremptory but merely permissive. Perhaps when I speak to Clause 2 I may also speak to Clause 16. The effect of the first Amendment is to provide that the register to be maintained by the Hairdressing Council shall record the form of hairdressing which registered persons are qualified to practise instead of purporting to record the form of hairdressing which they are entitled to practise. The latter would be no longer appropriate in view of the deletion by the Committee in another place of the provision that no person should be permitted to practise hairdressing unless registered with the Council.

I recognise the fact that this Bill had to have a tremendous amount of tidying up and that we should be engaged for some little time in this tidying up process, in addition to dealing with one or two Amendments of some principle, but before we go on, I should like to know exactly which Amendment the noble Earl actually spoke to in moving the first Amendment. As I understood it, he spoke to more than one Amendment. Was that his intention, and that he should move the others formally when he came to them; or was he merely moving that Amendment and making reference to Clause 3(1)(b) because it had some relevance to Amendment No. 1?

Yes, it relied on the other Amendment. I was in fact speaking to or moving Amendment No. 1 to Clause 2; but I was also speaking to Amendment No. 14 which refers to Clause 16 at page 7, line 1, to leave out from the word "face" to the end of line 3.

moved, after subsection (2), to insert:

"() The Hairdressing Council shall not approve any course of training under this section unless that course includes instruction in such subjects as the Council may from time to time deem to be vocationally related to the practice of hairdressing.".

I feel that in fact this Amendment is covered in Clause 4(1) (a), which says:

"Any course of training which the Hairdressing Council considers is designed to confer on persons completing it sufficient knowledge and skill for the practice of hairdressing."

I do not feel that this Amendment is entirely clear. It seems that its object is to ensure that courses of training approved by the Hairdressing Council as a condition of registration should deal not only with matters strictly related to the practice of hairdressing but with other matters which are "occupationally related." The Amendment does not make clear what the matters are. It proposes to leave the judgment with the Hairdressing Council itself.

There must be a danger, if the courses of teaching are made too elaborate and wide ranging, that this will prove a deterrent to prospective entrants and so keep from the register a number of people who would, nevertheless, prove to be perfectly competent hairdressers. There would have been the strongest objections to this provision if registration were to have been made a condition of practising the trade. I may add that if at some future date this Bill should change in any way and a further clause be inserted to make it mandatory rather than permissive, this Amendment would make it extremely difficult. Anybody who wanted to enter the hairdressing trade would wonder what exactly they would have to learn. But if the noble Lord would like to discuss this point, perhaps it could be re-drafted to make it clearer.

What the Amendment really does is to create a situation in which the Hairdressing Council would itself decide what would be deemed to be occupationally related to the practice of hairdressing. I cannot imagine any Hairdressing Council making this so exclusive as to frighten away every trainee. On the other hand, the Hairdressing Council ought to have some regard to the points I have mentioned. I must admit that the Amendment was suggested to me by somebody particularly knowledgeable on these things—an authority which has under its control hairdressing teaching establishments. That is why I put the Amendment down. I feel that it is worthy of a little more consideration, but, having regard to the noble Lord's offer to discuss this with me, I imagine we shall have a Report stage late this week—or is it intended to try to get all the stages through to-day?

I do not want to enter into the argument about this Amendment, but we have not very much time. I am advised that the present drafting is not satisfactory, as a purely drafting matter. I do not know whether we can get it done in the time, because we do not know what is wanted; and if the two noble Lords are going to have conversations it is going to leave the time even shorter. I do not know how important the noble Lord thinks this Amendment is. My own view is that perhaps it is not vital to the Bill. I do not know. After all, this is a Private Member's Bill and not a Government Bill.

I was trying to find out whether it was the intention of the sponsors to try to get the whole of the remaining stages through to-day. But clearly that is not the intention, because I understand there might have to be further drafting Amendments, which will mean that we shall have to return to it, no doubt later in the week. I will have a few words with the noble Earl between now and that stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, together, and I will do so briefly. These are purely drafting Amendments designed to make the meanings of these expressions in Clause 5 clear and to identify them properly with the provisions of Clause 4. I beg to move.

I have down an Amendment to leave out Clause 6. This would remove the provision that no one shall sit for any examination, success in which the Council may prescribe as a condition of registration, unless he has undergone an approved course of training. The provision is superfluous, since under Clause 3(1) an examination by itself would give no right to registration unless the person concerned had also undergone a course of approved training at an approved institution.

This Amendment will seek to delete subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 8. These deletions are consequential upon the removal of the requirement of registration as a condition of continued practice and of the machinery of appeal to the Privy Council originally contained in the Bill. It is not easy in the circumstances to see what proceedings are likely to arise in which evidence of registration will be in issue. I beg to move.

In dealing with this Amendment I should like to speak also to Nos. 7, 35, 36 and 37. These are purely drafting Amendments, designed to convert the references to the disciplinary committee and the investigating committee to the singular because, although the Bill at present refers to them severally in the plural, it makes provision in fact for only one of each. I beg to move.

I beg to move No. 7.

May we know whether the silence being observed by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, means that the Government consent to the Bill, so far as it has gone up to now?

It means only that the Government have no view on the Bill. It means only that I am consenting to the drafting. If I find that five Amendments are moved at once because they deal with the same subject, my silence means that I am content with the drafting.

On the principle of the Bill the Government have no view?

That is correct.

I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 together. Again, they are purely drafting Amendments. Subsection (3) contains a reference to "a register", but the word "register" is ambiguous. There is only one register under the Bill but the references to it in this clause imply that there are more than one. I beg to move.

I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 together. Clause 12 relates to the service of notices and documents by the Hair-dressing Council in the exercise of its powers under the Bill. The Amendments would delete all reference to the service of documents other than notices, since the Bill does not authorise or require the service of any documents other than notices. I beg to move.

This Amendment deletes from subsection (3) the reference to reports made by the Council, since there is no provision in the clause, or anywhere else in the Bill, requiring the Hairdressing Council to prepare reports The subsection will now require the Council merely to furnish copies of its accounts to applicants. Although the original form of this clause required the Council to furnish annual reports to the Home Secretary, this provision was deleted at the Committee stage in another place. I beg to move.

This Amendment deletes the definition of "establishment" which is now superfluous since the word occurred only in a provision of the original Bill that has now been deleted. I beg to move.

I beg to move Amendment No. 14.

moved, in paragraph 1, after "The Council shall consist of:—", to insert:

"(1) two persons to be appointed by the Minister of State for the Department of Education and Science;".

The noble Lord said: The Amendments to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, to Schedule 1 clearly greatly improve the composition of the Council. I was pleased to learn towards the end of our Second Reading debate, that the Royal College of Physicians had agreed to appoint a person to serve on the Council. I take it from the Amendment which the noble Earl has down that the British Medical Association has agreed to do the same thing.

May I express the Government's view on this matter, and I hope that my noble friend in charge of the Bill will resist this Amendment. This Amendment would provide for the Minister of State for Education and Science to appoint two members of the Hairdressing Council. As originally introduced into the other place the Bill provided that a number of the Council's members should be appointed by various Ministers, including the Minister of Education. However, all reference in the Bill to Ministers was struck out in the Committee in the other place, and therefore if this Amendment were made the Minister of State for Education and Science would be the sole Minister with responsibilities under the Bill. This Amendment has not the consent of the present Minister of State; indeed, the Ministry have said that they have no interest in the Bill and do not wish to become implicated in the way a voluntary body like the Council conducts its affairs. This is clearly right. The removal of all ministerial responsibility for the activities of the Council was one of the chief conditions on which the Bill obtained its passage through the other place, and it would be quite unacceptable for the Government to go back on that arrangement.

I should like to resist this Amendment, and I would echo what my noble friend has said. Under the original Bill, of course, there were appeals to the Privy Council, there were references to Ministers and there were also certain penal provisions. These have now all gone. I think that if this Amendment were accepted the persons appointed by the Minister of State for the Department of Education and Science would be rather lonely on the Council at the present time. I would add that I think that the presence of two persons from any one Department would make the Council top-heavy. At the present time there are 15 people on it. Moreover, as the noble Lord said, there are courses at the L.C.C. and various Government institutes. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, should have addressed me in those terms and in that tone. After all, I am merely trying to improve what is a very poor thing—this Bill. But, having had both of my Amendments turned down—at least, one turned down and the other rejected both by the Government and by the sponsor of the Bill in this House—I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

moved, in paragraph 1(1), to

leave out "nine" and insert "four".

I beg to move.

I beg to move.

I beg to move.

I beg to move this Amendment formally.

May I ask the noble Earl what he meant when he said that the President of the British Medical Association, and presumably the President of the Royal College of Physicians of London, said that they were willing to co-operate? Did they represent the views of their respective associations; and did it seem clear to the noble Earl, if he had any personal contact with these gentlemen, that they were willing to appoint one of their members to this Council?

May I answer the last question first? I have not had any personal contact with these two associations, but they were approached and asked whether they would be willing to appoint one of their number to this Council, and they both agreed to do so.

Having asked that question and obtained that answer, which I might suppose is very satisfactory, may I ask the noble Earl whether he seriously believes that a member of the British Medical Association will sit on this Council?

Certainly I do, if he is asked to do so.

The noble Earl is a great optimist.

As paragraph 2 now stands, the trade representatives on the new Hairdressing Council would have to be registered by it before they could become members; yet until they have become members the Council will have no existence. The Amendment seeks to resolve this dilemma by making paragraph 2 provide, instead, that the first persons to be appointed as members of the Council should be registered by the existing Hairdressers' Registration Council, which it defines. By this means, paragraph 2 will become a transitional provision and will provide for continuity between the present Hairdressers' Registration Council and its statutory successor. I beg to move.

This Amendment is intended to meet the difficulty of securing the first appointments of independent experts to the Hairdressing Council. There is no difficulty about the two experts to be appointed respectively by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians of London. The other five, however, are to be appointed by the trade representatives on the Hairdressing Council who, under paragraph 5 of the Schedule, will not themselves come into office until the Council first meets, by which time all appointments to the Council are supposed to have been made. Since, for this reason, the trade representatives on the Hairdressing Council cannot act in the first appointment of independent experts, it is proposed that their functions on this occasion (and this only) should be assumed by the existing Hairdressers' Registration Council, as defined in the Amendment immediately preceding. I beg to move.

In moving Amendment No. 23, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 24. These Amendments are consequential upon the reduction from nine to four in the number of appointments to be made to the Hair-dressing Council by each of the employers and union sides of the trade. The original intention was that, in each of the two groups of nine nominees, six should be persons engaged in ladies' hairdressing. With the groups now to be reduced in size, that is no longer possible, and the number of practising ladies' hairdressers comprised in them must now be reduced also. In fact, the reduction in their case has been disproportionate. Whereas they were previously to comprise two-thirds of the trade nominees, they will now comprise only one-half. But, as each side of the trade is now to make only four appointments, the only alternative would have been to increase their proportion to three-quarters, and we considered that excessive. I beg to move.

I beg to move.

In moving Amendment No. 25, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 32. The first Amendment removes that part of paragraph 5 which provides that members of the Hairdressing Council, though they have to be appointed in the first six months after the Bill is passed, do not actually come into office until the date of the Council's first meeting. This has been rendered unnecessary by the removal from the Bill in another place of a provision in the original paragraph 10 whereby the Home Secretary was to convene the first meeting of the Council. A consequence of the deletion of the Home Secretary's power to convene is that the members of the Council will have to arrange all their own business, and therefore their coming into office will have to coincide with their appointment to the Council. It also follows that there is no longer any need for what is now left of paragraph 10. I beg to move.

moved in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6, to leave out "appointed under paragraph 5" and to insert:

"first appointed under sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 1".

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 26 I should like also to speak to Amendment Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30. All these Amendments are concerned with the periods of office of members of the Hairdressing Council. The Bill as it stands provides that of the persons first appointed to the Hairdressing Council one-third shall retire at the end of the first year, one-third at the end of the second and the remainder at the end of the third. It is silent about the period of office of their successors, but it was presumably envisaged that the period should be one of three years. The Amendments apply the system of staggered retirements only to the trade representatives appointed to the Council and not to the independent members, who are to retire together after three years. As the number of trade representatives has now been reduced from nine to four on each of the employers' and the union sides—that is, to a total of eight—it is no longer possible in their case to provide for staggered retirements over a period of three years. Instead it is provided that a quarter should retire at the end of each year from 1965 to 1968. This implies that their successors should have a four year term of office, and provision is made accordingly. I beg to move.